Just got a breaking news flash that the Democrats have agreed to seat all the FL and MI delegates and give them half the votes???

Seems fair to me. I think the states had to be punished for not following the rules, and this way all the delegates will have a vote, albeit not a full vote, so they can't say they were disenfranchised. CNN says even if each delegate had received a full vote, Clinton still would have trailed.

A pox on the Democratic National Committee and its arrogance and elitism!

Since when does any political party - Democratic, Republican, Green, Socialist, Whig, etc. - have the authority to tell any state when and how it is to conduct an election? It kinda reminds me of the Tudor TV series. States are the sovereign, not the folks who maintain offices at 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC. How and when a state wants to hold ANY election is not dependent on the wishes of some party committeepersons. It's the political party(ies)'s job to adjust to the state - not the other way around.

What if the Republicans, Greens etc. had done the same? The same would be true!

This argument that Florida "needs to be punished" for breaking "the rules" is balderdash. All that means is that Florida voters and legislators are to be considered peasants who need to do homage to the DNC royalty. That shoots a big hole in the projected image of being the "party of the people." They don't give a tinker's dam about "the people," and this proves it. The only thing that matters is "following the rules" as dictated from 430 S. Capitol St. What utter arrogance!

THIS IS THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. If the DNC, specifically the insiders at 430 S. Capitol St, can "control" how states do their sovereign business and "set the rules" for how and when elected governments can do things, and "punish" when "the rules" aren't followed by the people and their elected officials, what will it be like should the Democratic candidate win the U.S. Presidency? NOW WE HAVE BEEN SHOWN that elected Democrats fall a distant second to the commands of the DNC.

Please remember - the Florida legislature, including members of the Democratic Party, exercised their lawfully delegated authority to set the election date. In this matter - save two abstaining - the matter was unanimously decided.

For a couple of decades, until 2004 when work brought me to DC/Maryland, I was listed as an Independent in FL. After a year or so residing in Montgomery County, MD I registered to vote as a Democrat because of how well (overall) the elected leadership was running the county. In two weeks my back-and-forth commuting gets cut back to more manageable times as my retirement date approaches (almost there!), and I will re-register locally, but definitely as an Independent again.

Democratic National Committee - you had me and you lost me. I'm not a half-vote, for you or anyone else. You have shown you are only concerned with how much power you can gather at the boardroom within 430 S. Capitol St.

Whether the Democratic candidate is Sen. Obama or Sen Clinton, it no longer matters, as the REAL candidate is the Borg-like collection sitting at the 430 S. Capitol St conference table - and everyone else is a puppet.

The last time I checked, I haven't ceded any authority to anyone or any group housed at 430 S. Capitol St, and I will be &%@^#% if I accept any "punishment" from them for any action. So, out with a Democrat - back in as an Independent. Time to spit out the Kool-Aid.

Half-votes went out with the repeal of the poll tax.

Doesn't sound like Lil Dancer is looking at the situation with any logic. Why should the Democratic voters be punished in any way. The voters did nothing wrong except vote. Do what you want with the ones who changed the date but why should the voters of Florida and Michigan be punished??????????????

Originally Posted by Harry

Doesn't sound like Lil Dancer is looking at the situation with any logic. Why should the Democratic voters be punished in any way. The voters did nothing wrong except vote. Do what you want with the ones who changed the date but why should the voters of Florida and Michigan be punished??????????????

"Democratic" is defined as: Of or for the people in general, popular, Believing in or practicing social equality. Sure seems like the DNC sees the term "democratic" as a title of convenience versus a concept of being.

Originally Posted by Harry

Doesn't sound like Lil Dancer is looking at the situation with any logic.

I don't appreciate your comment. Surely we can make our points without insults. But I'm sure SteveZ will be stepping in. He's made it so clear that people are entitled to state their views without being criticised. In any event, consider these facts:

It was not supposed to be this way. To prevent this very problem - and to protect the practice of retail politicking in the traditional early-voting states - Dean and other party leaders established a nationwide schedule for primaries and caucuses, starting in January 2008. They designated Iowa as the first caucus state, along with newcomer Nevada. New Hampshire and South Carolina were approved for primaries soon afterward.

