Those poor Florida Democrats

To hear the Clinton campaign and Florida Democrats tell it, they were innocent bystanders to their state's GOP in deciding to move their election date up prior to their sanctioned slot in the calendar.

The reality is much different:

That's the Florida Senate Democratic minority leader Steven Geller overtly pretending to object to the new calendar, laughing about it the whole time.

Geller: The chair of the Democratic National Committee has of coursed threatened that if we move the primary to before the first Tuesday in February that they will sanction us at the Democratic National Convention. So the Democratic leader and the Democratic leader pro-tem are jointly making this motion, which we will duly show to them later, that we tried not to have the election before the first Tuesday in March.

Chair: And so Sen. Geller are you urging a negative vote or would you like us to pass this vote?

Geller [laughing]: Oh no sir, we really really want this, don't we senator?

Chair: I understand. Please don't throw me into the bramble bush.

They were mocking the DNC's calendar and its rules from the beginning. This wasn't a Democratic Party dragged along by a malicious GOP. Florida Democrats wanted their state earlier in the calendar.

•  Those video cameras are beeoytch!!!! nm

  by christomento on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:06:52 PM PDT

  •  I would answer...

    but I'm too busy dodging sniper fire.

    by filmgeek83 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:07:48 PM PDT

    •  The cable news pundits should play this video

      Every time the Clinton folks try to insist that Obama is "disenfranchising" Florida, or that it was the Republican plan to move the primary, the cable TV networks should play this video.

      It shows that Florida Democrats were right there playing along in the whole charade.

      by existenz on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:14:19 PM PDT

      •  Yes, yes, pity those poor, disenfranchised...

        ...Floridians.

        Texans who voted against me, however? Fuck'em. Let's waste an entire day of their time and see if they're still supporting Obama by the end of the day.

        Thanks one more time, Hills, for a fun, fun Saturday. Just so you know, my anger isn't going away, it's picking up steam....

        by Melody Townsel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:18:43 PM PDT

        •  Exactly n/t

          by stevej on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:22:21 PM PDT

          •  Disenfranchising voters in 2 key states = DUMB!

            Howard Dean has turned this entire primary into a total fiasco.  He made the hot-headed and unprecedented decision to strip MI and FL voters of their right to participate in the primary.  George Bush got appointed President because Florida voters were disenfranchised.  Why are going back down that road?  What did the Democratic voters of Michigan and Florida ever do to deserve this?  The voters' rights are paramount.  If they aren't heard, any candidate the Democrats choose will be tainted.

            by Timothy McIntyre on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:49:20 PM PDT

            •  The states' legislatures

              did this to their voters, not the DNC.

              by pattyp on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:52:08 PM PDT

              •  Obama is the DNC darling

                This primary is an old fashioned DNC vs DLC matchup.  Obama and the old-guard DNC (left-wing liberals) on one side, and the moderate-centrist DLC (Clinton) on the other.  That is the key subtext that everyone is missing.

                by Timothy McIntyre on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:54:12 PM PDT

                •  Ha! I laugh at your attempts to label...

                  the DNC as the "old guard" and the DLC as the fresh new wave of the future. I mean, seriously. LOL

                  by Melody Townsel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:05:43 PM PDT

                  •  It's the truth problem agin. nt

                    by lgcap on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:21:50 PM PDT

                  •  You're the ones who are fetishizing the rules.

                    I won't use the M word, but it sure looks like you who defend the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan because of a rule that ran afoul of Murphy's Law. (If anything can go wrong, it will.)

                    by Judge Moonbox on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:33:58 PM PDT

                    •  Fetishizing the rules? Not me.

                      Just pointing out the abject fucking hypocrisy of the Clinton camp's public hand-wringing over disenfranchisement even as they worked overtime to fuck over Texas voters.

                      Her stand has nothing to do with the actual voters and everything to do with the desired results.

                      Hypofuckingcrite.  

                      by Melody Townsel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:47:24 PM PDT

                      •  I'm just glad that it is late

                        enough that we can use the words that are now prohibited during the day.

                        by lgcap on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:55:24 PM PDT

                        •  Obama won the Texas primary.

                          You may not like it, but them's the rules -- and, as you point out, they've been the rules for decades. And Hillary KNEW those rules.

                          Oh, wait. Here's where you're going to accuse me again of "fetishizing the rules," right? Because, as a man of principle, you would have voted during Step 1 but, as a form of pointed protest, skipped Step 2? Riiighhhhtttt.

                          The reason Obama won the caucus part of the two-step? Because the Republicans who crossed party lines to vote for Hillary -- and by all estimates, they  made up as much as 10 percent of the votes taken by HRC -- didn't show for the March 4 caucuses. Could have. Didn't.

