DNC Chair Gov. Dean's failure - MI, FL Primary mess.
I liked Gov Dean when he ran in '04. But, I am quite disappointed in his management of Dem Primary in '08
As a DNC Chair he missed many opportunities to resolve the mess. We are at a point where the Democratic Nominee's legitimacy will be forever questioned without the
inclusion of two important states MI and FL. These two states have important Democartic voters. Labors, ethnic, Jewish, Hispanic, Black voters. Ignoring these voters in selecting your nominee when you considered thinly populated states like Utahs, Idhaho's, Dakotas in selecting your nominee doesn't make any sense.
1. RNC option. Why did Gov Dean use his judgment in atleast adopting RNC option of partial penalty.
2. Post Super Tuesday decision point: Why did Gov Dean
fail to realize that we will have close race for Nomination ?
He should have gotten both Sen. Obama & Sen. Clinton along with Speaker Pelosi, Sen. Read and forced a
reaonable resolution. His dislike of Sen. Clinton , perhaps,
influenced his thought process. Or is it that he wanted to favor Sen. Obama.
3. It is not too late. Come up with a plan to include MI & Fl. The goal is not to make either of the camps(C&O) happy. The goal is to do what is good for the party and the Dem voters. Without them, there will always be questions about the nomination process. We donot want the lingering questions about the legitimacy of the nominee.
Huh?
1. Dean didn't write the Rules Committee (IIRC, half of them are Clinton supporters and most of those are working on her campaign) wrote the rules. It was voted on and approved.
2. As DNC chair, all Dean needs to do is enforce the rules. Which he is.
3. Why would the DNC mimick the RNC? What's the point?
4. FL and MI were well aware of the rules before they set their dates. Leaders in the parties in both states expressed their disgust with IA and NH going first. There's a reason the primary season started so early. It was because of FL and MI moving their dates up.
All I get out of this is that you don't like the rules that were set by the Rules Committee and you want Dean to break them to enable the losing candidate. However, you fail to mention that the losing candidate didn't mind the rules until the night January 15th. In fact, in the days before MI voted, the losing candidate said it was clear that the MI primary was nothing but a beauty contest (stealing Sen. Biden's exact words he used in Oct. '07 for the same situation). And now we have a losing candidate who not only broke the 4 State Pledge (which is why NH is pissed at her), but wants the rules changed to fit her.
May 20, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What they would have gotten out of this is a way to a) penalize states for violating DNC rules regarding primary dates without b) being seen as disenfranchising voters in key swing states. Because yeah, Clinton's raising a ruckus about this, but she's not the only reason people are upset.
Just so we're clear: I was an ardent Clinton supporter (although I now think it's time for her to drop out), but I do NOT and have not supported changing the rules after the fact.
But the DNC rules goons pretty much set themselves up to fail on this one - the punishment they're having to inflict is going to hurt them as much as it hurts FL and MI.
May 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we just do what the Republicans did? Because Democrats operate under different rules, and bylaws. The candidates signed a pledge not to campaign or participate in any state that holds its primary before Iowa, N.H., South Carolina and Nevada.
The Obama campaign developed their entire strategy with this understanding. If they thought FL and MI were going to count, he would have campaigned fiercely there, as he did in North Carolina, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc.
To certify the outcome of these illegitimate primaries after the fact is ludicrous.
May 20, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. That any state moving their primary up before X would lose ALL their delegates? You need glasses before you re-read "The Rools".
2. If he was enforcing the rules, wouldn't 5 states have lost half of their delegates? That's how many states violated "The Rools" that you're talking about.
3. Why would the DNC mimick the RNC? What's the point? Give this a try. The republican plan left both states with some 'skin in the game' (delegates at stake) and allowed their candidates to CAMPAIGN IN TWO VERY IMPORTANT STATES FOR THE NOVEMBER ELECTION while Democrats were prohibited from making their cases to the voters of those states. Did the light bulb go on yet?
