Obamas lead has an asterisk.

[MojoMojoMojo]

Without Florida and Michigan there is no leader.
We cant play by the rules because there are no rules which take this Fla/Mi situation into consideration.

[Dbdmjs1022]

1. There are rules. FL and MI broke them. Case closed.

[jackson_dem]

18. Two states should be disenfranchised by party bosses whoring for IA and NH?

[ingac70]

25. FL and MI agreed to their punishments, case closed. n/t

[jackson_dem]

28. They are sovereign states and have a right to hold their primary when they wish

Party bosses gave them a shaft due to party bosses whoring for IA, NH, and SC.

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. No, they don't have a right to hold their primaries when they wish.

The DNC determines the calendar. And the Democratic Party is under no obligation to seat state delegations chosen in a manner that violates party rules (see Democratic Party v Wisconsin, 1981).

[jackson_dem]

32. The DNC and RNC do have a right to disenfranchise states

However, they have zero power to stop them from holding primaries whenever this wish, as the DNC and RNC discovered...

It comes down to whether you believe 10% of the nation should be disenfranchised on behalf of three small states who demand a superior status in the United States. I see nothing in the Constitution that gives IA, NH, and SC superior status.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. You can't 'disenfranchise' someone in a primary.

The DNC is under no obligation to hold primaries at all. And there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in a primary. For a primary to be valid it must take place under the rules decided by the party. Which means the states don't get to make the decision.

[jackson_dem]

40. You are right--and rules can be changed. The DNC should change its rules to count Florida

To disenfranchise Florida in choosing a nominee would haunt us in the general if we nominate Obama, whose cronies helped kill re-votes in both states.

[Romulox]

58. There is also no constitutional right to be POTUS. This is about politics, not law...nt

[ingac70]

33. sovereign? LOL....

The parties have final say over primaries.

[jackson_dem]

39. Wrong, as the DNC and RNC discovered. They can have primaries when they want or not have one

They don't even have to have allow you to vote for presidential electors. They would select the electors themselves through the legislature.

Whether the parties count their primaries is a completely different matter.

[ingac70]

42. Having them count is final say. n/t

[jackson_dem]

47. As far as the party goes. Dean answers to party bosses; Granholm answers to 10 million people

[ingac70]

52. Granholm fucked up, didn't she?

[jackson_dem]

54. Yes--and so did Dean

[Zachstar]

35. There is no rights stop spinning. The democratic party is not made by the .gov

They make the rules.. accept it

[Romulox]

59. Yeah. You take that argument to the voters. nt

[stillcool]

73. The voters? Who knew their votes ...

wouldn't count back in August?

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.
------------------------------------------------------
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."

The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot.

The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.
-----------------------------
The DNC has threatened to punish states that break tradition and the rules by challenging Iowa and New Hampshire as first to pic. The committee has threatened to unseat the delegates of states that go ahead defy the primary rules set by the party

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

As it has become clear that the delegate race will be very close, politicians in the Democratic party are discussing the implications of the DNC pledge, and whether it would be wise to seat the delegates after all, rather than risk offending these important states that could be influential in the November election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[Romulox]

82. knowledge has little to do with *fairness*

[cali]

60. LOL, Baghdad Bob.

Nope they don't have that "right". duh.

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. ....

New Hampshire's state law requires them to go first. And having the first primaries in small states keeps the focus on retail politics and putting a message in front of voters with actual face-to-face campaigning. Not on money. Which is where it would be if states like Florida and Michigan went first. FL and MI were warned well in advance. They went ahead anyway. They were sanctioned. As they were told would happen. I don't think that they deserve to be rewarded for attempting to fuck with the primary calendar. And, news flash, neither did Hillary until she decided she needed the votes from illegitimate and disallowed primaries. (And even WITH MI and FL, she's STILL losing.)

[jackson_dem]

41. I agree with the merits of retail politics but I don't accept IA, NH, and SC as the holy trinity

I favor rotating the early primaries between small states. Why shouldn't Delaware, Wyoming, Rhode Island, and West Virginia be given the same opportunity Iowa and New Hampshire horde to themselves during some election cycles?

