What Ezra said.

"I didn't keep their vote from counting. Hillary Clinton did."

" ...Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could have simply refused his entreaty to avoid the offending states. A declaration by either that they disagreed with the DNC's decision ... and the DNC's prohibition would have collapsed."

I'm not sure how these two statements work together. If either could have prevented it, how is it Clinton's fault and not Obama as well?

"I'm not sure how these two statements work together. If either could have prevented it, how is it Clinton's fault and not Obama as well?"

Fine, its both of their faults. Neither one stepped up to the plate, which is probably wrong, but whats worse is that once agreeing to the rules set forth that one camp decided to back out on it.

LC, if you read the entire post you see that Ezra explains it by saying "[the Clinton campaign] spoke up in agreement with the DNC's decision. Now they are circling back for advantage, pretending to speak up for the process when in reality they are only advocating for themselves."

"Ezra explains it by saying "[the Clinton campaign] spoke up in agreement with the DNC's decision. Now they are circling back for advantage, pretending to speak up for the process when in reality they are only advocating for themselves.""

I think it's a different issue. There are two points made in the post 1) Michigan and Florida were benched and neither Clinton or Obama opposed it but somehow it's Clinton's fault only 2) Clinton is now trying to argue the votes from these states should count and it's wrong. I'm only questioning the first point, which, as I see it, doesn't follow from the second one is spite of Ezra's (and apparently your)assumption to the contrary.

If a majority of delegates at the convention vote to seat the MI and FL delegates, they will be seated.

The claim that Hillary is disenfranchising those two states stems from the fact that because she is seeking political advantage by trying to get credit for victories she won but did not earn, a majority will not vote in favor of seating FL and MI.

I don't understand why this whole thing is so hard to grasp. Sometimes in life when we do things after we've been told not to, there are these things called penalties. Now penalties are not always fair, but when you know about them ahead of time and then are party to an act that, either actively or passively, triggers the penalty, you can't act like you didn't know what would happen. And that is what is such a joke about this. The DNC told those states that if they moved up, they would lose their delegates. They moved up anyway and they lost their delegates. The candidates (generally) stood by the DNC decision and now Hillary is spinning this as Obama wanting to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. B.S. The entities in those states that defied the DNC disenfranchised those voters. Again, this isn't about the punishment being fair...it's about trying to change what was already agreed upon in the middle of the game. You can't change a playa's game in the 9th inning.

LC, I'm an Obama supporter, but I would agree that both Clinton and Obama agreed to not count the vote in FL and MI. From my perspective, the reason Ezra is pointing out Clinton specifically is that her campaign has switched positions on that.

I agree that Clinton is playing politics here, but she is also doing the right thing on the merits. Better late than never.

1) Florida and Michigan Democrats should be able to have a say in the party's nominee

2) The entire nominating process is FUBAR. Michigan and Florida, IMO, were entirely reasonable in wanting an earlier primary so that the contest wouldn't be a fait accompli by time it got them. That being said, we now have the ironic result that the earlier primaries may matter less and the later primaries could decide it all...

3) Do we really want to piss off Democratic activists in two important swing states? We know we will need Florida and Michigan come November, so why antagonize them?

The DNC royally messed this up. Clinton's motivation is questionable, but she's right on the issue. It's a shame she didn't stake this position out months ago, when the politics behind it weren't so blatant, but had she done so, I don't think Iowa and New Hampshire voters, electeds and activists would have taken too kindly. They depend on the influx of cash presidential campaigns bring every four years and likely would have held it against any candidate who questioned their right to go first.

Both Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, the whole group all played this one cynically - no one wanted to risk losing in Iowa or New Hampshire by defending Florida and Michigan's right to be heard. Clinton eventually came around to the right position, even if only for political reasons. The fact that shes doing it for less-than-ideal reasons doesn't change the fact that shes now doing the right thing.

"Clinton's campaign manager backing the DNC, said, 'We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.'"

Is that language supposed to mean this:

"the campaigns agreed to deny them a primary."

because the two statements seem pretty far from each other in meaning; anyone who assumes on language simplicity and clarity when dealing with the Clintons (is/is) is asking for trouble.

Easily overlooked is the fact that a majority of Florida voters who voted in the last month went for Obama. One unavoidable reality is clear: Hillary's candidacy mobilizes dispirited Republicans and right-leaning independents to vote for McCain; Obama increases the size and broadens the base of votes for him and, in some states, provides a nice boost to other Democratic candidates.
Want a stronger Democratic majority in the Congress? Vote Obama.

"it's about trying to change what was already agreed upon in the middle of the game. You can't change a playa's game in the 9th inning."

Well yeah, that's why it's called politics, not baseball. Why it has to be talked about as if it somehow was an outrageous ethical lapse never seen before, I'm not sure.

