The latest has to do with committee memberships given to Michigan and Florida delegates.
The Democratic National Committee said Tuesday that Florida and Michigan members will be seated on the three standing committees — including the critical Credentials Committee—at the party’s 2008 national convention, a position that could affect the selection of the Democratic nominee.
While both states were stripped of their delegates to the convention, according to the DNC’s interpretation of party rules, members from those states will be seated on the Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee, which can meet prior to convention, resolves disputes over whether to seat delegates at the convention.
“The DNC interpretation is that there are 186 members of the Credentials Committee and both states are seated on the standing committees,” said DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton.
Under the DNC's interpretation of the rules, Florida members of the credentials committee would not be allowed to vote on the question of whether to seat Florida's delegates to the presidential nominating process.
But the mere presence of Florida and Michigan on the credentials committee raises the prospect of vote-trading or last-minute maneuvering, creating potential confusion for a convention already shadowed by procedural controversies.
Neither campaign was notified of this and both are mystified. How can delegates of those states be given key committee assignments before the issue of their partiticipation in the convention is settled?
Allan Katz, the lone member of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee to vote against sanctioning Florida in August 2007, said the DNC’s current position “strikes me as odd."
Katz, a Florida superdelegate who supports Obama, added that, “it doesn’t make any sense to presume that a full cadre of representatives from Florida and Michigan would serve on these committees absent there being a delegation."
Katz, like all those interviewed, was also quick to offer the benefit of the doubt to DNC leadership. But, he said, “there is a lack of structural sense to this. I think people are confused.”
You bet! David Paul Kuhn, who manages to write clearly about this at Politico, calls the whole thing "Byzantine." Judging from this blogger's experience at a Texas Democratic "caucus," Byzantium has a long way to go before reaching the level the Democratic party has settled into.
“It adds more confusion to a situation which is already tremendously confused,” said veteran Democratic consultant Tad Devine, an expert on delegate rules who was surprised by the DNC interpretation. “When you have a situation like this, where people are deeply concerned about the process, and the public is evaluating the process on the basis of fairness and equality, I think it is really incumbent to have a tremendous amount of transparency so that people can understand the process and can make determinations about its fairness.”
Here's an issue which many Democrats haven't confronted yet. After eight years of Bush administration incompetence and coverup, what many want -- perhaps even more strongly than a timely exit from Iraq -- is leadership which is both competent and open. The Democratic party clearly flunks. Hillary's campaign is messy, disorganized, and irresponsible with money. That leaves a candidate who seems untethered to the DNC, whose campaign and previous work show a good deal of competence, and who doesn't appear to fear transparency.