The problem is we are not punished the legislatures and governors of those states. We are punishing the voters--people we will desperately need in the general election. We have to look at the political consequences of this. Strictly on the legal aspects the DNC has a right to do whatever it wishes but that does not make it politically smart.

[Asgaya Dihi]

37. Why is it ok for Clinton suporters to say others are whoring

but any mention of the term directed at them or theirs is sexist? Much of a double standard going here?

The "party bosses" who did that tend to be found on the Clinton campaign, it wasn't Obamas people who did that. They went from committing the act to campaigning for her. Clinton signed agreements saying the importance of the early States mattered and jumping the line was wrong, so supporting the penalties. She was later quoted as saying that her name on the ballot meant nothing and she knew the votes wouldn't count. She signed a document saying it wouldn't count.

Last I heard whoring was applied to selling yourself or selling out for profit rather than principle or belief. You might want to reassess where that accusation better belongs. The right or wrong of the penalty for the people of those States aside there is nothing but wrong on the position of the Clinton campaign on the issue. It's two faced and transparent in its shifts from one position to the next as their perceived advantages changed.

The people I do sympathize with, and I wish someone seemed to care what happened to them when it mattered, tried to somehow shift the penalties from the voters to the bad actors themselves. But they didn't and it's poor form to blame someone who is less responsible than you and yours are.

[rucky]

51. That was something to take up before the primary.

or after.

not during.

[mckeown1128]

71. Hey FL and MI can still hold open fair primaries...

they are not being disenfranchised. They just need to hold primaries. Too bad for the voters that their state parties aren't willing to give them the ability to vote.

[GrandmaJones7]

66. Sounds just like "Bush v. Gore" to me. You favor stealing the vote?

-and disenfranchising the electorate?

[Texas Hill Country]

85. Politically it is disasterous. That is why dean is pushing for SD's, so that he doesnt have to take

a decisive action that effects either Obama or Clinton and pisses one of the two camps off.

[Milo_Bloom]

2. It would only be an * if you include them.

They broke the rules and thus do not count.

Remember, you have no right to vote in a private primary process, which this is.

[msallied]

3. Ummmm... Under that logic, Hill's victory would have one too...

[UALRBSofL]

4. Florida and Michigan has got to count

Because Hillary would get 210 delegates in Forida which would push her ahead of Obama in the delegate count and she will win the nomination. Plus, Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot so he gets no delegates.

[MojoMojoMojo]

6. Obama needs to withdraw with those #s

[kmsarvis]

15. what are you talking about?

What makes you think she would get all of Floridas' delegates ? Do you understand how primaries work ?

[demwing]

16. Thats wrong.

Hillary would not get all the delegates in Florida. Democratic primaries are not "winner-take-all" She would get the bulk of Florida delegates, but Obama would pick up his share as well, and when all was said and done, he would STILL be ahead.

[jackson_dem]

49. Clinton would gain 38 delegates if Florida was counted

What you say is very important though. If things go as expected Clinton should narrow Obama's delegate lead in the upcoming contests. Right now he leads by 146. Florida alone erases over a quarter of that. Michigan would be dicey. She won about 80 delegates there I believe while Obama won none but you would have to assume most of "uncommitted" would go to Obama. Given that she would not net that much from Michigan. Besides, Michigan, thanks to Obama and his friends killing the re-vote, will not be counted. Florida has a shot because everybody's name was on the ballot. Still we should expect the Clinton camp to try to get Michigan in and if they succeed that would be a great coup for them.

[DJ13]

5. They will be seated

At the convention.

Which will be of no help to Clinton, which fits with the punishment laid out by the DNC.

It would be shortsighted and stupid to reward those states by giving their unofficial and unsanctioned primaries more importance than they would have had at the start of the primary season by counting them at the end of the campaign now.

They WILL be counted, but it will be after Clinton conceeds.

