I've said this before, so I know we'll go around in circles and get nowhere. But I really don't understand how appealing to the credentials committee constitutes changing the rules. When the DNC made the decision regarding Michigan and Florida, they made it very clear to the campaigns that if they wanted to seat those delegates, they could take it up with the credentials committee at the convention. That's what the committee is there for. It's not like she's discussing taking this to an outside body. All she's doing is potentially discussing speaking with the committee designed for that very purpose! I don't see how that's changing the rules -- it's exactly along the lines of what the DNC set up.
We are both right here. It is within the rules to go to the credentials committee and appeal to them to change the rules. What is so offensive about this to me is that: 1. Clinton is trying to have this both ways. When she needed Iowa and NH, she was dead against another state encroaching on their primacy. If she hadn't been, she would have lost badly in both states and this race would be over. Now that she's done pandering to them, she changes her position -- not out of principle but out of expediency. If EVERY. SINGLE. CANDIDATE. had not agreed to these terms, and willingly, NO candidate would have taken his name off the Michigan ballot. Coming back now and saying that FL or MI should possibly be decisive in our nominating process is beyond BS. 2. And this one is even worse, she has the gall to characterize this as a stand for counting all the votes, a stand against disenfranchisement, a stand for democracy and to suggest that Obama is against those things. Make any argument you want about how this battle doesn't harm our eventual nominee in the general. Telling voters in Florida and Michigan that Obama wants to deny them their democratic rights -- especially when it's undeniably a dishonest, disingenuous, utterly specious claim -- is frigging horrible for our party.
Clinton's spokesperson, Phil Singer via mass email: "After last night's decisive victory in Pennsylvania, more people have voted for Hillary than any other candidate, including Sen. Obama. Estimates vary slightly, but according to Real Clear Politics, Hillary has received 15,095,663 votes to Sen. Obama's 14,973,720, a margin of more than 120,000 votes. ABC News reported this morning that 'Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama' in the popular vote. This count includes certified vote totals in Florida and Michigan." The 120,000 value points to not including the 4 states in question. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/936250.aspx [Just pointing out a relatively meaningless factoid. This was going to be a longer post, but I'm about to get locked in the office, so I've got to go.]
Well, I'll eat my crow. Thought momentum was shifting Obama's going into the weekend, but it looks like Hillary caught a mini-wave towards the end by capturing most of the undecideds (like she did in previous states). I was pretty surprised at the results in the Philly suburbs. Of the four counties (Bucks, Chester, MontCo, and Delaware), I thought Montgomery was most likely to go for Obama. Delaware County (where I live) I figured would be solid Hillary country. Pretty interesting results. Bottom line is that Obama needed to get about 55% in those 4 counties and ended up quite short. It's Monday Morning quarterbacking, but I think he made a mistake by not spending enough time in those counties. It seemed like one of the Clintons was in the area every week the past 6 weeks.
Excellent summary of that dynamic, Bats. I have no idea why more people in the punditocracy or, at least, Plouffe/Axelrod aren't calling her on the sheer gall of this complaint.
From the latest Evans-Novak Political Report: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/23/mccain_warns_that_democrats_will_unify.html
I think it's interesting that for all the discussion of the number of states won by either candidate, the "popular vote," and the systems used in the different states, if one goes simply by what would be the electoral college totals for the states decided so far (which would mirror the delegate count, if I remember correctly, if the Democratic Party still used the "winner takes all" system it used to use, and the GOP largely still uses), then Ms. Clinton would have 206 electoral college votes and Mr. Obama would have 202, with a similar standing in the delegate count. That's if Florida and Michigan are left out, which is another contentious argument. Just fun to speculate about how this would be turning out and the perceptions people have on how the candidates are doing. Were the old system still in use, I suspect Ms. Clinton's vote totals after Super Tuesday might have been more favorable towards her, as she would be percieved as the front runner. Trippy. Bushed.
Were the old system in use I suspect each of the candidates would have campaigned differently. And I suspect the Clinton camp believing in its own inevitability would have resulted in a similar problem for them. They didn't even consider the ramifications of a competitive race.
