Letters to the Editor
-
ok by me...
But only under the "you've suffered enough" clause in the "disciplining your child" handbook.
Why do I get the feeling that Team Clinton will decline?
-
Seems reasonable to me
There's plenty of things not to like about this, but that's why it's called a "compromise."
Let's do something similar for FL and move on; the Democrats need to at least get down to 1 train wreck.
-
I know it doesn't matter..
but I can't stand how everyone says "the other candidates weren't even on the ballot", which is completely accurate, but no one ever mentions that they removed their own names.
-
Award the delegates...
I'm a biased Obama supporter, but I say award the delegates as voted...but deny the Superdelegates from both Florida and Michigan from voting. That'll teach 'em.
-
Wow.
This may actually be okay. I mean, it makes sense. It's not the best idea, but it works. I say we do it. That way Clinton can "win" those states and get the delegates seated. MI voters don't feel left out. Hell, this seems to be the kind of negotiation we need in politics these days.
-
Please Stop!
Really, this bullshit is killing me. In a Bush country nobody except the poor are "guilty" of "crimes", nobody except the poor are held "accountable" for their "actions" and of course, do-overs or some other bizarre "what have you" are entirely possible after states move up their primaries against the "rules".. Those are "Bush rules", "Democrats".
-
They made their beds...
...now they have to sleep in them. If Democrats in MI feel disenfranchised, they need only look to their leaders, who decided to violate national party rules, knowing full well the consequences.
-
Isn't Okay With Me
These states moved their primaries up against party. The party then told them they would be disenfranchising 100,000s of voters because primary results would not count. In what alternate universe is counting those votes acceptable? The party bosses had plenty of time BEFORE the primaries to negotiate a settlement. Florida and Michigan primaries simply are not legal. Period. And so what if the candidates withdrew their names in Michigan? I find that more honorable than Clinton leaving her name on just in case.
-
Another DOA proposals from Billaryland
Unlike Florida, Michigan's primary was entirely meaningless, since it not only lacked a campaign, only one candidate was even on the ballot. There is no fair way to apportion delegates based on that primary.
If she hadn't voted for the war, I'd have to assume Hillary supported the democratic election of Saddam Hussein. After all, like Hill, he was the only candidate on the ballot, so it expressed the will of the Iraqi people, right? And all those old Soviet elections must have been impressive mandates in Hillaryland...
The stench of desperation is her only perfume.
-d-
-
BS!!!
Rules is rules. I don't care if the Republicans set up MI and FL to fail. The citizens of those states elected them. All the candidates pledged going in that the delegates would not be seated. Now Hillary is trying to change the rules. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH LAW-BREAKING AND RULE-CHANGING TO LAST ME SIX LIFETIMES!!! Hillary can just suck it up for all I care. She lies, she breaks rules(sometimes called laws) and she runs a dirty and incompetent campaign. Now she want special treatment. I HAVE HAD IT WITH HER!!! GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN HILLARY CLINTON. I have absolutely no respect or trust for a liar and a thief(threats to woo pledged delegates).
-
@bilhelm Actually
The Republican party did the sensible thing in this instance. They let FL & MI vote early and just cut the number of delegates from each state in half. The votes counted, and a penality was applied.
There's enough non-accountability to go around, last time I checked.
-
Nope 50-50 or the highway
This would be a reasonable solution in Florida. There I have no problem seating the delgates proportionally giving her all of the ones she won.
But in Michigan where hers was the only name on the ballot? Where she was running against uncommitted? Sorry, but no way. That's a Soviet style election. I've never heard of a legitimate, American election with only one name on the ballot where a candidate is allowed to run against uncommitted. That's Communism.
It's also part of a disturbing trend that's (thankfully) fading to somehow coronate her with the election. It's not all HRC's fault it dates back to the early days of the election when party bigwigs assumed it was hers for the taking. No longer. So in lieu of this absurd, only Hillary is allowed on the ballot Michigan election, split the delegates 50-50. It's the only fair thing.
-
It's Do-able
Personally, I think Michigan has virtually no RIGHT to ask for any seating of delegates but if anything can work, this may be it. Nice try and good luck Michigan.
-
New Hampshire Cheated Too
as Senator Carl Levin & DNC member Debbie Dingell point out here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19levin.html
But no one's taking away their delegates.
Maybe the entire Democratic Primary season should be a do-over
;)
-
How come the so-called "compromises" ALWAYS end up with a net gain for Hillary?
What kind of compromise is that? Hey, I won't cut off your hand if I can cut off your foot!
These compromises always work from the assumption that if a primary was held tomorrow, the outcome would be the same, but that's entirely false.
In Michigan, the large populations of students, blacks and Muslims who didn't bother to vote because IT DIDN'T MATTER, could possibly fall Obama's way. In Florida, a ballot cut down to 2 candidates (Edwards was on the initial, discredited ballot) would almost as likely prove to produce a smaller margin of victory for Clinton.
These are the things the Obama campaign has to take into consideration when presented with these "compromises". I'd say "No" too.
-
I'm a simple (and, perhaps, simpleminded) person, but....
I still don't understand how a candidate can be said to have "won" an election when the other candidates aren't on the ballot. Even if those missing candidates removed their names themselves. I mean, they were following the spirit if not the letter of whatever Democratic Party "rules" applied to those MI and FL primaries, right?
As "compromises" go, I suppose this one is as good as any. I hesitate to call the "win" for Hillary, though. It's just doesn't seem .... well, possible to wrestle that "event" into a "win." Semantically or otherwise.
Plus, as a former Edwards and now Obama by default supporter, this semantic squishiness dovetails a little too closely with Hillary's own penchant for "misspeaking" and for being, well, "disingenuous."
I mean, is this Orwell's 1984, or what?