[MojoMojoMojo]

7. Democratic Nominee ***** Barack*** Obama****

[MojoMojoMojo]

9. President Obama*

[UALRBSofL]

10. That would not be good. Were creating a caravan to drive up to Denver from Tallahassee

And if this is the case as you lay out we will be protesting the decision. It would be cool to make national news, the group of Florida supporters over disenfranchising the voters of Florida.

[DJ13]

12. That would not be good.

Politics rarely are, and those two states elected representatives played politics with the DNC and lost.

They cant be counted because the primaries werent sanctioned by the party, and they cant revote as its too late.

Those states should just be grateful they will be given seats at the convention, but dont expect them to count towards one candidate over another.

That would be unfair to everyone.

[stillcool]

74. Where was your caravan back in August?

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.
------------------------------------------------------
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

Posted: August 27, 2007, 6:05 PM ET
DNC Moves to Stop Primary Frontloading
The Democratic National Committee moved over the weekend to penalize Florida for moving up its primary date to Jan. 29 -- a violation of DNC rules that prohibit states from holding nominating polls before Feb. 5.
The committee said the Sunshine State would be stripped of its delegation at the party's National Convention in 2008 if the state does not reschedule its primary in the next 30 days.

As the nation's fourth-most-populous state, Florida has 210 delegates and has played a major role in recent presidential elections. Florida's decision to advance its primary follows the increasing trend of states pushing up their contests in order to gain relevance in the election.

"Rules are rules. California abided by them, and Florida should, as well. To ignore them would open the door to chaos," said Garry Shays, a DNC member from California. California -- with its 441 delegates -- moved its primary to Feb. 5, along with more than a dozen other states.
-----------------------------------------

The DNC's move may have repercussions beyond Florida as other state legislatures consider disregarding the Feb. 5 cutoff. Last week, Michigan's state Senate voted to hold its primary on Jan. 15. The state's House is expected to approve the earlier date as well.

The DNC gave Florida the option of holding a Jan. 29 contest but with nonbinding results, and the delegates would be awarded at a later official date.

Florida Democratic Committee Chairwoman Karen Thurman said this option would be expensive -- as much as $8 million -- and potentially undoable. Another option would be to challenge the ruling in court.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida -- over 4 million," Thurman said, according to the New York Times. "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics/july-dec07/florida_08-27.html

Lawmakers in US state Michigan approve moving presidential primary to January despite rules
The Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2007

LANSING, Michigan: Michigan lawmakers have approved moving the state's U.S. presidential nomination contests to January, three weeks earlier than party rules allow, as states continue to challenge the traditional primary election calendar to gain influence in the race.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign the bill passed Thursday that would move the contest to Jan. 15, but approval of the switch is far from certain. A disagreement among state Democratic leaders over whether to hold a traditional ballot vote or a more restricted caucus is complicating final action.

If the date moves up, Michigan Democrats risk losing all their national convention delegates, while Republicans risk losing half.
------------------------------------
Rules in both parties say states cannot hold their 2008 primary contests before Feb. 5, except for a few hand-picked states that hold elections in January.
--------------------------------
"We understand that we're violating the rules, but it wasn't by choice," Michigan Republican Chairman Saul Anuzis said, noting that state Democrats first proposed moving the date to Jan. 15. "We're going to ask for forgiveness and we think ... we will get forgiveness."
----------------------------------
Even states that do not have favored status are trying to jump toward the front of the line. Florida Democrats decided to move their state's primary to Jan. 29. The national party has said it will strip Florida of its presidential convention delegates unless it decides within the next few weeks to move the vote to a later date.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/31/america/NA-POL-US-Primary-Scramble.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_america

Democrats vow to skip defiant states
Six candidates agree not to campaign in those that break with the party's calendar. Florida and Michigan, this includes you.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2007
The muddled 2008 presidential nomination calendar gained some clarity Saturday -- at least on the Democratic side -- as the party's major candidates agreed not to campaign in any state that defies party rules by voting earlier than allowed.

Their collective action was a blow to Florida and Michigan, two states likely to be important in the general election, which sought to enhance their clout in the nominating process as well.

Front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina in pledging to abide by the calendar set by the Democratic National Committee last summer. The rules allow four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- to vote in January.

The four "need to be first because in these states ideas count, not just money," Edwards said in a written statement. "This tried-and-true nominating system is the only way for voters to judge the field based on the quality of the candidate, not the depth of their war chest."

Hours later, after Obama took the pledge, Clinton's campaign chief issued a statement citing the four states' "unique and special role in the nominating process" and said that the New York senator, too, would "adhere to the DNC-approved calendar."

Three candidates running farther back in the pack -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware -- said Friday they would honor the pledge, shortly after the challenge was issued in a letter co-signed by Democratic leaders in the four early states.
--
Florida, the state that proved pivotal in the 2000 presidential election, is again a source of much upheaval. Ignoring the rule that put January off-limits, legislators moved the state's primary up to Jan. 29, pushing Florida past California and other big states voting Feb. 5.

Leaders of the national party responded last month by giving Florida 30 days to reconsider, or have its delegates barred from the August convention in Denver.

"The party had to send a strong message to Florida and the other states," said Donna Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and member of the Democratic National Committee, the party's governing body. "We have a system that is totally out of control."

Despite that warning, Michigan lawmakers moved last week to jump the queue, voting to advance the state's primary to Jan. 15.

Published: Monday, September 24, 2007
Florida defies Dems, moves up primary
Associated Press

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. — The Florida Democratic Party is sticking to its primary date — and it printed bumper stickers to prove it.

State party leaders formally announced Sunday their plans to move ahead with a Jan. 29 primary, despite the national leadership's threatened sanctions.

The Democratic National Committee has said it will strip the Sunshine State of its 210 nominating convention delegates if it doesn't abide by the party-set calendar, which forbids most states from holding primary contests before Feb. 5. The exceptions are Iowa on Jan. 14, Nevada on Jan. 19, New Hampshire on Jan. 22 and South Carolina on Jan. 29.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070924/NEWS02/709240045/-1/

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.

Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

Michigan, in moving up its primary, faces a similar penalty from the Democratic National Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.

But Former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the pledge allows candidates' spouses to campaign in the state, allows the candidates to speak to groups of 200 or fewer and permits fundraising.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

Kucinich Files Affidavit To Remove Name From Michigan's Primary Shortly Before Deadline

October 10, 2007 8:19 a.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - AHN Staff
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008781843
Dover, NH (AHN) - The Kucinich for President campaign Tuesday afternoon officially requested that Kucinich's name be withdrawn from the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. The affidavit came by way of to the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

The Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidates National Campaign manager Mike Klein said in the statement, "We signed a public pledge recently, promising to stand with New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and the DNC-approved 'early window', and the action we are taking today protects New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status, and Nevada's early caucus."

The statement continued: "We support the grassroots nature of the New Hampshire, small-state primary, and we support the diversity efforts that Chairman Dean and the DNC instituted last year, when they added Nevada and South Carolina to the window in January 2008. We are obviously committed to New Hampshire's historic role." Klein who actually recently moved to Dover said, "We will continue to adhere to the DNC-approved primary schedule."

Governor Granholm and other Michigan Democratic leaders have openly criticized the decision by several presidential candidates to keep their names off the state primary ballot.

The Michigan lawmakers are taken back by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw their names from the January 15th ballot.

The only ones who remain on Michigan's primary ballot are Hillary Clinton, Mike Gravel and Chris Todd.
-----------------------------
The DNC has threatened to punish states that break tradition and the rules by challenging Iowa and New Hampshire as first to pic. The committee has threatened to unseat the delegates of states that go ahead defy the primary rules set by the party

December 1, 2007, 11:42 am
Democrats Strip Michigan of Delegates

By The New York Times

In a widely expected move, the Democratic National Committee voted this morning to strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates to the national nominating convention next year. The state is breaking the party’s rules by holding its primary on Jan. 15. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are allowed to hold contests prior to Feb. 5.