Actually, it's kind of amusing to see the blogosphere fall into the same "pearl clutching and fainting couch" mode they make so much fun of when the mainstream media do it just because this time it's their pet politician that's on the receiving end.

this is a very eloquent post, and the disagreements with it seem, to me, self-evidently weak: thank you....in my view the only remotely plausible argument way to defend HRC here is to say she'll be just this kind of street fighter in the general election...

Amen Ezra, I couldn't have said it better myself.
But I must reiterate how outrageous and underhanded the Clintons' tactics are. And the idea that the Mich. delegates be seated as is when the Clintons' were the only one on the ballot is beneath reproach but surprising in the least. Wake up people!

Imagine the following:

1. The NFL decided, for no good reason, that games played against the hapless Miami Dolphins would not count in the standings.

2. At the beginning of the season, all of the teams (except obviously the Dolphins) endorsed the leagues decision.

3. In this hypothetical, the New England Patriots and the New York Jets of the AFC East are the AFC's best teams. They played each other twice, each winning at home by identical scores and margins. Their win-loss records, except against the Dolphins, were the same.

4. When playing the Dolphins, both teams benched their starters, as instructed by the league. Despite this, the Patriots won both their games, while the Jets won one and lost the other.

5. The Patriots, as is their overweening wont, argue after the fact that their two wins against the Dolphins should count, and thus that they should win the AFC East, in turn resulting in a first-round bye, home-field advantage, and a near-certain trip to the Super Bowl.

Does anyone want to argue that the Patriots would be in the right in such a case? Or that what the Clintons want is significantly different from the Pats' hypothetical plea?

metaphor doesn't hold, unless you're thinking the candidates are competing with the voters

Why it has to be talked about as if it somehow was an outrageous ethical lapse never seen before, I'm not sure.

Do you really want to advocate that we should let ethical lapses pass sans criticism? That seems to be implicit in your statement.

No Andrew, I just think Clinton's maneuver isn't one. (that is, unless one believes, as many Obama supporters seem to do, that any effort to get oneself elected rather than Obama is inherently immoral and despicable.)

Do we really want to piss off Democratic activists in two important swing states?
As one of the 40% of Dem 'uncommitted' voters in MI, I was plenty pissed at the time. It felt ridiculous to participate in a meaningless, severely crippled election. The Clinton effort might feel like a slap in the face to that 40% and the Dems will need every one of them in November.

LC,
You are correct only if you think that there are absolutely no rules in politics. I don't happen to think that's the case.

And she can work to get herself elected...she just shouldn't be able to use Florida and Michigan to do so.

This is a primary campaign; it's a private political party deciding who will be their standard bearer. They can go about this in almost anyway they like. The Democrats could decide to leave Florida out of the process entirely for no reason other than, fuck those guys. Floridians have no inherent right to vote on the nominee. It's not an affront to their dignity to point out that the vote was meaningless (though it might be premature to say that - are we certain the delegates won't be counted when all is said and done?).

But by the same token, the pearl-clutchers crying foul over Clinton's attempt to make Florida count are making a similar error. This isn't an attempt to rig an election; it's wrangling for delegates, and it's exactly the kind of thing that will go on if we end up with a 'brokered' convention.

If this campaign ends with a clear mandate from the majority of Democratic voters that one or the other candidate ought to be the nominee, Florida will be a moot point. If it doesn't end that way, then it's just a free for all scramble for delegates, and any candidate who sits around whining "that's unfair!" is just going to look pathetic.

This gets at a key difference between H and O, I think. Say there's a replay of Florida 2000 - dimpled chads and all. Why do I get the feeling that Hillary would lie, cheat, and steal to get those goddamn electoral votes, while Obama would gracefully concede "for the good of the country"? And is there really any question which approach would be better?

For the sake of argument, let's assume that everything Ezra says in this post is true. My problem with it is that it only tells part of the story.

The fact is that 1.5 million Democrats voted in an election, and 50% voted for Hillary while 33% voted for Obama. I know that Ezra thinks that the people of Florida should have felt betrayed (betrayed!) by Clinton and Obama because they apparently didn't fight the DNC hard enough on the timing issue, but nevertheless these voters decided to take the time and make the effort to cast their votes in support of these candidates. It seems to me that if anyone "broke the rules" here, it was the 1.5 million Florida Dems who cast a vote in this election. But of course that is on its face such a ridiculous thing to say, it is easier to accuse Clinton of somehow doing something wrong because she got the most votes.