The dates of the primaries were set by state legislation and were overwhelmingly favored by the states' voters. You cannot ask legislators in those states to go against a voter feeling that they deserve as much of a voice in the nomination as great as IA and NH. More Democrats voted in just the FL primary than in the IA, NH, NV and SC contests combined. And the DNC decided to throw away both those states entirely. Stupid squared. Welcome to the 48 state strategy.
4. Why go on? The Rools say that Barry took two ass kickings in two important states but they don't count. Affirmative Action at its finest moment. But in taking the time to make sure they don't count, the party paused only long enough to offend the voters of those states to be sure we wouldn't get them in Nov. Obama supporters have helpfully reaffirmed that the voters didn't know what they were doing anyway if their votes did count. They were merely voting name recognition. The only real way to see the Barry Light was through stacked caucuses that suppressed votes.
You decided to go it alone with about half the party. OK.
May 21, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how Hillary and her crew were perfectly happy in "screwing over MI and FL" when they thought they didn't need them to get the nomination. Just ask Terry McAuliffe. It's only when they fell further behind that they did a 180 and started shedding crocodile tears for the mess they helped create.
Sorry, MI and FL wanted to overrepresent themselves in this primary process and are now paying the price. It's a shame for the voters in those states, and they should exact punishment from their local officials, not the Democratic nominee, Senator Obama.
If they'd simply held to their old primary dates, they'd have actually been important. It was only their greed that resulted in this mess.
May 20, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you let go of your feelings about the Clinton campaign long enough to realize that the decision to strip states of ALL of their delegates was a mistake?
May 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree it was a mistake, but think it's important to point out that it was not Dean's mistake to make.
The Rules and Bylaws Committee is (to the best of my knowledge) made up of the following individuals:
Co-Chairs
Alexis Herman (co-chair, Washington , D.C.)
James Roosevelt, Jr. (co-chair, Massachusetts)
Members
Donna Brazille (DC)
Mark Brewer (MI)
Ralph Dawson (NY)
Martha Fuller Clark (NH)
Hartina Flournay (DC)
Carol Khare Fowler (SC)
Donald Fowler (SC)
Yvonne Gates ( NV)
Alice Germond (DC) - DNC Secretary
Jaime Gonzalez, Jr. (TX)
Janice Griffin (MD)
Harold Ickes, Jr. (DC)
Alice Huffman (CA)
Thomas Hynes (IL)
Ben Johnson (DC)
Elaine Kamarck (MA)
Allan Katz (FL)
Eric Kleinfeld (DC)
David McDonald (WA)
Mona Pasquil (CA)
Mame Reiley (VA)
Jerome Wiley Segovia (VA)
Garry Shay (CA)
Elizabeth Smith (DC)
Michael Steed (MD)
Sharon Stroschein (SD)
Sarah Swisher (IA)
Everett Ward (NC)
As of May 15, 2008, the NYT said the following about the membership's allegiances:
To add on to the last part about the co-chairs, it's my understanding that they have both agreed not to endorse until the dispute is settled (ie, they will only endorse the declared nominee) but they would offer votes in the case of a tie.
The Rules and Bylaws Committee meets again on May 31st, where they will field two challenges to their prior decision. One challenge requests that all the delegates be seated with half a vote, or that half the delegates be seated with full votes.
Their decision on May 31st will be 'final', with the acception of appeals brought before the Convention Credentials Committee.
For information on the Convention Credentials Committee, I'll just link to Greg Sargent's guide to the CCC.
May 20, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it wasn't his mistake to make (although you'd think as party chair he might have had a leeetle bit of sway).
I'm not trying to rag on Howie, I just dread having the Dems decision on this come back to bite them.
May 20, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, just saying. People alternate between casting it as a DNC conspiracy or a decree made by Dean. The truth is that it was a crappy decision made by a committee without foresight. Not flattering any way you view it, but not exactly nefarious shady dealings.
May 20, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink