Dean: Party Wants to Seat Florida Delegates

[BPSCG]

Link

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday the party was committed to seating Florida's delegates at this summer's convention as long as any agreement is supported by the party's two presidential contenders.

Emphasis mine.

 

[dudalb]

More decisive leadership from Howard Dean.

 

[fuelair]

More reason the DNC has lost me - and I actually got in temporary yelling match with an Obama supporting (I support both, as I want a democrat in even if a yellow dog*) person who apparently thinks I am unAmerican because I am annoyed at the DNC (which made a Really Bad decision originally) rather than the Republickers who set the elections "early". She doesn't want to accept that no matter who set them early, it just doesn't matter. The DNC made the stupid decision.

 

[T.A.M.]

How did the DNC make a stupid decision?

The rules were there for a reason. If they did not hand out some form of discipline then you could run into the same thing every election, each state vying for a new date, to make themselves "more relevant".

If you are talking about not finding a solution, I agree that there seems to be some stonewalling, but it is coming from both sides. Clinton campaign have said they will ONLY discuss PRIMARY REDOS, no other option, where as Obama et al are kind of sitting back, making no move for or against, but this IMO is still stonewalling.

TAM

 

[shuize]

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday the party was committed to seating Florida's delegates at this summer's convention as long as any agreement is supported by the party's two presidential contenders.

I laughed when I read that as well. Especially since the Yahoo headline also reads: "Dean says Democrats committed to seating Florida delegates."

As noted above, decisive leadership from Dean ... as long as everyone agrees.

But they're definitely committed, man. Unwavering even.

 

[ConspiRaider]

How did the DNC make a stupid decision?

The rules were there for a reason. If they did not hand out some form of discipline then you could run into the same thing every election, each state vying for a new date, to make themselves "more relevant".

If you are talking about not finding a solution, I agree that there seems to be some stonewalling, but it is coming from both sides. Clinton campaign have said they will ONLY discuss PRIMARY REDOS, no other option, where as Obama et al are kind of sitting back, making no move for or against, but this IMO is still stonewalling.

TAM

Pretty darned good assessment there, Doc.

Remember how I refer to us Democrats as saps when we recently try to attain the Oval Office? This is a textbook teaching case for Dem Sapness 101, this Michigan / Florida conundrum. Only we could disenfranchise the voting power of 2 huge states, the combined population of which nearly equals that of hallowed Canada (about 28 million). Oh wait. Yanks count for 1.5 Canadians so actually it comes out to 42 million in Canadian equivalency.

It's Dean, it's the DNC, it's Michigan, it's Florida, it's the whole shootin' match to blame for this. Remember, we're the party that has a voting primary in Texas, oh and then we throw in a caucus primary in the same state that kinda sorta usurps the other one.

I think we have to settle for a McCain Presidency, and try to balance off his power with stronger majorities in the House and Senate. Because we certainly don't know - in this century so far - how to gain the Presidency.

 

[Sefarst]

How did the DNC make a stupid decision?

The rules were there for a reason. If they did not hand out some form of discipline then you could run into the same thing every election, each state vying for a new date, to make themselves "more relevant".

If you are talking about not finding a solution, I agree that there seems to be some stonewalling, but it is coming from both sides. Clinton campaign have said they will ONLY discuss PRIMARY REDOS, no other option, where as Obama et al are kind of sitting back, making no move for or against, but this IMO is still stonewalling.

TAM

They could have used the same form of discipline the Republicans used -- half the amount of delegates.

And Obama can stonewall all he wants, he's ahead. It's the smart strategy. Clinton's the one that will have to compromise.

 

[dudalb]

They could have used the same form of discipline the Republicans used -- half the amount of delegates.

And Obama can stonewall all he wants, he's ahead. It's the smart strategy. Clinton's the one that will have to compromise.