Furthermore, Clinton, of course, did take the opportunity to play up this win for her political advantage, but what were her other options? Should she have closed her eyes and stuck her fingers in her ears and pretended that she didn't win an overwhelming victory in a huge turnout election in one of the most crucial swing states in the country? Should she have released a statement saying "To those 800,000 people in Florida who just voted for me: How dare you break the rules by voting...the DNC told you this election wasn't important...why don't you just shup up and go home"? And for that matter, should Obama have released a similar statement to the hundreds of thousands of people who voted for him?

In short, Ezra and many others in media/pundit land seem to want to view this as some kind of ethical purity test for the candidates. But to me, that is a rather simplistic, and misleading, way to look at it. And, I have to say, it is rather insulting to the voters.

"LC,
You are correct only if you think that there are absolutely no rules in politics."

There are(Other than the law, I mean)? Because if so, someone better let the Republican Party know. That way, if Obama gets nominated, he can spend the fall transcending whatever he hasn't transcended yet instead of dealing with those mean, unfair attempts by less transcendant beings to keep him out of the White House.

dk,
As I said above, it's the entities that enabled this in those particular states that everyone should be upset with. I do think it's kind of crap that Clinton is trying to get the votes after the fact, but the whole point was that everyone knew this was a possibility yet nobody did anything before the fact.

So, yes. You're right...it's insulting to the voters when they have to watch someone pander to them after the fact instead of getting up before the deed was done.

And I certainly don't think anyone should feel betrayed. From what I can tell, this was all out in the open quite a while ago and while I applaud the voters of Florida and Michigan for doing their civic duty, their votes went in the toilet long before yesterday.

LC,
Wanting to work with people doesn't mean you are also immune to the absolute b.s. that they can muster when they don't agree with you. I think this is one of the weaker arguments against Obama. It's the line of attack that says he won't stand up for himself or that he is clueless about what Republicans might do to him. The man is not dumb. He knows they will obstruct and derail. Talking about riding a unity pony doesn't rule out the horse stomping on someone when it's appropriate.

It's almost like Hillary Clinton is the only person ever who could stand up to a bully.

"There are(Other than the law, I mean)? Because if so, someone better let the Republican Party know. That way, if Obama gets nominated, he can spend the fall transcending whatever he hasn't transcended yet instead of dealing with those mean, unfair attempts by less transcendant beings to keep him out of the White House."

Sounds like LC Johnson.

But Mike P, the voters gave the middle finger to the powers that be, and went ahead and voted anyway. This is my point. If there was a betrayal by the candidates as Ezra argues, record number of Floridians seem to have gotten over it and made the best of it by voting. Perhaps others should follow their example rather than ridiculing the election.

It seems to me that the respectable thing to do is at least respect the voters and acknowledge the vote (even if doesn't lead to delegates). That is what Hillary Clinton did. Did she try to milk some extra airtime when she did it? Sure. But I don't beleive that makes her different from any other politician. Meanwhile, the vote was 50% Clinton, 33% Obama. That's just the way it is.

"The voters in Florida and Michigan would have attended speeches, and seen ads, and hosted a debate, and been able to make an informed choice"

Wow. I guess us yokels in Florida were too stupid to watch the other debates, which were televised as were speeches and such. It's just too bad we couldn't make an informed choice. That's BS. Just because the candidates didn't personally come through here doesn't mean we couldn't make an informed choice. Only a modicum of the actual voting public attends speeches or watches the debates.

Just because the FL state legislature -- which is dominated by Republicans -- decided to move our primary, that doesn't give the DNC the right to punish all Dems in the state. We still have the right to have our votes count. Period. We voted. We meant it.

Mike P., I think you make a fair point. I'm more skeptical than you seem to be about Obama, but I may be wrong (and I hope that I am if he gets nominated).

But I must also say that I get mighty peeved by the tone of moral superiority so many obama boosters take when talking about their candidate and by their relentless demonization of Clinton. Not such much because I like her, but because I dislike the implied, concomittant sanctification of Obama. It'd be nice if people talked about the fight in political terms, not moral ones.

Anyway, I should get back to work.

LC's response is very indicative of Hillary Clinton supporters and is, in my opinion, quite sad. He/She seems to believe the only way to beat Republican tactics in the general election is to become them, to cross ethical lines, to embrace an ends-justify-the-means approach. There's a better way. And that better way means standing up and making a better, more persuasive case, not cowering in fear and acting "strong" while, deep down, feeling weak.

As has been noted in other places, if Obama and Clinton would agree to a special caucus for both Michigan and Florida, I don't think we'd have a problem. I think that's a fair solution. The could both campaign and while I know a lot of voters in those states might blanch at having to go to the polls 3 times in one year, it's the only fair way to deal with this.

CLD, nobody is questioning the voters of Florida! To a certain extent this is not about you at all. And like it or not, the candidates basically agreed with the ruling, so I think your fight is with the folks who didn't agitate a long time ago to prevent this from happening.

