The Clinton's and Florida

[sidwill]

We have two SEPARATE issues here.

Issue #1 is wether or not the Florida Democratic Parties decision to hold an early primary was appropriately dealt with by the DNC. I can see both arguments and being a Fl. Dem I think the standoff could have been handled better by both parties. That said, the DNC made a decision and the candidates endorsed the decision by agreeing to not campaign in Florida.

Issue #2 the Clintons recent insistance that Fl basically "count" towards the nomination. Last night both Bill and Hill cryptically alluded to Florida as the next stop in the nomination process. This smacks of plain ole cheap politics. They see that Hil has a lead in the polls so NOW they change their mind and want it to count, it's like playing Monopoly with a 6 year old, they don't wanna pay the rent when they land on your railroad but they insist on it when you land on their spot. In other words rules or process mean nothing, only winning.

Now I know the rationale that they are floating out for this, which is some Obama ads airing on cable in Florida but it's already been shown that obama made regional cable buys and some of these runs ended up on cable and sattelite, he NEVER put together a solid effort or called for Florida's delegates to be counted.

This almost Nixonian/Atwaterish/Rovian outlook on politics is why I'm a Democrat in the first place and I will not only reject it from the right but also when it emanates from within our own party, otherwise we end up becoming what we fight aagainst.

[MH1]

1. "cryptically alluded to Florida"?

It wasn't cryptic at all, it was quite blatant.

Also it is a not-so-subtle way of cranking up free advertising in Florida by mentioning the state.

[Windy]

2. I am a michigan voter. I was disenfranchised. Hillary broke party rules

by remaining on the ballot. She CANNOT have those delegates seated. If Dean does this, he will LOSE democrats in Michigan and Florida.

This is more dirty politics from the Clintons. The leadership better not permit this atrocity which is what it will be!

[sidwill]

3. I have slightly different outlook on this

On one hand I wish that the state parties and the DNC could have peacefully and fairly worked this out, and I see the value of larger states like Fl and Meechigan (I know I just like to spell it this way, GO BLUE!) having a larger role earlier in the process, but a decision was rendered and candidates agreed to it.

To go back on that agreement now smacks of Republican political dirty tricks.

The irony here though is I think that it ultimately backfires on Bill and Hill as most thoughtful Dems (most of us) will reject this chintzy attempt at garnering cheap political capital.

[dmkinsey]

4. Michigan delegates will probably be seated at the convention

but remember that our delegates are awarded proportionally so the Michigan delegation will be split between Clinton and Obama.

[ihelpu2see]

5. Agreed, they should not be allowed to change the rules after the fact...nt

[liberalnurse]

7. Wrong....

To be off the ballot, the candidated must actually withdraw from the race itself....Media is most incorrect.

[Windy]

8. Excuse me. Barack Obama and John Edwards were NOT on the ballot in Michigan!

And they are still in the race. You continue to post things that are unsupported by facts!

Anyone who wanted to vote for a candidate who was not on the ballot had to vote uncommitted. Many dems stayed home as a result.

[K Gardner]

6. What I do not understand is why Howard Dean and the DNC have not spoken out on

this issue. It seems a blatant disregard for a previously made agreement - is dishonest and egregious on its face. It smacks of dirty politics, it smacks of cheating and unscrupulous campaign behavior. It seems to me that the DNC 'establishment' needs to take a stand and speak out on this. Anything the other campaigns say will only be ignored. And we already know the Clinton Machine cares nothing about public opinion or honesty.