Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Deal on Florida

By Chris Cillizza
After months of uncertainty, the morass of the Florida Democratic primary has been resolved.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee approved a measure unanimously that would seat every delegate -- pledged and superdelegates -- from the Sunshine State but grant them only half a vote at the party's national convention.

Both Alice Huffman and Harold Ickes, backers of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) on the RBC, spoke in favor of the motion before it was voted on.

Huffman insisted that the vote would leave the party more united than it was when the meeting started, an assertion that was greeted by one attendee as "lipstick on a pig".

The delegate allocation in Florida now stands as follows: 52.5 for Clinton, 33.5 for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and 6.5 for former senator John Edwards (N.C.).

Read more about today's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting at The Fix »

By Web Politics Editor  |  May 31, 2008; 7:01 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Primaries  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Continues to Press McCain on Iraq
Next: Michigan Delegates to Be Seated, but Bitterness Lingers


Donna Brazile doesn't think Dems need to depend on women and hispanics.

Good one!

Posted by: She said WHAT? | June 2, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

now obama leaves his church, a political decision

one of many political decisions. Link to how Obama chose to take his name off the ballot.

Posted by: a political decision | June 2, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

1/2 vote but all seated, oooookkaaaayyyyyyyyyy.

Now that is democracy!

Posted by: what | June 2, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Why are posts allowed to stay on this site that directly disparge Hillary's character?

Look at the very first post.

If anything negative is even associated with you-know-who as far as an actual negative word then the post is not even accepted/posted yet all the opposite ones are.

Why the double standard?

Posted by: Only Pro Obama Posts | June 2, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Show me the link were you say it was demanded that candidate remove their names because that is not the truth.

Show the link. Do not hide behind your own falsehoods.

Obama's truth:

Posted by: Obama's truth | June 2, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Obama up to Old Tricks, no Chicago Tricks - the "legal way" but the Democratic Way?


Posted by: Obama's Tricks - the legal way | June 2, 2008 5:18 AM | Report abuse

"Obama had a stratigic decision to remove his name from the ballot, legally, in MI. Yesterday, he received votes in MI - does that even sound legal?"

All of the candidates WERE ASKED BY THE DNC to remove their names from the MI ballot. ALL complied EXCEPT for Hillary.

Your assertion that it was a 'strategic decision' by Obama is nothing more than a brain dead Clinton talking point. If not, please answer: Did the other candidates remove their names as a 'strategic decision' as well? In what other states did Obama apply this 'strategy?'


Apportioning these votes is legal and to supress votes except the ones garnered by Clinton--by ignoring the DNC request--is VOTER SUPPRESSION. Voter suppression could be easily upheld by the courts in this case throwing all of the votes out.

Several of Clinton's supporters voted to approve this comprimise. That speaks VOLUMES.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Donna Brazile said that changing the rules at this point is cheating.

Donna Brazile, finally, an Obama supporter, who says she is undecided but continually degrades Clinton and supports and promotes Obama - is finally right. Why?

Because Obama is trying and has changed the rules and is not following the rules. How?

Obama had a stratigic decision to remove his name from the ballot, legally, in MI. Yesterday, he received votes in MI - does that even sound legal?

This is a partial, appropriately, a reason why Clinton should TAKE IT TO DENVER!!!

How does Obama play? Legally. Since he got himself to be the only democrat on the ballot in IL Obama knows how to use his lawyers to get himself ahead.


Posted by: TAKE IT TO DENVER!!! | June 1, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I want to taste the sweetness of Hillary's tears when Obama takes the oath as POTUS in January

Posted by: VM | June 1, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse


well said.

that is all. =0)

Obama/Webb 08

Posted by: PaigeInPhilly | June 1, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

From the Republican side of town (and one who's planning to vote Democratic this year, too).

Posted by: | | May 31, 2008 10:06 PM

Welcome OBAMACAN!! Bring enlightened others!!

