by D. Cupples | We all agree: it would be grossly unfair to seat Florida's and Michigan's delegates at the Democratic convention based on those states' first primaries. In recent weeks, people are debating something different, a way to stop disenfranchisement of those states' voters while following Democratic Party rules: do-over primaries.
That said, Rev. Al Sharpton is threatening possible lawsuits if Florida's and Michigan's delegates are seated based on the first primaries. Again, neither Barack Obama's nor Hillary Clinton's supporters are currently trying to do that -- which leaves me confused over Rev. Sharpton's recent statements. The New York Sun reports:
"Laying the groundwork for a court battle that could divide the Democratic Party, the Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to sue the Democratic National Committee if it counts Florida's primary results in the official presidential delegates tally.
"Rev. Sharpton is traveling to Florida today to compile lists of residents who skipped the January contest because they thought their votes would not count. He plans to have those residents sign affidavits saying they would be disenfranchised by the seating of the Florida delegation, in the event the Democratic Party allowed that to happen.... (New York Sun)
First, the divided-party ship sailed in January, when the race became about the false notion that voters had to choose between "Change" and "Experience" and between "shiny-new politics" and "dirty-old politics." We've seen both campaigns generate enough dirt to know that the latter notion is as false as the former.
Second, Mr. Sharpton is not wrong for making preparations, though the current discussion (again) is not about seating Florida's and Michigan's delegates based on the first primaries. It's about having do-over primaries, which (again) the rules permit.
I keep mentioning "rules," because Sen. Obama's campaign keeps saying that it wants to "play by the rules." At the same time, Sen. Obama's campaign has not said that it actually wants to let Florida and Michigan have do-over primaries (which, again, the rules allow).
It's very murky. Sen. Obama should publicly state whether he's for or against do-over primaries. The NY Sun continues:
"Rev. Sharpton has not [publicly] endorsed a presidential candidate, but his efforts in Florida are widely viewed as benefiting Mr. Obama, who has won more delegates overall than Mrs. Clinton.... (New York Sun)
Yes, Mr. Obama might benefit. If the public misunderstands Rev. Sharpton's stance as opposition to do-over primaries (i.e., if outcries against do-overs ensue), then Florida and Michigan may not have new primaries. In that case, Sen. Obama would likely maintain his slight popular-vote lead against Hillary.
If Florida and Michigan have do-over primaries, Hillary might take a slight lead in the popular vote or close the gap significantly. That certainly would not be good for Sen. Obama.
"During an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News on Friday, Rev. Sharpton said the rules that were set by the party mean that Michigan and Florida delegates should not be seated."
"We cannot have the perception that the rules changed because of some favoritism, or because some people didn't want to see Senator Obama as the nominee, when he legitimately pulled ahead," he said. (New York Sun)
Most people agree -- especially since neither candidate campaigned in Florida and Obama's name wasn't on Michigan's first primary ballot.
The big question: why is Rev. Sharpton still focusing on seating Florida's and Michigan's delegates based on the first primaries, when the debate is now about arranging do-over primaries? They're completely different issues.
James Carville, one of Hillary's biggest supporters, is even talking about raising funds to pay for do-overs, so the taxpayers wouldn't be burdened. The NY Sun continues:
"If Mr. Obama is denied the nomination because of 'back-room deals' made by superdelegates, he [Sharpton] said, 'you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket.'" (New York Sun)
In other words, if Hillary gets the nomination due to superdelegates -- whom the rules allow to vote however they want -- then Obama's supporters will not vote for her, instead opting to see John McCain take the White House. A
few weeks ago, Sen. Obama's wife stated on Good Morning America that
she might not support Hillary against John McCain if Hillary
becomes the nominee. This begs the question: how serious are Mrs. Obama and Rev. Sharpton about repairing our economy and getting out of Iraq that they would even consider it acceptable for McCain to become president? Sen. Obama has never said such a thing, presumably because he puts our nation's interests above his own political ambitions. The NY Sun continues:
"Other civil rights leaders haven't always agreed with Rev. Sharpton's assessment of the Florida primary.
"Last month, the chairman of the NAACP, Julian Bond, wrote a letter to the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, to express 'great concern at the prospect that millions of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted if they are not assigned delegate representation for the Democratic National Convention." (New York Sun)
I doubt that the NAACP, at this point, wants Florida's and Michigan's delegates seated based on the first primaries, but I bet the group wants do-overs, because it's the only way for voters in Michigan and Florida to not be disenfranchised. I'd like clarification. I'd also like to see Rev. Sharpton clarify his stance specifically on do-over primaries. Given the damage that President Bush has done to his party, I suspect that Republicans far and wide are laughing and cracking bottles of Cristal over Rev. Sharpton's recent publicity. Memeorandum has commentary: TalkLeft, Political Machine, MSNBC, Betsy's Page and Obsidian Wings. Other BN-Politics Posts:
* Hillary Clinton (Candidates' Positives, Part I)
* Obama: Because I Remember (Candidate Positives, Pt. II)
* Clinton Open to "Dream Ticket," Obama not There Yet
* Election 2008: Primary v. General (i.e., Electoral College) .
Comments