Bob Kerrey on FL/MI delegates: “You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Period”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Kerrey_Sorry_Florida.html

Kerrey: Sorry, Florida

Bob Kerrey, never one to change his views or start talking about "automatic delegates" just because somebody told him to on a conference call, isn't buying a key aspect of the spin from his endorsed candidate, Hillary Clinton, on the nomination process:

From the politics column of the Greenwich Village weekly, The Villager:

“You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Period,” said former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, The New School’s president, when asked if the delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries should be represented at the Democratic National Convention in August. Scoopy ran into Kerrey on Sunday at Chelsea Piers, where Kerrey had taken his young son and a friend bowling.
“No new vote and no new caucuses, either. Just stick to the rules that they agreed to,” Kerrey said firmly.

because he knows "HIS GIRL" will lose-he's hoping they do a proportionate seating-so it's OK to punish us Florida democrats for the republican legislature switching our primary to January...great job senator

What makes you think she would lose?

long ago, delegates won't count, and he's sticking with that. This isn't a good thing for a Clinton supporter to say.

I guess they came to the same conclusion I did...
Clinton-Backer Bob Kerrey: Can't Change Florida Delegate Rules Now

Perhaps you're wrong.

but what I'm disputing is that this isn't good for Clinton. It is, if the Clintonites start running around saying "we stuck to the rules for the Mi/FL delegates, now Obama can't expect the rules to change for Superdelegates"--they are setting up an argument for later, IMO. I have a tinfoil hat.

This is going to hurt us in November. Florida is marginal as a swing state anyway, but with the party officially telling them to go pound salt, they are really going to be anti-Democrat.

Maybe the delegates should be seated as uncommitted. They can make up their minds at the convention. Just a thought.

But IMO it's either punish FL and MI or punish all the other 48 states who played by the rules. Given the option, I'll go with the 48 states.

A friend of mine, whom I talk with nightly, is running for State Senate.

She's going door to door, talking to Republicans and Democrats alike. Almost everyone is fed up with Republicans in Florida. And she says they seem to be particularly excited by Obama.

She talked to an elderly woman yesterday, who served on Nixon's re-election staff. High level. She won't vote for another Republican.

Just a little news from the front in Florida.

he's saying "don't change the rules in the middle of the game"--it's a set-up for later.

Seat the delegations and split their votes 50/50. There will be no acceptable solution to this problem, but this one seems to meet some needs - seating the delegations so that there is no complete disenfranchisement and do it in a way that does not hurt or benefit either candidate.

FL is full of her voters and they are overwhelmingly pro-clinton. That's why you do not do a revote. Circumstances at the time should prevail. It's possible that she might even gain votes. I don't believe Floridians are fond of Obama's attitude over this. You know, he's in favor of not seating them, or ignoring they've already voted, or claiming they're too ignorant to know his name, etc.

I realize that the actual voters have been disenfranchised and I hope they have a mechanism for replacing their leadership. But in the meantime, it does not sit well with me to allow those who knowingly knew the consequences of their decisions to now not have to pay the price.

governments as they plow ahead over the protests of mere citizens.

I can't speak for the citizens of Florida, but I doubt if a 50/50 between front runners Clinton and Obama in any expresses their will.

But what is the solution here?

solution.

To our party leaders (including Senators Clinton and Obama), "It's a fine mess you've gotten us into!"

-- with a tip of the hat to Oliver and Hardy.

Is that these are two very populous and critical states in the general election, and simply wiping them off the map would have serious repercussions, perhaps even beyond this year's election.

It sucks but this is a mess of the DNC's creation. They could have followed the GOP method and just stripped half, which would have allowed a punishment to stand without disenfranchising a million+ voters. Somehow they have to dig themselves out of a hole to all parties' satisfaction, and at the moment that looks rather difficult, if not impossible.