And I think you underestimate the power of the candidates being able to deploy in the state. Obama's ground game is one of his big strengths and his debate performances are one of his weaknesses. So, therefore, he's clipped a little because he could get out and meet folks and work in the small group settings that he's better in. Obviously, that hurts Clinton, too.

"CLD, nobody is questioning the voters of Florida! To a certain extent this is not about you at all."

Does that make CLD feel better, I wonder. Seems to me you are questioning that particular voter with the statement after. How you can tell a voter his vote won't count, AND that it has nothing to do with him, heh heh...neat trick.

And that better way means standing up and making a better, more persuasive case, not cowering in fear and acting "strong" while, deep down, feeling weak.

Wow, Anonymous, I am astounded by your mind-reading powers. Just by reading someone advocate a pragmatic approach to politics instead of an idealistic one, you can tell so much about them. That's truly impressive. Do me next.

jj,
I would be pissed if I was CLD's shoes. No doubt about it. What I said wasn't going to make him or her feel better under any set of circumstances. I am not questioning that the voters of Florida were sincere in going to the polls. What I am saying is that the pre-approved rules kind of made their votes symbolic, thus, it's not about them, but the system that was agreed to that rendered them part of a so-called "beauty contest".

Mike P,

Not being sarcastic but I'm not getting the "beauty contest" aspect here - am I missing it in Ezra's post; what does that mean in this context exactly?

jj,
It's a joke I'd seen on Oliver Willis' site (among others):
http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2008/01/29/what-does-hillary-clnton-have/

I basically take it to mean that Clinton winning in Florida, like a person winning a beauty contest, is fairly meaningless.

eh, I could have done without the snark, but thanks for the link explaining it...again though, the metaphor, like the football one in the comments above, misrepresents the FL voter

in the football comparison, the FL voters are co-competitors

and in this one, I guess they would be, what judges? or would that be the DNC?

You can say it's meaningless all you want, but the FL voter, as evidenced by CLD here, disagrees with you, and unless you are a god of elctions looking down from above, or another FL voter, CLD's viewpoint matters more, and should, than yours.

jj,
I wasn't trying to be snarky. If it came across that way, my apologies.

As to CLD...I don't disagree with him. Indeed, I said I would feel the same way if I were in his shoes. I think it's very unfortunate that is has come to this.

Does anyone disagree that campaigning is important? If it wasn't then why do candidates pour thousands of dollars into ground operations in places Iowa and New Hampshire if voters could just watch the speeches on tv like CLD did.

The reason there are rules is because it affects the strategic decisions of how the candidates campaign. If Obama and Edwards had known that Florida was going to count you can bet that they would have been there blaring their ads and kissing babies. You may say that wouldn't have made much of a difference in the result. I guess we'll never know.

But even if it was ok for Clinton to get Florida because at least the voters had choices why does she deserve to get the delegates in Michigan when she was the only name on the ballot there? Someone tell me how that's democratic.

Just because the FL state legislature -- which is dominated by Republicans -- decided to move our primary, that doesn't give the DNC the right to punish all Dems in the state.

No, it doesn't.

What gives the DNC that right is the small fact that it makes the fracking rules for assigning delegates to the convention. You will, I presume, ensure that your state legislators get what they deserve for this?

Mike P,

Now I'm sorry; I didn't mean that the snark was coming from you...but from the site you linked too. So, I won't accept your apology, since it was unnecessary.

There was a reason the DNC didn't want Florida and Michigan, both large states, not to go early.

First, they chose SC and NV because of the diverse voters those states represent.

They did not chose Florida and Michigan because to campaign there would have been hugely expensive, and only the most well funded candidates could have done so.

If we really want to settle a nomination by who can raise the most money, then by all means, let California, Florida, Michigan, etc. all jump in there and have early primaries. The candidate with the most name recognition and money to buy name recognition will win.

Fortunately, Howard Dean runs the party and is still convinced that we have the power, not the special interests.

Wow, what a cop-out. And I thought the law was an ass.

As many have pointed out four states broke the rules by moving their primaries: IA, NH, MI and FL. Howard Dean threatened two of those states with special punishment (rather than the defined punishment of loss of half their delegates as the Republicans used on all four states), and when they called his bluff we were left with the worst of all possible worlds. As all powerful as you appear to believe Hillary Clinton to be, none of the candidates were in a position to interfere with Dean's negotiations. And the idea that any one of them would sacrifice Iowa or New Hampshire, and likely the nomination, on some mis-applied sense of principle is as ridiculous as the idea that the Democratic party will ignore the votes of over two and a quarter million Democrats in Michigan and Florida.

They did not chose Florida and Michigan because to campaign there would have been hugely expensive, and only the most well funded candidates could have done so.

That's not really true. This is actually about protecting Iowa and New Hampshire, where the parties (theoretically) have a lot of control over the process and which (theoretically) can ensure the other primaries don't count by making the nominees inevitable. South Carolina and Nevada were added as window dressing because Iowa and New Hampshire were too white.

That said, you can't simply say that Clinton is fighting for these disenfranchised Florida voters. Part of the point of the strategy was TO ALTER THE ELECTION RESULT BY APPEARING TO BE FIGHTING FOR THOSE DISENFRANCHISED VOTERS. In other words, in a fair primary, Clinton wouldn't have gotten 50 percent of the vote, because she wouldn't have procured the edge she procured by advocating the breaking of the rule.

Anyone who calls Hillary a streetfighter might like to explain how she failed on healthcare, failed on authorizing Iraq, and has just been seen applauding the latest Bush lie on Iraq when other sincere Democrats remained seated. If that's stretfighting, I can only assume you meaning fighting the opponent with a small feather-duster. HIllary ain't no street-fighter, just an oldtime second-rate machine politician. We don't need Republican-lite, Bush-kissing excuses for Democrats who brought us NAFTA, DOMA, and the flag-burning legislation. Hillary's never fought when the chips were down - and never will.

You're right, it isn't just Hillary. That was poor writing on my part. Changed.

"LC's response is very indicative of Hillary Clinton supporters and is, in my opinion, quite sad. He/She seems to believe the only way to beat Republican tactics in the general election is to become them, to cross ethical lines, to embrace an ends-justify-the-means approach. There's a better way."

See what I mean about the tone of moral superiority?

Sorry. Forgot to fill in the boxes. I'm responsible for the anonymous post above.

Some people have said that if the situation were reversed and it was Obama fighting for the inclusion of the FL delegates that Ezra wouldn't be concerned about the questionable shift in position. I'd like to see some kind of evidence supporting the idea that Ezra is this intellectually dishonest because I can't think of any off the top of my head.

But I must also say that I get mighty peeved by the tone of moral superiority so many obama boosters
It wouldn't look like we're looking down on you if you crawled out of the gutter.

I'm an Obama supporter, and in the spirit of honest and open discussion I'll admit that I have at times taken the tone of moral superiority that LC complains about. And it probably isn't helpful to the conversation. Point taken.

But of course I've got other things to say:
1) People think there's an ethical lapse because we think that backing off a promise once it becomes inconvenient for you isn't ethical. I think Clinton made a tactical mistake in letting Florida not count, because she could have won it. But she couldn't have won it by the numbers she did -- she has an inherent advantage in states where there's no campaign, because she's so much better known than the other candidates. So by waiting until just days before the primary to switch positions does look like a bait and switch. I'm really not sure how else to talk about it.
2) Obama voters may be guilty of moral superiority, but Clinton fans are equally guilty of patronizing condescension at times. "Pet politician?" Obama's not my puppy, he's a United States Senator and the candidate I think is best qualified to be the president of our country. I'm tired of the suggestion from a lot of Clinton backers that my support for him is something like a junior high school crush.

