Clinton in Hillsboro: Count the uncontested Michigan vote
I'm watching Hillary Clinton on KATU right now say that Michigan's vote should count. Clinton takes this position despite Obama not being on ballot and the fact that Hillary Clinton herself said that the vote "won't count for anything." (New Hampshire Public Radio 10/11/07)
Here is the pledge the Clinton signed at the beginning of the campaign:
WHEREAS, over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.
I fully concede Clinton's electability when she's the only one on the ballot. But can we drop the pretense that Clinton's tactics have anything to do with democratic principles? The Michigan re-vote "plan" would have excluded Republicans and Independents who cast their ballots in the more meaningful and contested GOP vote.
I agree with Clinton supporter and former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey when asked about Michigan: "You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. Period." (The Villager, 2/08)
"Some say their votes should be ignored and the popular vote in Michigan and Florida should be discounted. Well, I have a different view," Clinton said at a rally here. "The popular vote in Florida and Michigan has already been counted. It was determined by election results, it was certified by election officials in each state, it's been officially tallied by the secretary of state in each state, and the question is whether those 2.3 million Democrats will be honored and their delegates seated by the Democratic party."
Both the Michigan and Florida primaries were essentially nullified after they were moved into January in violation of national Democratic party rules. The party voted to strip both states of their delegates and all the candidates, including Clinton and Obama, signed a pledge not to campaign in either state.
Sen. Barack Obama and several other Democratic candidates also removed their names from the Michigan primary ballot.
Read the rest here.
|
April 5, 2008 |
Charlie Burr | Comments (78 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Linley | Apr 5, 2008 12:01:08 PM
On this issue, the Democratic party reminds me of a parent who has tried to set a bad rule for his child (e.g., "You must eat all of your vegetables before you can leave the table") and is stuck with the fact that a)the child has a mind of his own b)the threat is essentially unenforceable and c)making the threat was therefore stupid. Sometimes, as in this case, the rule as was stupid. What one does when s/he finds out it was stupid is a test of character; do you find a way to correct the situation, or do you blindly follow its dictates?
In this case, what is the Democratic party going to do, try to win a national election by ignoring two major Democratic states just because it "broke" one if the parties rules? Good luck!
Further, Obama was on the Florida ballot and he and Hillary campaigned there about the same amount so they should get what they won. In Michigan, a reasonable solution is to give her all the delegates she won and give Obama the ones she did not. You cannot disenfranchise 2.3 million voters; not unless you think like the Supreme Court did in 2000. Is Obama and his supporters unwilling to head the decision of those voters?
Posted by: Pacific John | Apr 5, 2008 12:07:05 PM
The RULES allow for the DNC to seat MI and FL delegations.
Let's follow those, huh?
Posted by: Jonathan | Apr 5, 2008 12:13:02 PM
And what about all the voters in MI and FL that didn't vote, because they were told by both candidates, their vote wouldn't count. Hilary may have won FL, but Obama didn't have a chance to compete. What about Edwards? He would have his best chance in MI of the early states, but he obeyed party rules and took his name off the ballot. Hilary has the advantage of name recognition, and if Obama is not allowed to campaign, she would have won just about every state. At the end of last year, she was up in just about every state by over 20 points. Hilary had all the advantage going into Super Tuesday and couldn't close the deal. As a result, she lost the primary. I am pretty confident that if the CA primary was held again, she would lose. I know my dad regrets his vote. MI and FL broke the rules and to count the votes from both states is unfair. In addition, the primaries are run by the parties, and the DNC makes the final rules. If a state breaks them, then they face the consequences. The states knew what would happen. The DNC needs to keep its authority. And don't forget, MI and FL even voted for these rules.
I am glad Hilary is still in the race, as long as it stays positive. However, come June 10, it is time for the Super Delegates to make a decision.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 5, 2008 12:26:23 PM
The RULES say Michigan and Florida are stripped of their delegates.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 5, 2008 12:26:58 PM
On this issue, the Democratic party reminds me of a parent who has tried to set a bad rule for his child (e.g., "You must eat all of your vegetables before you can leave the table") and is stuck with the fact that a)the child has a mind of his own b)the threat is essentially unenforceable and c)making the threat was therefore stupid. Sometimes, as in this case, the rule as was stupid. What one does when s/he finds out it was stupid is a test of character; do you find a way to correct the situation, or do you blindly follow its dictates?
