An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« April Showers

Guest Voice: Memo To Barack Obama: How To Win The Pennsylvania Primary »

Discombobulated Democrats

Posted by TYRONE STEELS II, Site Administrator in Politics.
Mar 31st, 2008 | Comments

Can someone explain to me how the Democrats handle their business? To clarify, when they make rules and other Democrats agree to the rules, why is there a problem now with the rules? As you may have picked out, I’m talking about the Michigan and Florida Democratic delegate exclusions due to moved up primaries. I’ve scoured the blogosphere reading all kinds of opinions on this matter. And I’ve come to a few conclusions with a question:

1. Blaming Senator Obama for this situation is wrong. He didn’t make the rules.

2. Senator Clinton should be going after Howard Dean more strongly since she takes issue with the rules.

3. A historic primary season has discombobulated the Democratic Party in handling this issue.

4. The job of the DNC Chairman seems confusing. Is he/she a dictator or CEO or something in between?

I’m thoroughly confused as to why the Democratic Party has certain rules in place if they really don’t mean anything. For the record, this isn’t an anti-Clinton, pro-Obama, or vice-versa post. This is a “Confused at the Democratic Party” post. And after reading Wayne Barrett’s piece over at HuffPo concerning Republicans role in this situation, color me confused, perplexed, and vexed.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

mw

"I’m thoroughly confused as to why the Democratic Party has certain rules in place if they really don’t mean anything." T-Steel</blockequote>

Let me try and help Mr. Steel. It is not the rules, or following the rules that are the problem. It is hypocritical inconsistency in deciding when rules should applied, and which rules should not that is the problem.

For example, lets say one side (hypothetically lets call it Team "O") decides that "following the rules" are mandatory when it benefits them, including if it means disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida, or reversing the "will of the people" in Texas, but then claiming that it would somehow be wrong for superdelegates who are "following the rules" at the convention to overturn a plurality of pledged delegates because that would disenfranchise voter or reverse the "will of the people".

Let me give another example. You said in regard to MI and FL:

"1. Blaming Senator Obama for this situation is wrong. He didn’t make the rules.

2. Senator Clinton should be going after Howard Dean more strongly since she takes issue with the rules.

If instead we are talking about Superdelegates reversing Pledged delegates at the convention, then I assume you are 100% agreement with the following:

1. Blaming Senator Clinton for this situation is wrong. She didn’t make the rules.

2. Senator Obama should be going after Howard Dean more strongly since she takes issue with the rules.

I hope this helps resolve your confusion.

Whocares

As a Hillary fan I must admit I am a bit put off by the Michigan and Florida fiasco.

But, and this is the honest truth. I understand that it is almost certain that Barak Obama is the nominee. That being said the day they announced that for sure, no matter what these two votes would not count I was furious.

At the time I was like most democrats assuming that Hillary was most likely going to be the nominee but more then that I was furious with the party because we were beyond angry over a couple thousand votes in Florida. We were beyond angry at supposedly lost votes in Ohio and then this.

A huge slap in the face of voters and a great big "Double Standard" round of applause for the most incompetent and inept DNC chairman I have seen in a long, long time.

Its the Votes Stupid. Votes count. Except when..........

Democrats will never be able to scream about votes not counting again. We have trashed a cherished value for the sake of expediency and to punish two states for going it alone and yet. Millions.....literally millions of democrats are disenfranchised.

That is my anger. My beef and my take on the absolute and flat out wrongness of what has transpired from day one over this issue.

Polimom

DWSUWF -- I agree with you that the rules are being used to leverage political edges, and there's a fair amount of selectivity going on indeed. Nor did Clinton make the rules, I agree there too.

But they all agreed to them at the outset, did they not?

Furthermore, just to get this out there: Hillary Clinton began decrying the FL situation loudly and publicly just after SC -- timing that I always saw as targeting a specific audience for political gain. And while I understood that as political gamesmanship, I also saw it as a form of campaigning. I found it very strange that this passed (relatively) unremarked at the time, and I think it's led us to this point.

I also watched the Obama campaign shift from delegate counting to popular vote counting coming out of Nevada. Nobody's sportin' a halo.

The problem lies, as T Steel says, with the rules themselves. They are what they are for this cycle, and although I went off once on a rant about how pathetic I think the entire Dem. process is, there's little to be done.

And I'm truly confused as to why you think Obama should be going after Howard Dean since HIllary has discovered that she has an issue about it.

mw

Polimom,
All I was doing was constructing a parallel argument to T-Steel for "following the rules" on superdelegates overruling a pledged delegate plurality at the convention. If we are all happy about "following the rules" on disenfranchising FL and MI and reversing TX, then no one can complain about "following the rules" on superdelegates voting their conscience / preference, regardless of the pledged delegate totals. That is all I was saying.

In my comment above "Clinton" and "Obama" are serving as proxies for their respective supporters. And I have heard one hell of a lot of Obama supporters complaining bitterly about the superdelegate rules.

Polimom

Ah. My reading comprehension is a bit fuzzy this evening. I see now -- thanks for being patient.

