Democratic Women Leaders
EVERY VOTE COUNTS PROJECT
Dear Super-delegate:
Last week, conversations began among women elected leaders and our supporters. We wondered out loud how, in this of all years, our Democratic Party could try to decide our nominee for President without listening to the will of the voters in two of the most populous states in this nation. We wondered why some party elders seemed determined to end this most intense and passionate of primary contests. And we bristled at the notion that Hillary Clinton was being asked to be quiet and sit down.
As both elected officials and women leaders in the community, we have worked with each of you: We have strategized together, raised money with and for you, held signs and gone door-to-door. We know our party to be one of inclusion, voter participation and respect for the enfranchisement of each citizen. We also know that our party does not – and should not – selectively exalt rules over rights.
Now is no time to back away from the things that make this party great.
With all that in mind, and with deep respect for the work we have done – and must do – together, we ask you to sign this pledge of basic fairness and democratic principle. And we ask you to do more: We ask you to join with us – no matter whom you have selected as your candidate – to call for a new, full-fledged primary in Michigan and for either seating the delegates in Florida according to the January primary results or holding a new, full-fledged primary in that state.
We shall be talking with each of you in the coming days. Please join us, for the good of the party and for the good of the nation. Let Massachusetts do what we have done before: Lead this great country towards representation, fairness and simply doing the right thing.
With regards,
Senate President Therese Murray
Former Representative Carol Donovan
Representative Alice Wolf
Former Senator Lois Pines
The Honorable Evelyn Murphy
Sheriff Andrea Cabral
Representative Marie St. Fleur
Representative Kay Khan
Representative Lida Harkins
Senator Joan Menard
Senator Harriette Chambers
Represenative Ruth Balser
Senator Cynthia Creem
Selectman Jesse Mermell
The Honorable Shannon O’Brien
Barbara Lee
Angela Menino
Dr. Paula Johnson
Katherine Hesse
Marie Turley
City Council President Maureen Feeney
Former Representative Susan Tracy
Elaine Schuster
Beth Boland
Shanti Fry
Ellen J. Zucker
Elyse Cherry
Sheila Capone-Wulsin
Michal Regunberg
Cynthia Fisher
Donna Good
Andrea Kramer
partial listing of supporters
Cross posted at: http://www.matt-omalley.com
that re-holding these contests is not just as much of a fight for Hillary as it is for the voters.
I would argue that the 2.5 million Democrats who voted in the FL and MI primaries – irrespective of their choice for president – would fit the definition of being disenfranchised. Through no fault of their own, nor, in some cases the state Democratic party, their votes will not be counted in what has become arguably the most exciting, hard-fought, and close political campaign in history. While many of the participants in today’s presser (as well as your humble blogger) are HRC supporters, this issue is bigger than either candidate. If it is not dealt with it could present a potentially devastating blow to the party this November.
It’s also inaccurate in this instance. To be disenfranchised, one would have to be denied something to which they were legally entitled. Political parties have always retained the right to determine how they choose their nominees. If they choose a process which is less than all-inclusive, then that is their right.
<
p>The Democratic party’s refusal to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida at the convention may very well present a political problem for November. But it certainly doesn’t present a civil-rights problem, which the term disenfranchisement suggests.
The reality of the situation is that voters in the two major parties have come to expect to have input as to who are the nominees. I would argue that the primaries and caucuses are at least as important to the process as the general election. In the states where public money is used to finance the election apparatus the parties for all intents and purposes become agents of the state and thus should be bound to public inclusiveness. Taken to its logical extreme your legal argument presents two problems. One is that as a strictly private entity a party’s “right” to be less than inclusive justifies the infamous “white primary”, especially odious wherever that party is the only one with a realistic shot at winning. Second, if applied to the general election there’s no absolute right to vote there either. Constitutionally, a state could pass a law choosing Electors by a method other than popular vote. You don’t think voters in a state that tried that would be screaming “disenfranchisement!” at the top of their lungs.
How do you fix this? Neither state got a free and fair election: Candidates were effectively barred from campaigning.
<
p>When we observe elections in other countries and listen to election monitors’ judgments on how legitimate the election was, surely if candidates can’t campaign it’s not considered legitimate. To top it off, in Michigan only one candidate was on the ballot (and you can’t write-in in a primary). So while the claim that these voters were disenfranchised is true – and it is a very unfortunate thing – the proposed remedy doesn’t re-enfranchise them. It just substitutes one set of people who feel wronged for another; there are plenty of Obama supporters who report they didn’t vote in the Democratic primary because he wasn’t on the ballot / because they knew it wouldn’t count.
