Dem Showdown Over Fla. Delegate Shuffle

As has been widely reported, both the Republican and Democratic parties have penalized their respective state parties in Florida for moving their primary date to Jan. 29, in defiance of party rules. While the Republicans only cut the Sunshine State's delegation by half, the Democratic National Party stripped Florida of all of its delegates to the national convention.

More recently, Sen. Hillary Clinton has been lobbying to restore delegates in Florida and in Michigan, where she has already won a primary that was, for all practical purposes, uncontested. The move has led many to cry "Foul!", as none of the candidates, by agreement, has campaigned in Florida.

Now, the St. Petersburg Times is reporting that, in the end, the Florida delegates may count after all. It's enough to make your head spin and your stomach churn. Who is this helping? Who is it hurting? And, at the end of the day, who is this fair to? For the uninitiated, BBC News has a great Q&A on the entire primary calendar flap. Be warned, though, they don't really believe in the letter "Z". At issue in Florida's switch is an attempt to gain relevancy in the nominating process, while the DNC opposed the move in an attempt to prevent all-out chaos on the primary calendar.

Many wonder if stripping Florida of its delegates would hurt the Democrats in November, when they'll be asking Florida's Democratic and independent voters to support their candidate. The news that the DNC may relent doesn't change the fact that the Party has lost a valuable opportunity to expose Florida voters to its candidates, nor does it remove the bad taste of a perceived snub from the voter's mouths. Meanwhile, with half the delegates still at stake, the Republican candidates are the only game in town.

Whether the state party deserved it or not, (and they did), the DNC's decision to basically mute Florida's voters seems like a case of cutting off your ankle to spite both your foot and your shin. Florida is an important swing state, as Democratic voters are well aware. If the DNC relents, they will have alienated Florida for nothing, instead of next-to-nothing.

And what about Hillary Clinton? Let's just say, it takes a huge set of nerves to try and get credit for an election in which no-one opposed you, let alone one where you have a huge lead in the polls and no opponent campaigning against you. That's shooting fish in a barrel after you've emptied all the water out of it. Here's a neat summation of her rationale:

Under the rules for the Democratic convention, the candidate with the most delegates at the convention will control who gets seated - if the delegates follow the candidate's wishes.

"I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision," Clinton said in the statement. "But I hope to be president of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention."

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the time to make that argument before you and your opponents agreed not to campaign in Florida? To many, including this observer, this reeks not just of dirty politics, but that most un-American of qualities, poor sportsmanship. On the heels of a defeat in the South Carolina Primary during which Senator Clinton left the state as the polls were closing and did not deliver a concession speech, this move could leave voters with the impression that Hillary Clinton is as sore a winner as she is a loser.

Seating the delegates will certainly be unfair to Hillary's opponents, since their solidarity with the DNC, versus Hillary's rhetoric about giving Floridians a voice, amounts to de facto campaigning on her part.

Whatever the outcome, this entire episode is least fair to Florida voters, who never asked for this fight, or the bruises that came with it.



Tommy Links:

Tommy's Facebook | Tommy's Mom, The Lady of Light | The Specious Report | Tommy's Youtube

Update: Response to Georgafn: Obama's concession in New Hampshire: