Letters to the Editor
-
One thing is clear
Had Clinton been ahead in the delegate and popular vote count, she would be fighting tooth and nail against any revote or seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates.
-
@ Rayon Fog
http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/03/09/video-howard-dean-talks-floridamichigan-re-vote/
Dean says both parties will have to agree to a re-vote. You can find about a thousand references to his conditions for a re-vote in a 2 minute Google search. Just type in "Dean Both Parties Revote". Or, if you prefer, send your request to Farhad Manjoo and he will get back to you, eventually.
-
Proportional deledate distribution
This is the biggest problem for seating the delegates as they are. How many Democrats in these states didn't vote because they were told their votes didn't count?
The turnout in Detroit was about less than half what it was in 2004. Who do you suppose these voters might have voted for?
Had the DNC not stripped the states ahead of time and the candidates signed a agreement not to participate would the outcome be the same? No. And the delegate distribution would be different as well.
Had Democrats in NH known ahead of time that Mrs. Clinton would be pushing to seat these delegates, would she have won NH? Probably not.
-
jebldmm
Typical dodge.
Nobody is questioning what Dean said. I am asking you to provide proof that Obama's lawyers blocked a revote. They did no such thing - they merely questioned a few key provisions of a proposed revote: 1) the legality of such a revote, and 2) that the plan blocked voters who voted in the original primary from voting in a redo. Both very reasonable questions, I'd say. As someone else said, you and others ascribe far too much power to Obama and his legal team.
-
@ jebldmm
Hillary never pledged not to seat Michigan and FLorida?
Really?
Well, for one, that's demonstrably false. She said as much in an NPR interview in NH. Certainly, the folks in NH felt she pledged not to seat Michigan and Florida.
Had Democrats in NH not believed that she made this pledge, she may well have lost NH and we wouldn't be having this argument now.
-
jebldmm
"Actually, Dean is the one who gave Obama the power to block the re-votes. That was another stupid move on Dean's part, actually - portraying the battle as being between Clinton and Obama, with Clinton obviously fighting for re-votes. The blame, in the eyes of the voter's, fell on Obama, our likely candidate. Obama could have backed a re-vote, but he chose to not do so, he chose to obstruct the re-vote because he was afraid it would negatively effect his campaign. This was a very bad strategy, becasue it will end up huring him, and us, in November."
I agree with Rayon Frog here; these are a bunch of sweeping statements made without very much proof.
By the way, I'm sorry if I missed the part where you explained how the reasoning put forth by the Obama campaign about why revotes aren't feasible was invalid or dishonest? Could you just walk me through that part again?
"You can't "compromise" with votes. It has, once again, gone too far. Florida and Michigan voter's are mad, and nothing less than a complete seating of their delegates or a re-vote (which is virtually impossible at this time) will placate them."
So, according to your view, there is only one solution - to seat the delegates according to an allocation that is, by any sane or honest analysis, gravely flawed.
Also, I think you mean "voters" instead of "voter's."
-
Jed: She agreed not to participate in the primary.
The arguable import of said pledge is that by doing so, she agreed not to accept any delegates selected by that process.
By all means, allow seating of Michigan and Florida, as long as the delegates support NEITHER Obama or Clinton, as they are pledged NOT TO ACCEPT any delegates won in the questionable process.
A simpler solution: give Clinton 55% of the delegates from MI and FLA and give Obama 45% of the delegates from MI and FLA.
Or is that not GOOD ENOUGH for the ethcially challenged Clintonistas???
-
caucus race issue
this manure is right out of Lewis Carroll. There were no primaries. There were no delegates at stake. there were no campaigns. There were several candidates still viable at the time, and all of them but Billary took their names off the MIchigan ballot. There is no issue. There is a smokescreen that reeks heavily of hydrogen sulfide. That's bullshit to you hillbots. If you don't think the Klintoonians are ethically challenged, the Michigan and florida two state monty ought to convince you. It won't, though.
-
jebldmm
"Get over it. This isn't about Clinton. It has moved way beyond that. You can't defend disenfranchising entire states by citing a contract. Clinton never signed a contract saying she would never try to get the delegates seated. Neither did Obama. They just agreed not to participate in the election, and neither did (although Obama's supporters did violate the contract, they were not signatories so it doesn't count)."
I think you're blowing a bit of smoke here. If she keeps her name on the ballot arguing that it doesn't matter that she is the only candidate because the results won't count anyway and then the day after the primary she turns around and says that she thinks they should count, it's very hard to argue that this was done in good faith. Presumably she knew long before primary day that not seating the Michigan delegation wasn't fair. She could have fought for different treatment of the Michigan delegation back when the other candidates still had a chance to compete against her. But no - the morning after she won an uncontested primary, she and her handlers had a sudden epiphany that it wasn't fair not to award her the delegates which she won, ahem, fair and square.
-
what a phony
argument and candidate
-
Shifting positions and bad timing -- it's all tactical
In the beginning neither Obama nor Hillary was interested in Florida or Michigan. Obama thought Michigan was a wash Florida not good for him; Hillary thought she would have the nomination sown up on Super-Tuesday and Florida and Michigan did not matter.
Then for a few weeks after Super Tuesday Hillary's campaign was for seating the Florida and Michigan delegates as is (thus netting 73-zip in Michigan), while Obama and co offered a "fair solution" presumably a re-vote -- notably Hillary's ally Gov. Granholm killed that in Michigan initially.
Then about two and half to three weeks ago the Hillary campaign realized that the straight seating without a re-vote was an unsellable proposition. At this stage they started to float a revote, but it was too late in logistical terms (Florida voting machines out of action, all sorts of problems in Michigan.) Obama campaign backed a "fair solution" which at that point was impractical, i.e., it could not happen.
Yesterday, in desperation the Hillary campaign has now switched back to the straight seat the existing delegates option.
So actually the positions have shifted all over the place. Hillary has had four (don't seat, seat, revote, seat), Obama two or three, more or less (don't seat, revote, revote (but since that is not feasible it amounts to don't seat.))
I stand ready to be denounced by both sides, but that is what happened. I'll listen to a Hillbot who will concede multiple positions by her campaign, the Obam campaign has certainly shifted around.