Obama, Edwards, and Clinton to boycott campaigning in Florida
Several states have said they will hold primary elections earlier than the long-standing schedule established by the DNC. The objective is to increase a given state’s impact on the overall nominating process, which historically has begun with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — Florida and California are just two examples. The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee have both opposed the states’ proposed changes.
Both committees have threatened to not allow any state that changes its primary election date to participate in the committees’ national conventions, which in today’s environment is not much of a threat. The conventions have long since been a deliberative process to actually decide who will represent the respective parties. Instead, the conventions have become more of a massive marketing event for crowning the already determined nominee and broadcasting the party’s platform.
To mitigate the lack of punitive influence created banning a state from its national convention,the DNC has asked its presidential candidates to boycott campaigning in a state that violates the DNC’s rules. Florida is the first state to be officially sanctioned for its proposed changes. While its unclear to me at this point what the real impact will be, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton and almost all other Democratic candidates have pledged to honor the DNC’s request.
The Dems need to get their act together. They’re writing off the entire state of Florida. Given that Florida was a key state in the 2000 electons, you’d think they’d do better this year. If they follow through with this boycott, I, personally will boycott the 2008 elections.
Joe - I believe your reaction to the Florida boycott is indicative of what will likely be the response from most Floridians and voters in other states that may be sanctioned by the DNC or RNC. Based on what I know from press accounts, I am having a hard time seeing any productive or purposeful gain with the imposed sanctions. That’s why I said it was unclear to me what the real impact will be.
It seems to me the state and national party leaders are forgetting the most important element in this controversy - the voters. What can possibly be gained by circumventing the democratic process, which is exactly what the sanctions will do.
I think this race to be first by some states is disruptive to the discernment process required to nominate a presidential candidate. I also believe the response from national party leaders to be equally irresponsible.
I’m not sure what the solution is today, but I am certain of one thing. This standoff between the states and the national party is rapidly creating the same polarization that exists between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives versus liberals, etc.
While the reaction from the national party is entirely inappropriate from my perspective, the states choosing to disrupt the traditional process give a strong indication they don’t care about the larger picture — what’s in the best interest of the country and the party.
Both sides — state and national — need to back down from this George Bush mentality of “my way is the only way,” regardless of how obviously wrong “that way” is.