FL, MI reps to meet tonight

Posted: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 4:44 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
The Florida and Michigan Democratic congressional delegations will meet together behind closed doors this evening to discuss their respective convention delegate situations.

Rep. Alcee Hastings has organized the confab. He says that it is not the first such gathering, but that the situation "became more complicated after yesterday," and this meeting has been called in reaction to the fact that the race continues. There were those who had hoped that things would be decided so that this issue could be glossed over, he says, but the results from Ohio and Texas "muddied the water."

Hastings, a Clinton supporter, says that the meeting is not expected to result in a definitive decision, but is needed to make sure everyone understands the state of play, both politically and procedurally.

He dismissed the notion that the GOP-controlled Florida legislation would allow Dems a "do-over," and regards the comments attributed today to Gov. Crist with skepticism. Hastings says the cost of such a re-do would be between $18 million and 20 million.

He says that senators from the two states are invited. There will be no reps from the Obama or Clinton campaigns, nor will Howard Dean be there.

The meeting is to take place in the Capitol later tonight after votes, perhaps 8ish.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Hillary keeps referencing "experience" - exactly what experience does she have?? I was married to a school teacher for 25 years, does that make me qualified to be a school teacher?? Heck no! She has no more experiece than Obama, that is a nonsensical claim - you can't acquire experience by osmosis. Also, the phone ringing in the middle of the night in the presidential bedroom - how would she know what that was like? She never slept there.

Barbara Porto, Niagara Falls, New York (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 4:59 PM)

This strikes me as very dangerous waters in which to swim.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Obama 08

Lisa, New Britain, CT (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 4:59 PM)

There had better be some Obama supporters there or we will be on front line protesting!!

LB, Virginia (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:03 PM)

There must be re-votes in both Florida AND Michigan, or they must not be seated. Just because she's Hillary Clinton doesn't mean that she can rewrite the rules.

Enrique, Chicago (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:04 PM)

Count the delegate's with no do over's. It was a level playing field, no one campaigned there. She won fair and square. If you count them she is the fair winner...she has won more delegates. This will be the best for our party.

Cathey, TN (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:05 PM)

"There will be no reps from the Obama or Clinton campaigns, nor will Howard Dean be there."

So Hastings isn't going to be there?

This is ridiculous. The delegations shouldn't be seated.

Edgar, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:07 PM)

WE VOTED IN FLORIDA, IN A COMPLETELY "FAIR ELECTION". THOSE RESULTS MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR,AND THE DELEGATES MUST BE SEATED AT THE CONVENTION.IF THEY WERE TO HOLD A NEW ELECTION,IT WOULD BE UNFAIR.THE ELECTION WAS HELD IN JANUARY,WHEN "MOST" OF THE PART TIME RESIDENCES ARE IN FLORIDA. IF THEY DECIDE TO GO AGAINST THE WILL OF THE FLORIDA VOTERS, AND HOLD THE ELECTION AGAIN,IN MAY OR JUNE. THEN THEY "MUST" SEND BALLOTS OUT IN THE MAIL,SO THAT "ALL" CITIZENS OF FLORIDA ARE ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE.THIS MADDER MUST BE ADDRESSEED "IMMEDIATELY", OR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL "DEFINITLY" DISINFRANCHISE ALL FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC VOTERS. THAT WOULD NOT BE WISE !

FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC VOTERS..WE MEAN WHAT WE SAY ! (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:07 PM)

Michigan and Florida need to quit whinning and suck it up. They broke the rules and now they have to deal with the consequences. It's called the rule of law and they need to get used to it!
http://twocanpete.blogspot.com

twocanpete (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:12 PM)

How could a democrat candidate win any state without the black vote? That has never been done in my lifetime. But Hillary is doing it. Dosen't this mean she is the one who is bringing the party together? She has always been for us all and it took the black vote to put her husband and all other dems in office. All will get on her page when she is the nominee.

President Clinton 2 (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:13 PM)

REPUBLICAN GOVENOR CRIST WANTS TO BE VICE PRESIDENT.

Jill Hill, Tallahassee, Florida (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:14 PM)

It would be one thing if one candidate was miles ahead and the votes from these two states would not impact the final outcome but this is not the case. Clearly, every Democrat that wants to participate should have the right to express their choice.

