I think the DNC has got some explaining to do. I suppose it is just as well that Howard Dean did not get elected president.

Woah there!
Dean has done a stupendous job as DNC chair and would have been an excellent president.
This is crying over spilled milk now anyway.
Both states knew beforehand the consequences of their decisions and went ahead and did it anyways.
That's NOT Dean's fault but the state Dem party's failing.
Don't place blame where it doesn't belong.
Should Dems in these states be excluded? No.
Is that Dean's fault? No.

I know you disagree but we love you anyway.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson

That's NOT Dean's fault but the state Dem party's failing.

As I mentioned before, I thought it was the Republican controlled state legislature that moved the dates*, and the DNC that imposed the death penalty. So it would seem that it was the DNC that had discretion. There's a separate issue of changing the rules and the possible snowball effects of that, but it would seem easier for Democrats to change the DNC rules or make a one time exception than to change state law in legislatues they don't control?

(*I'm a little hazy on that and I'm too lazy to google.)

P.S. I think Dean has done a good job. But he needs to get this straightened out.

Okay, I do like Howard Dean. I just think he and the DNC were not prepared for the problems that have arisen from their decision to not allow Florida and Michigan votes/delegates to count. So far, it has everyone worried about super delegates and how they will vote.

Super delegates, Super delegates, Super delegates.... (scream)

That Conventional Wisdom can f##k ya.

Democrats supported the moving of the primary dates
knowing full well the DNC rules

The conventional wisdom was..so what move the primary
get more bang for your buck..the thing will be over feb 5th & the nominee will control the floor & seat both the Fla & Mich delegations.

Thats in limbo right now..If Clinton loses Ohio & Texas..Obama will control the floor & the delegations will be seated.

If not it goes to the covention floor.

The Michigan and Florida Democratic Party did not have to hold their primaries on the days that they did. In the case of Michigan it was a willful choice by the party to violate rules they had previously agreed to. The Florida Democrats where somewhat limited in the fact that the Republican controlled government changed the state primary day, but the FDP was not required to hold their presidential primary that day and in fact many states have held Republican and Democratic Primaries on different days. The FDP would have had to pay more money for a different Primary day but I think they could have probably asked for the DNC to donate some funds to be able to do that, or sent out a fundraising appeal with a focus on the Republicans changing the date and trying to disenfanchise Democratic voters again. Instead they used it as a chance to attack Howard Dean and the DNC. Florida Sen. Bill Nelson was especially guilty of that, one has to wonder why that is. The Clinton wing of the party was very disapointed when Howard defeated Harold Ickes for DNC and I have no doubt Hillary would push Howard out the door if she got the Democratic nomination and his 50-state strategy along with it.

The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.

Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence that the DNC under Chairman Howard Dean is ready to compete with Republicans on the technological front.
- "Democrats' Data Mining Stirs an Intraparty Battle" Washington Post March 8, 2006

I think Dean is the best DNC chair the party has ever had and I am very proud to have voted for him the 2004 Presidential Primary. The state parties of Michigan and Florida have no one but themselves to blame for the position they are in and if the voters of those states have a problem with their votes not counting - which I can understand - then they need to fire the local party officals. Unfortunately the states had plenty of time to fix the problem and did nothing but whine about Howard Dean. If they hold a caucus where all the candidates have the ability to compete then they can seat their delegates.

When I read about Chairman Bond's comments, I was outraged and I am an NAACP Branch President.

So I picked up my phone and started calling members of the board and staff to try and understand what in the world was going on. Now to be clear, I am not speaking on behalf of Chairman Bond or anyone else, but I will share with you what I was told.

The position Bond espoused was not that the delegations should be seated in accordance with the results of the 'primaries'. But rather the people of Michigan and Florida should be given some opportunity to vote and indicate their choice, whether that be through a new primary or caucus or some other means. Bond did not talk about what methods would be used, but from what I have heard, his intent was to push the DNC chair to take some kind of action to resolve this prior to the convention.

Since they had been stripped by the DNC, technically no election took place in either State. Bond's push was that some mechanism be selected for determining the will of the residents of MI and FL.

Kevin Myles
President; Wichita Branch NAACP
Political Action Chair; Kansas State NAACP
www.wichitanaacp.blogspot.com

This is a whose-ox-is-gored argument.

The one obvious thing that most of us could probably agree on is that the nominating process is impossibly complex, arcane, and arbitrary. I think it needs serious reform to be more democratic.

Liberty and justice for all.

My new home

Al Sharpton said it best: Why wasn't this issue raised BEFORE the elections. Bond's letter is dated Feb. 8, 2008: after the primaries in question (and Super Tuesday) were over. With Clinton was "on the ropes" by that date, there is no way to disguise this as little more than a ploy to help the Clinton campaign. I've seen many fair proposals out there (hold caucuses or hold elections funded by the state Dem. committees, since they are the ones that flaunted the DNC rules, or even split the delegates based on the final national split in delegates from caucus/votes).