Legal Commentary

Why Did Clinton Not Fight For Florida And Michigan In 2007?

By Big Tent Democrat

By Big Tent Democrat

While I think it is pretty clear that the DNC did not follow its rules regarding Florida and Michigan, I think Obama supporters make a compelling argument: why didn't Clinton fight for Florida in 2007? It does require a response.

I think the short answer is the DNC used the leverage of possible backlash in Iowa and NH to get the candidates to go along with its wrongheaded and harmful actions. Given the strength Clinton had and I believe would have in a revote in Florida, it seems they miscalculated. Clinton should have fought for Florida at least, since the Florida date change was forced by a Republican controlled legislature (see Rule 21 of the DNC Delegate Selection rules which seem to provide Florida a safe harbor to protect its delegates.)

That said, that still does not address the Obama argument that he did not get to compete for the votes in Florida and Michigan by campaigning in Florida and Michigan. A very fair point. But what are we to do? I go back to my original solution:

I have the solution for the Florida/Michigan disaster. Seat half of the Michigan and Florida delegations based on the existing results. Then schedule a Florida primary and a Michigan caucus in mid-May. If there is no need because Obama has already locked up the nomination in April, then, seat all the delegation based on the existing results and cancel the May contests.

This enfranchises those voters who voted previously AND ensures that Obama gets a fair shot at winning those two states. And it would be a great tiebreaker for deciding the nominee if we are still deadlocked come May. No one could complain could they? Someone will win this thing fair and square and then we can unify.

What am I missing? Is that not a brilliant solution?

Full post as published by TalkLeft on February 15, 2008 (boomark / email).