                          My precinct went, in fact, for HRC, who took more delegates in my precinct. One of only three precincts where that happened in Dallas county. In my precinct, every single HRC delegate showed. So on Saturday, they were in the driver's seat for our precinct.

                          By the end of the day, though, they, too, were disgusted with the legal dog-and-pony show HRC put us all through on Saturday.

                          My sig, by the way, is a quote from Homer Simpson, and not "hypofuckingcrite," a term I'm reserving for Hillary, the woman who destroyed a precious weekend day with my third-grader for this single mother.

                          As for Michigan and Florida, I'm not really sure what the right answer is. I just know that the "disenfranchisement" argument is a pile of steaming bullshit, coming from HRC.

                          by Melody Townsel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:08:30 PM PDT

                          •  Melody, thanks to tireless

                            supporters (of ANY candidate) like you, I am loving how life is such a b*tch for these hypocrites. Hearing about Obama DEFEATING the Clintons in the TX primacaucus and then the alert blogger catching the arithmetic error in the MS official tally, widening Obama's lead by 2 delegates, has made my day.

                            Once again, THANK YOU. And thanks to all the folks in TX who endured the shenanigans of the Clintons last Saturday.

                            by MAORCA on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:29:37 PM PDT

                            •  Don't thank me, thank Obama.

                              He's inspired me, and I'm a cynical pain in the ass.

                              Si se puede. Si se fucking puede!

                              by Melody Townsel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:36:20 PM PDT

                      •  And yours isn't???

                        even as they worked overtime to fuck over Texas voters.

                        Remind me again, who won the Texas primary? I'm aware that the Texas Two-Step has been around for decades, and that the caucusgoers had not had to obey the primary voters. However, now that people are saying that the Superdelegates are obligated for once to follow the majority rule, I think that you would want the caucusgoers whose state voters have set their mandate to obey the same rules as the Supes.

                        Her stand has nothing to do with the actual voters and everything to do with the desired results.

                        I haven't seen one word that would make your stand any different.

                        Hypofuckingcrite.

                        Lovely sig.

                        by Judge Moonbox on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:56:56 PM PDT

                        •  lucicrous comparison

                          The Texas caucus didn't overturn the vote, it was part of it.

                          I haven't seen one word that would make your stand any different.

                          Liar.

                          by Uberbah on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:31:25 PM PDT

                      •  That's Hill-o-fucking-crit. EOM

                        by berkelbees on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:45:15 PM PDT

                    •  I know you are,

                      but what am I?

                      by Krum on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:51:21 PM PDT

                      •  An irritant. Who clearly didn't have 18 hours...

                        ...sucked out of his -- or his child's -- life over bullshit Clinton credentials challenges that had no chance of passing muster.

                        But, whatever.

                        by Melody Townsel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:57:05 PM PDT

                        •  Sorry

                          Didn't mean to strike your gong.

                          by Krum on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:16:57 PM PDT

                    •  just think...

                      if there was half as much noise then as we are getting now then maybe this whole mess could have been resolved before we even started with the first vote!!!

                      Hypocrites, and for this she will win the election?

                      This is the experience that America needs?

                      by OH NOT AGAIN on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:22:27 AM PDT

                  •  And I laugh with you! ;-) n/t

                    by pattyp on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:42:28 PM PDT

                •  Now that Dean's in charge of the DNC

                  they can hardly be called the Old Guard. Besides, plenty of DNC members are Clinton/DLC supporters.

                  by pattyp on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:17:12 PM PDT

                •  The DLC and the RNC

                  fax each other talking points in the morning to make sure they match. The DLC may be new, but it isn't better.

                  by lgcap on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:24:09 PM PDT

                •  I can't tell.....

                  by OH NOT AGAIN on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:20:34 AM PDT

                •  You think Dkos posters

                  are unaware of the DLC undermining of the DNC and grassroots party activists?

                  Didn't think you were that new in town.

                  by boadicea on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:58:01 AM PDT

                  •  This poster remembers the DLC, all right.

                    ::thinks back to 2003 primary season::

                    ::laughs::

                    ::cries::

                    ::laughs::

                    ::cries::

                    ::throws up::

                    by PomperaFirpa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:23:32 PM PDT

              •  Was the DNC an innocent bystander???

                However you treat the evidence that it was the Republicans who pushed the state legislatures, the only way you can deny that the DNC has free will is to say that everything is predestined--that each flap of the butterfly's wings is part of God's plan.

                I have not seen anyone cite the part of the Constitution that gives the parties the authority to tell the states when they can have their primaries and caucuses.

                However good an idea it may have seemed when the rules were set; you have to admit that they were assuming that the nomination would be sewn up without the delegations. I've asked a few times if people thought the rule was so important that if we lose because of Florida and Michigan in November, they'd say that they won't regret enforcing the rule.

