Barack Obama to Democrats: NO, YOU CAN’T!

by Christian Grantham - 1:27 pm February 16, 2008

The right of every American’s vote to be counted when selecting who will lead our nation as President is one of the most precious constitutional rights we have. It’s a right many of our brave armed service members gave their lives to protect.

So why is Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama saying “No, You Can’t!” to more than 2.3 million Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan who voted in Presidential primaries? The answer is simple. Obama believes the constitutional rights of Democrats in Florida and Michigan should come second to the will of the Democratic National Committee in Washington.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama honored their agreements to not campaign in both states. In the absence of television ads and typical campaign noise that litters the political landscape, an unprecedented, historic record number of Democratic voters turned out to the polls and casted their votes for the person they believe will rise to the difficult challenges our country now faces.

Rather than stand up to his own national party’s attempt to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters, Obama first sided with the DNC and now suggests he wants a do-over. His personal preference is to completely scrap the votes that were cast and replace the primary process with caucuses. Obama’s choices are not sitting well with millions of Democrats who remember Republican attempts to stop counting the votes for President in Florida’s 2000 election. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore to stop the vote count led to one of the worst Presidencies in American history.

If Obama is not willing to stand up to his own party when his own party is wrong, how can we expect him to translate hope into political reality in Washington?

Here is what Americans are saying about the DNC’s attempt to disenfranchise 2.3 million voters in Florida and Michigan.

“The Obama campaign miscalculated on this issue and should have stood with Michigan and Florida given their strong African American populations. Had Obama won these states, I am sure many people would be supporting this change in the rules.”
[NAACP Chairman Julian Bond]

“You can’t undo an election with a caucus, and especially you can’t undo an election where 1.7 million Florida Democrats have gone to vote in a secret ballot and replace it with a caucus that maybe 50,000 people would show up. It’s a basic underpinning of our democracy, and it is a basic underpinning of a constitutional right to vote and to have that vote counted.”
[FL Senior Sen. Bill Nelson]

“I think that the people of Michigan and Florida spoke in a very convincing way, that they want their voices and their votes to be heard. The turnout in both places was record-breaking and I think that that should be respected.”
[Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton]

If Democrats want to indulge in a bare-knuckled credential fight from which only the other party can benefit, that is certainly their right — and well within the party’s kamikaze tradition.
[Time to fix state’s primary mess - Miami Hearld editorial - 02-15-08]

“They do not support a do-over caucus in Michigan, and the delegates and superdelegates in Michigan and Florida should not count.”
[Michiganders For Obama Coordinator Christina Montague]

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

| related: 2008 Presidential

11 Comments » | RSS for these comments TrackBack URL

1. Comment by Rob — February 16, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

   You write about “the constitutional rights of Democrats in Florida and Michigan.” However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no constitutional right to vote in primary elections, and more to the point, there is no constitutional right to have delegates elected in a primary election seated by the party’s convention.

   Primary elections are established by parties and are under the control of those parties. So far as I know, the Democratic Party has plenary power to determine who shall cast votes at its nominating convention, unhampered by the U.S. Constitution. You can, if you like, argue that it is undemocratic not to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan–though even if they are seated, the Democrats’ decision to seat a large number of superdelegates will mean that the ultimate nominating process will still be very much undemocratic. Of course, that particular undemocratic element is one that Hillary favors, at least until the majority of superdelegates turn against her; at that point, Hillary will no doubt want to eliminate superdelegates as well.

   BTW, the reason Hillary did so well in Michigan is that she is the only one of the candidates who left her name on the ballot. All the other candidates caused their names to be removed as the DNC wished. Hillary won the Michigan primary in the same way that Fidel Castro wins Cuban elections, by being the only choice. And even then Hillary couldn’t muster more than 55% of the Democratic vote.

   You can’t help feeling a little sorry for Hillary. Thank goodness the Clintons aren’t prone to self-pity.

   
   
   

2. Comment by Christian — February 16, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

   Right. Hillary defied her own party and left her name on the ballot in Michigan. She’s also standing up to the Democratic National Committee in favor of counting more than 2.3 million votes in both FL and MI primaries, too.

   Barack Obama, Rev. Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and a hand full of others are putting partisan rules ahead of counting votes.

   One side stands up for voters. One side stands up for the DNC. One of those sides is the kind of leadership that gets things done, and the other is the kind of leadership that takes a back seat to their party.

   
   
   

3. Comment by Tommy — February 17, 2008 @ 7:49 am

   You really think that an election where only one candidate is on the ballot is a vote that should be honored? That’s not standing up for voters; they had no choice. That’s not even an election. It is nothing short of a lie to say that it is. You can’t be serious or you are being disingenous in your allged concern for voters.

   
   
   

4. Comment by Christian — February 17, 2008 @ 8:59 am

   Tommy, what do you propose for MI? Obama’s campaign waged an aggressive write-in campaign only after realizing how badly they miscalculated this issue. Obama’s own campaign coordinator in MI doesn’t support a do-over.

   Should MI voters come second to the rules of the Democratic National Committee in Washington? Hillary didn’t think so and kept her name on the ballot. Obama did think so and yeilded to the will of his party over the will of Michigan Democrats.

   
   
   

5. Comment by Christian — February 17, 2008 @ 9:04 am

   I just want to add that this is a perfect example of where hope is not a solution.

   Arguing not to count the votes of 2.3 million Democrats in FL and MI, or do nothing, is not a solution and it defintely doesn’t sit well with the voters of both states.

   Hillary Clinton supports counting the votes. It is unclear what Barack Obama would do, other than hope the issue goes away, but so far his lack of proposals have done more to anger millions of Democrats than unite them.

   
   
   

6. Comment by Rob — February 17, 2008 @ 10:08 am

   More and more, Hillary reminds me of Richard Nixon. No matter how hard she tries, people just don’t seem to like her. And she can’t understand why. Overcome with resentment and disappointment, she wallows in self-pity.

   And how unfair it is! After being publicly humiliated by her husband’s philandering with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary once again finds herself cast aside in favor of someone who’s younger and more orally talented.

   But when all is said and done, the question remains: Would you buy a used car from this woman?

   
   
   

7. Comment by Tommy — February 17, 2008 @ 11:26 am

   It is you propose to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and in Florida. They went to the polls knowing that they were holding, at most, a straw poll (except where they had no choice) and were not voting for convention delegates. Your, after the fact, change in the meaning of the vote is a gross attempt at voter fraud.

   
   
   

8. Comment by Tommy — February 17, 2008 @ 11:28 am

   I meant to say “they went to the polls, or chose not go to the polls, knowing . . .

   
   
   

9. Comment by Tommy — February 17, 2008 @ 11:37 am

   Morever, there is no point in addressing any of it, if it will not change the outcome.

   
   
   

10. Comment by Christian — February 17, 2008 @ 11:42 am

    Tommy, that’s not how both FL and MI state Democratic parties view it, nor do the millions of Democrats that participated, and that’s a problem for those who oppose counting their votes. That’s certainly how the national party, Obama, Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi view it, though.

    Rob, I agree. Hillary gives me the creeps. I’m perfectly willing to admit that. I’d be willing to bet I’d give people the creeps way more if I had to stand on a stage every day, and it’s hard to get people to measure you by your work instead of your words, looks and delivery of a speech.

    Let’s hope that isn’t how America votes this time. We’ve paid the price over the past 7 years voting like that. It’s time to use our heads.

    
    
    

11. Comment by Tommy — February 17, 2008 @ 1:00 pm

    I don’t know what your basing your knowlege of what millions think on.

    But regardless, they went to the polls or did not go to the polls for one purpose and you now purpose to change that purpose. That is voter fraud (not only as too FL and MI voters but to scores of millions of voters in the other states that played by the rules). It dosen’t depend on anyone’s post hoc opinion.

    
    
    

Leave a comment