Letters to the Editor
Uberbah
Published Letters: 94 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Karen, this isn't dodgeball. stop ducking the issues.
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And stop suggesting that Hillary was behind the delegates being stripped.
I can't stop doing something I never started. I never said Hillary was responsible for stripping FL and MI of their delegates. I said the two groups most responsible for the current situation are Florida state officials and Hillary's supporters on the Rules committee. So it's obviously quite disingenuous for Hillary supporters and the people of MI and FL to complain about "disenfranchisement" when the two groups most responsible for the current situation are Hillary supporters and MI and FL state officials.
As is? So how do you want them counted?
That's easy. They don't count. Just as Hillary supporters on the Rules committee knew they wouldn't count when they voted to strip the states of their delegates. Just as Michigan was warned in 2004 that they would lose their delegates by Hillary supporter and then DNC chair Terry McAuliffe. Just as the state officials in FL and MI knew what would happen last year when they ignored clear warnings from the DNC and broke the rules. Just as Hilary agreed they would. not. count. If you don't like that, complain to the Hillary supporters on the Rules committee who voted to strip the states of their convention delegates, the state officials who broke the rules, and of course to Hillary herself for saying they wouldn't count.
I bet you anything Obama ends up with Michigan delegates that he didn't even win.
Since he wasn't even on the ballot you mean? Why isn't it a problem that Hillary broke her pledge not to participate in the FL and MI primaries? If this is a problem of "disenfranchisement", what about all the Democrats who were disenfranchised because they were told by their governments and by the candidates and by the media and by Hillary Rodham Clinton that their votes would not count? Do you seriously believe that Obama would have gotten 0% of the vote in Michigan and thus deserves no delegates from that state?
-
Karen, you missed something
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.
Leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan after the other candidates followed the DNC's request and took theirs off is "participating", Karen. Trying to take delegates from the Florida and Michigan beauty pageants is also "participating".
Face it, she broke her pledge on Michigan, and is trying to break the rest of it by having the delegations seated as is.
-
Karen
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The DNC did not request that anybody remove their name from the ballot. You just throw mud against the wall and hope that something sticks.
What a surprise, the facts don't meet your storyline. Again. Your link says nothing about such a request or a lack thereof. Mine does. Garry Shay - superdelegate, Clinton endorser, and member of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/dnc_rules_commi.html
Well, there are a lot of things that happened with Michigan. First of all, the primary law was challenged as to its constitutionality and it was thrown out. So, there’s no law supporting the Michigan primary.
There’s the fact that Hillary Clinton’s name and the uncommitted slate was the only thing that was on the ballot in Michigan because the Democratic National Committee asked the other candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot. So, here you have the institution itself asking people to pull their names off the ballot.
[Fellow panel member says: “Not the other ones; they asked all of them.]
All of them, yes. That’s what--I don’t know what I just said-But, OK, that’s what I thought I said.
In any event, and you also have the uncommitted slate on the ballot—you have an uncommitted slate on the ballot and, you know, one of the proposals that came forward that I’ve seen is: Why not give half of the delegation to Clinton and half of it to Obama and that way it won’t make any difference and people can be seated. Well, what do you do with the fact that there was an uncommitted delegation that got votes and is entitled to delegates? I think that one is a whole big mess.
So not only was it a laughable excuse for a valid election, it wasn't even constitutional in Michigan. And yes, Obama supporters (such as John Conyers) asked voters to vote for "uncommitted", so it wouldn't look like Hillary took 100% of the vote. And given Hillary's dirty tricks, it's a good thing they did.
And Karen. Karen. Let's get real for a second. That a candidate only gets 55% of the vote when you're practically the only name on the ballot is pretty damned embarrassing. 55% Hillary, 31% Uncommitted, 9% Undecided, 3% Kucinich, 1% Gravel.
You have any more talking points that need to be shot down, or are we done here?