                As it is, this shows inflexibility on the part of the rule's defenders. I shudder to think if you found that the only way to avert an international crisis was to disregard another, more obviously foolish, rule. What's really strange is that I haven't even seen anyone say they'd still defend the DNC if it was Obama who won the Florida primary.

                by Judge Moonbox on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:30:49 PM PDT

                •  I would defend the DNC's decision

                  no matter who won FL's primary. The states are entitled to have primaries/caucuses how and when they wish, but the DNC sets the primary schedule months ahead of time and has the right to penalize states who don't follow it. Keep in mind that DNC members are also members of state parties, and those members created and almost unanimously agreed to the DNC's primary schedule plan. FL and MI were well aware they'd lose delegates by holding early primaries, and they didn't care, as long as they assumed they'd only lose half their delegates. They took a risk, and unfortunately for the residents of those states, they lost. Also, FL's Dems were on board with the Repubs from the beginning about setting the early primary, as the video Kos posted clearly shows. In addition, it was a Dem senator, Jeremy Ring, who was the sole sponsor of the Senate bill to move FL's primary to Jan. 29. Does this sound like FL's Dems made any serious attempt to stick with the agreed-upon primary schedule? Honestly, does anyone really believe Howard Dean is stupid enough to pull all the state's delegates if this debacle was solely the fault of the state GOP? Seriously!

                  by pattyp on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:41:26 PM PDT

                  •  Every rule has a cost to enforce it.

                    The states are entitled to have primaries/caucuses how and when they wish, but the DNC sets the primary schedule months ahead of time and has the right to penalize states who don't follow it.

                    Who gave them that right? If you seriously think you can defend the DNC decision, you should include that info.

                    They took a risk, and unfortunately for the residents of those states, they lost.

                    We are taking a risk, and unfortunately for the whole World, we could lose.

                    Honestly, does anyone really believe Howard Dean is stupid enough to pull all the state's delegates if this debacle was solely the fault of the state GOP? Seriously!

                    Raw brainpower isn't enough to insure correct decisions. You'll need more than Dean's IQ to impress me.

                    by Judge Moonbox on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:01:11 PM PDT

                    •  Er

                      I'm guessing the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee gave themselves the "right." It's their job to enforce such things, after all.

                      by pattyp on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:16:18 PM PDT

                      •  Under the DNC rules ...

                        If a state legislature moves an election date to conflict with the DNC's schedule, then its up to the state party to come up with an alternative.  

                        I think there's even some leniency built in if the state party can show that they actively fought the decision to move the election date, but FL's dems didn't do that nor could they come up with a Plan B.

                        by meowmissy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:42:16 AM PDT

                    •  HAHAHA!!

                      Listen, "Judge":

                      Even a 5-year old understands:

                      RULES

                      ARE

                      RULES.

                      by MAORCA on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM PDT

                      •  Because if they don't enforce them..

                        then next time the frickin' primary will begin in 2009 .  If Dean and the Rules committee don't stand up to the shenanigans of Michigan and Florida, then there will be such a rush to be first that your head will spin in the next election and this one will look like a cake walk.  Dean MUST hold the line and punish, in some way, Florida and Michigan, AS HILLARY AGREED IN ADVANCE, if there is to be any semblance of order in the future. Otherwise there is simply anarchy.

                        by Former Chicagoan Now Angeleno on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:40:19 PM PDT

                        •  And if the DNC decision stands, all will be well?

                          I really think we need to move to a federal amendment to establish either one national or a few regional primaries. The system is broken, and it would still have been a mess if Super Tuesday picked one winner.

                          Dean MUST hold the line and punish, in some way, Florida and Michigan, AS HILLARY AGREED IN ADVANCE, if there is to be any semblance of order in the future. Otherwise there is simply anarchy.

                          I did set a test of sincerity, and you haven't answered it. Are you prepared to say, "even if it elects McCain..."? I don't see how inflexibility in the face of bankrupt assumptions is a virtue.

                          by Judge Moonbox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:44:41 PM PDT

                      •  Are you prepared to lose on that?

                        Even a 5-year old understands:

                        RULES
                        ARE
                        RULES.

                        Can you vouch for 5-year olds' comprehension of ill-considered legislation? Lawrence Kohlberg wrote of people's stages of moral development. By his paradigm, your 5-year old would be a state 1, "Only self and norm are recognized." That kid would say that Heinz should not steal the drug even though his wife will die; because the Law is the Law. I had hoped that most people here would have grown out of that phase.

                        by Judge Moonbox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:37:19 PM PDT

                •  Too clever by half.

                  I have not seen anyone cite the part of the Constitution that gives the parties the authority to tell the states when they can have their primaries and caucuses.

