Dean Not Opposed to ‘Re-seating’ MI and FL Delegates
06 March 2008 4:52 pm by Taylor Marsh
Obama chose, as part of his strategy to win Iowa and New Hampshire, to take his name off the Michigan primary ballot. This is the reason I’m against a do-over in Michigan. Nobody is telling this
story, but instead is simply stating that only Clinton was on the ballot. That’s
because she elected to take the heat from Iowa and New Hampshire voters by staying
on the ballot and honoring Michigan’s voters. Not so with Obama, Edwards and
others, who chose to genuflect to the first primary states in the hopes of courting
votes and leaving Clinton in the cold in Michigan. Then Obama’s team encouraged
his people to vote “uncomitted” in order to humiliate Hillary. Fair
game in politics, for sure, but he shouldn’t get rewarded for it. The
New Republic gets this part of the story correct, one of the first outlets
to even try to tell the whole tale:
“They want to play. They know how to do caucuses,” the DNC source
said. “That was their plan all along, before they got cute with the primary.”
…Hillary Clinton won that Jan. 15 primary, but was the only major candidate
on the ballot. Barack Obama and John Edwards had removed their names,
although Obama supporters in the state urged voters to choose “uncommitted”
over Clinton. Forty percent of the voters that day did just that,
compared to 55 percent who voted for (Clinton)… ..
A caucus? This is just wrong. Caucuses are undemocratic, which I started saying
long before the Iowa caucuses. Many people can’t afford to spend hours in them.
It’s just absurd. It’s also unfair at this late date to hand either candidate
an advantage with the race so close. Obama has proven his prowess in caucuses.
Clinton voters often can’t get off work to attend. A primary gives everyone
the same opportunity.
As for Florida, all candidates were at the same disadvantage. Plus, Obama was
coming off of great publicity, while also having slimed the Clinton’s in South
Carolina, which he won in a rout. Florida delegates should be seated as they
now stand.
The DNC really blew this one badly and know it. Maybe that’s why the DNC
gave this to the New York Times, which they added in an update:
[Update, 6:30 p.m. The D.N.C. also wants it to be known that Mr. Dean doesn't
necessarily oppose the "re-seating" of these delegates. Mr. Dean
offers up the options of a do-over or an appeal to the credentials committee.]
