May 29 2008
Half the Delegates?
The impasse over Florida and Michigan is political, not legal. The winner of the Democratic Primary will be selected based on how this political impasse is resolved. Neither the Obama nor Clinton camps envisage an “impartial” or “objective” resolution based on the rules. Obama clings to a distorted “letter of the law,” Clinton to its indeterminate “spirit.” Having staked out a definite pro-Obama stance, the Media tell the American public that it is the Material Gravity of Letters which come before the Weightlessness of the Spirit; while the Clintonites appeal to ghosts, FL and MI no longer matter. So the story goes.
The importance of Florida and Michigan is belied by how much the Obama camp pushed for their unambiguous disenfranchisement. The talk about FL and MI on MyBarackObama is a hysterical outpouring of how “unfair” and “against the rules” seating FL and MI delegations would be. For the supporters of a self-proclaimed victor (July 3d) such wild agitation reveals more weaknesses, than strengths.
Curiously, since Obama needs FL and MI to even stand a chance in the GE if he were to succeed in becoming the Democratic nominee, last week he visited both states and committed to seeing their delegates in Denver. Yet, since Obama’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination are torpedoed by a restitution of the FL and MI vote while Clinton is still in the game, the Obama camp must keep its minions infuriated. One mouth speaks of “rules,” a second says “see you in Denver”.
The duplicity, on the part of Obama fans in the media, is as evident as the sincerity of their interest in American history. For a group which rarely mentions history prior to 1960, or bothers to recall what month RFK was murdered, to speak of rules and codes, sounds as convincing as the Evangelical Right suddenly beatifying Darwin.
A few days ago, the media reported on a memo put together by “DNC lawyers” wherein we are told the DNC is instructed that at best it is allowed to reinstitute only half the Michigan and Florida delegation. David Axelrod has already gone on record that Obama camp will half-compromise on any resolution of the issue - which media are erroneously porrtaying as reconciliatory when contrasted to Clinton’s recalcitrant demands. As usual, the coincidence between Axelrod’s frame, and the media, is mere coincidence.
I have yet to get my hands on the memo, as it is private. Until I see it, I am skeptical about its content. DNC lawyers cannot be as callous, or corrupted as is being suggested. How much money from Obama’s HopeFund would it take, to buy off their professionalism?
To claim the DNC is constrained in its treatment of Florida and Michigan, would require that the votes of South Carolina, Iowa, and all other states which moved their primary in 2008 due to some Republican interference or strategizing, would receive an equal penalty to that of MI and FL. That’s what the constraints imply, no interpretative leeway.
In the case of both Florida and Michigan, the Republican interference was egregious, as both state legislatures were dominated by Republicans which passed laws in opposition to Democrats, moving both parties primaries forward or face financial difficulty in bankrolling the vote.
Any memo which claims FL and MI must be at least partially disenfranchised, cannot do so without explaining why South Carolina would be an exception.
***
DNC lawyers are expected to serve the interests of the Democratic party and its members, in their capacity of professional attorneys by being impartial. This requires staying out of politics, and interpreting party laws in keeping with facts. Producing a private report which is subsequently allowed to be spun as a death knell to the Clinton argument in favor of reinstating FL and MI delegations, must be the apogee of prejudice.
Objectivity would have any professional lawyer concede that the Democratic Party’s Delegate Selection Rules for the National Convention are at best inadequate for the present impasse, and at worst, play second fiddle to politics, not legalese. To argue that DNC rules require 1/2 delegate reduction for FL/MI is to take a strong, and definite, pro-Obama stance. To then pass it off as “impartial” by appealing to a misconstrued “letter of the law,” is to conveniently forget the laws’ spirit.
***
As early as January Howard Dean committed to seeing both the FL and MI delegations at Denver. He did not specify in what form. The Party has not indicated, through any higher-ups, that FL and MI would not eventually be seen in Denver. There is no historical precedent for the Democratic party to disenfranchise an entire state, even partially(!) The Obama camp agrees with the DNC leadership on this, as is evidence by its “committment” to seeing FL and MI in Denver. In what form, remains to be seen.