                  There's also nothing in the Constitution that gives voters the right to participate in a primary.  Legally speaking, the DNC could just name a candidate arbitrarily (although I'm glad we don't do that).

                  If states want their primaries to be sanctioned by the DNC, they have to follow DNC rules.  It's the same principle that guides any other organization within the United States.

                  by RoscoeOfAlabama on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:52:33 PM PDT

                  •  Amen.

                    I support the decision because it is the Democrat Party's right to set the dates of the Democrat Primary. The thing people like to expose is some kind of indignant anger over being slighted.  They were not slighted they knew last fracking summer that if they moved it up they would be punished.

                    I do not think it is anyone other than those 2 respective states' fault that they lost their delegates.  Regardless of who won the result is the same.

                    Let's just suppose..... Suppose they allow them to have their delegates, since this type of primary season is an abberation to the normal season, what or who would be able to stop say Alabama from moving up next year, then another state moving up, until we have every frackin state trying to move up their primary so that they would get courted by next election's candidates.  Let us not forget why they chose to move up in the first place.
                     
                     Just my 2 cents give me 23 more and we could get a quarter for it.
                     

                    by wargolem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:01:20 PM PDT

                  •  Not quite ...

                    If states want their primaries to be sanctioned by the DNC, they have to follow DNC rules.

                    No, if the state party wants their primaries to be sanctioned by the DNC, they have to follow the DNC rules.  The DNC rules state that if a legislature moves its election date to a day that conflicts with the rules, then the state party must then come up with an alternative date that meets the rules.

                    by meowmissy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:52:22 AM PDT

                    •  Which the state party didn't do.

                      Thus, no delegates for them.

                      by RoscoeOfAlabama on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:46:26 AM PDT

                      •  yep ...

                        of course, the state party doesn't have the money to pay for an alternative date ...

                        by meowmissy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:03:45 PM PDT

                        •  Which is why

                          the Dems in the Florida state legislature were idiots for not fighting the Republican's early primary plan.

                          by RoscoeOfAlabama on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:21:05 PM PDT

              •  Legally, this is how it works

                The state, under the U.S. Constitution, has the right to set its own election dates.

                Private organizations, such as political parties, can also set their own rules and schedules for elections.

                However, private organizations cannot force a state to pay for an election.

                So, it was up to the Florida Democratic Party to come up with an alternative to a primary and pay for it themselves.  

                They didn't believe the DNC would enforce the rules and they didn't have enough money to pay for a separate election if the DNC did.

                by meowmissy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:37:53 AM PDT

            •  Watch the fucking video asshole

              All they had to do is show good faith. They had none.

              by lgcap on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:52:39 PM PDT

              •  Howard Dean has screwed this up royally

                The draconian decision to disenfranchise FL and MI voters will come back to haunt the party in November and will taint any nominee the party chooses.  I don't care if the video showed Florida officials wearing party hats and spray-painting "Screw the DNC" on the podium: it still doesn't make voter disenfranchisement anywhere CLOSE to being the proper remedy.

                by Timothy McIntyre on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:58:24 PM PDT

                •  It also doesn't make it Dean's fault.

                  The Florida Dem leadership screwed their constituents.  That's where the blame lies no matter how long you keep your fingers in your years and shout LALALALA.

                  by CJB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:05:40 PM PDT

                  •  Protest double standard.

                    The Florida Dem leadership screwed their constituents.  That's where the blame lies no matter how long you keep your fingers in your years and shout LALALALA.

                    So what makes it okay for you to play that childish game??? Do you think you can "shout LALALALA" throughout the McCain presidency???? We have a real problem on our hands, and scapegoating one side WILL NOT SOLVE ANYTHING!

                    by Judge Moonbox on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:38:55 PM PDT

                    •  Explain how anyone .....

                       With half a brain thinks this is disenfranchising voters?  It makes me feel like we are stuck in a Weekend Update Really?!?! skit where every time you say we are disenfrancising people i want to go "Really?  Oh Really?"  because how many people in Michigan, a state with a large African American population, would feel disenfranchised if you counted their delegation as is, since Barack Obama was not even on the fracking ballot.  Just how many people would that disenfranchise /incoming sarcasm   "oh great and glorious man of the people"?

                      by wargolem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:06:23 PM PDT

                    •  There is no double standard.

                      What has happened to the Democrats of Florida is the fault of their state leadership.

                      That is a fact.  I don't give a shit who anyone thinks this "benefits".  

                      The Florida Democratic leadership fucked the Dems of Florida.  And they should be voted out of office for that.  If they had left the Florida primary where it was PRIOR to the 2006 "ha ha, let's screw with the DNC" mess-up, they could have been king makers.  Instead, they made sure that the votes of the Democrats of Florida were worthless.  