<
p>It’s very sad that neither state seems to be on track to actually remedy the injustice by holding a new election. As long as that doesn’t happen, the voters of those two states will have been disenfranchised this year, and all of the proposed solutions are about which candidate will get more or less of a political advantage from the proposed solutions; not about justice for the voters.
not the fault of the elected DEMOCRATS in Florida and Michigan? And don’t say Florida, because you tell me which party’s representative (Sen. Jeremy Ring) first introduced the legislation to move up the primary? You tell me which party’s elected representatives voted with their Republican colleagues 7-0, in committee, to tie the paper ballot to the early primary? This wasn’t forced on Florida Democrats, they ran happily and willynilly to make themselves and their primary relevant by moving it up, despite knowing the sanction to be applied by the DNC. Which party’s had all of its representatives (save one in the House) vote to support this bill?(Happy to supply a link to the video of the Florida Democrats laughing, winking, and voting on this.) They all did it, like Michigan, because they thought this would be sewed up for Clinton early on, and she would overrule the DNC and sanction the elections and they would be relevant, instead of humiliated and trying to blame others.
All I can say is thank god our elected Mass Democrats are too busy fighting about casinos to have come up with this kind of idiotic, self-important scheme. I withdraw my criticism that casinos have no positive societal value for Massachusetts.
<
p>I think it would have been more honest if the signers of this letter had written one more like this (imho):
<
p>”Dear SuperDelegates,
<
p>We want you to sanction those terrible stupid elected officials of Michigan and Florida for disenfranchising 2.5 million of their voters because of their own hubris. They should understand the terrible thing they have done to their own voters.
<
p>As elected officials and community leaders ourselves (though we note a number of our sister elected officials and community leaders did not agree to sign this letter), we understand the awesome responsibility that comes with power, and how it can easily morph into arrogance and hubris. We understand that a few elected officials screwed this up, and now they need someone else to fix it.
<
p>We understand that it would not be consistent with basic fairness, inclusiveness, and democratic principles to accept the results as is from FL and MI as true enfranchisement, because none of us would accept the results of an election we were running in if our names were not on the ballot; likewise we would not consider it fair to accept the results of an election where none of us were allowed to campaign (especially since this tends to favor more establishment candidates with name recognition, who are often male).
<
p>We are heartened to hear that DNC Chair Dean says that both delegations will be seated, in some form, at the Convention. We ask you to sign this pledge to support a reasonable and just compromise, one that respects the two great democratic principles of fair play and fair representation. We know that what the voters of FL and MI want and respect is fairness.
<
p>In the end, we have full faith that all Democrats are smart enough to remember the price of putting bitterness and purity above party unity – Bush/Cheney 2000. Democrats 2008!
<
p>ps. We ask that you use your own good judgment and follow the will of the people of Massachusetts and cast your superdelegate vote for Hillary Clinton. We think it’s the right thing to do for our state and our country.”
If you turn all the numbers around and it was Obama who was behind and needed MI and FL, this appeal to fairness would not have gone out, at least not from these people. The word “motive” comes to mind.
<
p>Why can’t they just be honest and end it by saying “Please join us because we really want Clinton to win”.
At least not for me. The two states should be counted, period. I don’t go for how will it help my candidate. As an example, Obama supporters often say superdelegates should follow the will of the people in their constituencies. By that theory Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick should vote for Clinton, but I disagree. Even though I am a Clinton supporter those gentlemen pledged their support to Obama and I believe they are ethically bound to vote for him at convention.
I know there are people who are legitimately concerned about what happens with MI and FL. However, this letter isn’t really about that – it’s a campaign tactic to keep the issue on the front burner. I’m usually very cautious about ascribing motives, but when something quacks this loudly, it needs to be called a duck.
bullshit is this.
<
p>Oh, all these powerful men are bullying our poor dear Hillary and all we want is some basic fairness for women.
<
p>So is it only women that care about making sure every vote counts?
<
p>Where were all these feminine tribunes of fairness and democracy when Hillary and Co. were endorsing the DNC rules to exclude any state that jiggered its primary before Super Tuesday? Nowhere. Of course they weren’t concerned about it when they all thought their champion, the persecuted Queen Hillary the inevitable, had it in the bag.
<
p>This Florida and Michigan shit is pathetic. You agree a set of rules and that is the friggin rules. What is it about Clinton folks that find that so hard to understand. Is it not one of the basic principles of fairness that when you agree to play by a set of rules and everyone else also agrees to it (they all agreed to stay out of these states and that the delegates from them would not be seated) – that you then don’t decide to question or change the rules after the game has started. Is it fair that only Hillary kept her name on the ballot in Michigan ans still only get 55% of the vote there?
<
p>The Clinton camp should have seen the potential that Florida and Michigan may matter and warned them against putting their primaries forward. That they didn’t demonstrates another misjudgement on their part. They blew it. They don’t deserve a redo.
