The Florida and Michigan Delegates

While this may not qualify as a strictly Latino-related entry, I think it is relevant because there is a large number of Latinos in Florida that will be affected by the decision of whether to seat their delegates.

This is sort of like a follow-up to this entry at Telling Stories, where I took exception to NAACP's Chairman Julian Bond's argument, as summarized by the International Herald Tribune, that leaving these states without representation would disenfranchise a large number of minority voters. I later received clarification, which I independently confirmed, that Chairman Bond wasn't arguing in favor of seating delegates in proportion to the primaries' results but to have a new process take place to select delegates.

I still think that the argument about disenfranchising minorities is pretty weak and you can go to Telling Stories for the details if you care.  What I want to raise here, since I haven't seen it raised anywhere else, is the argument that as a matter of basic small-D democratic principles, Democrats should allow for an alternate procedure to take place in Michigan and Florida.

Before all the Obamaniacs - or whatever name they go by - start screaming bloody murder and that I want Hillary to win the nomination, let me say that my candidate was Dennis Kucinich.   And as I said then, I believe either Hillary or Barack will be an excellent President.  At this time, I think Barack would be the better candidate while Hillary would be the better President, but we're picking between good and great, not between good and bad.

Now that we got that sort-of-disclaimer out of the way, here's what I'm thinking.  The Democratic race is, in all likelihood, not going to be decided after the primaries are done.  The math for Barack is bad but the math for Hillary is near impossible. So this are the choices the Democrats face:  The Democrats can choose not to provide an alternative mechanism for FL and MI and have the superdelegates determine who should be the candidate.  Or the Democrats can allow FL and MI to go ahead and have their primaries or caucuses, seat their delegates, and, maybe, put a candidate over the top or closer to it.

Which alternative is more "small-D" democratic?

There's no guarantee that it won't come down to the superdelegates.  But for the losing candidate and his/her supporters it would be easier to swallow if they don't have to deal with the "what if."

I don't see how this helps or hurts either candidate.  If anyone benefits from this is Obama.  He has performed extremely well in caucuses and if it is a primary, the momentum is with him right now.  For Clinton, she gets a do-over in two states where she had, essentially, election drills earlier in the year.

Right now, it seems like the proper thing to do.