Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
Full Post
Posted Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:50 PM

Florida's Delegate Muddle

Andrew Romano

By Arian Campo-Flores 

The dispute over what to do about Florida’s Democratic delegates remains as muddled as ever. The latest round of confusion comes courtesy of an exchange Gov. Charlie Crist had with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Sunday. Asked by Blitzer whether Crist was “ready to let the Democrats have another primary if necessary to seat those delegates at the convention in Denver,” Crist replied, “That’d be fine with me. I think it’s very important, though, that those delegates are seated. And I’m hopeful that the Democratic National Committee comes to the conclusion it’s the right thing to do. Every vote must count.” Later in the CNN segment, Blitzer spoke to DNC chairman Howard Dean and said that Crist had just come out in support of a “redo” of the Florida primary.

Only thing is, Crist’s office later clarified that the governor was not in fact suggesting a do-over of the state’s primary. His spokesperson, Erin Isaac, said Crist’s argument was that “the peoples’ voices should be heard” and “all the delegates should be seated.” In other words, Democrats should live with the results of the primary that took place on Jan. 29, however flawed it may have been. Florida Democratic party spokesman Mark Bubriski agrees that the governor didn’t suggest holding another primary. As he and others point out, that would cost the state perhaps $15 million--an enormous sum that the state’s taxpayers would likely frown upon at a time of growing budgetary woes. Sen. Hillary Clinton’s supporters in the state--including Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings--argue, like Crist, that Florida’s delegates should be seated. Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign, however, counters that such a move would be tantamount to changing the rules after the game has been played.

Advertisement

So where does that leave Floridians? Exactly where they were before Crist’s confusing exchange with Blitzer: clueless about the fate of the state’s Democratic delegates. A DNC spokesperson says there are essentially two options going forward. The first: to hold another primary or caucus (while the state would have to pay for the former, the Florida Democratic party would have to fund the latter). The second: to try to work out a deal with the DNC’s credentials committee, which deals with delegate-selection issues. But the full committee won’t be named until after the primary season has concluded this summer. If no one has emerged as the clear nominee by then, get ready for a potentially bruising fight. Democrats can only hope for resolution long before then.

UPDATE, March 6: For the latest on the Florida/Michigan delegate mess, click here.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: jasperelsa (March 5, 2008 at 9:36 PM)

The Florida and Michigan voters have voted once and shouldn't have to vote again.  None of the candidates campaigned in either state, so they were on a level playing field.    The votes should count.  Since Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, give him the uncommitted votes;  evidently he had told his supporters to vote that way anyhow.  Levy big fines on the state democratic parties, but don't punish the voters.  And speaking about fairness, there is nothing fair about a caucus.  It disenfranchises a large group of people--older people who don't go out at night and workers whose nighttime jobs don't allow for leaving work for a couple of hours.   The nature of a primary held throughout the day allows more people to participate in our democratic process.  One could argue that Obama would not be leading in delegates if primaries had been held instead of caucuses in some states where constituencies supporting Hillary Clinton could not get to a caucus at night.  In fact I was making calls to small towns in Texas and was told by many older voters that they had voted early and could not make it to a late night caucus.  Also, in regard to super delegates, the rules are that the super delegates are supposed to vote for who they think can win the election and who is most qualified.  Otherwise, why even have them if they are just going to parrot the delegate count.  The Ohio governor said it best when he commented that superdelegates have an overall view at the end of a campaign that the voters didn't have when they voted.   As I said earlier, I think caucuses are bogus anyway and disenfranchise a large group of voters, particularly older voters who tend to turn out in general elections where they can vote during the day.


Posted By: timrogers (March 5, 2008 at 8:19 PM)

Hillary will get her Florida and Michigan delegates because Hillary gets her way in the Democratic party. Obama and the other candidates  were foolish to think Hillary would abide by the party decision if it worked against her. She will get the nomination and she will lose all the voters that Obama brought into the primaries and caucuses. Many of these voters will not vote for her or for McCain, so maybe she will still be competitive against him. I think McCain will beat her, but it might be close. As for Obama, he will have learned his lesson as he watches from the sidelines: "never trust a Clinton when it comes to politics."


Posted By: michael51 (March 5, 2008 at 7:55 PM)

Obviously, as a Floridian I'd like my vote for Edwards counted, HOWEVER, I voted for him as a protest vote (sorry John), and I didn't know Obama very well, since he didn't campaign here! To change the rules now is absurd. If the positions were reversed, you know dang well

Clinton would be screaming bloody murder!

Michigan didn't even have everyone on the ballot, in addition to the above!

I thought it was stupid of the DNC to punish Florida Democrats for what a Republican legislature did anyway. Who is running this pathetic show?

BTW, tell Chris Matthews to quit kissing up to Macauliffe...speaking of pathetic. Try pointing out that HRC had a huge lead to begin that dwindled to where she barely won. That is just as plausible as Macauliffe's, if not more so.