The DNC, trying to keep the selection process from being too front-loaded and thus stacked against candidates with smaller war chests, also adopted a rule saying no other state could hold a primary before Feb. 5. Obviously, we all won't agree on that rule. I personally think its a good idea, because sometimes you have good candidates that don't have the money, and they just need some time to get some momentum going.

I think the DNC is entitled to create any rules they feel that will make the contest more fair for their candidates. And once the rules are created, and the states know what they are, they should respect the party and abide by them. But in the case of Florida, the legislature, who happens to be Republican, and a Republican Governor wanted Florida to have more of a say as well as political leverage on Florida issues, so they disregarded the DNC's rule and pushed the legislation through knowing what the consequences would be.

So then, the Democrats were faced with the problem of what to do. To hold the primaries/caucuses over again was cost prohibitive. And, they didn't want to disenfranchise the voters. So they came up with this compromise.

The net result puts the Democrats on par with the Republicans in Florida who also lost half their delegates for moving up the primary.

Sorry, Steve, but I disagree. I see the DNC (and any other political party) as a club. A club has rules. The members have choices -- follow the rules, find a way to change the rules or leave. Florida and Michigan chose to break the rules and then whined when the DNC enforced the KNOWN consequences. Now, the DNC has come up with a compromise -- something they didn't have to do.

Why Florida and Michigan felt it was so important to vote earlier is beyond me. No matter when their election was, in a close race their vote would count. If it wasn't a close choice, it wouldn't matter when they voted -- the fair-haired party choice would be in regardless.

To me, it sounds like a bunch of egos screaming in the wind. A lot said, little done and who really cares?

Originally Posted by redwitch

Sorry, Steve, but I disagree. I see the DNC (and any other political party) as a club. A club has rules. The members have choices -- follow the rules, find a way to change the rules or leave. Florida and Michigan chose to break the rules and then whined when the DNC enforced the KNOWN consequences. Now, the DNC has come up with a compromise -- something they didn't have to do.

Why Florida and Michigan felt it was so important to vote earlier is beyond me. No matter when their election was, in a close race their vote would count. If it wasn't a close choice, it wouldn't matter when they voted -- the fair-haired party choice would be in regardless.

To me, it sounds like a bunch of egos screaming in the wind. A lot said, little done and who really cares?

Re;"egos screaming in the wind" did you hear Harold Ickey screaming after the decision? Boy, he sure is "ICKY"!!!!!

Originally Posted by Lil Dancer

But I'm sure SteveZ will be stepping in. He's made it so clear that people are entitled to state their views without being criticised.

It tough to be so predictable...... Criticised is okay, but being demeaned is another thing altogether.

Originally Posted by redwitch

Sorry, Steve, but I disagree. I see the DNC (and any other political party) as a club. A club has rules. The members have choices -- follow the rules, find a way to change the rules or leave. Florida and Michigan chose to break the rules and then whined when the DNC enforced the KNOWN consequences. Now, the DNC has come up with a compromise -- something they didn't have to do.

Why Florida and Michigan felt it was so important to vote earlier is beyond me. No matter when their election was, in a close race their vote would count. If it wasn't a close choice, it wouldn't matter when they voted -- the fair-haired party choice would be in regardless.

To me, it sounds like a bunch of egos screaming in the wind. A lot said, little done and who really cares?

Yep, you are right. it is a club, and clubs can have all sorts of rules. However, when the clubs tap into the public purse to fund what they want to call "club business," that's another matter. I guess I feel that "if it ain't your money, then it ain't your rules." The DNC didn't pony up a dime for the Florida Primary election, so complaining that Florida "didn't follow the DNC-mandated rules" was hypocritical.

The DNC had all the opportunity to have a non-taxpayer-funded Democratic-only primary if it wasn't satisfied how the FL taxpayers had it set up - but just wouldn't put its money where its mouth was.

Again, it just shows that it doesn't matter who the candidate is - the candidate is a puppet with the DNC pulling the strings, now and after the election no matter how the election ends. How "democratic!"