                      Blame where blame is due.  The ,leaders of the Democratic Party of Florida should be stripped of there office and replaced.

                      by CJB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:05:49 PM PDT

                      •  My anger goes toward...

                        the elected Democrats in Florida also, even though they had no power to make a difference in the vote.  Their arrogance toward Howard Dean and the Party rules is what got us into this mess.  Had they shown any humility and/or serious effort to keep the date from being changed, the Party wouldn't have been so harsh.

                        BTW, I've heard the two biggest advocates for those brutal sanctions were Alexis Herman and Donna Brazile, not Howard Dean.

                        by Susan S on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:35:20 AM PDT

                        •  Your statement is an absolute falsehood

                          No matter how many times it is repeated it will never become true.

                          The Florida Democrats had to demonstrate that they acted in good faith to stop the early primary. If there is even the tiniest bit of doubt that they assisted the Republicans, rather than opposed them, it is dispelled by the video. For some reason, even when the truth is right before people's eyes, they still deny it.

                          by lgcap on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:52:36 AM PDT

                          •  Do you think Geller was seriously trying

                            to change the date to comply with the DNC rules?

                            by Susan S on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:32:54 AM PDT

                            •  No, I don't. nt

                              by lgcap on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:21:48 PM PDT

                              •  So why is my statement a falsehood?

                                Don't we agree?

                                by Susan S on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:45:25 PM PDT

                  •  Don't Feed the Troll

                    Look at his posts. McIntyre is a Hillary Troll and probably a paid one.

                    People like him make me hate her more than ever.

                    by Anthony Segredo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:24:07 AM PDT

                •  Enough already

                  There will be a huge blow-back if Clinton gets to set aside the rules as well.

                  The myth that this only cuts one way is the most irritating part of the effective Clinton spin on the matter

                  by lgcap on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:08:57 PM PDT

                •  Because You Say So

                  But you're a hypocrite. Your moral pronouncements and predictions are meaningless. Your judgement of Dean is coming from someone who will say anything to avoid guilt for Clinton, anything to see Clinton get the nomination. Which is of course what we've now come to expect from Clinton and you Clintonistas.

                  We also expect that you will blame your own worst flaws on anyone but yourselves. So of course you need to pin your fears that the nation will turn on you in November, because Clinton is hated on both sides of the aisle now, on someone else. Howard Dean is just a convenient target. No mention of any guilt by your Florida politicians who made their decision to break the rules, knowing the consequences.

                  by DocGonzo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:20:25 PM PDT

                •  Uprated for ratings abuse

                  I'm one of Howard Dean's biggest fans, but when "Watch the fucking video asshole" isn't hidden, and the post I'm replying to (which is an opinion, you're free to disagree with it) is hidden, it's ratings abuse.

                  Grow up, folks. Not everyone agrees with you 100% of the time.

                  by Timbuk3 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:36:21 PM PDT

                •  If rules mean nothing, then there is no party.

                  If a political clown chooses to mock the rules of the national party, then effectively there are no rules, if other clowns don't feel like following them.

                  Doesn't that remind you of somebody?

                  BushCo.

                  by jimbo92107 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:53:28 PM PDT

              •  For people all hot about the RULES

                it sure is funny that someone who expresses their opinion gets HR'd and someone who breaks the RULES by calling other kossacks assholes gets 10 high-fives. What a joke this site has become. It is complete mob RULES.

                HR'd lgcap, for breaking the RULES.

                by oysterface on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:18:51 PM PDT

                •  would you like cheddar or swiss with that?

                  by Uberbah on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:39:44 PM PDT

            •  The states disenfranchised themselves!

              Fl voters got disenfrandised because their legislators didn't do the right thing.

              We have a Fl Dem to thank for that freaking butterfly ballot.

              by Char on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:00:49 PM PDT

              •  So why not fix it, and do a re-vote?

                Oh, because Obama would lose, that's why.  I forgot.

                by Timothy McIntyre on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:05:24 PM PDT

                •  Clinton does not want a fair revote

                  She has vetoed any alternative where she won't win.

                  by lgcap on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:11:30 PM PDT

                •  Actually, with the way Clinton's losing

                  public support, Obama would probably do a lot better in Florida. I know about 20 people who voted for Clinton in the FL primary that are really losing faith in her and plan to vote otherwise in the general.

                  by pattyp on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:51:13 PM PDT

                  •  Clinton doesnt' want them to vote. nt

                    by lgcap on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:10:41 PM PDT

                •  Actually they don't have voting machines

                  to re-vote.  That's why they initally spoke of a mail in re-vote.  

                  by Char on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:58:03 PM PDT

                  •  not exactly ...

