DNC Chairman Howard Dean says that the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated at this summer’s convention. Now Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have to figure out how to split all those voters. Cage fighting? [Politico]
I just don’t get it: the DNC says, as it’s perfectly entitled to as rule-maker for primaries, “If you have your primary earlier than we say you can, your delegates won’t count.” Then Michigan and Florida say “Fuck that noise, we’re voting” and vote early. Now the DNC says “Oh well we’ll change our minds cuz Hillary’s pitching a fit.” Sure, they CAN change the rules, but what the hell?
Posted: Apr 3, 2008 at 11:23 am
· @Reply
· [Flag?]
To EMB: The issue is really more complicated than that. It was actually Republicans in Florida and Michigan who moved up their primaries. So Clinton, and more importantly the Democratic voters in those two states, are to be punished for what the GOP has done? Besides that, New Hampshire moved up its primary but was given a total pass by the DNC and all of its votes will count. If Obama believes that the primary should be decided “by the people,” then he needs to start acting like a leader and do everything in his power to have the votes of Deomcrats in FL and MI counted, no matter what the outcome.
Thanks for the clarification, NightHawk; I think I knew about the backstage repub manipulations somehow, but conveniently forgot. Still, though, the question persists: IF the “rule” is “go early and be doomed”, then I still have to question changing the penalty regardless of the “we were helpless to do otherwise” defense. Besides which, I’m not convinced the Michigan and Florida dems were not complicit with the republicans.
As for Obama, I disagree that he is somehow honor-bound to fight for the recognition of votes in two states in which he did not campaign, in compliance with DNC rules. I fail to see the “fairness” and “democracy” of that. Frankly, it’s a ghastly situation all around and I don’t think there’s any good answer here that’s “fair” to all involved. Villifying Obama for not wanting to screw himself over for a lofty-sounding false principle hardly seems helpful.
I’m pretty sure that if Obama needed the delegates from Florida and Michigan he’d be pushing for them, just like Hillary is…and of course she’d be doing what Obama is currently doing…not pushing for them. Florida may screw us again…
Obama was offered an opportunity to have a free and fair revote in both states and rejected both opportunities because the people of both states lean towards Clinton.
He’s decided to keep them out of the running so can can squeak out the Democratic nomination and hope that the angry voters of MI and FL will still vote for him in the general. Not a good idea — Dems cannot win without FL.
i wish dean would shut up, we dont need hillary getting anymore delegates she needs to quit.
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
I just don’t get it: the DNC says, as it’s perfectly entitled to as rule-maker for primaries, “If you have your primary earlier than we say you can, your delegates won’t count.” Then Michigan and Florida say “Fuck that noise, we’re voting” and vote early. Now the DNC says “Oh well we’ll change our minds cuz Hillary’s pitching a fit.” Sure, they CAN change the rules, but what the hell?
“Sean Quigley, ’10 attended an all-male, Roman Catholic high school.”
Indeed.
See who can smoke the most cigarettes while hiding and lying about it. Barack wins! (See Jake Tapper on ABC News today.)
To EMB: The issue is really more complicated than that. It was actually Republicans in Florida and Michigan who moved up their primaries. So Clinton, and more importantly the Democratic voters in those two states, are to be punished for what the GOP has done? Besides that, New Hampshire moved up its primary but was given a total pass by the DNC and all of its votes will count. If Obama believes that the primary should be decided “by the people,” then he needs to start acting like a leader and do everything in his power to have the votes of Deomcrats in FL and MI counted, no matter what the outcome.
For the backstory: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....94158.html
Thanks for the clarification, NightHawk; I think I knew about the backstage repub manipulations somehow, but conveniently forgot. Still, though, the question persists: IF the “rule” is “go early and be doomed”, then I still have to question changing the penalty regardless of the “we were helpless to do otherwise” defense. Besides which, I’m not convinced the Michigan and Florida dems were not complicit with the republicans.
As for Obama, I disagree that he is somehow honor-bound to fight for the recognition of votes in two states in which he did not campaign, in compliance with DNC rules. I fail to see the “fairness” and “democracy” of that. Frankly, it’s a ghastly situation all around and I don’t think there’s any good answer here that’s “fair” to all involved. Villifying Obama for not wanting to screw himself over for a lofty-sounding false principle hardly seems helpful.
I’m pretty sure that if Obama needed the delegates from Florida and Michigan he’d be pushing for them, just like Hillary is…and of course she’d be doing what Obama is currently doing…not pushing for them. Florida may screw us again…
Obama was offered an opportunity to have a free and fair revote in both states and rejected both opportunities because the people of both states lean towards Clinton.
He’s decided to keep them out of the running so can can squeak out the Democratic nomination and hope that the angry voters of MI and FL will still vote for him in the general. Not a good idea — Dems cannot win without FL.