If Michigan and Florida tried to hold their Presidential election in October instead of November, it wouldn't count either and their people wouldn't be seated at the electoral college. Would you have a problem with that?
Major I think there are important legal distinctions between the actual elections and the primaries, which are governed by these essentially non-governmental agencies, the political parties. Anybody know what is the exact legal status of the Dem and Republican parties? They aren't governmental, but they seem quasi-governmental. Wierd.
I believe that you are against the people of Michigan and Florida voting because you fear they would not vote for Obama. The people of Michigan and Florida deserve a vote in the primary, regardless of how r****ded the democratic party's actions were in those states.
So when she needs a NH win to stay in the race, she says "It's clear that the Michigan primary won't count" and says pretty much the same about Florida. But when she needs to reverse that position in order to stay in the race, she vows to lead a credentials fight. The rule this year was that if anyone tried to leapfrog IA or NH, they would not be seated. Clinton agreed and signed off on this. (Anything less would have been suicide in the early states.) She raised no objections. Zero. This wasn't a surprise to MI and FL. They knew the consequences when they were deciding whether or not to move their elections up and they said screw it, we're doing it anyway whether we're seated or not. So your desperate Clinton-supporting position now is that there's nothing shady or rule-changing about Hillary joining with the DNC and all other major candidates in saying early votes in MI and FL will NOT count and then later saying they SHOULD count and even leading the fight to reverse the DNC decision she endorsed. That is freaking pathetic. And it illustrates the utterly desperate nature of her flailing campaign. Nobody is suggesting that there ought not to be delegates from FL or MI at the convention. They will be seated when this whole thing is worked out and when we have a presumptive nominee. Their illegal (according to DNC decision with which Clinton previously agreed) elections will not be a deciding factor in choosing a nominee. If they were, it would be the clearest example possible of changing the rules in the middle of the game to favor a sore losing candidate.
It’s so cute to see Texxx become such a paragon of voter advocacy and fairness! Especially for his candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton. I like this new Texxx!
I have always stood for all that is just - including the people of Michigan and Florida having a vote. It's a shame that their votes likely will not be counted in the democratic primary.
Do you repudiate the Bush Adminstration which has opposed non-partisan voter's registration at VA Hospitals?
I would feel bad except that MI and FL chose to not have their delegates seated when the knowingly moved their contests up, and knew that by doing so their delegates would not be seated. They chose to do this action knowing the consequences.
This is not a game, this is about democracy and making sure people's voices are heard. Although I tend to vote for democratic nominees, I'm really disappointed with the party this election year. "Not being republican", although a step in the right direction, is not a plan or vision for this country.
Hillary knew the consequences then too and endorsed them. Now she calls it disenfranchisement. Sore losing at its best.
In Florida at least, Democrats had nothing to do with the decision. In fact, Democrats wanted to keep their primary on Super Tuesday or later, but the Republican-controlled state legislature barred them from doing that. So no, Florida Democrats did not choose to do this action knowing the consequences and had almost no control over the situation. I feel very bad for them.
My position is that there's nothing more shady about that than the Obama supporters who suddenly believe superdelegates should be mirror images of the pledged delegate count. Yes, I get that Obama supporters aren't favoring legislation to require that -- but I find that to be a very thin technicality while the overall principle is essentially the same. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that, though.
I think one difference here is that nobody from the Obama camp is threatening to take the matter to committee
I feel bad for them too. It's a shame that the powers that be in Florida made a decision that resulted in their votes not counting. And, once that decision was made, it's a shame that the DNC and ALL of the major candidates -- very much including Hillary Clinton -- didn't force a solution in which the candidates could campaign there (and in MI) such that the votes could be counted. But they didn't and she didn't. She didn't raise a single objection to these delegates not being seated. Not a single one. UNTIL she needed them to stave off elimination. Her 'principled' stand now in favor of seating them is the picture of dishonesty. The rules she once proudly endorsed she now scorns. She wants to change the rules now to steal a victory and will apparently fight it all the way to the convention. That is her right. She has every right in the world to push for a rule change at the end of the game, she has every right to do everything in her power to win -- even pretend to a moral position that we all know is rooted in nothing but self interest. But please don't make posts in some sincere tone suggesting that this is about fairness or concern about the voters of Florida or Michigan. Hillary didn't give a whit about them until she needed them for her own purposes. And you know that.
I still don't get why the committee is such a big deal to you guys. The Florida and Michigan camps were always going to go to the committee! That's what it's there for. The DNC -- both before and after this became an issue for Clinton -- has always said that those states would have the opportunity to reapply with the credentials committee and be bound by the decision that committee made. It's not exactly an appeal to the Supreme Court. This is routine.
I didn't realize I had suggested this was about concern for the voters of Florida or Michigan. Of course Clinton has taken up the cause now because it's in her best political interest to do so. My position isn't about whether her interest in the cause is selfish -- of course it is. My position deals with the unfairness of hanging her for this while every other political campaign I've ever seen -- including Obama's -- deals with comparable levels of hypocrisy. Welcome to politics.