                    The state wouldn't agree to allow the party to use its election infrastructure to hold another election ... so that left either a caucus or mail-in vote run by the party itself.

                    by meowmissy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:57:55 AM PDT

                    •  Some counties don't have voting machines

                      They were removed to change to machines with a paper trail.

                      by Char on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:23:37 AM PDT

                      •  Yes they do ...

                        It was only the 15 largest counties that had the touchscreens and many of them are holding elections right now for special elections and local elections right now - so they have voting machines.  Plus, they're keeping some of the machines for accessibility reasons - not all touchscreens are being replaced.

                        by meowmissy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:31:50 AM PDT

                •  Clinton's natl party chair opposed re-vote

                  From CNN on March 18

                  I'm glad that the party has reached the same conclusion that was reached by the congressional delegation a week ago," said U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida.

                  A supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, Wasserman Schultz had staunchly opposed a re-vote.

                  ..."Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, has called for a new Florida primary, although he thinks the national party should pay for it. But Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz says another election would be too expensive."

                  ....""The potential of a do-over is slim to none," said Wasserman Schultz, a national co-chair of Clinton's campaign. "The cost of a do-over is beyond reach. A do-over would be unfair. We still have nerves that are very raw from the 2000 recount in Florida."

                  by NC Voter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:55:28 PM PDT

            •  And the Millions Disenfranchised Every 4 Years?

              Where were you in 2004, when the primaries ended on March 11, with millions of Democrats in dozens of states never casting their  votes? How about in 2000? How about every 4 years, when the way the primaries work is to let some Democrats favored by the calendar decide, and others don't?

              Where were you in December 2007, when Florida and Michigan moved their primaries earlier in the calendar, ahead of other states, pushing other states back, and so disenfranchising those pushed states' Democrats (as far as anyone knew)?

              Where were you when Florida and Michigan ran primaries this year without proper campaigns by anyone but Clinton, and so disenfranchised the people who might have voted for other candidates?

              I know where you were. You were there applauding the increased chances for Clinton to win, no matter who it disenfranchised.

              You're right about Florida. Florida has demonstrated that its officials are totally incompetent to run a democracy. That's not a reason to let it decide our next president. That's a reason to treat it like the radioactive political wasteland that it's converted itself into.

              by DocGonzo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:15:29 PM PDT

              •  I am aware some here supported 1 National Primary

                Where were you in 2004, when the primaries ended on March 11, with millions of Democrats in dozens of states never casting their  votes? How about in 2000? How about every 4 years, when the way the primaries work is to let some Democrats favored by the calendar decide, and others don't?

                If we did have one national primary, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. It's too late to change our system now. The fact is, most nominating contests ended early because one candidate had that much stronger an appeal or organization. Don't hate me for paraphrasing Rumsfeld, but we're dealing with the nominating system we've got, not the nominating system we wish to have.

                In a car crash, it doesn't do much good to say, "You should have told me the brakes were going bad." I haven't seen anyone say the DNC's rule about when the states should hold their primaries is so important that they're prepared to defend it of McCain wins on the basis of disgruntled Floridians.

                by Judge Moonbox on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:48:26 PM PDT

                •  But That's Not The Entire Purpose of the Primary

                  One purpose of the primary season is to choose a nominee. Another purpose is to create excitement among all voters, not just in the Democratic Party. It's essential promotion for the general election. Not just the buzz and fireworks, but the process of the candidates pitching themselves to different, sometimes seemingly intractably contradictory, constituencies around the country.

                  If Democrats just picked a nominee, but no one noticed, and they didn't have to tune themselves to this year's political lingo and specific moods, then many fewer voters would vote for them in November. The vetting process, the development, and even the dry run for the more hostile (and highest stakes) contest following the convention are all part of how we get people to vote for the nominee.

                  And so there are complex rules. Because democracy is not just a way for the people to choose leaders. Democracy is a way for leaders to enlist the consent of the governed.

                  Now, I just addressed the issue of whether it's OK to "disenfranchise" Floridians and Michiganders. The selfrighteousness of that whining is totally false, as I explained by calling them on it. It's purely self-serving. They disenfranchised themselves, by trying to corner the franchise, and failing. Letting Florida's and Michigan's illegitimate delegates vote at the convention wouldn't simply enfranchise everyone, as I mentioned: it would leave those voters left out of their untimely elections still disenfranchised. And thereby disenfranchise the candidate, in this case probably Obama, whose extra voters were disenfranchised.