This is not an easy task but in fairness it should be discussed until a reasonable compromise can be reached that is fair to both candidates as well as the Democrats of Florida and Michigan.

campdog (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:15 PM)

Good luck on this. This is a nice Democratic way of doing things. A back room deal that approximates the loose will of the people? Just say what you are doing and quit it with the clandestine meetings.

Tim Freedman (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:17 PM)

-----------------------------------------------------
WHY WILL HILLARY NOT RELEASE HER "2006" INCOME TAX RETURNS? BECAUSE OF DUBAI INCOME RECEIVED !
----------------------------------------------------

ED H (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:17 PM)

It would be nuts not to allow the votes in Michigan and Florida to count. Barack was on the Ballot in Florida, and against the rules ran T.V. ads. Barack made the decision not to put his name on the Michigan ballot. Bad judgement again.

If Obama gets the nomination at the end of the day and because of him or his people, Florida and Michigan did not count, there will be backlsah from these states. They will both go republican in the General election. They need to count these now.

antthony y, minneapolis,mn (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:19 PM)

Why would the Clintons want a do-over? Do-over will mean that Sen. Obama would be allowed to campaign in FL & MI - we can't have that, can we now?

DoM (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:19 PM)

antthony y, minneapolis,mn (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:20 PM)

This michigander feels that if we are not counted now she will not be counted in November and there are many more like me. There are many things to be said here about the deligates and thats all well and fine, but the truth is our rights as voters are challanged here and you may think to dismiss us but who knows maybe in November we will dismiss you also and not vote. That is our stand.

Janice Newton Orleans, Michigan (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:22 PM)

Why not take advantage of Governor Crist's offer? A do-over of the primary would be fair to everyone -- voters in Florida and voters across America.

Is there something Mr. Hastings fears from a do-over? Does he believe that the candidate he supports wouldn't do so well if Senator Obama got the chance to introduce himself personally to the voters of Florida? Since Senator Obama's presence campaigning in a state always raises his actual votes over prior polls, I think we can all be assured that this is exactly what Mr. Hastings fears.

Why not do a do-over? Food for thought.

Food for thought, CA (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:23 PM)

In 1981 Judge Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).

In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate.

Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

just the facts ma'am (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:23 PM)

MAKE MY VOTE COUNT
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

DEMOCRAT,FL (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:24 PM)

It is suicide for the DNC to count Florida and Michigan out. To win the Presidency, swing state Florida is a must along with Ohio.

If they punish these two they retaliate by voting Republican. There goes DNC squander another chance of taking the White House.

Obama advertised in Florida. Shouldn't he be at the least get punished for that?

I say do not tick off these two states. Every state count in the general election. Think big picture.

Dan, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:25 PM)

. . .Hell has no fury like a voter scorned if Clinton
tries to cheat with help from Michigan's RACIST plot to disenfranchise voters and illegally
seat ill gotten delegates. Another primary or nothing at
all. YOU DON'T KNOW SOME MICHIGANDERS VERY WELL. They will never stand for that. That's why
Hillary is known as a backstabbing divider, and will never get my vote.

OBAMA/EDWARDS 08.

B. Smart (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:26 PM)

Ok, here it goes. Here we have Two Democrats, Hillary and Obama, competing against each other. Democrats, yes democrats, who I noticed have a tendency to vote for-- guess which party--that is right—Democrats. Now, stay with my reasoning here; I will not go too fast for you, ok. Since the “Democrats” are voting for “Democratic Presidential Nominees” is it just possible, even plausible, and down right probable, that the “Democrats” will vote for a “DEMOCRAT” during the general election! Furthermore, and I will try not to get too complex here, since the “Democrats” have been turning out in record numbers to vote or Hillary or Obama (both of which are: democrats,) isn’t it probable that they will vote for a “DEMOCRATIC” candidate! Now comes the “tricky part.” Doesn’t this simply, and I mean very simple, basic logic suggest that Hillary’s argument that she can win the “Big Blue States” against another “DEMOCRAT” become meaningless? And finally, since Barrack Obama seems to be able to draw in independents better than Hillary, wouldn't he be (and I’m just spit balling here) A MORE ELECT ABLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE—since he is leading in the popular vote and in pledged delegates that represent the will of the American People. Oh, rest assure, we Democrats will prevail because somewhere, I once read, yes, that’s’ it---A government for the people—by the people---Yes, yes They must have been talking about the “Super Delegates.” Not.

