Stalemate in Fla-Mich
Over the last few days the strategies in Florida and Michigan have cleared a little, but it's not a pretty picture, if you're the kind that, from the sidelines, likes to see a game played right.
I had thought that the ball was in the DNC's court, especially when it came to Florida.
In Florida the state Democratic party had thrown up its hands when it became obvious that all the proposals for any kind of a re-vote had too many naysayers, and its chairwoman said that Florida simply does not want to vote again.
That seemed to mean that only the DNC could settle the matter, either by sticking to its vow not to seat any Florida delegates because of that state's defiance of the DNC's warning not to move up its primary, or by the DNC swallowing its pride and seating the delegates anyway, on the basis of that primary, which Florida held in January and was won by H.Clinton, 50% to 33%.
I had thought that, because he came out so far behind in Florida, and because stand-ins for him in Michigan, who voted both as "Uncommitted" and in the Republican primary, didn't do much better, it was to B. Obama's advantage to go for revotes in both states in hopes of a different result and picking up more delegates. But now many reports say that his 100+ lead in pledged delegates and the scarcity of more primaries before convention time make it impossible for H. Clinton to overtake him without big wins in Florida and Michigan. So it's to Obama's interest to drag his feet on all proposals to do anything inside both states till it's too late, and to take his chances that anything the DNC does will not hurt him either.
That's not sporting or chivalrous, but it's politics, though B. Obama might want to look farther, to gauge what might happen in those two states during the run-up to election day, if, as H. Clinton likes to point out, the voters in those states are piqued with the Democrats by the failure to allow their votes to have a say in picking the nominee, when every other state in the Union is definitely having one, which doesn't happen often.
Just today two Florida state senators came up with a plan that doesn't involve any action by the Floridians but instead calls on the DNC to seat half the delegates that Florida would ordinarily have and the other half by one of a number of different, proposed proportions, some based on the popular votes in the primaries of all the states except Michigan and Florida.
Meanwhile in Michigan, the prospects for some sort of a revote are slightly better, and Clinton is there right now trying to urge the legislature to get a move on, as that is where the main hangup is.
I keep looking for the DNC and their Rules and Bylaws committee to say something, because they're the main villains in this piece by being so rigid in refusing to allow Florida and Michigan to steal a clap or two of thunder from the smaller early bird primaries, mainly Iowa and New Hampshire. The DNC should have been able to look ahead and see that something like this might happen, and to have all sorts of contigency plans drawn up that wouldn't hurt the party.
But that would be expecting too much, and that's borne out by remarks made by James Roosevelt, Jr., a grandson of FDR, highly respected member of the DNC, and co-chairman of its Rules and Bylaws committee. In so many words he said that rules are rules and they're just going to stand pat and it's up to those two states to get something going.
In chess there is sometimes a peculiar possibility that puts both players up on their toes big time, if they're prudent. It usually rears its demonic head in the final stages of a game, and it snaps its jaws shut when one player's King is not in check, i.e. being directly attacked, and it's his turn to move yet neither his King nor any of his other men has a legal move. This nasty or comical outcome, depending on which side of the board you're occupying, is called a stalemate and it's a draw, usually to the dismay of the other player who more often than not has a winning advantage and who is now kicking himself for his carelessness.
I believe that, despite the steadfastness and the proven great integrity of the likes of Mr. Roosevelt over many years, he and his colleagues are in great danger of collectively becoming that latter player, except that in this case the the draw will be more like a several-fold loss.
I had thought that the ball was in the DNC's court, especially when it came to Florida.
In Florida the state Democratic party had thrown up its hands when it became obvious that all the proposals for any kind of a re-vote had too many naysayers, and its chairwoman said that Florida simply does not want to vote again.
That seemed to mean that only the DNC could settle the matter, either by sticking to its vow not to seat any Florida delegates because of that state's defiance of the DNC's warning not to move up its primary, or by the DNC swallowing its pride and seating the delegates anyway, on the basis of that primary, which Florida held in January and was won by H.Clinton, 50% to 33%.
I had thought that, because he came out so far behind in Florida, and because stand-ins for him in Michigan, who voted both as "Uncommitted" and in the Republican primary, didn't do much better, it was to B. Obama's advantage to go for revotes in both states in hopes of a different result and picking up more delegates. But now many reports say that his 100+ lead in pledged delegates and the scarcity of more primaries before convention time make it impossible for H. Clinton to overtake him without big wins in Florida and Michigan. So it's to Obama's interest to drag his feet on all proposals to do anything inside both states till it's too late, and to take his chances that anything the DNC does will not hurt him either.
