Yesterday I read about the first solution to the Michigan and Florida delegate crisis that I am willing to accept as an Obama supporter, and I'd like to share this compromise with you in the hopes that we can get the DNC to adopt it.
First, we need to understand the reason we have to accept a compromise or a revote: the Clinton campaign will stop at nothing, will take it to court if they have to, and will eventually only hurt Obama even more as he tries to move on to the general election. We need to win the PR war here, even if it means "rewarding FL/MI for breaking the rules".
So, given the bind we're in, we need to do what will help the party win in November: we need a compromise of some sort or we need a re-vote. The re-vote doesn't look likely at this point, but that's not important - it is actually better for us to not have to deal with a repeat Pyrrhic victory that Clinton will get out of a Florida win, and the associated spin that will last for a few weeks. Without a revote, she won't get the free press from that to push her case (despite still being behind in delegates and votes, no matter the outcome there).
This leaves a compromise, and after the jump I'll present why I think it may be the best option we have.
Apparently Chuck Todd, who is among the more insightful reporters out there, pointed out that Clinton's real reason for wanting Michigan and Florida seated: her huge superdelegate lead in both states. As you'll recall, she has support from the party machine in both states. No, not elected - pledged - delegates. She really wants to make sure she gets the unelected type as well.
What argument has Clinton been using to push for their seating? Disenfranchisement.
Well, as always, if you take the Clinton spin and you follow it to its logical conclusion, it usually backfires on them. So, lets do that here:
1. We should seat the Michigan delegates for Clinton as is. We should give Obama all the uncommitted delegates there (which should be the rest of them). This means that Clinton will get roughly 55% of the delegates from Michigan and Obama will get 45%.
2. We should seat the Florida delegates for Clinton and Obama as is, and not give any Edwards delegates to either Clinton or Obama. (Whether these Edwards delegates are allowed to attend the convention as non-voting delegates doesn't matter.)
3. We should not seat superdelegates from Michigan or Florida.
How do we justify this compromise? Easy. The pledged delegates were picked by the voters, and they should not be "disenfranchised" by Clinton's reasoning. However, Florida and Michigan broke the rules, and it was largely those very superdelegates who caused this mess, and they can't be "disenfranchised", so the penalty is they don't get seated. (And I don't think even the Clinton campaign thinks it can win the PR fight to seat superdelegates.)
What are the benefits of this solution?
1. It gives Clinton what she claims she wants - to have the will of the people be heard.
2. There's still a penalty for both states - the superdelegates won't be seated.
3. As an Obama supporter, while it hurts Obama a bit, it's not enough that it will cast his clear overall victory in doubt.
4. We will eliminate the chance that this becomes an ugly court battle.
5. We prevent any meaningless media hoopla over re-votes in Michigan or Florida.
Thoughts?