all american (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:33 PM)

How about this as a proposition:

For Florida, the results were semi-legitimate (Tim, Obama ran an ad on a national station that happened to be picked up in FL, while Clinton held multiple fundraisers in FL the week before the primary. Don't tell me either is worse than the other.) Because both Clinton and Obama were on the ballot, I suggest that we use the vote count that took place. However, in order to prevent this sort of thing in the future, we should penalize Florida; I would suggest removing 30-40% of their pledged delegates (and all the superdelegates, since many of them were the ones that made the decision to move the primary up). That is actually less than the GOP penalized FL and the other states that went early, so it would be more acceptable to the party of inclusion.

Michigan, since Obama was not on the ballot, essentially has to hold another primary or a caucus. Had everyone been on the ballot, I would suggest the same as Florida. We should still penalize MI's delagates the same way as FL, in order to discourage this sort of activity in the future.

Thoughts?

Eric Olson, Hyattsville, MD (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:33 PM)

Well, if Howard Dean isn't going to do something, at least the superdelegates are talking about it. I blame Dean for letting it get to this point. Make a decision! You're head of the DNC for cripes' sake!

Kathleen, Ca (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:35 PM)

How typical of the Clintons. To try to change the rules to better them. I remember HRC while she was at the Rose Law Firm trying to get the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to change its conflict of interest rules to allow her firm to work both sides of the street.

Fred Mittelman McLean VA (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:48 PM)

If Hillary snatches the nomination through wily machinations, Obama should not be deterred to run as an independent

PS, Amawalk, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:51 PM)

What are Hastings et.al., going to talk about? The rules are clear. The only thing they could do is go to court. Democrats suing Democrats. Should be quite a public display and interesting to watch. The final fight will be on the convention floor in Denver when the MI and FL delegates try to seat themselves.

Steve McNally, St. Louis (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 5:52 PM)

Hillary won fair and square.
No do-overs.
Seat her delegates!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:01 PM)

All candidates were on the ballot in Florida! - so there is NO need for a revote there!

And although they weren't supposed to campaign there - Obama ran TV ads - and claimed they were part of a cable package and Florida couldn't be omitted.

Yeah - riiiiight!

Margaret, NYC (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:01 PM)

The only way this will be democratic is if the voters in those two states voted again or caucused.

Andrea, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:06 PM)

Let me guess, they will suggest that the state's delegates be awarded based upon a vote of the state's superdelegates or Democratic senators and representatives. Not that I am saying it is a bad way to do it without benefit of a valid popular vote.

Who's Sane (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:09 PM)

I only wish Iowa would have a primary instead of the stupid caucus, let all who can get to the polling place vote and then winner take all, that way the majority talks. I think Fl and Mi should be allowed to vote, those Dem votes did not count and that does not speak well for democracy.

Marty CR Iowa (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:29 PM)

People Of Florida and Michigan has every right to claim that their votes should be counted. People who voted should not punished just because of state 's decission of changing primary.
Ali

Abdirazak (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:32 PM)

The candidates agreed to not campaign in Michigan and Florida; apparently they did not. Hillary smartly kept her name on both ballots (perhaps a poor decision on Obama's part as he chose to not have his name on the ballot in one of the states). This isn't the first time someones' name did not make it on a states' ballot. The people voted in both states; Clinton won. There is no need to vote again as we have a result. Clinton gets her share, Obama gets his.

Dianne McClure, Waterford, Michigan (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:35 PM)

MI and FL did not play by the rules. If they are allowed to seat delegates, then why have rules. The knew what the punishment would be and went ahead anyway.

The Dem party is already starting to fracture. This will cause more damage.