There might be a worse analogy than this, but I'm at a loss to come up with one at this time.
The rules were made by the DNC and shared with supposed adults in Florida and Michigan. They defied the party and must accept responsibility. Apparently, the other 48 states didn't think the rules were "stupid." The analogy above is almost as bad as saying we may as well scrap laws related to driving cars because kids are going to ignore them anyhow. As for Florida, the Mickey Mouse state needs to grow up and quit being a pain in the whats-it whenever we have a presidential election.
I might find Clinton supporters more persuasive if they came up with rational responses to criticisms leveled against her instead of going into denial and changing the subject.
Posted by: joeldanwalls | Apr 5, 2008 12:33:32 PM
I attended the Clinton event in Hillsboro...got there in what seemed to be plenty of time, had a long wait outside snaking through a line, and eventually wound up in an overflow area (cafeteria, I think) with a big screen video projection system on account of the auditorium being full. Sign.
Yup, Clinton called for seating the Michigan and Florida delegations with the usual rhetoric of alleged disenfranchisement. I tend to agree with the bad-parental-rule analogy above and hope the DNC works out something. Frankly, it's just a campaign talking point for Clinton right now and nothing else: the final disposition of those delegations is going to be decided in Denver unless Clinton drops out before the convention--something I think is highly unlikely.
Clinton is one smart, talented woman and she gave a rousing address with a lot of detailed proposals, or at least more than Obama puts forward in his stump speech. But I was not persuaded to switch my support from Obama to Clinton. Either one would get my vote in November. Talk about no-brainers: a Democrat vs. McBush?
Posted by: SDG | Apr 5, 2008 12:37:24 PM
Hillary supporters always ignore this when I post it. This is Hillary on Fox and Friends on December 17, 2007:
MR. DOOCY: Would you be "the comeback senator"? Would you be "the comeback gal"? Have you thought about that yet?SEN. CLINTON: I'm going to leave that to you. You all have a great way with a turn of phrase. But what I'm going to do is to just keep working hard every day, knocking on doors, making phone calls, talking to people.
I feel very good about where we were. This has always been a challenge. I'm going to start on January 3rd with the caucuses in Iowa and go all the way until February 5th, because at the end of the campaign what you need are enough delegates to actually get you the nomination. And I believe that I will get the nomination and that I will be the next president.
It was Hillary's plan from the start to "disenfranchise" all states with primaries after February 5. And it backfired on her.
The crocodile tears that are now being shed about Florida and Michigan are the latest and most disingenuous of the Clinton campaign. The fact is that the idea of drawing a line in the sand so that you would end up with a de facto national primary was from page one of the Clinton playbook.
Having twenty or thirty states vote on the same day, the theory went, would favor the candidate with the most money, the most experience and the most organizational support with connections with many local governors and mayors already on board.
This strategy would only work if, repeat if, there was a draconian line in the sand. If the line was too weak - like 50% representation then states would be tempted to be in the head of the line and settle for half of the delegates. Even with the draconian line two states called the bluff (and they did it laughing at the DNC.)
This is what their representatives wanted and Harold Ickes was on the committee and voted for it. Clinton's strongest base of support is not with the elected super delegates but the DNC delegates that control the party machinery where she locked up 140 early endorsements.
By November everything looked great for the Clintons. They got the ironclad rule with the draconian penalty that they needed. Twenty Four primaries and caucuses took the bait and jumped to the front of the line for Super Super Tuesday on Feb 5th. The other element that they hoped for was a big field of candidates. As long as there was a big field then the Clinton had a solid 40% the other candidates would split the rest and the Clintons would win big.
And then the plan began to unravel. The field ended up being only three candidates. In the first contest, Iowa Clinton finished third place. By the time Super Super Tuesday came that 40%+ ended up being not just a floor but also a ceiling. The Clinton campaign had banked everything on February 5th. They had no real plan for the caucus states and low on money. The junior senator from Illinois won in delegates and popular votes and then launched 12 straight victories.
Now as the last 15% of the primary season is upon us and being irretrievably behind the Clinton camp will bang the drum of injustice for the exclusion of Michigan and Florida. The big lie is that they are now painting themselves as having been absolutely against the injustice. The truth was having a draconian penalty was key to making sure that a huge number of states would line up one a single date. It looked like a good idea up to Feb 4th.
