Hillary supporters, I am really disappointed in some of you.

[Pawel K]

As a disclaimer this doesn't apply to every Clinton supporter here, but it applies to a fair share of you. I also realize that my opinion probably doesn't mean shit to most of you but I would just like many of you to know that your opinon used to mean a lot to me.

Over the last weeks you guys have really been pushing this Florida and Michigan spin. You are members that have been here for years, members with a great reputation worth thousands of posts. These members have been willing to throw all that out the window by lying through their teeth in regards to this issue.

You all know damn well that Hillary signed a pledge saying that Michigan and Florida shouldn't count. You all know that Obama dropped his name off the ticket in Michigan as a result of this pledge. You know that nobody was outraged by the fact that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count until after Hillary started losing. You all know this and you know it well. Yet you come on here and repeat Hillary's talking points as if you really are that dumb. You say, with a streight face, that Michigan should count toward's Hillary's vote total even if Obama wasn't on the ticket. You come on here and say that a pledge Hillary signed means nothing and she has every right to change the rules midstream. Why do you do this? Why are you willing to throw away your long reputation for a politician that doesn't give 2 shits about any of you?

I know it sucks to lose but eventually you have to let go. I beg of all of you, please stop this madness. You guys are extremely intelligent people, I know this because I remember a lot of your posts before this primary season began. So why do you all pretend to be that naive? What are you all doing this for and how long are you willing to keep this up?

[skipos]

1. ANd they know damn well that Hillary didn't care about MI until

it was in her own best interest to do so. Read my sig.

[hokies4ever]

126. Just like the Republicans all of a sudden carrying about Iraq

and the moral responsibility we have to stay 100 years to insure that the Iraqis have a chance to taste the sweet freedom of democracy. Nothing more despicable than people caring about causes only when it's politically expedient for them.

[CakeGrrl]

2. I want to know when someone is going to tell Terry McAuliffe to stuff it

The MSM keeps giving him airtime to lie about the popular vote totals by including FL and MI as if they actually count. I don't know why someone from the Obama campaign doesn't call him on it. They could've done that on Larry King Live last week.

[PoliticalAmazon]

58. Hillary, McAuliff and their schemes are no threat to us....

They are doing what they do best: trying to stop the nation from going forward to fix the problems 8 years of the Bush administration AND the neocon-endorsing Dems in Congress who voted their agenda (yes, Hillary is included in that group).

Obama has ceased reacting to them, because they need our reactions to feed their campaign. The only way they are relevant now is when they can get Obama and/or his supporters to react to their destructive tactics.

I truly believe that the majority of Hillary supporters will see Hillary's tactics for what they are, epecially as Hillary spirals more and more out there as she tries to get Obama and his supporters to react to her. I think that there will come a time when even the most diehard Hillary supporter will stop and think, "Say, perhaps Hillary really shouldn't be in the Oval Office."

So I don't think that harping on them for the MI/FL issue is helpful. Many already know that Hillary is trying to pull a fast one, and the ones who are supporting her anyway are only going to get more firmly set on their support of Hillary if we poke at them about what is obvious: that Hillary is attempting to scam the MI/FL votes.

My mantra in this transition period from primary to ge is: PATIENCE, PATIENCE, PATIENCE.

[bbgrunt]

3. It is pretty clear that such people are from the DLC appendage of the

Democratic party and would like to destroy the progressive wing of the party.

[Pawel K]

4. With all due respect I disagree

I won't name any names but some of the people that are now pushing this lie have been here a very long time. They were against this war, strongly against Bush, and some even consider one of the biggest democratic DLC critics out there a hero. I don't know what has gotten in to these people but trying to lump them all in to one "pro-DLC" group isn't accurate in my opinion.

[bbgrunt]

15. well, then they have pretty well "lost their bearings" along

with Mr. McLame, because they are trying to bring down the democratic wing of the democratic party.

[PoliticalAmazon]

59. I'm sure they don't see it that way, and I don't think it helps Obama...

win in NOvember if we further alienate the Hillary supporters.

We need their votes to win in November. We won't get them by poking at them now when they bear fresh wounds from Hillary's poor performance in the last few months.

The last thing we want to do is get them rigid in their support of "hillary or nobody."

PATIENCE. PATIENCE. PATIENCE.