Ezra-
Your belief that only when a campaign has been contested can it votes matter is downright offensive. I am a liberal democrat who lives in North Carolina. My vote in any presidential election is unlikely to ever make a difference in a safe Republican state. No Democratic presidential candidate has ever seriously contended this state and most likely never will under the current system. The same is true for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Your position not only demeans the votes of the people in Florida, it demeans the votes of a great deal of us. I know that it is not just the people of Florida and Michigan who are sick and tired of the media elite placing the voters of early states on a plain above the rest of us who don't get lavished with the attention and pandering that these states receive because of their privileged position. Many of us have devoted hours to watching debates, following the coverage, and reading the blogs and internets sites. If my vote would change because I saw one of the candidates in person then mostly likely I would not be voting in a way we would want people to emulate, but instead in a rather superficial manner. Am I going to look into their eyes like Bush did with Putin? There will be many states voting on Super Tuesday where the voters will not be able to have seen speeches and attended a debate in person. Are those voters uninformed? Ought we to weigh the delegate count based on how many trips the candidates make to the state or how many debates are physically held there? These candidates have being waging an election for months now that the media have obsessively covered. Just because Barack Obama hasn’t given a speech in my high school gym or no one has robo called me doesn’t mean my vote isn’t informed. To suggest so is insulting and patronizing. Furthermore there is little to any evidence that people in Florida voted all that differently from people in South Carolina when you break the vote down by different demographic groups. The major difference in result was due to the different relative sizes of those groups in the overall voting population.
Whether Hillary Clinton’s position on this issue is in part politically motivated is irrelevant. The fact is that all the candidate’s positions on this issue are politically influenced. The original decision to support the DNC rules was politically motivated on the part of all the candidates. If it was not, then Obama needs to come out right now and say that the delegates should never be seated. That is the only principled stand. If fairness requires we don’t change the rules in the middle of the game, then it should also require that we don’t change the rules once the game is decided just to make it look like we were being fair in the first place. This whole situation sucks. The primary system as we know it sucks. The DNC has disgraced our party with their actions. According to what I have read the original DNC schedule had New Hampshire going after Nevada, but New Hampshire moved up its date to retain its position right after Iowa and there was no punishment. There is absolutely no fairness in this process. It is a corrupt joke. Hillary may not have pushed strongly for the delegates to be seated earlier, but clearly she did have a different position than Obama in the sense that she left her name on the ballot in Michigan leaving the opportunity to for that state to have a vote. Obama didn’t because he had too much riding on Iowa and New Hampshire and couldn’t risk that. Obama also would have known that Michigan and Florida were not going to be natural fits for him for a variety of reasons. In the grand scheme of things their being disenfranchised was good for him, and them having a large impact as early voting states would have been bad. If you can honestly claim that Obama’s position on this issue had to do with some deeply held principled belief that these early states deserve a disproportionate amount of influence in the process, then you are either delusional or even more deceitful and calculating than the politicians themselves.
The most disgusting thing about this little rant is that it is itself nothing more than the type of political calculation that you claim to be indicting. Where was your outrage when the DNC stripped the delegates from these states? Maybe if more people out their shaping public opinion had spoken up at that time and made a big deal about how unjust this was then the candidates might have gone out on a limb and fought this. The media didn’t do that because it is their obsession with the current process and their ability to shape stories around their precious Iowa Caucuses and so forth that keeps the current system going to a great extent. It was a big, big deal when someone tried to enfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan, but you didn’t seem to think it was a big, big deal when they were disenfranchised in the first place. Furthermore, your assertion if just candidate came out against this then the rest would have followed is laughable. Many would have simply used that against the candidate who did it to gain leverage in Iowa and New Hampshire. None of them were thinking down the road at them time, they were simply trying to stop Clinton in Iowa because if they didn’t there would have been no race. Your outrage over the unfairness of this has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with your own biases. If you had spoken out as vehemently against the disenfranchisement of millions of democrats to begin with you might have some credibility on this issue. I have done an internet search and can find no such thing. If I am wrong please point me in the right direction and provide the links. Ezra you did help to contribute to the disenfranchisement of the people in Florida and Michigan, as did the rest of the media, by failing to take the unequivocal stance against it that you did in response to Clinton’s attempt to enfranchise these voters. The pundits have pounced on the Clinton attempt to give these voters a voice whereas they didn’t pounce on the DNC for denying it. That was simply covered as the horse race asking how is this going to affect the general election, etc. Not the type of phony moralizing that we have seen from the anti Clinton, pro Obama press over this issue. There was no outrage over the stripping of these delegates in the first place because no wanted to offend Iowa and New Hampshire, and also because Obama and his supporters in the media knew that these were states they would have to fight very hard to do well in.
Now that Edwards has dropped out of the race I also think that the provision of the delegates should not seem like such a big deal. Wouldn’t Obama now get the 40% uncommitted delegates in Michigan? He would get delegates from Florida as well, possibly even some of Edward’s. Setting up caucuses would only further call the process into question. There were grassroots movements in both states to get supporters of Obama out to the poles to vote for him or to vote uncommitted. It was widely known that delegates could wind up being seated eventually. Obama promised to do right by the voters of Florida and that is why his supporters organized to the extent they did.
While I have nothing but regard for Ezra as one of the finest minds out there in cyberspace, especially on anything health care related; this piece truly saddens and disappoints me. If you are going to become morally indignant about people being political you should at least have the decency to do it on an issue other than one where you are basically defending and minimizing the disenfranchisement of millions of voters who took the time to cast a vote which may never count simply to have been able to say they stood for something.

Let me point out that there were not 3 but at least 5, possibly more, entities with responsibility for the original situation in each state.

While it's true that the DNC set up the conflict with its decision to punish the rogue states and later to hold the line on that decision, it was the local state committees that kicked off the game by changing their long-standing primary dates. The state party committees were just as much in a position as the DNC to blink when the situation came to loggerheads; if the DNC bears responsibility for refusing to compromise, so do they.

In addition, to the extent that the state parties are (nominally) representative of party activists and grassroots voters in their states, those members and activists are responsible for not taking action on their own account, and forcing some sense into their state party heads. Why did no one step up in either state and say "Look, you idiots, you're going to lose us any chance of influencing the nomination at all if you don't knock it off!"; why did the voters who are now complaining of losing their influence at the national level not exert any influence at their state-party level to avoid the crisis?