But you've lost me again: what do you mean by reversing Texas? The system here has been in place for decades, and as bizarre as it obviously is, it was, or should have been, anticipated. Or are you referring to something other than the "Texas Two-Step"?

T-Steel

HMMM! I understand your points DWSUWF. And concerning the Superdelegates, since they have the power (by Democratic Party rules) to pick who they want regardless of what the people have voted, then more power to them (even though that rule is inane).

I think the biggest issue I have with this whole situation is that all candidates knew the deal beforehand. And know this has become a complete mess of finger-pointing, shouting, blaming, gnashing of teeth, etc...

mw

Polimom,
Yeah, I am referring to the Texas-Two Step, and again I am not arguing against how Texans wants to pick their delegates. Yes you are right, the rules are the rules that is the way the rules were layed out and everyone understood it going in. So the net result is that Obama gets more delegates even though that is a reversal of the "will of the people" of Texas who actually voted for Clinton in a real election with real votes. So fine - the rules are the rules. Obama supporters won that one. Congratulations.

My point - NO WHINING OBAMITES, when the shoe is on the other foot and the superdelegates overrule the pledged delegates in Denver. The rules are the rules. Everybody knew them going in. The same superdelegate rules have been around for 20 years. Goose... Gander...

T Steel,
Agreed - the Dem rules across the board are stupid. Hopefully they'll fix it before the next round. Hopefully they'll remember the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) - but somehow - I doubt it.

AustinRoth

The real point is not do they count now or not, but rather the arrogance of Dean and the DMC to even put the party in this position, and Obama and Clinton for 'agreeing' to the terms.

I do not have a horse in the race, but the stupidity of the DNC and everyone involved in this makes this a no-win. You can't call the vote in FL and MI 'will of the people', because both candidates were not on both ballots, and the voters KNEW that their votes were not supposed to count.

No matter what side you are on, those were sham elections. And that is a bed of the Democrats own making. Besides the whole tearing each other down, never-ending primary, to me this whole issue makes me question the candidates and the Democratic party's fitness to govern. Bad decisions everywhere.

skippy

i suggest over at skippy that, instead of complaining about the other camp, all bloggers and commenters should just contribute to their favorite candidate.

ryan

A few points in response to arguments above:

1. The situation in MI and FL is unfortunate, but there are a million reasons why accepting the existing results would be a travesty. At a minimum, Obama wasn't on the MI ballot, and there are many voters who stayed home thinking their vote would be meaningless. If Clinton was truly worried about disenfranchised voters we would be hearing less about "seating" the delegates. Similarly, if Obama was seriously concerned there would be a bigger push for a re-vote.

2. With respect to the "superdelegates overruling a pledged delegate plurality at the convention", my understanding is that the Obama campaign's position is not that super-delegates should be forbidden from overruling the pledged delegate results, but that it would be undemocratic for them to do so. That seems like a reasonable opinion, but it would be better if they stated it less often and trusted the super-delegates and party leadership to come to the same conclusion.

3. With respect to caucuses "disenfranchising" people and Texas overturning the will of the voters, I think the idea of caucuses is that they favor the most active members of the party since they require more commitment to attend, vote, etc. While I personally prefer a simple election, if you want the nominee to be someone supported by the most active members of your party, a caucus seems the way to go.

My three cents worth.

Idiosyncrat

Okay, the Democratic Party is an organization. By and large, if you're voting now to pick the Presidential candidate for this party, it's because it's an organization that you have joined/

Living in FL or MI and feeling disenfranchised? Fair enough. But direct your anger appropriately, please... Freak out against the state and national leadership of your political party -- the organization that you have voluntarily joined. Freak out against your local organization leaders who decided to go against national party rules despite knowing the penalty would be local disenfranchisement. Change the system -- your own organization's system -- that allowed this to happen to you. Think the caucus system is idiotic? Well it's been going on that way for ever and a day. Thanks for waking up and noticing... Now you can complain and do something about it. But that's for the next round...

But please, don't cry to me about being deprived of your democratic rights, because you have no such rights beyond those set forth by the political party you have agreed to join. The DNC can choose a candidate by a national beer pong round robin competition if it wants to -- and is allowed to by you, the members of the organization.

Because of the intense media coverage this may feel bigger than it is, but all that's going on is one political organization is picking its candidate for President. I understand the passion and I think it's wonderful that people are finally engaged enough to actually get upset about stuff.

But it's just an internal organizational game right now, campers. The big fight is yet to come and either Obama or Clinton are going to need all the help they can get to campaign against and defeat John McCain. When the dust settles, just remember that.

ChrisWWW

Ryan sums it up excellently. Bravo.

mw

idiosyncrat sums it up excellently.

"But please, don't cry to me about being deprived of your democratic rights, because you have no such rights beyond those set forth by the political party you have agreed to join. The DNC can choose a candidate by a national beer pong round robin competition if it wants to -- and is allowed to by you, the members of the organization."

So no crying about undemocratic superdelegates overruling undemocratic pledged delegates in Denver.

Yes, that is undemocratic.

Exactly as undemocratic as what has happened in TX, MI, and FL.

blog comments powered by Disqus