<
p>TO ALL MASS SUPERDELEGATES – PLEASE LAUGH AT THIS MIRACULOUSLY MORONIC ATTEMPT BY DESPERATE CLINTON SUPPORTERS TO CHANGE THE RULES HER CANDIDATE AGREED TO – AND WHICH YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT AS A PARTY OFFICIAL!!! iF YOU BUCKLE TO THIS BUNK, THE PARTY IS BUNK!
<
p>And I love how Hillary has changed her gender appeal since she has become the 10% chancer. When she was winning I remember those days when she said all her male opponents weren’t attacking her because she’s a woman, they were attacking her because she was winning. But now that she is losing, all the men are attacking her because she’s a woman. I guess when all else fails – shameless sexist appeals are all that’s left.
<
p>I’m all for Hillary fighting out the last states (as long as she stays positive) but let’s drop this sexism rant and cut the bull about Florida and Michigan. Fairness means playing by the rules – both women and men should be held to that standard.
As one of the boyos who helped organize today’s press conference and effort, I must admit that I find your anger and analysis troubling. Although the group leading this cause are all female, this has nothing to do with playing the gender card, but rather a fundamental call for fairness and inclusion. We don’t want a revote for just women or HRC supporters, but a revote for ALL democrats.
<
p>If you disagree with this call because of the DNC rules and regs, then that’s a perfectly reasonable argument. But, to suggest that this is simply about “women playing a gender card,” well, that’s just asinine.
than they shouldn’t have made it a Democratic Women’s Leaders appeal. It implies that women leaders in particular feel that voters are being disenfranchised, which further implies that in some way women are being disenfranchised, which further implies to other women that they must rally to keep Queen Hillary alive.
<
p>If there was not supposed to be some gender implication then I don’t get why only women leaders signed this appeal. It reads like some implied threat that if you don’t sign this pledge then the sisterhood will remember you Mr. Superdelegate – so watch out.
<
p>Why not get all the many male Mass leaders from McGovern to DiMasi to get on board the campaign. I think it diminished its impact to make it a women’s appeal – not because they are women – but because it will be interpreted as women rallying for a beleaguered candidate. Its just bizarre.
<
p>Think about it – if a bunch a Democratic Black Male Leaders made an appeal for Hillary to get out of the race the headline would read basically “Black Leaders Tell White Girl to Call It Quits”.
<
p>If this had nothing to do with gender then it shouldn’t have been a gender-determined group behind it.
about breaking a pledge to abide by the rules? Please explain that to me. If you can’t it just shows what an empty and selfish appeal this is.
<
p>I understand that Hillary wishes she had this race to do all over again, that she could have Florida and Michigan back on the table. But this has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with changing the rules to her favor, and hers alone.
<
p>Spare us all the language of suffrage and fairness. And stop threatening super delegates – the very people that Hillary is left depending on to have any shot of seizing this thing from the pledged delegates.
This instant tactic is what’s called a “drowning man grasping at straws”. Cinton Inc had no problem with MI and FL not having their delegates seated until Ms Rodham was going down the drain. now the Clinton Campaign is in panic mode, most especially since it looks like she is going to take the gas pipe in PA. This is an exercise in futility. Clinton will not be the nominee of the party. Drag out the inevitable all the way to Denver. That is her right and privilege, but to start demanding that the rules of the game change because the expected outcome is in doubt is BS and WRONG. If Barack Obama wins, it will be fair and square. One would think that the Clinton’s would once in their lifetime play by the rules, not THEIR rules, but the rules of fair play. Historically speaking, they have always conducted themselves as if the rules were not applicable to them.
This is terrible. Someone used the word “shameless” below, and I have to say I agree. And as a female, I find the whiff of self-serving sexism (I’m sorry, which candidate do you support again???) here more than a little off-putting.
<
p>The Michigan and Florida issues are, for all intents and purposes, resolved. Both states flouted the rules, were properly warned, and have been rightfully sanctioned. No delegates will be seated.
<
p>The process will move on without them, unfortunately, but that’s what hubris and attention hogging will get you. And let’s not forget that the people who demanded their primaries be moved were warned by party insiders within their own states not to do it. They called the DNC’s bluff, however, and lost. That’s life.
Lightiris says: The Michigan and Florida issues are, for all intents and purposes, resolved.
<
p>Hmmm. I have a cousin who lives in Del Ray. Her only son just returned from his second tour in Iraq. Her son-in-law is not back yet but they are hoping for a safe homecoming in MAy. She is a Democrat. She watched the nightly news, followed the campaign news, viewed the numerable debates on various national networks…(same as the rest of us…they have TVs and newspapers in Florida, imagine!)…She and her daughter voted in the Florida primary and were proud to do so.