The party imposed a similar penalty on Florida in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The Democratic candidates have already pledged not to campaign in the state, and Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as well as John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, asked to have their names removed from the state ballot.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/democrats-strip-michigan-delegates/

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.

Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar... Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.

As it has become clear that the delegate race will be very close, politicians in the Democratic party are discussing the implications of the DNC pledge, and whether it would be wise to seat the delegates after all, rather than risk offending these important states that could be influential in the November election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[Johnny__Motown]

8. It is the rules that created the Fl/MI situation, that and her people trying to move up every

contest possible and even some that were not possible to move up.

Sorry, I live in Michigan, Obama's lead stands.

It was Hillary's little buddy Grandholm that made the Michigan problem. Hillary doesn't get to profit by screwing around with my right to vote.

have a nice day

[GoldieAZ49]

11. The Democratic party of 48 states

it is the new 'strategy'

[anonymous171]

14. The Democratic Party of Super Delegates

[guyanakoolaid]

21. Rather the old rules. The ones Clinton agreed to.

Or did she "misspeak" when she approved the DNC rules of this election?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

45. Why oh why did Hilly forsake them?

[muryan]

13. If you live in Mich/FL and have a problem

take it up with your state party. The fact that Hillary went against her word and put her name on the ballot when all other candidates didn't, just shows that even from the beginning she felt she could circumvent the rules. I'm all for seating the delegates, but they can't count because Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

[jackson_dem]

19. St. Obama was on the FL ballot, as was everybody else

In MI Kucinich and Dodd were also on it.

[demwing]

22. Obama was not on the Michigan ballot

But he and Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich were on the Florida ballot. Vote totals as follows:

Clinton 50%
Obama 33%
Edwards 14%
Kucinich 1%

[Romulox]

62. This arrogance is part of the problem. Don't tell me how to feel. nt

[stillcool]

77. Arrogance? 2 states out of 50

have the arrogance to break the rules, and you think there should be no consequences? Where were you all back in August when you could have done something to prevent this? You didn't start complaining until after the votes were cast? Why is that? Why did it take you 6 months to get 'outraged'?

[Romulox]

83. The rules are crap. 2 states had the *courage* to break the rules.

"you think there should be no consequences?"

There are (and will be) consequences regardless of what I want.

"Where were you all back in August when you could have done something to prevent this?"

Umm, I supported this.

"You didn't start complaining until after the votes were cast? Why is that? Why did it take you 6 months to get 'outraged'?"

What are you talking about??? The entire process of moving the vote up was specifically a protest against the unfairness of the National Party. Senator Levin has been fighting for a change to the nominating process since 2000.

[stillcool]

87. Where were you in 2006?

when the rules were agreed upon?

Florida Dems defy Dean on primary date
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 06/12/07 07:58 PM
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is trapped in a high-stakes game of chicken with party leaders in Florida.

They warned him yesterday not to “disenfranchise” state voters and risk being blamed for a debacle on the scale of the 2000 recount.

The warning comes amid alarm over a decision Sunday by state Democratic leaders to embrace Jan. 29 as the primary date.
They are defying DNC headquarters and daring it to follow through on its threat to disqualify electors selected in the primary and punish candidates who campaign there.

But the DNC is not backing down. The committee bought time with a statement late yesterday saying, “The DNC will enforce the rules as passed by its 447 members in Aug. 2006. Until the Florida State Democratic Party formally submits its plan and we’ve had the opportunity to review that submission, we will not speculate further.”

Dean does not, in any case, have the power to waive party rules, a DNC spokeswoman said. The entire committee would have to vote again to do that.
------------------

Carol Fowler, chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said she won’t move that state’s primary, scheduled for Feb. 2, unless the national committee allows her.