An honest legal analysis of the DNC selection rules, would expose the dilemma surrounding disenfranchisement, the historical record, general election strategy, and the role of agency, and would not consist of categorical claims about non-existent constraints. For any such memo the party would not allow it to be spun against one candidate or the other just days before a committee meeting were held. The party has done just the opposite. The only reporting of the secret memo in question, was pro-Obama.
Unlike the Republican party, which chose to reduce the Florida and Michigan delegations in half, Democrats from the two states had neither initiated, and had in fact opposed, the Republican led state legislature imposition of an early Primary. I call this agency, and any reasonable law is applied by assigning responsibility for infractions to those with agency. In the case of the Democratic party in both Florida and Michigan, no responsibility for infractions, can be shown.
Because we do not have the DNC memo in question in our hands, and have to rely on secondary descriptions of its content to inform our debate, let’s assume the descriptions to be true. Reading the DNC Selection rules, only the following paragraph could be at the root of the “Letter of the Law” argument
A state party may provide in its Delegate Selection Plan the specific method and procedures by which it will reduce its delegation pursuant to this Rule 20 in the event the state party or delegation becomes subject to this Rule 20 by which categories of delegates must be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, which specific method and procedures shall be subject to the review and approval of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee [pdf]
The operative verb is “must” as in “must be reduced by fifty…” is similar to passages of the rules which touch on 50% delegate reduction but rely on “shall,” in as “shall be reduced.” Both instances are conditioned with
…shall be subject to the review and approval of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. [pdf]
Which basically means that contrary to the Media narrative, the power to disenfranchise FL and MI (or Iowa or Nevada) rests with Committees, not the “letter” of any law, let alone haphazard codes of the Democratic Party. This brings us to the crux of the matter.
1) No moral agency, i.e. “responsibility” can be attributed to FL and MI Democrats for moving their Primary forward. Hence no 1/2 deduction is merited, as neither states’ party deliberately violated DNC rules.
2) This cannot be said of Nevada, Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire, which were less captive to the Republican party than FL and MI.
3) If DNC lawyers believe that Democratic Codes “must” slash FL and MI delegates in half, then the argument automatically requires four other states have their delegations reduced by the same amount.
4) Instead of penalizing FL and MI, the DNC should penalize itself. At no point, did the FL and MI Democratic parties receive any alternative solutions to their funding problems tied to the laws passed by their Republican legislatures. The DNC not only left them out in the cold, it gave them the cold shoulder, with baseless and unsubstantiated distortions of DNC “rules.”
5) At no point did the DNC allow FL and MI to take a revote, or resolve their impasse after the sanctioned primary had taken place. The DNC did this, at the behest and under the influence of the Obama camp.
6) The DNC “rules” are porous. Making the argument that anything “must” happen, is to take a pro-Obama side.
7) to pretend that the issue is resolved by virtue of the “letter,” also amounts to taking sides, something professional lawyers, cannot do, if they are to be paid and employed by a party as diverse and big as our Party.
If indeed DNC lawyers signed off on an “official” position paper advocating the letter vs the spirit, they have undermined the impartiality of the Democratic Party. Instead of taking sides, the lawyers should have pointed the finger in the approrpiate direction to resolve the issue: the DNC leadership committees, and politics.
Politics, and not laws, are at the heart of the Florida and Michigan impasse. If the media’s claims about FL’s and MI’s unimportance had any value, then leading newspapers would not have to print outright propaganda as truth, and could freely concede their ignorance on the entire subject, as it still hangs in the air, and not between the lines of DNC codes. Since this would pull the rug under the media’s bitterly anti-Clinton line, and shut them up on the issue entirely, they cannot afford to do anything but continue printing propaganda.