[bbgrunt]

61. It's about time they opened their eyes.

You are advocating a very patronizing approach to Hillary supporters--and broadcasting it openly. I would find THAT very insulting if I were a Hillary supporter. Maybe you left off the sarcasm smilie.

[PoliticalAmazon]

63. You cannot force someone to "open thei eyes," and you can't force someone....

to vote the way you want them to vote.

Patronizing? Hardly. I readily acknowledge that WE need THEIR votes. WE cannot win without THEIR votes.

What I'm trying to do is advocate for every Democrat's right to vote for who they want to, and their right to take the time they need to change their mind, IF they are going to change their mind.

I don't think insulting them does anybody any good.

[bbgrunt]

64. Well, when you can

explain to me how I insulted them, I'll shut up. If pointing out that there is a war going on between the DLC and DNC is insulting, I apologize.

If saying that they have lost their bearings if they are really progressive but support the DLC position on MI and FL is insulting, then I apologize.

I guess I just don't know what "insulting" is.

[PoliticalAmazon]

67. Hillary supporters feel as strongly about their candidate as we do about ours...

...To tell them they've "lost their bearings" when they are simply supporting their candidate in one of the few ways left open to them is, IMO, insulting them.

They have as much right as you do to decide for themselves who they will vote for. I don't agree with their choice, or with their choice's tactics (including breaking an agreement about the MI/FL primary votes), but I do agree with their right to support their candidate in the way they think is best.

If you attempt to back them into a corner to force them to admit that Hillary is wrong, IMO, it is counterproductive to Obama moving forward to win in November.

Have faith in your fellow Democrats, and give them the freedom and time they need to make a decision to support Obama, or not.

[bluesbassman]

69. Excellent post PA!

I've seen lot of posts concerning reconciliation between Obama and Clinton supporters, but yours really hits the right notes. The point here is that it is everyone's right to support the candidate of their choice. Only one candidate will stand in the GE, and I absolutely believe that the vast majority of HRC supporters will vote for Obama when that choice is presented.

[emilyg]

72. Thank you.

[Marrah_G]

96. Thank you PA

I wish some of the more passionate Obama supporters here would heed your wise words.

[beezlebum]

109. i certainly will- great post PA

:toast:

[no1dolo]

150. It's not about who you choose to vote for!

It's about supporting an attempt to change the rules in mid-stream .. we all have to play by the rules. I agree...does this mean that Hillary's signature is not worth the paper it's written on. Don't blame BO for the DNC's decision. Many of us in FL did not go to the polls to vote because we knew our vote was not going to count. Many of us would have gone otherwise. If the positions were reversed, Hillary's supporters would be talking about how dishonest BO is saying one thing but doing another.

[marions ghost]

36. the DLC Dems

have tried to throw us under the bus all right...while exploiting the first female candidate ("how progressive" of them)...don't think it's working too well tho.

I was cynical before but I'm at a new level of cynical after Hillary's run.

[OzarkDem]

5. Democrats stand for counting everyone's vote

If we disenfranchise members of our own party over a rules disagreement, we will never again have credibility to challenge voting and election fraud.

Dem candidates never should have been backed into a corner on this issue at the beginning of the primary. People didn't anticipate the primary race being so close and continuing for so long.

Once the primary continued past the dates when FL and MI would have voted und the DNC approved schedule, the whole issue should have been settled and put to bed.

Rules call for 50% of the delegates to be seated. Why insist on zero?

Other states have also broken the rules, with little or no sanction.

Obama has worked diligently to prevent any settlement on this issue - bad for him.

[GarbagemanLB]

6. How do you feel about Hillary saying on NHPR that MI's primary wouldn't count for anything?

[Exilednight]

8. No other states broke the rules. Nevada and SC both petitioned, and were approved to move .........

their elections up. Florida and Michigan both petitioned and were denied.

Personally, I think Michigan should have been approved and Florida denied for early elections. South Carolina and Florida are both on the east coast and have similar demographics. Michigan and Iowa are both in the midwest, but very different demographics. Nevada was moved up to give a state in southwest an early voice, it's also probably the most diverse state in that region without having to go to Texas.

Finally, none of this Obama's fault. The blame sits squarely on the voters of MI and FL and the representatives they elected to make such decisions. Every Florida Democrat voted for moving up the election, even after being warned of the sanctions that would be taken. They believed it to be an empty threat, but now it doesn't look so empty and Hillary supporters are screaming "the rules shouldn't be enforced".

