At her campaign celebration last night in Ohio, Hillary Clinton raised the specter of a nasty, divisive fight at the Democratic National Convention, claiming that she should be the party’s nominee based on her big state victories, rather than on the pledged-delegate count. It was a slick and sophisticated attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game and declare herself the winner.

She said, “You all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states just like Ohio. And that is what we’ve done.” Then, she listed the states she “won,” boldly including Florida and Michigan in the litany.
Weeks before her boast, Julian Bond, the Chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and one of my heroes, penned a letter to DNC Chair Howard Dean noting that he is “deeply concerned” about the “will and intent of the Florida and Michigan voters.”

But, both Clinton and Bond leave several important facts off the table.

First, the rules. They were known and agreed to by everyone involved, well before the first votes were cast in Iowa. All the campaigns, including the Clinton campaign, pledged to honor the “early window” that included only four states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Enforcement of the primary timing rule against Florida and Michigan was necessary to prevent the 2008 nominating calendar from falling into chaos. Moreover, a decision to overturn this action by the DNC could destroy our nominating process for 2012 and future years, as states realize that there will be no penalty for violating the primary timing rule.

Second, the DNC’s Rules & Bylaws Committee gave both Florida and Michigan a full and fair hearing, plus an open and transparent vote, and their efforts to “jump to the head of the line” were soundly defeated. No other state party organization or Rules Committee members supported them. None of the campaigns—including the Clinton campaign, which is very well represented on the Rules Committee—spoke up for the principle of allowing Florida and Michigan to go ahead of the other states.

Third, the new 2008 primary calendar was painstakingly worked out for the very purpose of increasing early voting diversity. Along with Iowa and New Hampshire, most Democrats agreed that both Latinos and African Americans should be added to the early voting equation. Adding Nevada and South Carolina to the early calendar increased regional and racial diversity while protecting the grassroots, small state nature of the early primary process. The DNC was right to protect these two states from encroachment in the calendar by Florida and Michigan.

Fourth, since there was no campaigning in either Florida or Michigan, and neither the names of Obama nor Edwards even appeared on the Michigan ballot, the idea that the votes cast there represent “the will and intent” of the people is nonsense. We must not allow the uncontested primaries in Florida and Michigan to “nullify” the will of the large mass of voters in all of the hotly-contested primaries and caucuses around the country where the candidates did campaign and the voters had the chance to meet the candidates, ask questions, hear their message and make an informed decision on who would be the best nominee for the Democratic Party.

Finally, I want to be clear that this is a disagreement between the DNC and the Florida and Michigan State Democratic Parties. This is not—and should not become—an argument between Senator Obama and the voters of Florida or Michigan. Senator Obama will reach out to the voters in Florida and Michigan as the presidential nominee of our Party, and will work hard to carry these two important states for Democrats in the November election.

###

Congressman Jackson is serving his seventh term in the US House and is a National Co-Chairman of the Obama for President Campaign.

Huh??? Do you realize that all but one of the democratic contenders took there names off of the MI ballot? Hillary’s was the only name that remained. Everyone knew from the jump that the delegates would not be seat because they violated party rules by moving their primary up. If you’re a Hillary supporter or not, I can’t even begin to understand how some people feel that the delegates should be counted, WHEN THERE WERE NO OTHER NAMES ON THE BALLOT.

> No, it was the decision of the FL and MI Dems to go for these dates,

(1) Not so fast. The state and federal organizations are affiliated. If the powers that be can’t keep their people under control, that’s their problem.
(2) Doesn’t matter which group of Dems made the bad call. The state already paid for another election. If someone wants another election, they should pay for it.

I’m willing to compromise – they can piggy back on the next scheduled state-wide election.

Jeff’s support of Hillary does seem to contradict most of what he appears to believe in with respect to the power of the web.

A convention fight? A brokered convention with party elites making the decisions behind closed doors? A standoff between Obama and Clinton that rips the party in half and creates a rift that will lead to Nov. defeat?

Or repeat the primaries and seat the delegates?

Hmmmm…..

Huh? Well, whose “50 state campaign” was essential for the huge Dem victory in 2006? Howard “Winner” Dean’s.

No, it was the decision of the FL and MI Dems to go for these dates, knowing perfectly well what the consequences would be. Of course they were screwed by the state Republicans, sure. But they could have tried to get support for the costs of doing their own primaries. They didn’t even try. The DNC isn’t to blame at all. They made those rules and the schedule long before the primaries, and they were totally open about them.