That is what I have been saying for some time. The Dems should have found another way of penalizing Florida and Michigan then The Doomsday Machine they came up with.
Oh,Dean is not solely to blame, but this fiasco happened on his watch.
Obama might just stonewall himself into winning the nomination but kissing Florida and Michigan goodbye. And I have seen few political experts in either party who thinks the Dems can win without those two states.

 

[dudalb]

How did the DNC make a stupid decision?

The rules were there for a reason. If they did not hand out some form of discipline then you could run into the same thing every election, each state vying for a new date, to make themselves "more relevant".

Because the method of discipline they decided on was stupid and did more damage to the party then good.. The GOP was much smarter about it.
No one is saying that the DNC should not have disciplined the two states, but the method they decided on was just plain dumb.

 

[Kaylee]

I doubt that the situation would have been better if the Dems had penalized FL and MI the same way tht the Reps did (half the delegates vs. none). McCain was the clear winner, if another Rep candidate had won almost as many delegates as he did, I think there would be stonewalling, etc. going on in the Rep party also.

As for Dean -- seeing him in action now I'm really glad he lost the presidential primaries back in 2004. What a disappointment! Why doesn't he get it that its his job to be the tough guy now and thus make it that much easier r for the surviving Democratic candidate to win over the other candidate's supporters before the general election? He's a bright guy right*? That shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.


* Yale undergrad degree, medical doctor, successful Vermont governor, etc.

 

[T.A.M.]

Pretty darned good assessment there, Doc.

Remember how I refer to us Democrats as saps when we recently try to attain the Oval Office? This is a textbook teaching case for Dem Sapness 101, this Michigan / Florida conundrum. Only we could disenfranchise the voting power of 2 huge states, the combined population of which nearly equals that of hallowed Canada (about 28 million). Oh wait. Yanks count for 1.5 Canadians so actually it comes out to 42 million in Canadian equivalency.

It's Dean, it's the DNC, it's Michigan, it's Florida, it's the whole shootin' match to blame for this. Remember, we're the party that has a voting primary in Texas, oh and then we throw in a caucus primary in the same state that kinda sorta usurps the other one.

I think we have to settle for a McCain Presidency, and try to balance off his power with stronger majorities in the House and Senate. Because we certainly don't know - in this century so far - how to gain the Presidency.

1. Given our Dollar is worth more than yours right now, we could just buy the extra population to make up for the 1:1.5 ratio.

2. The caucus only usurps the Primary this particular year because of the diverse campaigning methods, and the superactive participation of Obama supporters. It is funny how no big deal has been made about the supposed "illegitimacy" of caucuses until Hillary started losing most of them to Obama.

3. I was as pessimistic as you a week or two ago, and maybe when the REPs bring up the Wright thing again in the general, I will be again, but right now, provided the Michigan and Florida Delegates are seated (which they will be, AFTER Obama secures the nomination), I think the DEMs still have a great chance to win the WH.

TAM

 

[David Wong]

Everybody understand that when they say the delegates will be seated, NO ONE INVOLVED is saying they should be seated as they voted (all for Hillary). They're saying some compromise would have to be invented that would split the delegates up.

And to be fair to the DNC, they did what they did assuming the race wouldn't be close enough to need FL and MI anyway. Like if for some reason the Republicans had penalyzed Pennsylvania their delegates, it wouldn't even be in the news. By the time their primary rolled around, there was only one candidate left. Talk of "disenfranchising" voters would have been ludicrous.

Same here. They likely assumed Hillary would have it wrapped up by the day after Super Tuesday, and the fact that MI and FL delegates wouldn't count would be buried deep in the back pages of the newspaper, a bit of political trivia and a purely symbolic punishment.

 

[Sefarst]

Just think if Dean had become president in 2004...

Iraq War

"We are committed to ending the Civil War between the Sunnis and Shias as long as both parties can come to an agreement."

Palestine

"We will end the violence in the Holy Land if the Israelis and Palestinians can come to an agreement that makes everyone happy."