You Decide
Howard Dean has the impossible task of making this now totally screwy Dem nom process -- FL and MI, SuperDs -- appear fair and efficient. On MSNBC this a.m. he tossed the ball to the states to come up with a solution to what is looking ever more like a mega crisis.
Here's Dean:
On the Dem fight: "The length of it is great for us. The truth is we have two of the best candidates we've ever had running for president of the United States. Both of who would be terrific presidents and far better than John McCain, who basiclaly promised us yesterday four more years of George Bush."
On FL and MI: How it's solved, he said, "That's really up to the states. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. ... FL and MI voted for a set of rules and then decided that unlike the other 48 states they would do something different. That's not fair, and it doesn't respect either the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign or the other 48 states." He said the states need to come back to DNC with a set of rules for selecting delegates that does comply or they can appeal to the credentials committee.
On the party's credentials committee: "I don't think we want to speculate about what the credentials committee will or will not do."
On SuperDs: "Their purpose is to go and vote the way they think they should vote, just like every other delegate will do."
On his mission: "My goal is that the half of the people who supported the losing candidate believe this process was a fair process."
And this clears up ... nothing. Just a thought, but what might have happened had MI and FL actually kept their original primary dates, hmmm? Seems this mess was unavoidable, Carl Levin and co.
I feel like Diogenes in search of an honest assessment of the situation and I find it here, of all places.
Dean is absolutely correct. It is up to the states to figure out a solution since they effed up the calendar.
And it wasn't just Carl Levin but Debbie Dingell too, who thought MI should be more relevant.
The candidate is supposed to be chosen at a convention, remember? The delegates are chosen in a long and convoluted process, some by election, some by virtue of their party position or elective office, some by caucus. But the candidate is supposed to be chosen at the convention, late in the summer. What's so wrong with that?
What, exactly, is this urgency to call the game off in the sixth or seventh inning, and declare a winner when neither candidate has yet achieved a majority?
We have rules and regulations for a reason. They must be followed. Many times decisions are made without thinking of the consequences because they want to do "their thing, their way" when its for their benefit.
MI amd Fl must suffer the consequences of their actions. I know it will hurt millions of people. One suggestion I have is: Divide the delegates equally between the two presidential candidates. The people of those two states still have the chance to vote in the presidential election in Nov. The can not bake the cake and eat it, too.Sorry.
Let the delegates attend the convention in Denver,though.