Posted by: Nate Currie | Apr 5, 2008 12:37:35 PM
The rules must be enforced. The only way we can fix the primary system so New Hampshire and Iowa don't get to go first every damn year is by changing the rules. If the DNC caves every time some arrogant state party breaks the rules, we'll never be able to reform the system. This isn't just about 2008 (and Hillary only caring about rules until she needs them broken to win), it's about 2012 and 2016 too...
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 5, 2008 12:50:14 PM
Setting aside how absurd counting an uncontested ballot is, it continues to amaze me that the Clinton campaign sees this as a winning issue in Oregon. Is a working parent in Hillsboro really expected to care about the Clinton campaign's fight to legitimize after-the-fact a one-sided vote fifteen hundred miles away? Can Democrats expect the same lack of message discipline from Clinton against a reinvigorated John McCain?
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 5, 2008 12:56:48 PM
The Clintonites negotiated and signed the deal on the rules for MI and FL. Now the deal's off because it's inconvenient. There was no primary election in MI or FL according to the DNC, so no delegates. Clinton was the only name on the ballot so it's pretty lame to claim there was an election there. It's all sign of a sinking ship when the victimization card is all you can play. The only last hope is a coups with the credentials committee, and it's clear that won't happen from the probably make-up of the committee. In the end there will be some delegates seated but in a way that doesn't favor either campaign.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 5, 2008 12:59:40 PM
Could you imagine the outrage if it was the Obama campaign saying that a primary should count even though Hillary's name was not on the ballot? This is nuts.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 5, 2008 1:07:13 PM
Here's the Clinton tactic for trying to overturn the rules on MI and FL- threaten the funding for Congressional Campaigns, take back donations to the DNC.
That will win friends and influence super-Ds in the party. "Give me what I want or I will harm the party in '08 elections."
This from Political Wire:
Democratic Donors Pull Funds Over Florida, Michigan
A Democratic source tells The Hotline that the DNC "is returning as much as $175K to donors dismayed with the party's handling of the Florida and Michigan primaries. My source says the exact amount will be reported in the April 20 FEC filing."
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Apr 5, 2008 1:32:19 PM
For those interested in something other than the [Editor--Off-topic comment deleted.]
Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Apr 5, 2008 1:34:55 PM
So how come she's making speeches about this IN OREGON? Are we supposed to care about how Michigan and Florida f___ed up their nominating process?
heck, all the more representation for states like Oregon whose governments have more brains than the average sweat sock and can follow directions.
Posted by: BCM | Apr 5, 2008 1:38:24 PM
But can we drop the pretense that Clinton's tactics have anything to do with democratic principles?
Hear, Hear!
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Apr 5, 2008 1:51:15 PM
Last Sunday Bill Clinton said to the crowd at NMHS, "Aren't you glad that your vote will count for a change?" Apparently he and Hillary got caught up in the FL and MI fiasco where they wanted to disenfranchise all primary voters after late February. The other candidates who lost out and are now not part of the debate should be heard from. John Edwards may still be in the race today had those two states follwed the rules of THEIR OWN PARTY.
Sorry for yelling, but Hillary just makes the case daily for the pure political animal she is. She is all about herself and not about the country.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 5, 2008 2:00:09 PM
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge...
Her oath to uphold the Constitution wasn't worth anything either when she voted to approve Bush's blank check for war on Iraq.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 5, 2008 2:04:44 PM
On another thread Steve Novick supporters were called on his support for the death penalty. Some came back with responses defending their conflict with opposing the death penalty while continuing to support Novick. Has any Hillary supporter ever done something similar when opponents cited criticisms of Hillary?
Posted by: Katy | Apr 5, 2008 2:45:25 PM
I attended the Clinton event this morning and I cannot even begin to tell the blueoregon posters how affirming it was! So nice to be in a room full of fellow Clinton supporters, so nice to hear the crowd roar when she told us, in great detail, the things she plans to do when she becomes President.
I tend to think those who are calling for her to drop out of the race or saying we should disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida are doing a much greater disservice to our Party than this long primary is. She needs to stay in this race and fight for those of us who believe so strongly in her campaign - and I don't know how we can afford to ignore the voters in Michigan and Florida as a national Party.