Phyllis, Dallas TX (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:46 PM)

Seat the delegates. The voters of FL and MI voted, and no one should be able to throw that out. NH is first by their stupid state law, which shouldn't be legal. And if it is legal to make a state law about their primary, then FL and MI can do what ever the hell they want. Obama took his name of the ballot is MI, that's his own damn problem. Hillary chose to stay, so she wins, period. I wasn't on the ballot but I can't claim that it's not fair because I chose not to be on the ballot.

Different dates for primaries and caucuses is BS, expecially when stupid podunk states like Iowa think their so damn cool because they get to go first. I'm in Oregon and this is the first time that I can recall that our primary actually means something. Super Tuesday should be nation wide, get it all over and done with. And if that's just not possible, then atleast rotate the primaries so that states take turn going first. And as for caucuses, wtf is up with that? People have to go to a set meeting, stay the whole time and then get into groups who try to convince others to join their corner of the room. If that's not the ultimate BS...

Arletta, Beaverton, Oregon (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:14 PM)

MSNBC: you accepted political comments not specific to this story but have denied my comment: "this is not a game": I'm tired of hearing the comment about "playing" by the rules. This is not a child's game and the people of MI and FL should not be denied meaningful participation in the nomination process.

Mark SP, St. Louis, MO (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:16 PM)

Alcee Hastings is a crook who almost went to jail, no surprise that he is supporting Hillary.

loris bay (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:21 PM)

I'm from Michigan. This morning I heard Barack Obama, on national TV indicate that he has the Michigan vote. He didn't win the Michigan vote and it's offensive that he's claiming that he did. Someone needs to remind him that he didn't run in Michigan, while Hilary did. The Michigan voters voted, it's important that we're part of this democratic process as other states and Americans are. Keep in mind it wasn't the voters that made the decision to break the rules, and it's not right in the end to disregard who we want as our next President!

Karen Hooper, Detroit, Michigan (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:26 PM)

For the sake of fostering party unite and as a symbolic gesture, the DNC might consider inviting both Michigan and Florida delegates to arrive in Denver splitting delegates 50% - 50% (as long as it is made crystal clear that the count has no impact on the final outcome). Both states are represented during a time when we will need it most, neither candidate has a gain or loss, and positioning or challenging both states to redeem themselves during the general election. I think this scenario is probably the most simplistic approach, eliminates the opportunities for conspiracy theorist, and helps our party maintain our integrity and pride as the party for all people.

Don Patterson, Fort Lauderdale, FL (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:36 PM)

If the shoe were on the other foot Obama would be doing the same thing. Florida should be counted because it was not the Democrats who moved up the primaries but state Republicans. All of the candidates' names were on the ballots. None of the candidates campaigned there but Obama did break the rules by having a campaign ad run. In Michigan, Hillary chose to leave her name on the ballot. She was not the only Democrat to keep their name on the ballot. Obama and Edwards chose to take their names off. People knew this before they went to the polls. Those who wanted Hillary voted for her. The others voted uncommitted as they were told to if they were for Obama or Edwards. If it is a do over than it should be the same way it was originally and definitely not a caucus.

catmom Houston, TX (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:45 PM)

MI and FL did not play by the rules. If they are allowed to seat delegates, then why have rules. The knew what the punishment would be and went ahead anyway. If they must be seated require them to vote 50-50 for Obama and Clinton. The states that played by the rules should determine the nominee.

Bill Matthews (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:49 PM)

Let's get something straight -- people in FL and MI were told their votes WOULD NOT COUNT! Many people, especially would-be first time voters, STAYED HOME. To turn around now and validate these results would disenfranchise those who were essentially discouraged from voting in the first place! Either HOLD NEW PRIMARIES or forget about seating those delegates.

Although I am an Obama supporter, I know he stands to lose ground if there is a do-over, but our first concern should be giving EVERY ELIGIBLE VOTER the OPPORTUNITY to be heard -- isn't that what we railed against the Republicans about in 2000? In Florida, no less!

David, Islip, NY (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:53 PM)

EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT! EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT! AMERICAN CITIZENS OF FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN WENT TO THE POLLS AND CAST THEIR VOTES AND THEIR VOTES SHOULD BE COUNTED. SHAME ON THE DNC FOR THIS RIDICULOUS MESS! THEY DISENFRANCHISE THEIR OWN PEOPLE! DEMOCRATS WILL LEAVE THE PARTY IF FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN VOTES DON'T COUNT!