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

Dr. Hubert Parra, Lt Col, USAF Retired what's it to you when, where, and how Senator Obama quit his church You were not going to vote for him anyway. Where is the integrity in this rendition that you have given. Give us a break.

Posted by: Dee, Washington, DC | May 31, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

"The Clintons are angry because they could not get their way with the DNC Rules Committee."

Actually, this is good stuff. Expect more purple-faced sputtering from BubbaZipper, more desperate straw-grabbing from the Hildebeast. All good entertainment.

The more absurdly they try to game the system, the better America will see them for the scumbags they are.

Florida and Michigan have been removed from the Billary Bag o' Tricks, and the decision puts the math further out of reach.

Buh-bye Relentless Ambition Circus.

Posted by: Chuckamok | May 31, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Here we go again...becoming over-accommodating to candidates who agreed upon the rules, and later tried to change those rules to suit their situation.

Someone say here that HRC was "railroaded" out of votes? FYI, nothing was taken from her that were not hers to begin with. Even Sen. Levin said the contest was flawed, and that sentiment was uttered by Harold Ickes himself. So, are we now awarding votes for Soviet-style elections? Surprised that our gentleman here from the USAF would think such as thing.

The Clintons are angry because they could not get their way with the DNC Rules Committee. And...the Clinton campaign even have more declared supporters on the committee who step ahead and resolved the situation the best as they could. So, now, Obama is responsible for what Clinton supporters decide to resolve the MI situation?

Looking at the Clinton campaign from a philosophical standpoint, she's behind because she:

Failed to plan a campaign strategy for the states that were up after Super Tuesday. Yes...that's 50-state strategy. Howard Dean made that clear; it's his goal to get on board to compete in every state. It's clear that she did not plan for a campaign to the end; that much is now evident. Her mistake was thinking that everything would be wrapped up by that time, and it wasn't to their surprise (why did she think she would get it that easy anyway?). The effort by FL and MI to front load the primaries with a rich source of votes didn't help their case when both states were sanctioned by the DNC when those states violated the rules.

Failed to plan for maintain a fiscally sound organization. What I've hearing from press reports is the reckless spending by her former campaign operative. Also, no plan to raise campaign funds from the Internet. She should have known better, given the results of the Howard Dean run. What's also apparent is that the campaign was funded only to Super Tuesday. That had to be the case because HRC lent her campaign $5 million then, and later another 6 million later. She could not afford to complete her campaign, and she could not afford to get out of it. HRC also allowed a PR disaster in the making involving non-payment of small businesses and other vendors who provided services for her campaign because she had not paid her bills. So much respect for small business people, and I don't blame them if they dragged the campaign into court and obtained judgments for non-payment. If her people served her well and was so brillant, why was finance such a problem for her campaign?

Failure to maximize campaign fundraising. HRC played by the standard rules with nothing different and out of the box. She still relied on the same pool of people to raise funds. But, the problem was that HRC did not have a plan in place to get more money after donors hit the cash limit - and this was probably HRC did not have a plan in place to go beyond Super Tuesday.

Bill Clinton. Yes...her own husband didn't do her justice with some of his unscripted outbursts on the campaign trail. No one is interested in what he thinks about some slight from the media; the campaign is supposed to be all about Hillary. But, it wasn't. So, what some voters were left with is that they were being presented with voting for a co-presidency because Bill Clinton made this campaign about him, too. He needed to step back and let his wife shine.

Perception that the Clintons don't play well with her party peers. This comment has to do with the situation with FL and MI when both campaigns (Clinton and Obama) agreed that the votes won't count. At that time, that was OK with Clinton since she was ahead and had expected to maintain this position. However, when she ran out of money and could not compete in some of the states after Super Tuesday, she ultimately fell behind. Now, HRC wanted to change the rules to include the FL and MI delegate counts, all while spewing misinformation that it was Obama's fault because he won't cooperate with her people, he was responsible for things happening and so on. The FL and MI delegations were solely responsible for trying to front load the primary calendar, and both were rightly sanctioned by the DNC. Rules are in place for a reason. Don't like the rules? Should have spoken up when the votes were on to strip those states of their delegates. So, stop blaming Obama for something that he had no hand in. Besides, her behavior many wondering that Hillary thought she was entitled to the nomination based on her husband's status as former president.