Alls I know is that republicans will be studying very closely Hillary's very republican like attack in PA even down to Hillary threatening to obliterate another country if it's deemed necessary to pander to the fear crowd. Seems very familiar In fact, I think I'll send off another $100 to Obama. .
It's not dishonest, it's TRUE. And if you were to go back in time and realize just how significant Michigan and Florida would be (they could swing the race now), then a different outcome would have been reached with regard to how to treat those states. You probably know that, so you tell me who is being disingenuous. It's disenfranchising Florida voters by telling them their votes don't count. That's the very DEFINITION of disenfranchisement. You just can't argue that. Florida had record turnout for the Dem primary and because it doesn't serve his own selfish interest, Obama doesn't want their votes to count. Period. You can't SPIN that any other way, Batman.
So you are in favor of violating the rules? Let's get this out now. Fla and MI don't count because they violated the rules they had previously agreed to. I'll try and be delicate since you are so sensitive, but I just want to know for sure that you are saying that it's OK to break rules agreed on in an election?
That decision was made with imperfect information. Again, had we known then what we know now, then there is no way that that specific outcome would have resulted. Obama needs to man up and recognize this and allow those voters' votes to count. He is putting his own self above the will of the millions in Florida and Michigan. He is looking those voters in the face at the polls and saying, thanks for voting, but I just threw your vote in the trash. It doesn't count. You don't count. Our nation doesn't want your input.
Jorge you might want to spend some time figuring out how McCain is not going to get steamrolled in November instead of giving Democrats advice. LOL!!!
“Senator Obama might be content to dismiss the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in Florida and Michigan as abstractions, but Senator Clinton thinks they are people whose votes count and voices should be heard.” - Clinton spokesman Singer, as quoted on Mark Halperin's The Page. http://thepage.time.com/ The Cat: Tell me again how none of this is bad for our nominee in the fall. Hillary Clinton is a liar and a cheat. And she doesn't give a damn about electing a Democrat in the fall if it isn't her. I keep thinking she can't give me even one more reason to vow never to vote for her and she keeps proving me wrong. They should revoke her credentials to the convention. Bill Clinton said a few days ago that if we were playing by Republican Party rules she'd be winning. Here's an idea: run in their primary next time.
And you think you are much better? Think about it, Batman. She's gotten 47.1% of the popular vote, compared to 47.7% for Barack, excluding Florida and Michigan. That means one hell of a lot of Democrats voted for her, like it or not, in a series of primaries that have set records for turnout. You are basically calling all of those people idiots, or worse. Ever consider that? All those Democrats don't know their butts from a hole in the ground, I guess, or are gullible to the extreme. Roughly half the Democrats who have voted. Those numbers are from here, by the way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...tic_Party_presidential_primaries#Popular_vote I didn't vote for her, but I think attitudes like yours are damned near as destructive as what you accuse Clinton of doing and being. With all due respect. I didn't vote for her in the primary, but I find this attitude towards her, and those who did vote for her, by association, pretty damned extreme. You are certainly not alone. I've run across others just like you. I think it's appalling. Complain all you want, but compared to many other primary seasons I've witnessed, this one has been pretty damned civil. Impeach Bush.
That sounds like Hillary's descriptions and insinuations of Obama's pie-in-the-sky supporters... At least Obama or his major staff hasn't called out Hillary's practices and tactics to that length.
Obama is the one hiding behind a lie here folks. The lie is that Michigan and Florida shouldn't count. Those votes SHOULD count. Those are two battleground states in the Fall, by the way. But the main reason they should count is because of the nature of this race. Because it is so close, you MUST ensure that the will of the people is served. You can not disenfranchise voters here -- it's just too close. Barack is trying to hide behind a technicality here to hold on to his lead. That's what's happening. And his supporters know they are wrong. It's simply never a good idea to tell voters that their vote doesn't count. What country are we living in, Zimbabwe?! This stuff shouldn't happen in the United States of America.