Go Hillary!
Posted by: SDG | Apr 5, 2008 3:12:02 PM
Disenfranchising the voters in FL and MI? Can you not read what I posted above? Sheesh. I'm getting sick of these lies from Clinton supporters over and over again.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 5, 2008 3:14:05 PM
This issue has nothing to do with disenfranchising voters or our competitiveness in the general election. If this were really about the general election, why disenfranchise Independents and Republicans in Michigan? How does excluding them from a re-vote help us in November?
My father lives in Florida and works with actual voter disenfranchisement on behalf of the NAACP. As a civil rights lawyer, he's taken counties to federal court when they've closed African American voting places and is very sensitive to efforts to deny minority voting rights. This ain't one of them. Every time I've talked to him, he's told me what a joke he thinks Clinton's arguments are, and how blatantly transparent Clinton's self-interest is here.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 5, 2008 3:57:33 PM
I attended the Clinton event this morning and I cannot even begin to tell the blueoregon posters how affirming it was! So nice to be in a room full of fellow Clinton supporters, so nice to hear the crowd roar when she told us, in great detail, the things she plans to do when she becomes President.
Katy: I have a mountain-top retreat in the Florida Everglades with its own private ski slope. Guaranteed snow year-round. If you're interested, let me know. I'll give you a good deal on it.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Apr 5, 2008 4:13:09 PM
I don't think people generally have thought through what the US Constitution says about our rights. In particular, we have two rights:
1. To cast our votes in the general election for the President of the United States through the process of the election of the Electoral College.
2. To have the right of free assembly which is inclusive to the right to organize political parties.
These rights do not include cross-over multiplication of rights. In organizing a political party, we have the right to determine however we like within our political party how we nominate candidates for office. A political party can hold a convention to nominate, can hold a caucus, and can have a primary election. It could hold a telephone conference, it could have a count of emails, it could base it's decision upon which way the wind was blowing at a given place at a given hour, it could flip a coin, or a test of physical strength such as arm wrestling could be used. -- The US Constitution in its right of free assembly does not tell us how a party is to conduct its business.
Between the point in time a party selects its candidate, and the general election, there are no Constitutional based rules. What has happened in that gap between a party and the election is "generally understood practices". In Oregon we have a primary election. That is to say, with the consent of the major political parties, the State has agreed to offer a primary election in which candidates are selected within their party affiliations, and precinct committee people are elected to conduct the business of the Party. But this was done with the consent and cooperation of the Parties. Only in the general election do we exercise our right to elect the Electoral College to elect the President.
So, what does this issue about Florida and Michigan involve? It involves a confusion of our different rights. The people of Michigan and Florida do not have the right to a primary election. Period. The way the "rights" are laid out, each political Party has the right to organize its nomination process however it likes. If the States cooperate and an election is held - fine. But if the States do something contrary to the wishes of the political parties - then the States are in violation of the US Constitution.
It's just a little more complex in Florida and Michigan, in that the State and National Democratic Parties were at odds. But even then, the State Parties have agreed in their by-laws to follow the rules of the National Party.
So, when Clinton argues that the votes in Michigan and Florida should count, she is making a moral argument, not a legal argument, as there is no legal argument to be made. The fact that Clinton and every candidate for the Party nomination agreed to abide by the rules of the Party should be thought of as a no-brainer. It is the Party’s nomination they sought, therefore they have to follow the Party rules. If they don’t want to follow the Party rules, then they should form their own Party with rules to their liking.
For candidate Clinton to argue that these votes should count, if she means this beyond a moral stance, should then be taken as evidence of her desire to leave the Democratic Party.
Since sports analogies have recently been popular (sort of) on Blue Oregon, another way to say this is that you can’t play football rules in a baseball game. Rules is rules, and if you want another game, go to another field to play in.
Clinton has no credibility, no firm ground to stand upon, no legal basis, no Constitutional basis, and really no moral basis to any part of an argument that the Michigan or Florida votes should count.
Posted by: JHL | Apr 5, 2008 4:22:46 PM
Goodness gracious, this reminds me of the foot-races my little sister would challenge me to years and years ago.
We'd be walking, and if she was nearer some kind of landmark, she'd announce that she was racing me there: "First one to this lamppost wins -- I win!" Then I'd lurch forward and cry in defeat: "Oh no! That was close... I want a rematch!"