It wasn't Obama's decision to not include FL and MI, it was FL and MI's decision to not be included.

[OzarkDem]

9. You haven't answered the other points

[Exilednight]

18. Ok, try this on for size.......

If we disenfranchise members of our own party over a rules disagreement, we will never again have credibility to challenge voting and election fraud.

-I don't understand this. How would this ruin our credibility? Primaries are not covered by election laws.

Dem candidates never should have been backed into a corner on this issue at the beginning of the primary. People didn't anticipate the primary race being so close and continuing for so long.

-No one forced anyone to sign the pledge.

Once the primary continued past the dates when FL and MI would have voted und the DNC approved schedule, the whole issue should have been settled and put to bed.

-FL and MI were allowed to vote on the days of the approved DNC schedule, they chose not to. It's still agreed that if MI and FL held revotes, they would count. Both states are refusing to hold those elections.

Rules call for 50% of the delegates to be seated. Why insist on zero?

-Zero was the number settled on and agreed upon.

[OzarkDem]

21. The agreement was a bad one

Dem candidates never should have been forced to sign an agreement that superceded the party's own rules.

[Pawel K]

33. They were never forced to sign anything. Please, I beg you, stop this shit.

[oxbow]

35. But still, she agreed to it, as did Obama.

Surely, the rules of the game should not be changed midgame just because one side would benefit from reneging on their agreement? Both sides should show enough decency to stand by what they said earlier!

How would you feel if a republican tried something like this? Why is it different when it's one of our girls? Shouldn't we hold ourselves to at least the same standard, if not a higher one?

[dbmk]

39. The rules say the penalty..

.. can be just about anything the Rules & Bylaws Committee deems right.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/de68e7b6dfa0743217_hwm6bhyc4.pdf

Rule 20.C.1 through 9 - especially 5 and 6.

[evolvingsteve]

132. it's funny...

how you only proceed to not talk about the things he has brought up in your conversation about the points you accused him of not bringing up....now, you are not furthering and conceding to his points..... hypocritical. you only try to further the conversation by stating "it was a bad choice".....why not keep talking about the many points you were sooooo concerned with????
:eyes:

your credibility is slowly withering away....

[ut oh]

142. Cause there were guns being held to the candidates heads

when they signed...

<sarcasm>

[JFN1]

152. So if they were forced

How come Obama has stuck to the rules and the agreement he signed? If it is as unfair as you suggest, shouldn't Obama be up in arms about the agreement, too?

[netgui68]

145. Forced??? they volunteered and agreed!

Nobody forced any of the running candidates to do a darn thing...they all agreed with the penalty and agreed in writing to obide by the penalty that was imposed...is this too hard to comprehend? Jesus...you guys kill me. I realize the facts do not support what you want and how you want it...but that does not give you a green light to bend the truth and create some fairy tale. We have what we have...if we do not like the way the DNC handled it, we can address it for future primaries...not the one in progress.

[Pawel K]

13. I agree with you, this should have been resolved before Jan 2008

but the fact is it wasn't. And at the time, by signing the pledge, Hillary certainly wasn't working to sort this out. She was okay with not having their vote count.

To now come back and claim (I dont know that you ever made this claim) that Hillary should get the delegates and popular vote for Florida and Michigan is completely dishonest. Anyone that actually believe's the spin from Hillary's campaign about this is being naive on purpose.

[OzarkDem]

16. The pledge was unrealistic

given the primary has gone on so long. Its well past having served its purpose and is now simply being used as a blunt instrument to hammer a primary win for Obama.

Democrats should NEVER stand for not allowing someone's vote to count. Even the rules allow for 50% of the delegates to be counted in this situation.

[Pawel K]

17. How in the world can you possibly say that, you know you don't believe it

Before any votes were counted Hillary, Obama, and every other candidate in this race took a stand on this issue. They said, in writing, that if you break the rules of the DNC you will get no seats in the democratic convention. They said, again in writing, that Florida and Michigan will not count in the primary. It was a very fair thing for all of them to do.

And now that votes have been counted and Hillary isn't doing as well as we all thought she would do this pledge is nothing more than a "political hammer" to you?

I was hoping when you first replied that you would be willing to have an honest discussion about this, turns out you are only proving my OP.

[OzarkDem]

19. I can say it very easily

Democrats should NEVER deny people the right to have their votes counted, especially people of their own party.

