Wednesday, April 02, 2008


Howard Dean met with Florida party officials today and assured them that the Florida delegates will be seated at the convention. This is the only fair thing to do and I give Chairman Dean a tremendous amount of credit for stepping up to the plate.


Anonymous said...

Jeremy, it hasn't even been a year yet, since you were belly aching about UCD rules, convention, primaries. Bradley and DiBella BREAKING rules and should resign.

You are the RULZ MAN Jeremy. But since the bending of these rules help YOUR choice for candidate, then it's OK. Sounds like the same logic Bradley supporters used.

Anonymous said...

Fair? Both candidates agreed not to campaign in the state. Right?

Anonymous said...

Is Clinton the Bradley candidate?

Steve Schultz said...

Merriam-Webster's 6b definition of "fair":

conforming with the established rules

Wow, Jeremy, the seating of the Florida delegation doesn't sound "fair" as you claim it to be. Maybe we're using different dictionaries.

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, practical politics will necessitate that the DNC will have to seat Michigan and Florida delegates. My guess is that the decision will create a wash, where neither candidate will benefit.

For Clinton to think that primaries that she said "didn't count", would end up helping her is another pipe dream.

I do think Jeremy has to check out his "objectivity meter" as the other posters have pointed out.

Anonymous said...

Although I agree it is equally unfair to every candidate and the other states (except Michigan) to seat the Florida delegation, we need to recognize that it would be irresponsible for party leadership to exclude the voters who participated in the Florida Democratic primary from having their say in selecting the party's nominee. The punishment of not seating Florida's delegates for the violation of party rules about scheduling primaries is simply excessive. It would undermine the nominee and possibly invalidate the nation's electoral process. That price is too high for all of us to suffer.

Anonymous said...

the only thing fair here is Jeremy's commentary. Dean's move is nothing more than a move from the Parate playbook.

Either way, Obama has the nomination. Hillary does not bring change that Dems want.

Anonymous said...

Invalidate the Nation's electorial process? Nowhere in the consitution does it talk about PRIMARIES. This isn't the General Election folks. You can't 'disenfranchise' voters for something that is alittle more than a straw poll. The superdelegate system made sure of that. The state primary is an indicator of which way the superdelates are to vote. The state primary voters really have no DIRECT say on who gets the party nomination. In the end, it is the delegates seated from each state, AND the overriding Super delegates who pick the nominee.

For instance, Charle Rangel in the Bronx, his district voted for Obama. Charlie is STILL going to vote for Clinton. Has Charlie 'disenfranchised' his voters in his district? I mean, they aren't going to count.

Anonymous said...

"Obama has the nomination"? Ha-ha-ha-ha! Very funny. Clinton still carries the vast majority of Democrats and Barack trails. .6% lead with a minority of Democrats isn't a clinching scenario. Btw, McCain has deep roots in SC, jewish roots! The guy who put out the black baby rumor in 2000, Mark Hyman, is a blood relative of jewish descent. The Hyman/ McCain families go way back. So it's a black,a woman, and a jew after all. You gotta love that irony! PS the established rules allow the seating of those delegates. You obamabots just keep making up garbage every day.

Anonymous said...

to 7:25 AM. Congratulations to you for being the early bird!

You are correct to the extent that the US constitution does not establish political parties, the so-called two party system, political primaries, caucuses, straw polls, etc., or national conventions to select party nominees. However, the Constitution does not prohibit these political activities either.

I would call to your attention that the primaries, caucuses and conventions every four years simply happens to be the process that evolved by which the major political parties determine their nominees. Like it or not, the two "major" parties established two ways of becoming a delegate to attend their national conventions: 1) delegates elected by primary participants to advance their chosen candidate, and 2) the so-called super-delagates (distinguised party elders, elected public officials, etc.) who were appointed to identify the party's nominee.

Many people don't approve of the super-delegates anymore than they like the electoral college system to select a President (which is provided by the Constitution) but until pary rules or the Constitution is changeed, that's the way things are. The selection of a party nominee is no more democratic than is the election of the president.

I believe the votes cast by the Delegates and Super-delegates are equal. The votes of Super-delegates carry no more or less weight than those of the elected delegates.

My suggestion that a process by which a nominee is selected without including representation from an entire state in the Union is flawed, and may "invalidate the nations electoral process" is arguable, if you like. I think we would prefer "hail to the chief" played to a President duly-elected by process to include each of the 50 United States, rather than by the 50 states minus the states of Florida and Michigan.