                  By the very same token, it's the people screaming hypocritically about "disenfranchisement" who are alienating voters over Florida and Michigan. Like I said, every 4 years millions of voters are ignored in their prefrences for the nominee. And not just because they'd just confirm what was known earlier: plenty of candidates drop out because they can't afford to keep running through a losing streak in the middle, even if they have good chances of winning in the end, out of reach of their campaign's finances. If Florida and Michigan, and the Clinton campaigners with their stake in them, would just accept treatment like everyone else gets, then there would be little danger of backlash in November. If they'd stop lying about who created this mess, stop lying about the legacy of chaos inherent in allowing them to flout these rules, this would blow over.

                  If people demanding Florida and Michigan prioritized a Democrat winning in November above "Clinton by any means available, at any cost", then these issues would be no problem. And since even if Clinton got Florida's and Michigan's ill-gotten delegates, she still wouldn't beat Obama in delegates, even if Obama didn't get any from those contests, even her most desperate actions are just a way to win by stopping Obama from winning, without even beating him. Which is the kind of Party-damaging campaign that superdelegates are designed to stop, among other self-destructions heading to November.

                  There are plenty of other ways to pick the nominee. I've described what I think is the best possible one, that achieves the maximum benefit for Democrats. But, as you agree, we've got a different one. What we don't have is a suicide pact. But the current system does in fact provide for euthanasia.

                  by DocGonzo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:31:37 PM PDT

                  •  But That's Not The Entire Purpose of the Primary

                    Doc, you just hit the nail on the head. Not just in your description of the primary process, but also in nailing the (big D) Democratic philosophy.

                    And so there are complex rules. Because democracy is not just a way for the people to choose leaders. Democracy is a way for leaders to enlist the consent of the governed.

                    On another note, the intellectual dishonesty amongst a couple of these guys is really very breathtaking. Neither the Democratic or the Republican parties are enshrined in the Constitution. These are political parties; and while the people within these political parties run the government, they are not the government. There is nothing in the Constitution that describes how to choose the person who will run for president. The tone and eloquence of the posters make it hard for me to believe they don't know or understand this very basic tenet of our democracy, and makes me question the motives in their words.

                    The whole argument of disenfranchisement of the people of Florida and Michigan is plain stupid.

                    Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are members of the national Democratic Political Party. They are in a competition to determine which will represent the national Democratic Party in the general, national election for the office of the President of the United States - whose election process is in the Constitution. They are not yet running for President. As members of the Democratic Party, they agree that only 1 member will run in the general election. That's the immutable rule - as in the Highlander, there can be only one.

                    You (not you, Doc, but the clowns that keep just stirring the pot...)  may not like the rules. You may not agree with the rules. But the actual, real political organization that is the Democratic Party - headed by Howard Dean by virtue of him being the  President of the Democratic National Committee - made these rules with the consent of their members. Including the same members currently still in the nomination process. Just because you're getting screwed by that rule now, even after cynically breaking them knowing that, if needed, it can be a monkey wrench you can use later; it doesn't mean anyone's vote was disenfranchised.

                    I find it hard to believe, but maybe some people honestly believe that the Democratic and Republican political parties are enshrined in the Constitution. I assure you, they are not.

                    by Faust on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:15:35 PM PDT

                  •  Who's the selfrighteous one?

                    If Democrats just picked a nominee, but no one noticed, and they didn't have to tune themselves to this year's political lingo and specific moods, then many fewer voters would vote for them in November. The vetting process, the development, and even the dry run for the more hostile (and highest stakes) contest following the convention are all part of how we get people to vote for the nominee.

                    So how many people in Florida not notice? Do you have exit polls that show that Obama's name recognition didn't rise in Florida?

                    By the very same token, it's the people screaming hypocritically about "disenfranchisement" who are alienating voters over Florida and Michigan. Like I said, every 4 years millions of voters are ignored in their prefrences for the nominee.

                    So who's the selfrighteous one? There is a huge difference between missing the 6th game of a World Series because one team overpowered the other in the first 4; and a team surrendering when their opponents have a 3 games to 1 advantage; especially when the fans believe the umps made a bad call.  I do not believe that if we simply papered over this mess by placing ALL the blame on the state legislators, everything would be fine. I have not seen anyone prepared to say that preserving the DNC's authority is worth a McCain election.

                    by Judge Moonbox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:02:29 PM PDT

            •  This is an utterly vapid comment

              but I'm uprating it until Mogolori, defluxion10, or lgcap can give me an explanation for the hide rating.

              by RoscoeOfAlabama on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:49:48 PM PDT

            •  I'm trying to understand

              why you don't have a right to voice that opinion here? I can certainly understand someone disagreeing with what you are saying, and making an arguement aganist it, but trying to zap you away and punish you - I don't get it.

              by armenia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:32:54 PM PDT

              •  Based on the 10 uprates

                it seems he does have the right to voice that opinion here.