MARYLOU, LHC. AZ (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:55 PM)

I'm a white guy from West Michigan and I think that the comment about MIchigan's primary being rigged as a racist plot is a bit much. That said, I think race is a big factor in this issue.

1. A white governor (who supports Clinton) decides to put Michigan's primary ahead (knowing some censure will likely result)

2. The DNC and candidates agree not to run in MI.

3. The Michigan electorate is told their votes won't count.

4. The only major Dem candidate on the ballot is Clinton. Obama and Edwards supporters are told (late) to vote "Uncommitted".

5. Clinton 'wins' Michigan (tough running against "Uncommitted", isn't it?) and gets no delegates.

Does it sound like a plot? No, but it doesn't sound fair. Do I think Gov. Granholm is racist? No. But Detroit is a major factor in Michigan politics and many citizens (white and black) of the "D" would have voted for Obama (if the stats are anywhere near the same as many other states-Obama has scored high in urban centers).

Did Gov. Granholm expect all along that Michigan's delegates would be seated? (She's been saying it since the primary.)

Is Gov. Granholm more concerned with saving face (again, advancing the primary date was here move) or with enriching her endorsed candidate (Clinton) or is she concerned with giving MI citizens a real opportunity for a fair election?

If Dem's want to decry the disenfranchisement of voters, this is clearly a case where they can avoid it by admitting their mistake in moving the primary up (and re-run the primary) or stop trying to change the rules "after the game has started."

Hold a caucus. Rerun the election (have the candidates chip in the $$ to subsidize it). But give people a REAL chance to vote for a person.

Telling people to just vote for "Uncommitted" was a terrible idea--and if it was anticipated all along that she would get the delegates by keeping her name on the ballot when the other big candidates stayed off, that sounds like a major injustice.

Joe, Grand Rapids, MI (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:56 PM)

It will be interesting to see what can be done. There is enough blame to go around.. from the florida republican controlled state legislators who passed the bill, to dean who wanted to play a power game and ignore it, to the florida democratic party who could have negotiated with dean but didnt...18 million to redo is a lot of money for this state since its controlled by republicans, and we know they have no clue about fiscal responsibility. I think dean should put up some of the money. but there has got to be a redo or a caucus, but thats the only way it should count.. I didnt vote that day because IT DIDNT COUNT.. so if it were to count now i would be disenfranchised.

pasteeater, clermont, fl (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:58 PM)

The 'rules are rules' argument doesn't hold up here, because the rules are a joke. The legislature that moved the date up in Florida is Republican controlled, so why weren't their delegates stripped? The reasoning was that moving forward the date would result in a fairer system, where more diverse states could hold early primaries to better reflect the country. It's hardly fair that the same states each year get left out of the nomination process because they have to vote last. South Carolina moved up their date, why weren't they punished?
Florida and Michigan should not be punished for trying to change the system, because it clearly needs changing.

Tim, New York (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:58 PM)

It strikes me as odd to consider seating MI when Obama wasn't on the ballot. He was just following the rules as promulgated by the DNC. Not being on the ballot seems like it might be an advantage to your opponent. You can't consider the results the will of the voters when the choices weren't all there. Duh!

Bruce, Portland, OR (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:10 PM)

The fact that Camp Hillary refuses to consider the option of holding new, legitimate, votes in these states demonstrates conclusively that what they care about has absolutely nothing to do with "everyone's vote being counted" or anything else so selfless and democratic. Turnout obviously would be much higher in both states if all the candidates were on the ballot, campaigned, and voters were told something other than "don't bother voting, because your vote will not count." The *only* reason Camp Clinton could possibly have to oppose a re-vote is that she (correctly) understands that even if she wins both states in a legitimate vote, her margins will be much smaller than they were when (a) she was THE ONLY CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT in MI and (b) had a million times more name recognition than anyone else in FL. (Note that in nearly every state so far, Clinton has polled roughly 20% leads over Obama until the candidates actually come into the states and campaign; look at Texas, for instance.)

Nate, San Francisco (Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:19 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=734454