Letters to the Editor
-
They jumped the line
I thought the loss of all delegates was too harsh, but Michigan and Florida agreed to the rules knowing that was the penalty. If the rules about when primaries can get ignored, then what rules can't be changed? I suggest Democrats in those two states blame their state parties. I sympathize with the voters, but not with state party leaders. Not only did they jump the line, it looks like they've refused all attempts to reach a compromise. I'd still be willing to seat their delegates without votes for president. They could split them in half, or pick all uncommitted delegates or delegates from candidates who have dropped out. However, coming a state that followed the rules, I'm not willing to recognize the results of the primaries. That would be unfair to the other 48 states.
-
I'm from Forida
And i say it quite obvious at this point that the only dair solution is to not seat these states, or to split the delegates and sit them.
They should have no effect overiding the states that did follow he rules.
Its ridiculous to let them be kingmaker now- especially since thats why they moved up their primaries to begin with.
And before the clintonites start spouting about republicans being to blame- i'm from florida, i am well aware as to how my democratic reps are totally responsable for this. They went along with the pubs because they wanted it.
Its up to voters in FL and MI to make their local dem parties pay the price for this stupidity.
-
Preemptively
And just in case the dwindling cadre of die-hard Hillary supporters wants to drag out the same ol' talking points about how this is evidence that Obama is trying to disenfranchise voters by not enthusiastically pushing for a revote, please be ready with some shred of evidence from before the primary that shows that Hillary was trying to make sure that the results would count. And no, being the only major candidate not to remove her name from the ballot doesn't count.
-
Enough Already
Eight years of a president who thinks that rules do not apply to him and are simply obstacles to be circumvented or ignored is enough.
-
CLINTON TAX RETURNS???
Anyone? Anyone?
Oh but of course, this is Salon.com - what was I thinking?
-
Fair Compromise
The really fair compromise is to split MI 50/50.
Everyone but Hillary followed the rules and took their names off the ballot in MI. If Hillary is really interested in seating delegates rather than herself she will agree. If she agrees in FL, then Obama should agree with the count in FL. Edwards was still in the race an got votes in Fl, so his pledged delegates can choose who to go with, or spit the Edwards count 50/50. This should all happen however before the convention. Even with these count Hillary still will not be ahead in the popular vote.
-
Florida and Michigan need to participate
So, if it is acknowledged that the party, and not the voters, is to blame for breaking the rules, the next question is why those voters should be made to suffer for actions taken outside their control.
There is no way to turn back the clock. No matter what is done, it will be perceived as unfair by some people. I believe the guiding principle here should be to allow these voters to be heard.
Splitting the delegates 50/50 is obviously the same thing as not seating them at all. A privately funded revote would have been the best option in my view, but it seems that that is not to be.
So lets see what they come up with. But they need to come up with something. And a 50/50 split is nothing.
-
A fact most imposing
The gap is quickly closing. Hillary has only a small lead of 30 superdelegates now. Even a man as patient as Jimmy Carter is getting sick of Hillary's grandstanding. Carter may be next to endorse Obama.
-
How can Obama support this?
He says he wants the delegates to be able to participate in the convention, but their votes won't mean anything? How can they "participate"? Hand out coffee to the actual voting delegates? Make cookies so that people don't have to leave the floor for a snack during the voting process? Surely, he can't be serious about the 50/50 split idea. That is an insult to the very idea of voting. It's like taking half of the votes of the people of Michigan and saying "I don't care who you voted for, your delegate is going to vote for Obama".
Obama's supporters campaigned in Michigan. They told voter's that they would try to seat delegates if voter's chose "uncommitted". This was not a small effort. It was promoted by commericials, "grassroots" groups, and politicians. In fact, Clinton took a lot of heat for barely beating out "uncommitted" in the election. It would not be unreasonable to give Obama all of the "Uncommitted" votes, Clinton her votes, and split the rest down the middle. In fact it would be generous, since some of the "Uncommitted" voter's probably intended to register a protest vote or vote for Edwards.
Here is more from CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/michigan.uncommitted/index.html
-
Fair?
Hmm, I'm not sure how a 50/50 split is fair. Why not retroactively split all of the states 50/50? Not really sensical.
And in the case of Florida, at least, it wasn't the Democrats who wanted to move up their primary - it was the Republicans, and they dragged the Democrats with them (I presume because the state wasn't going to pay for two state-wide primaries on different days). So, in their case, at least, they were kind of bystanders.
It's not going to make a huge difference to the results if they take the votes as-is. If anything, it'll help Obama make sure he reaches the cap of delegates before the convention and end the primary early, which everyone kind of wants.
Plus, it doesn't hurt to play nice with two of the most important swing states for Democrats to win in November.
-
Hey,
It's your problem. Obama followed the DNC rules to the letter, and in this instance as things seem to bear out, they've worked for the better.