<
p>She is not a grand poobah in the FL. State Dems. nor did she have anything to do with her GOP Governor selecting the FL Primary Day… All she did was get up and make it to the polls to let her voice be heard by voting in the Primary.
<
p>Now the powers that be say her vote will not count. Her daughter’s vote will not count. Her voice will not be heard at the convention through a FL delegate.
<
p>And lightiris says it is “resolved”…perhaps it is resolved for some folks…but it will never be resolved for my cousin’s family who thinks they have paid a pretty high price to defend this country and deserve to have their votes count.
<
p>I agree with them.
<
p>Let’s not draw equivalencies between having one’s vote counted in an actual election and the process of choosing a party candidate. They are not the same thing. And the introduction of military service here is irrelevant.
It is relevant to that one family…and I am sure there are more like them in the over 1.5 MIllion Floridians who voted in the Democratic primary. Other voters in Florida may have other reasons why not having their votes counted is galling to them, I was just referencing the one family I know.
<
p>One thing that is relevant…if we make Florida Democrats feel that they are irrelevant voters, they will be looking elsewhere for leadership. McCain will skate in Florida.
Well, we can disagree about what “irrelevant” really means in this context, I suppose. I suspect that, like grownups, the voters of Florida will seriously weigh the needs of the nation in November and vote for the candidate who will best meet those needs. I don’t view the voters of Florida as vindictive and childish, willing to sit home because their candidate in the Democratic primary is not the Democratic candidate on the presidential ballot, but you might.
on purpose, I’m afraid.
I did not. If you did not mean to make the point you did, you should clarify if you are so motivated.
We just care about all those poor voters in Florida and Michigan.
<
p>There is a way to seat them. A compromise. Obama and Clinton both get half of the delegates in each state. No one technically campaigned in either state (although of course Clinton broke that pledge and went there to claim victory) so why not just split em in two. Delegates get to go – Florida and Michigan get represented, problem solved.
<
p>But of course the Clinton folks don’t really care about making sure anyone is heard. They just care about changing the rules to their advantage. And that is all this is – fairness my ass, desperation and calculation.
it’s that kind of smug, we don’t care about them attitude, people in Fla do care about this sort of thing, this voting.
A 50/50 split is completely meaningless and does nothing to represent the voters proportional to their wishes. I would be OK with a 50% cut and keep the proportions. I would also be OK with assigning uncommitted MI delegates to Obama since he wasn’t on the ballot.
On the other hand, the Clinton campaign realized that “count every vote” would not carry enough weight as an idea among Obama supporters. So they went for “count every vote, and treat women equally” … which still won’t carry as much weight as “preserve Obama’s delegate lead”.
Nothing.
Women were just over half of the 1.5 million Florida voters…we are talking about ALL of the Florida Democrats, men and women, who went to the Democratic primary polls and cast their votes. We were all for counting every vote when it was hanging chads we wanted counted, now, well, it’s another story…If Obama has virually wrapped up the nomination, why would he fear having the Florida votes count?
<
p>Here’s 3 words that may help you focus on the issue at hand: President John McCain.
Every voter should have their vote counted.
<
p>We, Democrats, have two great candidates running for the party’s presidential nomination. Voters are still deciding.
<
p>Democrats know why we are Democrats and will unite to regain the Oval Office!
Ask yourself this question. If Michigan and Florida were 75% African American, what would Barack Obama, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson be doing to make sure those votes counted? Where is the outrage?!?
Obama would have made damn sure they did not move their primaries up and basically take themselves out of the contest.
<
p>Clinton had plenty of time to tell the Florida and Michigan supporters not to go along with moving forward their dates -hell she could have had Governor Granholm from Michigan who is a supporter veto the Bill. But, as in so many instances this campaign, she and her camp didn’t think about it and got caught out.
<
p>Clinton had all the advantages going into this race. Her problem was she ran like it she had it wrapped up.
<
p>All these hyjinx about voters not being counted, etc..is just wrong. The voters of those states can blame their elected officials who so cavalierly decided the party rules didn’t matter.
When Hillary said that they shouldn’t count because the broke the rules.
Most of the women on that list endorsed Hillary. Hillary was perfectly okay with the primary set up and went out of her way to reassure the voters in IA, NH, NC and NV that she supported their early primary dates and the DNC rules. And now since her “inevitable” victory has faded into the ether, she’s changed her tune.
<
p>And now women, of whom I am one, have the unmitigated gall to use their gender as a basis for appealing for rule changes because somehow DNC rules are not fair? No.
<
p>I reject this totally sexist — reverse sexist — appeal by these women. This is not right.