Daily Kos

Super Tuesday Part III: A way out of this mess?

Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:56:45 PM PDT

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a rabid Barack Obama supporter who has been very unhappy with Hillary's behavior as of late.  With that said, I am still a staunch Democrat who will vote for our nominee regardless of whom that might be in November.  Most of us who frequent this site fall into that category.  Given the fact that John McCain would continue our current policy of endless war and further swing our Supreme Court to the right, the stakes are simply too high to even consider not voting for the Democratic nominee.  As someone whose primary concern is making sure that we win in November regardless of our nominee is, the thoughts of a bitterly contested primary continuing on through June and even possibly into the Democratic convention makes me cringe.  Remember 1968, 1972, and 1980?  We really don't want to go there.  So if I were in Howard Dean's shoes I would do the following:

First, I would announce a major reshuffling of the remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses tommorow.  In particular, I would allow the Wyoming caucuses and the Mississippi primary to go forward as scheduled, but the remaining primaries would all occur on April 22, 2008.  In addition to all of the remaining primaries and caucuses holding their votes on this day, I would announce that both Michigan and Florida will have a re-vote on those days as well.  The media would no doubt dub this day Super Tuesday III.  Given the fact that this is more than a month and half away, there would be more than enough time for the campaigns to adjust to this new schedule, and the national and local parties would have more than enough time to set up these votes.  Ending this thing in late April rather than June or on the convention floor would help by giving us time to unify our party around our nominee.

Second, next Wednesday (after the Mississippi primary), I would hold a meeting with both Senator Clinton and Obama in private in order to set a few ground rules.  Howard Dean should demand that both of these candidates stay positive towards each other as much as possible and to focus their attacks on John McCain.  When the candidates do point out differences between themselves, they should always highlight the fact that even though they may have slight differences with each other, those differences pale in comparison when compared to the differences between their positions and the positions of John McCain.  He should also get them to enter into an agreement that whomever has won the majority (or plurality in the event that the delegate count is closer than 27) of pledged delegates after all of the votes are cast on Super Tuesday III should concede.  After all, with legitimate votes from Florida and Michigan included in the tally, there really isn't any excuse to not recognize the candidate with the most popularly elected pledged delegates as the nominee.  Finally, he should get them to agree that whomever loses the nomination and concedes will be the Vice Presidential Candidate in order to bring this party back together and put an end to this bickering.

Anyway, that's my proposal.  So what do you all think?  I am particularly interested in getting feedback from Hillary's supporters.

Tags: Super Tuesday III, Clinton, Obama, unifying the party (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 22 comments

  •  Please take this seriously (0+ / 0-)

    I like a lot of other Ind.'s that I have talked to say that if Hillary is nominated by the Dem.'s they just might vote for McCain. It is Ind.'s that can turn an election and I don't think that the Dem.'s really want to lose us.

  •  The problem with this is.... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    John Poet

    ...that Dean can't change the voting dates of the remaining states.  It is up to the states (if a primary) or the state parties (if a caucus).  Dean can only try to persuade (remember Michigan and Florida?)

  •  What's the Hurry? (0+ / 0-)

    Sit back, relax and let things take their course.  This is still early from a historical perspective.

    •  Yeah, I remember some history! (0+ / 0-)

      1968, 1972, & 1980!  We can't afford a brokered convention, or even dissention going into our convention!  And this doesn't "hurry things up."  Hell it gives us another month and a half of this.

  •  This is silly. The DNC doesn't have the control. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    John Poet

    It would be a logistical nightmare. These things don't just happen. There's a fair degree of planning involved. Once the party and the states set the schedule, it doesn't change.

    •  Well the nightmare is going to happen if we don't (0+ / 0-)

      get organized and do something like this.  I can guarantee you that if it was the GOP in the same situation, they would find a way to resolve this without tearing apart their party!  We simply can't afford a brokered convention, and we have to do what is necessary to make sure that it doesn't happen, period!

      I disagree, and believe that this is a realistic framework.  You say that this is a logistical nightmare, but no one seems to think that currently unscheduled re-votes in Michigan and Florida would be "logistical nightmares."  We're talking about over one and one half months to put this together; surely to God we can do that for this sake of this party and more importantly for the sake of this great nation, which can't afford another four years of Republican rule!