                But yeah, it's weird that it would even be HR'ed in the first place.

                by RoscoeOfAlabama on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:48:15 AM PDT

        •  This Floridian was fooled for about a minute.

          At first I bought into the meme that I had been disenfranchised. But, I took the time to learn what really happened, and discovered pretty quickly it was our State Representatives who were responsible for this. Now, they want to blame the DNC, Obama, or anybody else they can think of for their own arrogance.

          Yes, MSM, please play this clip in an endless loop for days on end, so that everybody knows what really happened. Let them start worrying about getting re-elected themselves, and not whether Hillary Clinton will win the nomination.

          Florida does not deserve to have its delegates seated at the convention, and we have our own State Party and Representatives to thank for that. Idiots.

          by hungrycoyote on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:29:52 PM PDT

          •  send it to all your friends

            and neighbors

            and ask them to do the same.

            it is the only way this gets out.

            by Eman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:59:54 PM PDT

            •  Never trust a Florida politician. No matter

              whose side you think they're on. [see Florida election 2000 for further details]   ;)

              by Methinks They Lie on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:05:07 PM PDT

          •  What if?

            What if some Florida delegates were seated, but Democratic members of the Florida House who voted in favor of moving the date were permanently blacklisted from ever being a delegate to a national convention?

            by Knight Rider on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:42:19 PM PDT

          •  I second that!!!

            I plan to hold these people accountable when they are up for re-election in Florida. The more I learn about it, the angrier I get with these Florida Democrats trying to pass the buck to the DNC. Really... 48 states have gotten this right! Why couldn't we? Pretty soon, Florida will find itself on the political sidelines! Why would any party, Dem, Repub, or otherwise spend time and money down here when these elections hinge on chads and other screw-ups? I am also irritated by Clinton and these so-called champions of our cause trying to go back and change the rules. Florida's delegates were stripped in August. Where were they from Sept through January when they could have acted? Do they expect the superdelegates and voters from the other 48 states to just sit back and let Florida break the rules at the convention?  This is pathetic!!

            by miami4obama on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:20:23 PM PDT

            •  Yes, but ...

              When they're up for re-election, vote for their Democratic challenger.  The last thing Florida needs is more Republicans in the legislature. Otherwise they'll outlaw science and let you carry a gun anywhere.

              by meowmissy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:10:10 AM PDT

              •  That's right

                Primary their asses.  

                You won't get all of them, at least not right away, but you'll get their attn.

                by boadicea on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:54:07 AM PDT

        •  Damn Melody

          I'm so happy you're on my side. :)

          by discocarp on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:36:04 PM PDT

          •  Me, too. Just don't keep me away from my kid...

            ...or my couch for 18 hours on a Saturday on a hellish fishing expedition, and we'll be bosom buddies for life. :-)

            by Melody Townsel on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:48:35 PM PDT

      •  we need to bombard cable with this

        and push it around YouTube.

        The MSM won't pick it up until we start pushing it.  Same as Bosnia.

        by Eman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:58:51 PM PDT

        •  That's the only reason snipergate was repoted n/t

          by Muzikal203 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:03:37 PM PDT

      •  They won't do that, that would require

        them to do their job and report ALL of the facts.

        by Muzikal203 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:02:37 PM PDT

  •  Now you see why I always say McCain...

    ...will grow to hate YouTube, or at least he'll learn to keep his pie hole shut, by the time we get through exposing him for the old lying, dangerous fool that he has shown time after time that he truly is.

    No Bush 3rd term!

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:17:06 PM PDT

  •  Markos, did you not support

    them moving the primary at the time?  You were anti-Iowa being first, if I recall correctly.  Maybe I misrememebr, but I recall you being opposed to NH and Iowa being automatically first.

    I thought Dean was right to take away the delegates when he did.  

    Nonetheless, I think a victory by Obama without a Florida and Michigan revote is not good for the Party.  It will make it more difficult to defeat McCain.

    Not my problem, though.  I'll vote for whomever is nominated.  McCain is far worse.

    by TomP on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:25:48 PM PDT

    •  I think that

      most people supported the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't automatically be first - but that a different process which would give other states opportunities to "pick" the nominee should be looked into.

      But as everyone kept moving their primaries - mayhem ensued - so when the DNC came in with rules - everyone backed off - but wanted to look at the future of primary state times.

      thats how I remember it, anyhow.  

      by shiobhan on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:34:03 PM PDT

      •  I was fine with Dean (actually the DNC) doing

        what they did.  Not to take sides, but my recollection was that the Clinton campaign was trying to move Michigan and Florida up because they were concerned about hr chnaces in Iowa.

        Michigan's Governeor was a Clinton supporter. Obama and Edwards and many of the others agreed not to have their names on the Michigan ballot.  

        by TomP on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:37:18 PM PDT