As the question is almost purely political, the advocates of both sides are left to maneuver as we might, until one of us takes the upper hand. I suggest no one get their hopes up, and we resolve to see it through to Denver, where the mettle of the DNC to hand over the Florida and Michigan electoral college to a centrist candidate who enjoys the support of a unified Republican Party, is put to its final test. Either that, or we can devise a variety of pressure tactics, whereby the Democratic parties of both Michigan and Florida, chose to opt out of the General Election all-together.
The truth is, as Clinton supporters we can afford a half Florida and Michigan delegation; it will make it impossible for Obama to secure a pledged delegate majority no matter how Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota, turn out. What we really need to worry about, is that the media and DNC fully recognize the 2.3 million voters of Michigan and Florida, in the total popular vote tally.
If neither Obama nor Clinton manage a pledged vote majority, the popular vote will determines how unpledged delegates allocate their votes, either in June, or if we have to wait, in August. The wait may be painful, but In Denver, Florida and Michigan delegations will be represented in full, unless the historical trends of “threaten but eventually give in” is buckled, and the party really does carry out its illegal threats.
The message this will send to the South Carolinas and Iowas of the future, won’t really matter- since its Florida and Michigan, which will go Republican.
23 responses so far
excellent article!
it gives me more understanding of what’s going on in this controversy. whatever happens, only POTUS for Hillary, and no VP. Howard Dean should be penalized for all of this trouble.
Obama caught on video campaigning in Florida
Of course, Mr. Chicago Politico runs ad that accuse Hillary of doing what he has done. His rally is on tape!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM5H649fwP4
[…] hasn’t seen since the sixties, it is steadily increasing its contributing to the erosion of professionalism across the board. Harvard University and the Pew Charitable Trusts publish a report claiming […]
Sometimes I can’t follow you Greg. Are you saying we can accept a reduced delegation?
It has never happened before. Why would they risk doing it now, when the margin of victory against McCain is bound to be slim. It’s suicide. Can’t happen, and wont happen.
The DNC should go on the coals if it can’t walk upright and make the right choice!
Excellent piece.
The Draconian measures the DNC is taking against these voters is unprecedented. It reeks of corruption…an overreaching zealousness to give Obama the nom.
These votes need to be counted now. The delegates need to be delivered now. Obama’s camp has had ample opportunity to make this right and they have refused. How dare those MFs. Since when does Axelrod determine Democracy in this country.
I am sick.
Corruption by DNC, Howard, Nancy, BO, Axelrod, Media.
Corruption, plain and simple. There are 50 states not 48. Every person gets one vote. Children understand the basic fairness of this. Undervote caucus state after state with BO bullies intimidating and suppressing HRC votes is not democracy.
Fighting for democracy all the way to Denver. One person/one vote primaries. Dump the ridiculous caucus system. In primary, popular vote winner takes all the delegates. Simple. Fair. The GOP beats us hands down on this.
WE THE PEOPLE may have to break this Democratic Party apart before we can build a newer, fairer version. Rally on!
Give em all to her I say. Give none to Barack not even Michigan. That is what she wants right.? To seat them as is with no penalty and to seat anyone who didn’t vote for her in Michigan as undecided. That is what you are proposing correct? I say go for it. Because even then she still is too far behind to win. While you are at it count only the non caucus states vote into the popular vote and count Michigan and Florida in the popular vote but once again give Obama no votes in Michigan. Guess what. He still wins. This will not go to Denver. This site is over. Your hatred will have to find a home somewhere else. Go vote for McCain, go vote straight republican ticket. Here’s the sad truth folks. We don’t need you.
if florida and michigan didnt count, obama wouldnt be so afraid. if they award only half those delegates, nobody reaches the magic number of 2,210……..it should go to the convention to be decided. and that is what obama and axelrod are really afraid of. every single day more revelations of that piece of shit become known. that is hillarys advantage. and mccain is after him everyday too. no matter what the dnc decides tomorrow it can be appealed and stall the process…….. too bad, obama ! and adam, sorry for your loss, obama is a loser, and i agree with jp, get the hell out of here and go perform some acts on your candidate.
if florida and michigan didnt count, obama wouldnt be so afraid….