[Pawel K]

20. You can say it all you want, you are only proving what I said in the OP

You have been here since 2001, you have over 18,000 posts and you are sitting here pretending like you are completely naive to how this process works.

I would give you a little more respect if you were making these claims before January 2008, but you weren't. This didn't become an issue for you until your candidate started losing. It is extremely dishonest of you and as I said in the OP I am extremely disappointed in you.

[pipi_k]

99. Denying the voters....

You're absolutely right. Nobody should deny the votes of the people. Unfortunately for Hillary, she did just that. And she said, basically, that those voters' voices don't matter.

So now it's done and over. And it was perfectly peachy with Hillary as long as she was ahead. Now she's behind and she's bitching about it.


I'll tell you this...if it were Obama who had done what she did, I'd be calling him an idiot, not sitting here defending him for making a stupid move when he thought he had it all in the bag.

Hubris sucks...and it often has a way of coming back to bite the offender right in the ass.


What's done is done, and it really looks rather cheap and pathetic now for Hillary to be whining about changing the rules she AGREED to. Unless I'm mistaken, nobody threatened her bodily harm if she didn't sign. Nobody forced her hand. She made her choice. Now she has to live with the consequences of it.

[ut oh]

144. You continual 'hammering' of this point

Is just showing your tunnel vision...

You're basically saying it's ok to break the rule, cause it's 'your' candidate...

[Heather MC]

97. Look, Both Obama and Hillary had to win without MI and FL that's an even playing field

Now that Hillary is losing NOW she wants them to count. It should scare you more that she wants to throw her SIGNED word out the window to suit her own needs
THAT'S WHAT BUSH DOES!

[grantcart]

143. The pledge was a Clinton device to strengthen the penalties

The Clinton's wanted a national primary that would play to their strengths.

Show me one quote by Clinton that she had any reservations about any of this before she lost Super Tuesday.


This is simply a Clinton scheme that backfired. And everyone in DU knows that including you.

[netgui68]

146. The rules allowed for that and or any penalty

the DNC felt was fitting...if you read the rules you will realize they have a great deal of lattitude on how stiff of punishment is imposed. We understand why you do not like the penalty and your motives for fighting so hard against them...I am certain that if your candidate of choice was winning, you would not say a darn thing and neither would Senator Clinton, certainly Obama would not...he follows rules.

[MattBaggins]

53. You had to take it too far

I agree that Florida once again is getting used as a political football and the voters are being disenfranchised, but stop blaming Obama for this mess.

[The Doctor.]

104. Speak of the Devil.

[seabeyond]

110. answer this one. why ignore the people that did NOT go out and vote because they were told

their vote would not count. many people did not go out and vote because they KNEW the vote would not count. now.... you say

EVERYONES VOTE MUST COUNT.

and i have not had a single person with this position address the people that did not vote because they were told their vote would count.

what about not counting those peoples vote

how can you reasonably argue that.

[SoFlaJet]

123. exactly seabeyond

like half of my family didn't even bother-we KNEW our votes meant nothing. The ONLY reason my wife and I voted was so they couldn't disenfranchise me AGAIN like they did in 2000 when the RW machinists took my name off the list and had operatives at the polling stations who would "fix" the problems-but conveniently couldn't get through. It's THE main reason why I'm here today posting on DU...

[seabeyond]

124. i would not have voted. i would have been so PISSED at the people who actually

were responsible for doing this. i would not have voted. then i would be PISSED at hillary and all those voters demanding their votes count as i am excluded.

and still

the poster will not respond.

[SoFlaJet]

128. the reason they took me off the 2000 rolls

was because (they said) I didn't vote in the '98 midterms which I missed

[seabeyond]

133. wow, wow, wow

lol lol. really. said it three times before realizing. no fuckin way. i had no idea. wow

[SoFlaJet]

137. yea those motherfuckers had it all fixed in 2000

I was one of more than 90,000 Florida dems who were taken off the rolls-after that day I got politically active and vowed two things SB
1;to NEVER let it happen again and
2; to NEVER vote for a republican again as long as I'm on this God's earth

[ut oh]

141. We stand for fairness in the system

The leaders in both FL and MI decided they did not need to abide by the rules they helped enact. That in essense is unfair and trying to circumvent the system they helped put in place. They are not 'above the law/rules' yet they tried to be that.

Hillary signed a pledge, then is turning around to take advantage. Again this is unfair to those who are playing by the rules set in place.