And finally, if we're going to blame Clinton and Obama for not staring down the DNC (at a time when there was no benefit to them to do so), we ought to blame the other candidates as well, since the issue arose at a time when the others were still serious players. While it's true that both Hillary and Obama could have acted to change the DNC's decision, so could all the other candidates.

In short, many people could have played a role in defusing this situation much earlier in the game, and many of those people are now blaiming others for the consequences of their own failure to act. I think it's unfair to blame Clinton or Obama for not acting at a time when nobody else was acting either, and very one-sided to blame the DNC for not backing down from a situation the local parties created and also refused to back down on.

Where, rightly or wrongly, the campaigns agreed to deny them a primary, now Clinton's campaign, which in Michigan won because they were the only campaign on the ballot and in Florida won because no one contested their lead, is demanding they be seated.

Ezra: there are numerous accounts posted on the web of independent pro-Obama and pro-Clinton forces duking it out in Florida. There's also the well-documented presence of Obama for President TV ads being run in Florida due to Obama's national ad buys -- something Hillary didn't do. How come no outrage over the Obama monopoly of Florida television sets?

I think people are trying to imply that Hillary promised never to challenge the DNC on this issue. But she made no such promise. She's just played it more smartly than the Obama campaign. If voters are outraged by this, they're perfectly free to punish her. And in any event, she can't force this change by diktat, right? (unless she's the nominee, so I'm told, in which case it won't matter). She'll need to get either the assent of the DNC or of a majority of delegates. Rules changes are an ancient and legitimate part of the nominating process. If you've got the votes, you can get the rules changed. It's as simple as that.

Jasper:
"If you've got the votes, you can get the rules changed. It's as simple as that."

And if you've got the Supreme Court Judges you can halt the recounting process.

Simple as that.

Jasper:
"If voters are outraged by this, they're perfectly free to punish her."

This is why I believe much of the liberal blogosphere is upset about this epsidoe. Hillary's campaign is acting this way because they know they won't be punished. They know - like the Republicans - many people don't pay attention. This flies in the face of the blogosphere's mission, which is to inform the electorate and is why it rankles so.

Tampa Bay Online, 9/30/07 -- says it all. Obama is getting yet another free ride.

They know - like the Republicans - many people don't pay attention.

I don't think it's so much that people don't pay attention. I think it's rather that they're simply not outraged by an effort by the Clinton campaign to re-enfranchise a million disenfranchised voters. Of course she's doing this because it will benefit her campaign. So what? She kept her agreement not to campaign in Florida (arguably more faithfully than Obama). She didn't agree not to challenge the rules. Nor should she have, given how counterproductive they are. I say she should go for it. There's no guarantee she'll succeed. But if she does, it's likely to help the eventual nominee's campaign come this fall.

Tampa Bay Online, 9/30/07 -- says it all. Obama is getting yet another free ride.

Interesting. Here' an excerpt:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/

Barack Obama...appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then...According to Sanchez and Tom Scarritt, Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters."

He'll "do what's right" provided it benefits his campaign, so it would appear. Not that I blame him, FWIW. He wants to win just like Hillary. But as usual, she's pilloried as the Anti-Christ, and he just keeps going on serenely, untroubled by such pesky things as media scrutiny.

I cannot believe all this dialogue debating a column by Ezra Klein who may as well be paid by the Obama campaign for his work. Save your breath people. I support Obama too but realize that I'm not coming here for news, I'm coming here for some Obama-love. Sometimes I do think he takes the Clinton bashing too far, shooting in a circle as Thom Hartmann says, and Ezra will be the first to take down his party in the name of Obama, but he's still the sexiest thing alive!

I have no idea what the right thing to do here is. However, as was noted on your sister blog Tapped, more people turned out in the Democratic primary in Florida than in any primary in the state's history.

Why did they do that? What do you think they thought they were doing?

"It wouldn't look like we're looking down on you if you crawled out of the gutter."

one of us is missing a negative past participle contraction, and I think... it's both of us

interesting turn with the Tampa Bay Online story

and ditto (but abridged) to RJ

There may not be a RIGHT to vote in the primaries as dictated by the DNC, but it surely looks odd telling people their vote doesn't count, what with all of the spreading of democracy we're trying to do abroad

"He'll "do what's right" provided it benefits his campaign, so it would appear."

Your article is from Sept. 2007. He answers a few questions, and when informed the ban on new conferences might cover him talking to reporters, says he won't do it again. Did he do it again?

If this was his clever way of avoiding the campaigning ban, it seems kind of stupid to do it one time 4 months ahead of the primary.

If she doesn't like it, she can always leave the party.

"I didn't keep their vote from counting."

But you stand foursquare for keeping it from counting now.