Okay, so I was way older than her, and pretty certain that I would have won if I knew we were racing... but I didn't mind because it was cute and there was nothing at stake and I love my kid sister.
But it's not cute when you're a mature adult trying the same crap and what's at stake is the most powerful position on earth.
I told myself that I would vote for anyone over McCain, but if this is a hallmark of a Hillary presidency, I'm worried. If she answers the Red Phone at 3:00am... is she going to count on being able to call "do-over" if she makes the wrong decision?
Posted by: Linley | Apr 5, 2008 4:37:18 PM
Based on the majority of comments above, it appears that Michigan's and Florida's delegations shouldn't be seated at the national convention and I am wrong (that is not unusual). It appears that this is an issue of such moral imperative that it trumps all other factors we might consider. But we probably all will agree that something needs to be done about a system of national primary elections to keep Iowa and Vermont from forever dominating the early primaries. After the election, we will have to see if President McCain is interested in dealing with this problem.
Posted by: Viki | Apr 5, 2008 4:42:28 PM
Dear Charlie Burr, instead of watching Hillary on TV you should attend her event, because counting votes in Michigan and Florida wasn’t the main topic of her speech.
Hillary was great today. She was very articulate, up bit, talked about her plan to restore this country. I believe like many others who came to see her to Hillsboro, she will be our next president.
Posted by: Max | Apr 5, 2008 4:50:31 PM
Katy,
You should take Bill B. up on his offer regarding the Everglades ski retreat.
As should be abundantly clear by now, there has been no "disenfranchisement" of voters in MI nor in Florida.
In MI, Clinton was the only name on the ballot! Everybody else played by agreed-upon rules. They didn't. Tough noodles.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 5, 2008 5:03:37 PM
Linley, I think we should find a way to seat the delegates somehow, but Clinton today rejected an even split of the Michigan delegates. Instead, Clinton argued she won the uncontested vote and therefore should get them all. Not too credible, really.
Vicki, liveblogging the event was a lot easier with the KATU live feed. But the Michigan thing was the main story. And the subsequent AP story, "Clinton Ramps Up Call to Count Fla, Mich" -- picked up by several hundred media outlets -- confirms this. I am, however, glad you had a good experience at a major presidential campaign event. Nothing quite like it.
Posted by: Chris Corbell | Apr 5, 2008 5:12:15 PM
If you were a Democrat in Michigan, you'd want your vote counted.
A re-vote would have gone forward if Obama hadn't obstructed it. Shame on Barack Obama.
I firmly believe that if he thought he could win in Michigan he would have left his name on the ballot.
Hillary has strong support in that state and on democratic principle deserves to have it count toward her nomination regardless of who headmaster Dean feels he has to knuckle rap this week - and regardless of what Obama supporters think about it.
Count all the votes and may the best candidate win. Anything less is shameful. If the situtation were reversed you know that not only Obama but all of his most clamorous supporters would be sanctimoniously screaming "count every vote!"
Educate yourself on what Hillary has said:
Go Hillary!
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 5, 2008 5:19:48 PM
.... regardless of what Obama supporters think about it.
That's part of the win-at-any-cost attitude we've come to expect from the Clinton campaign. What "democratic principle" demands that Republicans and Independents be excluded from participating in a Michigan re-vote, Chris?
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Apr 5, 2008 5:41:19 PM
Chris Corbell writes, "A re-vote would have gone forward if Obama hadn't obstructed it."
I follow the news closely. To be sure, there have been some times I have missed a thing or two due to attending meetings and such. I have heard your claim stated again and again, but never did see any news coverage on this. When and how did Obama obstruct a new election in Florida and Michigan? I was under the impression that those State parties had decided to not "redo".
Please fill me in with the date this happened and how it happened.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 5, 2008 5:59:14 PM
HELLO!!!
Who is not reading the quote above from Hillary on December 17, 2007 when she said that the race would be over on FEBRUARY 5, 2008 - THEREBY DISENFRANCHISING ALL STATES AFTER THAT DATE?????
(Also -Hillary's cheating to win constitutes disenfranchisement on a massive scale.)
Katy? Chris? How do you respond?
Posted by: SDG | Apr 5, 2008 6:13:19 PM
Well, well, well - talk about disenfranchisement. Hillary is trying to steal Obama's pledged delegates in North Dakota! >>>> ABC News
Posted by: Sue Hagmeier | Apr 5, 2008 7:21:38 PM
If the situtation were reversed you know that not only Obama but all of his most clamorous supporters would be sanctimoniously screaming "count every vote!"
This is a transparent, but unfortunately common rhetorical device. Accuse somebody of thinking about doing something, or accuse them of being capable of it, or speculate that they "would" do it, then get really angry at them for it. Hold them responsible for what you imagine!
We "know" no such thing. There is no evidence that Obama "would" seek to overturn the rules if the circumstances were different, and such a reaction is simply not a universal one to being behind. There is more evidence that the Clinton campaign "would" have objected to changing the rules before the Primary season started, that is, before they failed to produce an advantage. This seems to be a case where complaints about the process come down to unhappiness with the outcome.
As to whether Iowa and New Hampshire should stay first, I really don't care. This time, I would much rather be in our position than in theirs. They had to commit their vote before the campaign had a chance to develop. Starting in small states doesn't hand as much of an advantage to a candidate with a lot of early money as a big state or multi-state start would. Anything that beefs up "momentum" from the early states will increase the chance that the later states don't matter. The country is too big to have a meaningful primary season that doesn't take some time, although five months is a little ridiculous.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Apr 5, 2008 7:38:44 PM
I envy the people in New Hampshire only in that I do wish I had had a chance to vote for John Edwards.
I may yet write him in.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 5, 2008 7:50:04 PM
Hillary Clinton acts more like Jr.High candidate for Student Council than someone seeking the office of presidency of the U.S. Is it any wonder after she tells these stories about her heroics in Bosnia, the phony story about the woman who died, not receiving healthcare, about her imagined national security experience as first lady, and this attempted sleight of hand about Fl. and MI. after negotiating and signing the agreement, that she is the most unpopular politician on the national stage today. The more she campaigns the more her favorability ratings decrease. And it is no wonder that the bad blood will continue in this forum, and throughout the remainder of this nomination process within the party, and beyond. But it's increasingly clear to me that's the whole point, since she can't win, is sabotage and clear the way for 2012.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 5, 2008 8:05:33 PM
"But it's increasingly clear to me that's the whole point, since she can't win, is sabotage and clear the way for 2012."
************
Addendum:
Some might say this is an over-the-top cynical accusation. I just happened now to click on the Chris Mathew's Show and his panel of pundits, (flipping over from a pause in the UNC/Kansas game). He asked that question, "Is Hillary sabotaging the campaign so she can run in 2012?" Three out of four of the panel said "yes." Fits with the whole cynical campaign of entitlement she has run from the beginning and a good reason why she is losing. Bottom line, she is losing and she deserves to lose. A pox on that brand of politics!
Posted by: Mike Schryver | Apr 5, 2008 8:22:28 PM
This whole thing is getting increasingly embarassing.
Posted by: BH | Apr 5, 2008 8:34:02 PM
Someone tell me if I have this wrong. The reason Michigan and Florida were penalized was because they planned to move their primaries up ahead of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. When Iowa and New Hampshire, in turn, moved their dates up ahead of all other states, one of two things should have happened: 1) Iowa and New Hampshire should be penalized for holding illegal votes as well on the theory that the important thing is to hold votes later in the year; or 2) Michigan and Florida should be ruled as being in compliance, since the important thing is to have the "retail politics" of Iowa and New Hampshire before the other states -- which they turned out to be.
Given the way the calendar worked out, I can't see why everyone is so upset about the dates on which Michigan and Florida held their primaries. They weren't ahead of the "traditional two" and the weren't substantially before any of 20 or so other states. Or are they supposed to arrange their primaries so that their votes would be largely inconsequential, coming after the "Super Tuesday" by which many people thought someone would have sewn up the nomination?
It's nice to fight for a principle, but are the Dems willing to give up the Presidency for the next four years to enforce this? Because telling the people of Michigan and Florida that the party doesn't really care if they're involved in the nominating process or not may well result in that happening.
Posted by: joeldanwalls | Apr 5, 2008 8:49:31 PM
underline offfffffff
Posted by: Elisabeth | Apr 5, 2008 8:51:28 PM
Clinton supporters - 2 questions. Answer without spin.
If she goes back on this pledge (that we having in writing - no "I misspoke"), how can we trust her.
How it is fair to count an election where she was the only candidate on the ballot (what we criticize in Egypt, Cuba, etc...)?
Posted by: joeldanwalls@yahoo.com | Apr 5, 2008 8:54:20 PM
Hillary Clinton indeed was upbeat today and detailed in her remarks; the Michigan/Florida bit was a very brief interlude. She didn't convince me to switch my vote from Obama, but that's OK; she did convince me (not that I actually needed convincing) that she will get my vote in November if she is the nominee. And geez louise, I've had the chance to take my kid to see two presidential candidates in a two-week period. Talk about real-life civics lessons....
Posted by: ws | Apr 5, 2008 9:10:50 PM
This is so much nonsense. All of the primaries for every state should be on the same day of the year, period. Forget all this BS.
Posted by: Amiel Handelsman | Apr 5, 2008 9:29:08 PM
I also had the chance to see Hillary today.
Yes she spoke passionately and intelligently about
issues many of us care about like energy independence, green collar jobs and
universal health care.
Yes she made the remark about MI and FLA that
I agree is at best disingenuous if not repellent (in that it repelled me from hearing her
next 3 points clearly)
I think both more and less highly of her than before I walked in
People are complex
I'm still strongly for Obama
Still missing Edwards
And still ready to support Hillary if she somehow
pulls this out, however distastefully
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Apr 5, 2008 9:42:54 PM
I find it interesting that so many Obama supporters are willing to vote for Hillary in November. But what would be more interesting is whether Hillary herself would vote for Obama. If McCain passes the Commander and Chief test and not Obama, shouldn't Hillary support McCain if she loses the nomination?
Personally, I'm hoping Obama wins so that I can keep my string alive of always voting Democrat in every election on every level since 1978.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 5, 2008 10:25:21 PM
Hillary:
"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."
"...not going to count for anything."
Here is a video of her saying that on
youtube.
This tells me that Hillary cannot be trusted to keep her word. Words don't matter to Hillary - especially her word. It means nothing.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Apr 5, 2008 10:44:09 PM
If the DNC backs down and seats the Florida or Michigan delegates, it seems likely the party will lose any future sway over when states hold their primaries in the future. I'm not sure if that would be a good or bad thing, but loss of control over the primary process seems the likely outcome of backing down.
As to whether the Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated--of course they shouldn't. You cannot change the rules once the game has begun. If you are, then admit to yourself it is only for the personal gain of your preferred candidate--there's no other plausible excuse for demanding a rules change after the voting is done.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Apr 5, 2008 10:49:17 PM
BH:
Incorrect. The rules stated that four states could vote before the February 5th date - Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. The earliest any other state could have a caucus or primary was February 5th. States were warned in advance of the penalty of moving their date before February 5.
Iowa ended up being Jan 3, New Hampshire Jan 8, Nevada Jan 19, and South Carolina Jan 26.
Florida moved theirs to Jan 15 and Michigan to Jan 29. Therefore, they were penalized all their delegates.
The rules have to be enforced so that when the upcoming major changes are made to the primary system (such as the idea of regional rotating primaries), the states know they have to follow the rules or they don't get to participate.
Charlie:
The funniest thing is that she's talking about this in a state that wanted to move its primary up, started the process, and then backed down. We were going to be penalized a large chunk of our delegates, and we weren't even moving before Feb 5th - we were trying to move to Feb 5th. But with vote by mail, they considered the dates our ballots go out into the equation, and therefore were going to penalized us a lot of delegates. Our legislature decided it wasn't worth the loss and never brought the bill to a vote.
Republican and Democrat legislators in both those states voted for the dates to be moved. They knew the consequences. I'm sorry, but we need to stick with the rules.
Posted by: Sue Hagmeier | Apr 5, 2008 11:16:59 PM
By the way, here's the relevant part of the Michigan legislation:
Sec. 613a. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a presidential primary shall be conducted under this act on January 15, 2008, and on the fourth Tuesday in February in each following presidential election year.
I'm sure this helps it all make sense.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: SDG | Apr 5, 2008 11:39:13 AM
Clinton is disgusting. Nothing more need be said.