That's not sporting or chivalrous, but it's politics, though B. Obama might want to look farther, to gauge what might happen in those two states during the run-up to election day, if, as H. Clinton likes to point out, the voters in those states are piqued with the Democrats by the failure to allow their votes to have a say in picking the nominee, when every other state in the Union is definitely having one, which doesn't happen often.
Just today two Florida state senators came up with a plan that doesn't involve any action by the Floridians but instead calls on the DNC to seat half the delegates that Florida would ordinarily have and the other half by one of a number of different, proposed proportions, some based on the popular votes in the primaries of all the states except Michigan and Florida.
Meanwhile in Michigan, the prospects for some sort of a revote are slightly better, and Clinton is there right now trying to urge the legislature to get a move on, as that is where the main hangup is.
I keep looking for the DNC and their Rules and Bylaws committee to say something, because they're the main villains in this piece by being so rigid in refusing to allow Florida and Michigan to steal a clap or two of thunder from the smaller early bird primaries, mainly Iowa and New Hampshire. The DNC should have been able to look ahead and see that something like this might happen, and to have all sorts of contigency plans drawn up that wouldn't hurt the party.
But that would be expecting too much, and that's borne out by remarks made by James Roosevelt, Jr., a grandson of FDR, highly respected member of the DNC, and co-chairman of its Rules and Bylaws committee. In so many words he said that rules are rules and they're just going to stand pat and it's up to those two states to get something going.
In chess there is sometimes a peculiar possibility that puts both players up on their toes big time, if they're prudent. It usually rears its demonic head in the final stages of a game, and it snaps its jaws shut when one player's King is not in check, i.e. being directly attacked, and it's his turn to move yet neither his King nor any of his other men has a legal move. This nasty or comical outcome, depending on which side of the board you're occupying, is called a stalemate and it's a draw, usually to the dismay of the other player who more often than not has a winning advantage and who is now kicking himself for his carelessness.
I believe that, despite the steadfastness and the proven great integrity of the likes of Mr. Roosevelt over many years, he and his colleagues are in great danger of collectively becoming that latter player, except that in this case the the draw will be more like a several-fold loss.
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 12:58 AM
3 Comments:
Carl, I have many thoughts on the subject, but first, please follow the link to Bryan's review of the Florida situation, a post which in turn links to five posts of his own, which posts again in turn refer to some of the excellent writing of Mary Beth Williams of Wampum, who has followed the subject more closely than just about any of us.
I'd like to remind everyone of something Bryan mentions in another post, namely, that the prize is the presidency, won in the November election, and that without Florida and Michigan, the Democratic Party just isn't going to win the presidency. One would hope that that thought would change a few people's stubborn minds in their headstrong pursuit of their particular candidate's advantage, or in their strident defense of those much-ballyhooed rules, but only time will tell.
(BTW, it's often very difficult to view Bryan's site in the middle of the day. If domain lookup fails, please try twice (or occasionally five or more times) until you reach the site. It really is out there; it's part of the internet, not the site, that fails repeatedly.)
I am so glad that you have the patience and fortitude to look up the information and post on it. It means that I can come here, get my information, leave a comment and then get back to work. As opposed to sitting at my office computer, looking up this information, banging my head into the brick walls, cleaning up the blood, rinse, repeat.
I have written Howard Dean, I have written Bill Nelson, and I think I wrote Alan Boyd, but who knows? Maybe I should call them, and the local guys too. My vote should count.
Alright, I have to move on before the head vs wall thing starts.
Yes, Lady, you should call someone. You have to call someone. You must call someone. Your proven talents in that capacity demand it! :)
I on the other hand have a definite attitude toward the telephone that makes picking it up for any purpose a painful thing. That's why I'm condemned, for instance, to solve all my computer difficulties on my own.
--Steve, I've taken mysteriously ill, with nausea and throwing up but no coughing, and subsequent bad weakness for a few days, twice in recent months. I've been blaming it on not eating, though that's probably just a bad guess, though I do get nauseous when not enough has gone down the pipe.
Meanwhile here I still haven't eaten and it's now 1.30 in the afternoon. That's what I get for "jousting" with you for much of the morning about Obama's speech. :) But I plan to take care of that now. Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home