  •  Logistically... (0+ / 0-)

    you cannot just move a state's primary on an idea or a whim...especially up...it takes a lot of resources and planning for the state (and budgeted money)

    I think whoever gets over 2025 or 2200 with FL/MI re-vote including super-delegates should be the presidential nominee and the other should be the VP...JMHO

    Full disclosure...I voted for Hillary but only because I have been an early supporter of a "Dream Ticket"...I support both candidates equivalently

    Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:24:45 PM PDT

    •  Well I can tell you that if the Super Delegates (0+ / 0-)

      overturn the will of the people, a lot of new voters that Obama has brought into the party will simply not vote in November, or worse yet vote for McCain.  Allowing the Supers to decide this is a recipe for disaster.  And if legitimate results from Florida and Michigan are included (i.e. results after both candidates have had a chance to campaign their and actually have their name on the ballot) then Hillary doesn't have any excuse not to accept the primary results as they are.

      The above framework avoids such a scenario, and I'm sorry but I don't buy the "logistical nightmare" argument, especially when the primary is more than 1 1/2 months away.  By the same argument redoing the votes in Michigan and Florida is also a "logistical nightmare" but no one is citing that as a reason not to allow a revote.  What's the difference?

      •  But under the rules... (0+ / 0-)

        yes the rules...the totals were to include super-delegates who were designed to vote as they see fit...so are we changing the rules now...just to avoid an electoral disaster (as you put it...i do not buy that POV)???

        Re-vote in MI and FL were always allowed under the rules...all I am saying is follow the rules...whereever it leads us...

        Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

        by dvogel001 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:40:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No you can't have it both ways. (0+ / 0-)

          If you are going to follow ALL of the rules, then we leave Florida and Michigan as is and they don't count, period!  Both candidates agreed to that at the outset.  That's why neither candidate campaigned in Florida, and why Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.  However, I am willing to acknowledge that excluding Michigan and Florida from the process is a stupid rule that could really hurt us in November.  But it is also a ridiculous rule that allows the "superdelegates" to overturn the will of the American people.  Are you so partisan toward Hillary that you can't acknowledge that?  Are you so partisan that you can't understand the damage that would be done to our party (and vicariously our nation) if we allowed the will of the people to be thwarted by party big wigs?  

          •  Why... (0+ / 0-)

            The DNC specifically said that FL and MI could have their delegates back if they scheduled another contest after the other contests and that only the contest before Super Tuesday would not count...why should we not follow that rule????  I saw the awful hearings last summer and they specifically told FL and MI that they could schedule another contest after Super Tuesday to seat the delegates...but if the only contest they hold is before Super Tuesday - no delegates...

            I am not partisan towards Hillary but I am:

            1. Partial towards the original reason that super-delegates were part of the process
            1. Have for 2 months now supported a "Dream Ticket" of Hillary/Barack or Barack/Hillary
            1. I do not view the super-delegates as overturning the will of the people...they should consider various factors including # of delegates, state popular vote, national popular vote, recent polling, national trends, swing state trends, 50-state strategy issues and local CD political considerations

            Peace...Go Democrats!!!

            Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

            by dvogel001 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:55:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  If Clinton (0+ / 0-)

    Bill that is were any kind of a real man, his own man, he would have dropped the sanctions against Iraq during his admin. We, (the U.S.) put Saddam in power and asked him to go to war with Iran where Iraq lost 1 million soldiers in the the war. All Saddam wanted to do with Kuwait was to be able to ship Iraqi oil to the world market to help Iraq get back on it's feet again, (financially) when it had to borrow some 40 billion dollars to fight Iran. When Saddam asked Kuwait to forgive some of the debt (dollars they had to borrow), some 4 billion dollars, Kuwait basically told him to go to hell. Saddam, and the Iraqi's had just fought a war to save the whole middle east, including Israel, from Iranian domination in the middle east. Would it have been a crime for Saddam to get Iraqi oil on the world market and lower world oil prices? I don't think so. Just ask anyone that is paying 3 plus dollars a gallon for gas and looking at 4 dollars a gallon.

    In my opinion the U.S. hung the wrong man. We should have hung Bush the "Bitch." A vote for Clinton is a vote for the "same old same old."

Permalink | 22 comments