A repitition of the primaries, but certainly NOT caucusses, would be a good compromise, if this would result in one candidate being able to get a convincing majority of pledged delegates, enough for deciding the nomination. The state Dem parties, who created the effing problem in the first place, will be punished enough by having to pay the bills for this.

Having said this, it shouldn’t be forgotten Obama can only blame himself for the MI problem. Out of strategic reason, he deliberately withdraw his name from the ballot, nobody did force him to do so. All the whining about how unfair it would be if the MI delegates were seated is totally hypocritical.

And Jeff–your attempt to fault the party as a whole rings a little hollow. These states knew exactly what the consequences could be for moving their primaries up–what the state party hacks didn’t count on was that the DNC might be forced to hold the line on disciplining them because their delegates might actually end up determining the nominee.

What? The DNC is unwilling to pay for these elections? Why not? It was the DNC’s decision to void the elections that those states paid for.

Hillary was the only one to campaign in Florida and Michigan flaunting the rules that were set up by the party. Now that she has won these states in a typical Clintonian irregular pattern, she wants to force those votes to count.

I love the idea of the national party paying for Florida and Michigan to redo the primaries. As a Republican it would be a disadvantage to my party as it would energize two key states that right now are not thrilled by the Democrats, but overall it would be the right thing to do.

Then trying to get the delegates counted is undemocratic because they were not proper elections. Hence the democratic choice is to get the primaries rerun.

2006 brought the Democrats back to power in Congress. It was an enormous victory after a 2004 election in which the party had a compelling story to tell, but was completely impotent.

This year, the Democrats are raising a ton of money, and a woman and black man are battling for the nomination. If he were to broker a deal (which I doubt he could), it would mean that Dean is picking the nominee. He would be facilitating a resolution that benefits the party.

And it doesn’t matter a whole lot to me whether the nominee is picked by Dean or by 700 Superdelegates who are not pledged to either candidate. Either way it’s undemocratic- but the party isn’t a democratic institution. It’s just a club, and they’re allowed to pick their nominee any way they want.

The Florida and Michigan problem is more complicated than you’re letting on here…I realize blogs are biased, but leaving out the details of who was actually on the ballot and why is a serious sin of omission; and to call Dean a “loser” shows a lack of class that hurts the credibility of a blog that purports to be related to the journalistic profession…

Somehow the content of your reasoning gets lost behind your personal issues. Is that how you refer to everyone who loses a party primary or election? John “Loser” Kerry? If Clinton loses, will you be referring to her as Hillary “Loser” Clinton?

Dean wasn’t a great candidate and didn’t deserve to be the nominee (though I voted for him), but his campaign revolutionized the place of the Internet in political networking, he was the only candidate who wasn’t so terrified of Republican talking points that he campaigned proudly on his principles, and he singlehandedly drove a cowed and defensive party back to enthusiasm with his 50-state strategy. And in the general, he couldn’t have done any worse than Kerry (given the choices between ‘won’ and ‘lost’) and he could have had a long-term Goldwater effect in loss.

I have heard that thousands of ballots in and around Detroit were tossed out because voters didn’t realize that “uncommitted” was really a vote for Obama.

Hillary did not play by the rules here. She left her name on the ballot instead of taking it off, like everyone else did.

Interestingly, in my Congressional district, “uncommitted” beat “Clinton.”

Yeah, the state Dems screwed this up. But so did the DNC by creating this absurd primary schedule. There’s blame all around, and the voters were definitely disenfranchised by the party at all levels.

The whole situation with those states is obviously a mess, and the primary system is in need of fixing, but you can’t blame Dean and the DNC solely for this mess. The Mich/Fla politicians are the ones who made the decision to move up the dates, knowing full well they’d be penalized for it. I don’t know if holding a new contest should be the solution, but in many ways it’s a lot better than saying “suck it” to the thousands of voters in those states who deserve a chance to influence this tight race.

Oh, absolutely, Jeff. But, some entity has to take a hold of the reins or you end up with States moving their primaries to December. Soon, to beat those States (and assure that their primary holds ‘relevance’) some rogue State goes and puts their primary right after Thanksgiving.

To borrow from Al Gore…there is the necessity for a “controling legal authority.” The DNC is the logical entity. They set the rules on the primary process. They did so, and two States took it upon themselves to ignore those rules. They are suffering the consequences. My primary point, however, was the fact that no one has been “disenfranchised.” The folks in Florida and Michigan elected their governors. Their govenors ignored the DNC’s warnings…and they are now served the repercussions.

The fact that Hillary Clinton has now taken a stance to try and include the delegates of those two states after signing a pledge to the contrary is nothing short of opportunistic dishonesty.