He doesn’t look afraid to me. In fact he looks pretty calm. Some might even say he looks like a winner.
adam, and some might recognize presistant drug use. he fools nobody here except you, a dumb shit. make no mistake, he may steal this nomination, but will never sleep in the whitehouse. this is america, not africa and we have elections that will ensure that obummer does not run this nation…… dream on and shut up…..
These Obama-zombies just don’t get it (about disenfranchisement)–I’m a Florida voter–it’s like they are saying my rape is ok because I asked for it!
In addition, in the “Punishment-fits-the-crime-department,” can anyone explain to me what the gross offense is about doing the primary early? I ask this because I can’t fathom why such a crime would end in the punishment of disenfranchisement of American voters, expecially when this punishment is levied on good citizens who had nothing to do with the “rules violation” in the first place. The analogy which comes to mind is one where the teacher of the first-grade class “colors outside of the lines” and the students are sentenced to death!
Hyperpole? Ok, but when I hear the Obama supporters say that their candidate should prevail because of “rules,” they are effectively saying that the candidate who is positioned to best beat McCain (Hillary), should not prevail due only to some technicality….
To me there is no more evidence that the “fix” was in long ago… the media and the DNC only had to wait till the race was narrowed to two persons to unleash against her.
I wish she would declare independent after tomorrow’s DNC cabal (as I will also with my local election board)….I’m sure that neither of the three candidates would get the required 1/2 plus one electoral votes… then the election would then go the the House/Senate (and this means all newly elected!)…McCain would have an advantage unless all reps went for either Hillary or OB–this scenario is wild I know, but I would love to vote for Hillary in the GE instead of McCain…
@Rob
So we can talk about smarts? Come on, what kind of intelligence does it take to distort simple English? Can you not read what a pledge to not campaign means? I wont waste my breath.
Here are facts about Obama in Florida
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071106/NEWS/711060410
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/05/behind-the-obam.html
Good luck with the English comprehension skills. Does being pro-Obama really mean having to be lame?
Hillary running independent would insure one thing. She will never be elected to anything except dog catcher again. This is an exciting idea, I wish she would run independent.
Democrats would hate her, Republicans already hate her. It’s a win-win. Do it Hillary!
guys, please, no rough personal insults. We will delete them regardless of position. You can be creative, and make your ad hominems a little softer, but we get so many trolls from the Ossama camp, that if we allow our own to do the personal thing, we will get nailed for censorship. We don’t want that. So please try to be polite. I deleted two items here today. Sorry guys, but that’s our policy.
@ Rob
How did this happen, the earlier comment by Rob disappeared? I have never seen this? Hm. If you have a copy somewhere Rob, please repost it.
Juanita: unless you believe in time travel then perhaps YOU should check YOUR reading comphrehension skills (and also your sanity).
What Clinton supporters need to do is to take a cold hard look at the facts. Because only in understanding the chain of events that transpired can Clinton supporters fight effectively.
The video posted by CB asserted that Obama campaigned in Florida April 15th 2007 and by virtue of this charged him with breaking the DNC rules. Unfortunately, for the charge to make sense Florida would have had to have broken the rules before Obama campaigned there. But they didn’t. Florida’s legislature broke the rules early in May of 2007.
So unless you can show me a video of Obama personally campaigning in Florida sometime after May 2007 and decisively say that Clinton did not then this is a non-issue. I don’t care for a radio or TV ads which I have already read were national and impossible to have removed from Florida state television - Obama attempted to remove these ads, failed, and the DNC recognized that he at least tried and so the magic rule inventors at the DNC decided not to punish him.
If you want to set the date of each candidate signing the pledge, then the date becomes September 1st for Obama and not too long after that for Clinton. September 1st 2007 is well after April 15th 2007. OK? No rules broken there - contrary to what the dumb video asserts.
Second, the only argument that Clinton can successfully rely on is a legal argument. The best she can hope for on any “rules based argument” is a return to the 50% reduction for both Florida and Michigan with Obama being awarded 0 delegates - and that is by the good graces of the DNC committee.
See, if you had read the rules, you’d realize that within them is an effective cart-blanche for the Rules and Bylaws Committee to basically do whatever the hell they want with the delegates from the states that break the rules.
This “notwithstanding whatever the hell we feel like doing” clause undermines their authority. The only way Clinton could have this recognized is by challenging these excessive uses of “Freedom of Association”.
As for my comment, I’m pretty pissed that it wasn’t posted considering it was lengthy, detailed, and well supported. Had you read all of it I’m fairly certain that you would not have subscribed to me Obama as my candidate of choice.
Juanita: My comment was awaiting moderation. I don’t know what happened to it - aren’t YOU GUYS the moderators?
Anyways, I’ve posted a second shorter post with my points more clearly spelled out for you but it too awaits moderation. Go figure.
Half the delegates for three-fifths of a candidate…
Ah come on Rob! Why the miss-attribution? You spell just fine, so why do you attribute to me, things I never said? If its not comprehension what is it. Ok, I am sorry if I was rough initially, I thought you were a troll.
Let’s back up, and do some “sane” time travel as you suggest. I (me- Juanita G.) never said anything about a video, or Obama campaigning in Florida in relation to that video on youtube. I said “here are the facts” Rob, and that’s all I meant. I provided you with links which show that Hussein0 visited Florida on a few more occasions than Clinton, post DNC FL and MI decision, and several times journalists wondered, if he was campaigning, or just fundraising. Recall that one charge leveled against Clinton by the Obama camp back in February, was that she did some campaigning in Florida because she was there for a fundraiser. By the terms of that charge, it turns out Hussein0 violated the campaign law a few times over. That’s all I personally addressed, not a video or the date you presented.
You are wrong about the “carte blanche”. You can read it as that, but consider that “disenfranchisement” was in no one’s mind. The maximum penalty is 1/2 vote. Not total no-vote. That’s reading into it, and believe you me, its a reading only the decrepit sluts of the Obama camp, are capable of making. I am assuming you are not one of them
Juanita,
My comment regarding the video was directed at CB who posted it. The subsequent remarks were directed at yourself.
As for the carte-blanche: that was the way the Committee interpreted and used the clause from August 2007 until yesterday.
Constitutions, laws, rules, and Charters are only as good as the people who interpret and use them. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee were a bunch of ignorant tools in August - few of whom I would say had even read the rules - let alone the Charter. Aussman’s presentaiton ripped the Committee a new one. He made them all look like bumbling imbeciles. Wexler’s presentation, on the other hand, was a microcosm of what Obama represents himself: superficial, ignorant, self-righteous, and incredulous.
The Clinton supporters among them realized too little too late how damaging their decision was in August while the Obama supporters among them slapped each other on the back and shook each others’ hands behind closed doors and soon after cracked open the Champagne because they’d pulled off a coup d’etat (or at the very least delivered the coup de grace for the remnants of the Clinton faction within the DNC).
The DNC is so evidently Obama’s party now. The DNC is officially now about as liberal as it’s been in 20 years. It has abondonded centrism and moderate voters. Destroy the party, rebuild for ‘12 and reclaim the centre before the Republicans regain a stranglehold on it.
Hillary’s not a centrist either. She’s left wing just like Obama.
In fact, it was Hillary’s presence in the race that blocked out any potential moderate white Southern Dems.
Hillary’s the problem here. Obama’s rise just made the problem obvious.
Ya you pulled some posts of hillary supporters cussing and being racist. Some are still on: ……except you, a dumb shit. make no mistake, he may steal this nomination, but will never sleep in the whitehouse. this is america, not africa and we have elections that will ensure that obummer does not run this nation…… dream on and shut up…..
Don’t act like its the Obama supporters. its you nut bags that have to be censored.
[…] reference, some of Greg’s posts on the […]