I voted yesterday, and I voted for Obama. Hillary may have won the state, but Obama won in the Orlando area and could have won Tampa. Unfortunately, the Miami-Fort Lauderdale was completely in Hillary's camp.
Had the DNC sanctions not been in place, Obama would have had a chance to to take the state. At worst, he would have closed the gap and taken almost half the delegates. But what really hurts is that Obama campaigning here would have energized the Democratic party in the state which has acted like wimps to the Republicans. We had no say in the primary date. The Republican governor and legislature did that. But Dean and the DNC cut off any chance of building momentum to undue the damage the Republicans have done here.

This gets at a key difference between H and O, I think. Say there's a replay of Florida 2000 - dimpled chads and all. Why do I get the feeling that Hillary would lie, cheat, and steal to get those goddamn electoral votes, while Obama would gracefully concede "for the good of the country"? And is there really any question which approach would be better?

I know who I thought would make the better president back in 2000. And however disappointed I was with the outcome, I haven't changed my mind since. Have you?

It's really pretty simple for me' a disenfrachised Florida Dem.

I watched the debates, went to the websites, and am as informed as any voter.

But because the Republican Legislature here outmaneuvered the Dems. - my vote is meaningless.

All other considerations aside: "1 man -1 vote" should be the operative principal here

Who cares who's fault it was that MI and FL voters were essentially disenfranchised? It does seem awfully dumb to me that things turned out this way, but the rules are the rules. You can't change them in the middle of the game.

Clinton vs. Obama popular vote %ages, 2008:

IA: Obama +9
NH: Clinton +3
NV: Clinton +6
SC: Obama +28
FL: Clinton +17

Which one of these doesn't belong?

Does anyone really think the lack of campaigning in FL had no effect on the outcome?

In the interest of neutrality, and to counterbalance those who argue Hillary is Satan, I want to point out three key differences:

Satan provides free heat
Satan has better music
Satan is an open Republican

"The voters in Florida and Michigan would have attended speeches, and seen ads, and hosted a debate, and been able to make an informed choice"

Yeah, 857,000 voters in Florida voted for Hillary because they were uninformed.

Too bad you couldn't show them the light Ezra, then they would have voted correctly.

1. Isn't a fundamental part of Obama's platform unity and inclusiveness? Doesn't ignoring two states contradict that?

2. Isn't a fundamental part of Obama's platform that he is a change from the current way of politics? Doesn't kowtowing to the DNC contradict that? Isn't the "punish dissenters" tactic he supports here one of the main ways partisanship has been increased?

I totally agree that Clinton is acting self-serving here, but I also think this issue displays fundamental differences between Obama's words and his actions. These aren't minor parts of his campaign, these are core parts of his platform.

SC: Obama +28

What Mike P said, especially in the first post.

You know, Florida and Michigan get plenty of attention during the GE, so I don't understand the whining.

There are rules. When everyone agrees to follow them and then doesn't, there are penalties. When others try to use those penalties for political gain, thats called scumbaggery. These are elementary things and aren't beholden to only one party, as much as we'd like them to be. Hence, Clinton is well right to be criticized.

Florida voters are invisible to Obama, they are not invisible to Hillary. Hillary has promised there will be no more invisible Americans when she is President and she is delivering. Obama promised there would be a politics of hope when he is President. I think we could use a little less politics and a bit more hope.

If Clinton wanted a fair election in Florida, she would have objected to the DNC's judgment and refused to issue the pledge. By doing so, she might have preserved Florida's chance to hear from the candidates themselves, and greatly increased the chances that Florida would be able to send delegates.

I have read the arguments of those who maintain that Clinton is somehow re-enfranchising the primary voters of Florida, and so far, none of them address that point. This surprises me, in part because it's the same point Ezra is making in the post to which we are all responding.

Down here, we're fairly used to the DNC and Democratic candidates not standing up for our votes. Glad this gets the rest of you all hot and bothered, but we're now in the second out-of-three election-cycles where this scenario plays out...it's business as usual. As for the whining about this being the fault of the Republican- controlled State Legislature, the Democrats ended up coming unanimously on-board with their Republican colleagues in decreeing that such a great state as Florida deserves- nay, must seize- a greater say in deciding who shall be the Presidential Candidates. But then Democratic politicians always seem to come on board, even when they're supposedly in the driver's seat, don't they? Neither of these clowns will get my vote in November and since a vote for McCain or Romney is completely out of the question, I'll be voting like the candidate of hope and change has so often in his short career as Senator, illustrating his steely commitment--I'll be voting Present.

Common sense should win out on this one. What difference does it make when they vote? The voters of Michigan and Florida have cast their ballots. It makes no sense to deny them their voice. But then what place has common sense ever had in politics?