“I’m going to do what the DNC tells me to,” Fowler said. “I’m not willing to violate the rules. The penalties are too stiff.”


http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/florida-dems-defy-dean-on-primary-date-2007-06-12.html

[muryan]

89. I didn't tell you how to feel

I said if you feel this way, take it up with your state party because thats where the blame lies.

[JasonHill]

17. This is one of the things that turned neutral people against Hillary

She agreed that both of these primaries wouldn't count since they violated the pre-established election rules, but when it appears she would need them in order to boost her chances of winning she decides she wants them counted - in defiance to her initial pledge and word. What that says to everyone in the Democratic party is that she will engage in Bush-style propaganda, where reality along with her word is thrown down the memory hole if it suits her needs even at the expense of the party and liberalism overall. Besides allowing for and pushing afterwards the Iraq War, Bankruptcy Bill, etc. She also believes in Newspeak against her own Democratic allies.

The reason she is so disliked has less to do with Obama, an unknown commodity who though has shown some promise with his left-wing voting record and prescient view of the war in Iraq. It is because she is pathologically deceptive who has shown time and time again she will throw the party/liberalism/all those working class people she pretends to care about under the bus if it suits her interest.

[jackson_dem]

20. Obama said he would "do the right thing" (wink, wink, seat FL) until he lost FL by 300k

[JasonHill]

23. and they shouldnt

he is wrong. Both primaries are illegitimate because of their violation of the pre-established caucus rules. All of the the candidates agreed on this. To make this an issue is to fly in the face of reality through the use of Orwellian tactics by denying the reality of this pre-established framework for the election.

[Danger Mouse]

24. Ahahaha....don't you wish?

[CreekDog]

26. you know what else has an asterisk?

your intelligence. :think:

[madrchsod]

27. so it`s ok to break the rules with out being" punished"

interesting concept...because they broke the rules we must find a way to not punish them?

[Romulox]

64. When the rule is unjust, it is our DUTY to break it

The Democratic party used to be the party of social-justice, not authoritarians... :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

30. ?

[ShortnFiery]

50. Hey FrenchieCat!

I like you're animated GIF. :hi:

[Alexander]

36. Obama would still be ahead with FL and MI. How many times do we need to go through this?

[hayu_lol]

38. It is simply amazing how many people still fail to understand that in Michigan...

Obama whored for votes in Iowa/NH and took his name off the Michigan ballot. He did this, no one else did it for him.

There were four Dems who stayed on the ballot in Michigan. Nothing in the DNC rules said that names had to come off the ballot. Had Obama stayed on the Michigan ballot, then he would have had delegates awarded.

Michigan thought about redoing the primary...Obama said no. He wanted half the existing delegates in order for the redo to take place.

In Florida, to take one's name off the ballot meant that you were dropped from the ballot in the general election as well as in the primary. That is why Obama did not remove his name there.

Michigan's problem was exacerbated by Obama's playing politics.

[Alexander]

43. I was addressing the factually incorrect OP.

Obama is still ahead with Florida and Michigan counted.

[Major Hogwash]

63. That's absolute bovine scatology!

We have discussed Michigan's plight several times here.
Dozens of threads and numerous articles have been posted here disproving your absolute hot air post.

[Romulox]

68. The smarter ones understand this damn well.

This was a calculated play for red state voters (remember , Iowa, NH, SC, NV are all to various degrees "red" states!)

The thought was that Obama could win points in Iowa and elsewhere by turning his back on Michigan, and that Michigan voters are so "true blue" that he could still win our state in November despite his disdain for our voters.

This goes beyond the primary--notice the Obama camp does not want to discuss the economy, jobs, or trade, despite the fact that these things are #1 or #2 issues for Michigan and most of the country. This is because when he does talk about trade, the things he says to the traditional blue-collar base risk losing support with red-staters in places like North Dakota and Wyoming, who for the most part support globalism and free trade.

So Obama's solution is to shut up voters in the industrial midwest while he continues to run a substance-less campaign in which he promises "hope" but little more...

