The Democrats in Florida and Michigan are (IMO) rightfully angry.

However, in their anger and frustration they are blaming the National Democratic leadership, Dean and the DNC. Why?
Do they blame Dean for enforcing the rules that were very clear, very evident and actively discussed before these states voted to go ahead and break these rules?

Isn't that a bit like blaming the cop for giving you a speeding ticket?

Instead, why don't these people blame their state party leadership? After all, it was they who decided to buck the rules even after Dean and the DNC told them that if the did their deligates would not be seated?

Is it possible that Rovian style Republican politics is at work here? Could this be an attempt to erode growing Democratic dominance and unity?

Why is it that so far no one is talking about this?

Dad used to tell me, before a whippin' that "This is gonna hurt me more than it hurts you." That seems to be the case here.


Probably, but one that required and incredible amount of short-sighted stupididy by the DNC to succeed.

The DNC didn't do this. The DNC chose to enforce their own rule.
Rules that were willfully broken, and the breaking was had statewide approval in thatfew people if any voters in the state complained about the rule breakage before hand. It seems everybody figured the National leadership wouldn't react, even though the national leadership was very specific what the reaction would be. So why blame the national leadership for a statewide decision?


Additionally, was it the National leaderships prroblems that caused these states to not agree to a format for a do over election? Didn't the states them selves pretty much screw that up?

It doesn't matter...who was right, who broke the rules, or to whom you can assign blame. The only consideration when the problem presented itself should have been what course of action would most likely to do the least amount of damage and not jeapordize the general election. In choosing to take away 1/2 of Florida's delegates the Republicans successfully penalized them for breaking the rules without shooting themselves in the foot.

Quite true, except blame IS being leveled, which is why I asked the question.
The voters in these two states are quite actively blaming the national leadership. It wasn't the national leadership that put them in this situation. The state level leadership did that and while they were, nobody, none of the electorate complained about it, which to me means they backed the state level decision to disregard the national level rules.

And then, when the national leadership suggested these states have a do over election, the state level leaderships could not agree on a format. This was not a national level issue. On the contrary. The national level bent and agreed to allow a do over.

I'm sorry Sooner, and as much as I agree this means problems for Democrats and the Progressive movement, I don't feel sorry for those states. They created the problem, and then after the fact they have tried to push blame off where it does not belong. The state leadership in these two states had the tacit approval of their electorate, took gamble, and lost.

I would very much like both states to be included, but if the states them selves can't agree on how to do that, what can we do about it? Except, remind them that Dean and the DLC did not sow their seeds for them.

That's why it was so dangerous when the perpetrators insisted from the very beginning that there would be no compromise. Hillary's way, or bust. And if you don't think Bill Nelson and Jen Granholm were working on Hillary's instructions... well, we disagree.

Neither do I. But I feel sorry for the rest of us if alienating Democratic voters in these states gives the presidency to John McCain.



I'm not sure why you think we disagree on anything. I think Obama would be competitive in both states, given the opportunity to compete, and still come out ahead nationally should he lose.

I fully agree on both counts