Fabrication and other musings. The Bosnia lie didn't help her case (esp. when Bill Clinton was still on the campaign trail trying to explain it away). Also, promoting a candidate from the opposite party as more qualified against the one you're running against does exactly get you the votes that you need. People view that as underhanded and not in fair play. The loaded statement about RFK definitely got everyone's attention, including the superdelegates.

Disarray on the campaign team. A candidate is always supposed to keep things tight in in sync, at in appearance anyway. That was not the case with the Clinton campaign. Some of the fights spilled over into the public realm, and that aspect was quite unflattering, to say the least.

These are some of the reasons that I saw as I watched from the sidelines the unraveling of Hillary's campaign for the White House.

From the Republican side of town (and one who's planning to vote Democratic this year, too).

Posted by: | | May 31, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

"His only goal is to win and not what is in the best interest of the Democratic Party."

That's the Hildebeast to a tee.

Posted by: Chuckamok | May 31, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

As I was out walking this morning for pleasure,
I spied a campaigner a-riding along.
Her hat was thrown back and her spurs were a-jingling,
And as she approached she was singin' this song:

"Whoopee tie yie yo! Git along, little Clintons,
For you know that the White House won't be your new home...
Whoopee tie yie yo! Git along, little Clintons -
It's your misfortune and none of my own.

"Some people go out campaignin' for pleasure -
But that's where they've got it most awfully wrong;
You could never imagine the trouble they give us,
As we go a-driving those Clintons along.

"Whoopee tie yie yo! Git along, little Clintons,
For you know that the White House won't be your new home...
Whoopee tie yie yo! Git along, little Clintons -
It's your misfortune and none of my own."

Posted by: Biographer | May 31, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Democratic Party - The Party of one

Sen. Barack Obama made it clear what he would "allow" the Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee when it came to Florida and Michigan delegates. As each delegate so eloquently spoke, they railroaded 42 delegates away from Sen. Hillary Clinton. Many delegates spoke of the civil rights motions that starting true changed America in 1960s. Today's rules committee showed that the 650,000 Democratic were not as important as the desires of one politician. Although Hispanics is the largest Democratic minority group, not one was on this important committee. One single minority group was given a dis-proportional percentage of all committee votes and they voted based on ethnic criteria and not in "what is in the best interest" of their party.

Sadly, the Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee and Sen. Obama's allowable rule reflected that the Democratic Party shows the Democratic Party has become the party of one. In the process, Sen. Clinton lost 42 delegates. In Florida alone, that same committee gave Sen. Obama 14% of Edwards delegates. Therefore, I suggest that the Democratic Party new slogan become "The Party of One".

In the normal Obama fashion, in normal symbolic fashion, Sen. Obama quit Trinity Church 19 month late. The typical Washington politician, in normal Bush political fashion, Sen. Obama actions has shown the type of politician he is. His only goal is to win and not what is in the best interest of the Democratic Party. Sen. Obama quitting Trinity was never an issue but what influences Trinity had on Obama the man and influences on his family. Michelle Obama's comments and Sen. Obama's careless comments have questioned both true beliefs.

Posted by: Dr. Hubert Parra, Lt Col, USAF Retired | May 31, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Tom and Katy Cruise have now adopted Rodham Clinton as a religion.

Posted by: pubichaironmycokecan | May 31, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

The DNC is taking the Florida and Michigan imbroglios off the table, i.e. removing two of the remaining red herrings being flogged by the Clinton Machine.

Ickes (Yuckies) is threatening to contest the decision later - furthering the Billary sabotage of the party.

Send the Clinton scum back to Arkansas. Put a stake through this never ending melodrama.

Enough is more than enough.

Posted by: Chuckamok | May 31, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company