[bowens43]

44. You're a liar but you know that.

[Ian_rd]

46. Sorry. Our memory isn't as bad as you want it to be.

There are rules. Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties knew what the consequences would be. They moved their primaries anyway. Now that it's inconvenient for Clinton people are lying about it.

Hey, EVERYONE thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. REMEMBER?

[npincus]

48. but if you add Mars and Jupiter, Obama wins!

Though I hear Uranus is Hillary territory! :rofl:

[tekisui]

53. He still leads, even with those tainted Primaries.

Come June 3rd, he will be the winner and can be magnanimous about.

[JoFerret]

55. Actual voters don't matter

Hype is what matters.

[stillcool]

78. rules matter...sometimes....

but you are correct in that hyping lies matters very much to some.

[scheming daemons]

56. Nope..... FL and MI are not part of the nominating process this year.... by their own hand....

...

[Romulox]

65. They may well play a part in nominating the next POTUS

if it's John McCain...:scary:

[dionysus]

57. nice try

[Hepburn]

61. Snore....

....what's next? A Rezko OP?

:eyes:

[kid a]

67. This post defines IRONY - rules? broken? funny stuff

[redsoxrudy]

69. This is so tired.

1. when a HRC supporter addresses the fact that their candidate said these results won't count I will take them seriously . Until then they will continue to change the subject and show how full of shit they really are.
2. people who make the argument that Iowa's and NH's stranglehold on being first should end are absolutely right. however you don't make the change right in the middle of a primary! I personally like the idea of a primary with 4 regional "super tuesdays" with the order changing every time, but i have seen other ideas that would work.
3.Just a matter of semantics, but it annoys the hell out of me when people claim to be disenfranchised when their primary is not counted. Primaries can be settled any way the party wants to, they could do it in a back room, they could have the candidates play darts or more to HRC's liking bowling. No one can take away your vote in a general election, that is the lone definition of disenfranchisement. So please stop looking so uninformed.

[graycem]

70. If the votes are so important..

Why can't they just be split 50/50? If they really wanted a solution to appease the voters in a really selfless manner, then they would take this option.

This reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTY_bp1dTA4&feature=related


:D

[stillcool]

72. There most definitely are "rules"...

Some people don't like them, and believe they can break them without consequences. Why is that?

[Romulox]

75. The same "RULEZ" say the SuperDelegates decide, and are not bound by the primary results

I've copied your post so everyone can refer to it when the supers decide that Michigan and Florida should be accounted for--I'm sure your words will quiet any whining or gnashing of teeth on the part of disappointed Obama supporters! :rofl:

[stillcool]

86. I believe that Florida and Michigan...

delegates will be seated. Hasn't it already been mathematically proven that even with those delegates Mrs. Clinton can not win? Please pass the post on. Facts are a wonderful thing.

[madfloridian]

76. That is not true at all. Could I get away with just posting stuff like that?

I doubt it.

How can you do that in good conscience.

[madrchsod]

79. you would`t post "this" in the first place

[paulk]

80. if Obama is the nominee , Florida and Michigan

will have to have been part of the process or many Democrats will not see his "win" as legit.

This will cause problems for him in the GE, rules or no rules.



Dean and the DNC have made a real mess of this...

[madfloridian]

88. SO....THAT'S how it is going to play from the Clinton campaign....Obama is not legit.

[paulk]

94. yeah, I'm connected to the Clinton campaign

:eyes:

[high density]

81. By the end of this...

Obama will probably be able to say "seat FL and MI as they are" and still have the lead in pledged delegates and popular vote.

[rodeodance]

84. you are right. Dean and Obama lawyers have dissed FL and MI.

[Vinca]

90. There were rules. They were broken. nt

[DefenseLawyer]

91. This isn't Nam, Smokey

There are rules.

[EnviroBat]

92. This thread is peppered with ignored s...

poor, ignorant, ignored s.

Sad and pathetic.

[CreekDog]

93. is his lead with an asterisk better than her trailing with an asterisk?

:eyes: