Ickes argues for seating delegates

[Infinite Hope]

Source: Yahoo News

WASHINGTON - Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass.

In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised — before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions.

Campaigning in Wisconsin after Ickes' remarks, Clinton echoed his contention that a suitable arrangement could be worked out to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080217/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_delegates_12

---

If the Clinton campaign still wonders why it has been unable to gain traction, it should begin to realize that its continual manipulative tactics continue to both paint and reinforce its image as just that - the same old divisive manipulative politics. In that way, the campaign slowly continues to paint itself out of the picture.

[earthlover]

1. Let's just assume for a minute that Hillary does not have enough votes to win....

....without the mI and FL delegates. Obviously, with the entire nomination on the line, this is an important vote. For whom? For the remaining delegates.

Problem for Hillary: if she does not have the votes to win, she also will not have the votes to seat the MI and FL delgations. An interesting catch 22.

There is something frankly dishonest about this call for the seating. Hillary knew the rules and, like Ickes, supported them. Now...of course....things change. People who have not been watching the campaign closely for months might be easily swayed by talking of "disenfranchising FL and MI". However, Hillary knows full well the circumstances of these states choosing to have their primaries early in spite of the stated consequenses. This was no surprise to anyone. And Hillary supported it at the time. Just one more illustration of her ability to say something she knows is misleading instead of talking straight.

You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. That would be the epitome of unfairness. Even if Hillary is successful, which is doubtful, it will be at a high price. People will feel cheated is an understatement.

[Infinite Hope]

4. Good points. n/t

[mac2]

10. Democrats in Florida and Michigan might leave the party

because of this manipulation by the leaders. What crap.

How about having primaries in every state on the same day? This having the small states determine the candidate stinks.

[earthlover]

12. you asked a good question...there is an answer

If all the primaries were the same day, it would make it even harder for candidates to run for office without HUGE amounts of corporate money. Smaller candidates who have smaller donations would not have a chance. If you want corporate canidates and don't want as many choices, then a national primary is for you!

[mac2]

16. Right now the cost is out of sight for the primaries

We have to do something. And the same day primary would be fair. Just like Election day. Oh is that too hard?

Election Day should also be a holiday so workers could vote. At the pace we are going rigth now less and less people are voting because they don't feel they are represented.

Issue important to them aren't even discussed or on the basllot.

[earthlover]

26. I think you missed my point....

If you had a national primary, the costs would indeed be similar to the national campaign! Who could afford THAT except the rich and powerful?

Starting with a couple of small states makes it feasible for smaller canidates...such as a George McGovern or a Jimmy Carter....to spend their limited funds on a small state and if successful gain some traction for later.

We never would have had Jimmy Carter if there had been a national primary, for one....

[mac2]

32. You didn't win that argument with me since I didn't like

President Carter with his oil manipulation and giving away the Panama Canal. He's a member of the elite groups I disapprove of so much (Bilderberg Group, CFR, etc.).

I had to travel by buying only 5 gallons of gas at a time for my car to cross my state when oil tankers were sitting out in the harbor. The oil companies profited big time then too.

The only good thing was we started to conserve energy. Right now we are out of control and don't give a heck. We could conserve in so many ways without suffering.

[mac2]

31. What happened to my post? Here it is again

Right now the cost is out of sight for the primaries.

We have to do something and the same day primary would be fair. Just like Election Day. Oh is that too hard?

Issues important to them aren't even discussed or on the ballot.

[Zhade]

35. Publicly-funded campaigns. Problem solved. NEXT.

NT!

[RamboLiberal]

44. I'd like to see regional or split primaries

Regional or even alphabetical. 12-13 states a group in 4 groups. 1 group each month starting in January. Every 4 years the groups rotate so no group is always the first, second, etc. That way you'd have a grouping of large and small states and the candidates would have a chance to campaign in that group.

[RamboLiberal]

45. Democrats in 48 other states & DC & some territories

might leave the party if this was the way Hillary won. Including this Dem who wouldn't vote for Hillary or send the DNC any money for a very long time.

[Zhade]

34. "Dishonest" is being nice. "Hypocritical cheater" is more accurate.

Another reason (like her "I'll pick my powers" malarkey) that shows Clinton is not to be trusted with power.

[ArfDogMNO]

43. she's a thug, plain and simple

There are no rules with the Clintons besides what they want and what it takes to get it.

[Diane R]

2. You said it Perfectly: "If the Clinton campaign still wonders why it has been unable to gain ...

"If the Clinton campaign still wonders why it has been unable to gain traction, it should begin to realize that its continual manipulative tactics continue to both paint and reinforce its image as just that - the same old divisive manipulative politics."

[Infinite Hope]

3. Thank you. n/t

[Justitia]

42. Yup, I am sooooo tired of this shit. These campaign "advisers" are killing her campaign. -eom

[cstanleytech]

5. I'm mixed on it.

On one hand I feel the delegates votes should be counted as its a disservice to the voters in the state not to let their opinion really have a say in the end but on the other the DNC did warn those officials for the democratic party of those states well in advance that they would not count them if they held those elections early.
*sigh* What a mess.
Anyway I hope one day that they decide to do a random drawing of when the states can hold such elections, after all every state should have a fair chance to go first but as it is the systems inbalanced in favor somewhat of certain key states.

[Matteon]

6. Election Day

I'd much rather see all states hold their primary or caucus on the same day. That way all the candidates are on the ballot in every state with no fronrunner status around anyones neck.

You can then either give it to the person who gets the most delegates or, if the delegates are spread out, take the top two and have a runoff.

[cstanleytech]

13. That works as well for me, its sad

though that in this day and age the parties still cling to an outdated thing of spreading out the dates and letting some states have more of role to play than they should.
We need alot of reform politically in this country.

[mac2]

17. It's almost a system of the back room elite politics of

the Robber Baron times. Without the smoke of-course.

[mac2]

18. 233 post say you might be from the party headquarters?

[cstanleytech]

23. So, are you just trying to

troll or are you really that paranoid?
To answer your question though, no dont work for *any* party though i do favor the democrats at this moment for the whitehouse and to me it does matter one lick if its either Hillary or Obama though my first pick would have been Edwards.

[GOPNotForMe]

7. This is a transparently craven ploy for the nomination.

Duplicitous is the first word that comes to mind.

[Redneck Socialist]

8. Bet'cha a dollar those delegates will go to Clinton before this is all over. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. As the winner or the loser?

[Zhade]

36. If this happens, we're ALL losers.

Because cheating by "our" side would have been allowed.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

39. Not at all.

The delegate leader can seat the delegates after winning.

Win-win.

:shrug:

[mac2]

19. Might be so but remember these are huge states

who don't vote the same as Iowa and NH. To leave them out is undemocratic. I'm not excited about either candidate right now so I'm not being one sided.

[cstanleytech]

25. How exactly would you then

recommend the national party enforce its rules?

[mac2]

28. It is they who went off the path not us

[Zhade]

37. It's not undemocratic when they KNEW BEFOREHAND.

Your complaint isn't valid.

[cstanleytech]

40. Exactly.

I mean it sucks that the people wont have as much say now as they should but the fault of that clearly is at the feet of the leaders in those states who decided to press on in their game of one-upmanship to see who could go first.
It was damn silly of them to do this when they knew they the national parties stance.

[Roland99]

9. Of course he is. Anything to keep the DLC and the establishment fucks in power.

FUCK THOSE ASSHOLES!!!


FUCK 'EM!!!!

[mac2]

20. The candidates are both win win for the DLC

[gerrilea]

14. The Voters of Florida and Michigan Shouldn't loose their vote!

The media has pounded Hillary for years but does the fact that she won those States mean nothing now? What about all the whinning when Gore lost Florida...the voter's choices were not heard then and in fact stopped by the Supreme Court...this Country has 50 states not 48!

[mac2]

21. Agreed!

[cstanleytech]

24. No, they should not however

the party at the state level was told many times that there would be a consquence for not abiding by the national parties rules.

[sendero]

27. This isn't an election..

... it is a primary. By scheduling their primaries unilaterally, and with foreknowledge of the consequences, they FUCKED themselves.

Frankly, if we could remove FL from the whole process, I don't think it would be any great loss. FL is the REASON we have Bush to begin with.

[mac2]

29. Ya a primary who decided who we get to vote for President

Any ole candidate won't do. The Democratic lights aren't Democrats but Republicans. I want a candidate who represents our agenda...democracy and workers.

Remember Gore won Florida even with all the manipulation and vote stealing?

[Ramsey]

46. "They" are not the voters

The voters of Florida and Michigan didn't "fuck it up" and had no say in what transpired, yet they are the ones being punished for the entire morass created by the DNC, the state parties, the REPUBLICAN-LED Florida state legislature and ALL the Democratic candidates campaigns.

The voters of Florida are being screwed over once again, through NO FAULT of their own.

[Zhade]

38. They didn't lose it. It was GIVEN UP.

You don't get to change the rules just because you're losing.

[humbled_opinion]

15. Do not disenfranchise..

Both states should have half their delegates seated just like the Repugs did... Nothing different... The decision needs to be made now not later... If Democratic Americans really want Obama to be President then Ohio, PA and Texas will unite against Hillary .... and for Obama and the delegate madness in FL and MI won't matter...

The worst possible scenario is if Hillary wins PA, OH, TX ties Obama and wins on getting the MI and FL delegates seated it will alienate all those that voted for Obama and no matter what he says to unite the party people will feel screwed...

[hollowdweller]

22. 1968=2008?

If Obama wins the popular vote and delegates and Hillary wins by the superdelegates and by hoodooing Florida and Michigan back to tip the balance I think there could be some big time anger at the convention

[mac2]

30. Bull Hillary and Obama are the same mold of globalists

but at least everyone should have a vote and say as to the party platform,etc. Or is the election done at the primary level? Why have a DNC convention except for it to be a cheerleading event? The last few ones have been just that. They silenced the anti-war platform delegates. It was scary to me as a Democrat and American.

We live in a democracy where the many rule not one candidate who becomes President. They don't get to make all the decisions for us. They are not King/Queen.

[cstanleytech]

41. Tell that to the current

shrub in office, he and his devout followers seem to think they are above the law.

[BearSquirrel2]

33. Notice she said SEAT ... not CHOOSE ...

Notice Clinton is advocating Seating these delegates, not choosing them in a fair contest.