A Modest Proposal - with apologies to J Swift

I have been thinking all morning about this idea, and I wanted some feedback. Now, as background, FL/MI broke the DNC rules by voting early. This early vote netted Sen. H.Clinton more delegates than Sen. B.Obama. The Clinton campaign has decided to contest that these delegates should be seated as is in Denver. The Obama campaign has demurred to this point to the DNC, as I think it should. However, a groundswell of 'grassroots' support in both states has made it quite likely that something needs to be done to seat the delegates in some form.

Now, MI is close to a revote but FL isn't. Some ideas have been floated around about cutting FL delegates in half, and seating them thus. This would give Clinton 19 delegates rather than 38. The Clinton campaign is adamant that a revote occur or the delegates be seated as is. I think that the Obama campaign is hedging on this because, of course, it is not to their advantage to give up delegates.

However, I think it would be in the best interest to the Obama campaign to decide now, or soon to allow for the full seating of the FL delegation. Not only would this be a magnanimous gesture of goodwill, it would do a number of things to boost the campaign:

1. It would show that the Obama campaign is not afraid of a few delegates. The 38 is a little over half of what they picked up this weekend in Iowa and CA. They are not lacking for delegate strength.

2. Now, setting aside the  popular vote argument, you have just taken a major, costly state out of play again (which worked to his advantage the first time). Why compete in FL and MI? Obama is more likely to pick up delegates in MI, and at half the cost!

3. Gets rid of court challenges. Like the one that came up today here. Litigation is bad, I think, because it keeps bringing up Florida 2000. Plus it adds uncertainty...

4. Gets rid of uncertainty. This is what is powering the Clinton campaign now. Taking away FL would stamp out some of the self-righteousness too.

5. Edward's delegates. Remember, Edwards was on the ballot in FL, and was awarded delegates. These are up for grabs, and Iowa showed that they probably will lean  towards Obama. Especially when a gesture like this is made.

6. The Clinton campaign can spin it like they won and portray Obama as weak, but it would appear that Obama is above politics. Especially if he doesn't make hay outta it.

I probably sound naive, but I think that it would be in Obama's best interest to deal with this as efficiently as possible. If MI decides to revote, then seat FL all in.

•  tip/pint jar?

  by drjknock on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:56:12 AM PDT

•  I guess I'm naive, too,

  because I agree with most of what you're saying.  Accepting the results would be a healing gesture from the Obama camp.  

  But doesn't there need to be some consequence to Florida jumping the gun on the primary?  

  Is there a way to seat the pledged delegates while only giving the super delegates a half vote each?

  by Dewey Kneadleeders on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:36:37 AM PDT

  •  the way FL has been sold...

    The problem with FL, versus MI is that people can say with some legitimacy that it wasn't the Democrats fault that the FL primary was early. I would argue that the Dems could have had a caucus later in the year, like Wyoming did (of course, the numbers of people who would caucus between the two states would have been an order of magnitude greater in FL). I think that Obama needs to discuss it with the DNC before he does agree to seat the delegates, but it has been successfully spun into a disenfranchisement issue now (especially since the Republicans are now seating all the delegates). Soon after the election, the primary system needs to be re-evaluated to prevent this event from happening again, but it would be in everyone's best interest to just rid ourselves of the issue.

    I know that FL is an issue now because Clinton needs it. It never would have been an issue if there was a quick nomination, so the disenfranchisement issue is cynical politicking.

    I am a firm believer that if the SDs were stripped of votes, the Clinton complaints would continue. Silence it now, and there is nothing but smooth sailing (until the Texas caucus litigation begins)

    by drjknock on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:47:37 AM PDT

•  Don't seat any of them.

  Rules are rules.  Maybe a good swift kick in the butt will for a change convey the idea that the Democratic Party is disciplined.  The Rethugs would never give in to Hillarymail.  Why should the Dems?  

  by djohnutk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:55:58 AM PDT

•  I think no...

  Clinton's campaign won't just spin it like they won, if the concession to seat the delegates comes directly from Obama they'll spin it like a white flag of surrender, and too many people will believe it and start to imagine that Obama's "behind", "losing" and "giving up".

  For me, a revote would be fine. With time to actually campaign, Obama will win over most of the former Edwards voters, plus more than his original support base.

  The way I understand it, though, it really isn't up to the candidates anyway (no matter how magnanimous they decide to be).  It's up to the DNC.  

  by delillo2000 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:00:17 AM PDT