.
.
[Update: Please see the end of the diary for an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT update]
.
.
.
--------------------------------------------------------
Pusillanimous DNC wants to hand Obama the nomination
Unbelievable! The DNC thinks up new and creative ways to disenfranchise Florida voters, possibly in hopes of recreating 2000? What are these mental midgets thinking?!?!
But here's a new scenario some leaders of the Democratic National Committee have been talking about lately: the DNC's credentials committee this summer could decide to split Florida's delegates evenly between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
A record 1.8-million Florida Democrats voted in the presidential primary...
The article goes on to show just how unfair this would be to both the Florida voter and to Senator Clinton:
f Florida's delegates were divided up according to the Jan. 29 primary result, DNC member Jon Ausman calculates, it would be 105 delegates pledged to Clinton; 67 pledged to Obama; 13 to John Edwards
That's right -- the DNC thinks it could be ok to take away THIRTY EIGHT pledged delegates from Hillary WHOM THE VOTERS CHOSE!!!
In this extremely-tight contest, that could very well hand the nomination over to Barack Obama.
Undemocratic, unfair, and political suicide for the Party's Florida chances come November, IMO.
I hope Donna Brazile is willing to leave the party if this outrageous maneuver is attempted. And I hope my Obama-supporting compadres will help shoot this unjust DNC cop-out down immediately.
Hillary supporters, the terrain is now clear, IMO:
The DNC wants to 'punk' us, Hillary, and Michigan & Florida voters; they want to hand Obama the nomination, in whatever form that takes, apparently.
Unlike other posters here, I will not riot in Denver, even if this move is attempted. I don't subscribe to violent solutions.
However, I will assent to this: If those Florida delegates aren't seated according to how the voters democratically chose them (105 to 67 for HRC), I will do everything in my power to make sure that every consenting DNC member is removed from his or her station as expeditiously as possible.
I'm talking petitions, blogs, press releases, everything. The world will know that you sought to overturn the will of your own Party's voters; the voters of the same state which gave us George FREAKING Bush by all of about 500 votes or so.
I will not stand by and watch our Party's leaders commence a November circular firing squad 9-10 months early. Such a move would render such 'leadership' bankrupt and in need of a thorough overhaul. The purpose of the DNC is to WIN Dem elections, not concede them.
If you feel as I do, please contact the DNC and tell them this is UNCONSCIONABLE, and you will not stand for it.
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
202-863-8000
DNC email link page
.
.
.
There is an unmistakable anti-Clinton bent throughout this campaign, both in the media (see Chris Matthews having to apologize for his sexist remarks towards Hillary Clinton and David Shuster's suspension due to his irresponsible remark about Chelsea Clinton) and, it seems, with many of our Party leaders. The GOP and the Arkansas Project people who have spent 18+ years trying to destroy the Clintons would be proud.
The DNC needs to get its head together, right now. The rule for superdelegates is almost 40 years old, and at least 8 cycles of other aspirant nominees have had to deal with its reality. There had better not be ANY alterations to that during this campaign, mid-stream. It is unfair and wrong.
The DNC was idiotic, IMO, for agreeing to strip MI and FLA (which they did in two parts) of their delegates. That was a poor decision, but it becomes moot after voters have cast ballots in each state, which they already have. Pottery Barn rule here, DNC. Three other candidates managed to leave their names on the MI ballots along with Senator Clinton. It is not her fault that Obama and Edwards felt they could not compete there, reportedly, and so took their names off the ballot so as to create just this kind of situation, where the voters could -- with political cover -- be disenfranchised.
DNC -- fix this ridiculous clusterf*ck and fix it now. But if you try to screw over the voters of those two states and slight Hillary Clinton, there are a legion of people, including myself, who will be adamantly working to change our Party's national leadership. Count on that.
We Clinton supporters understand that we are often outdone in the 'squeaky wheel' department, we feel, when it comes to complaining, bitching and moaning. But if we need to publicly profess our consternation a la Donna Brazile, we can and will do so. Do not think we will not. It's just not in many of our natures, at least not from what I have experienced anecdotally.
I don't have any issues with such self-expression, particularly when it looks too much like the whole damn world is (unfairly) against my candidate and looks to be devising ways to fabricate her 'defeat.'
So if you want griping and groaning, you, Party leaders, will have it.
.
.
.
Using the figures described above from the cited article, as well as those from the article cited in my diary from yesterday, then, we get this net effect on the total delegates numbers (the only relevant number at this juncture):
HRC: +(FLA + MI)
BHO: +(FLA + MI)
HRC: +(105 +73)
BHO: +(67 +55 {uncommitted})
HRC: +178
BHO: +122
---------
+ 56 HRC net
.
Those are the figures, according to the voters. Don't give me any BS about Obama not being on the MI ballot -- not only was it his choice, there was an active campaign (which included MI Rep John Conyers) to 'vote for uncommitted.' It apparently worked, and gives BHO more credit than he deserves (as these 55 delegates figure takes into account votes for JRE, but that's another diary). And the whole 'Dems for Mitt' debacle worked out to something like 2,000 Dem votes or so, easily offset by people who backed Edwards voting for "Uncommitted," it would stand to reason.
DNC: Seat the delegates, or risk disaster both in November and from your rank and file.
HRC supporters: If anyone tries to tell you that Obama is leading in total delegates and he is not up by more than 56 in a count not including these FLA and MI figures, you tell them you're not having it.
The voters have spoken (as has the MI Dem Party).
DNC -- you need to listen.
.
.
.
UPDATE:
Based upon the info from this article:
MI only moved after NH blew the deal
...it appears that the ultimate fault with the Michigan mess (not exactly sure right now how this relates with FLA) is NEW HAMPSHIRE'S FAULT. If this is true, then there is NO valid reason why Michigan's delegates should not be seated. This could be worse than I first thought:
Michigan's political leaders were disappointed not to be added to the first four but went along, expecting that other states would abide by the new calendar. When the dates started to shift -- and particularly when Gardner said New Hampshire would move up -- they considered the deal broken.
Levin and Debbie Dingell took their case to DNC Chairman Howard Dean last month, complaining that he was standing by silently as New Hampshire broke its promise. They asked Dean to urge Democrats not to campaign there.
"Someone," the two wrote, "has to take on New Hampshire's transparent effort to violate the DNC rules and to maintain its privileged position."
Oh, boy. This is getting worse and worse for the DNC, it appears.
Please also see skohayes' comment at 10:00:36 AM EST (7:00:36 PT) which is very pertinent to this issue as well, IMO. It is in the top quarter of the comments section.
The DNC looks like they FLAT-OUT blew this one (with NH's 'help'). And that is NOT HRC's fault, nor the fault of the other candidates who similarly kept their name on the MI ballot.