[Beacool]

7. Well, it's common sense.

Keep disenfranchising these two states and see in whose column they will be in November. Florida is my second state and I have no doubt that it will go Republican. Dems. over there are quite furious about their vote not being counted.

My opinion, since nobody campaigned in FL (except for Obama's national ads appearing on CNN), count Florida's votes as is. In MI they should have a re-vote since Obama was not on the ballot.

[Egnever]

12. I would accept that

I still dont feel floridas results reflect what they really be if campaigning had happened. However All the names were there and I think fighting over it at this point is unproductive.

MI as you said is a non issue unless there is a revote theres no way to distribute that state even close to fairly.

[FlaGranny]

28. Democrats in Florida

are NOT going to vote for McCain because of the primary mess. Real Democrats will vote for Democrats. Florida Democrats are not insane - thank you.

I was not happy about the Florida primary, but it is pretty stupid to keep going over this again and again. Whatever the DNC decides that's what it is. Florida Democrats are going to vote Democratic. PERIOD.

[MonkeyFunk]

45. how 'bout they don't vote at all?

That's the more likely outcome.

[Ken Burch]

93. If, as you've claimed, HRC and Obama agree on most issues...

Why would Florida refuse to vote for the party unless HRC was imposed as the nominee(I say imposed since both of us now know she can't win the overall popular vote or the pledged delegate competition).

Why are you so committed to simply parroting the HRC line?

[Beacool]

52. Says you......

Florida already went Republican the last 2 elections. What makes you think that after they have been disenfranchised they will now go to the Democrats?????

[The Doctor.]

105. Thanks!

This goes in my "repost in November file."

[FlaGranny]

153. I didn't say the whole state was going to

vote for Democrats. I said that DEMOCRATS will vote for DEMOCRATS. If they don't, well, then they're not really Democrats. If Florida Democrats want the Republicans to win, then I guess those Florida "Democrats" will stay home or vote Republican. But the Democrats I know will vote for Democrats.

[mcollier]

101. Thanks for the clarification Granny

The bluffing needs to stop. If your doing fine after the last 8 years of Bush, go ahead and vote for McCain. If you want more of the same the chances are that you would not even be reading this thread.

[SoCalDem]

31. um.. they disenfranchised THEMSELVES

They were warned, and went ahead and broke the rules..

It's like complaining when a judge sends a drunk to jail for continuing to drink & drive..

[TahitiNut]

44. Uhmmm... no... the PEOPLE of Michigan did NOT do it to ourselves.

Put away that broad brush, please.

[sybylla]

122. That's right - because you can't be disenfranchized in a primary

Elections laws don't apply to primaries. The courts have always said that political parties have the right to choose their own candidates which means they may establish their own means and rules for doing so. The DNC selects their candidate through a delegate system. The DNC provides several methods for choosing and assigning delegates per candidates. That's why we have some states holding caucuses, some states with closed primaries, some states with open primaries and some states with any combination of them. And the party gets to decide if those methods of delegate selection were made legitimately, according to rules established to prevent "unpopular" selection methods and according to the DNC's time table.

So in other words, if you want to be a candidate on the Democratic ticket, you have to play by the party rules. If you want to have a say in selecting a Democratic nominee, then you have to play by the party rules. The Democratic Parties of both Michigan and Florida thumbed their noses at the last little bit there. Interestingly, 48 other states had no problem following the rules. For the past few decades, all 50 states had no problem following the rules.

If you are a Democrat who lives in one of these states, you have my full sympathy. Your party fucked you over in a game of whose penis is bigger. But don't expect the DNC to rewrite the rules for you.

I have no doubt that in the end the party delegates from these two states will be seated. But because these two states broke the party rules, they will have no say in selecting the nominee - whether we know who that will be in June or not until the convention.

[Exilednight]

32. You keep saying that, but here's the facts. No matter who the nominee is, we will ............

more than likely lose FL. There is no way we are going to lose MI. Their economy is in total shambles and there is no way on this earth that they are going to vote for someone who will continue the same economic policies that put them there in the first place.

[VotesForWomen]

77. wrong; dems have a good chance in FL; better if Clinton is the nominee.

[Weevlitz]

108. I disagree...

I agree with you that dems DO have a good chance to win FL...I'm not sure that I agree that it's any better if Hillary is the nominee. Barack is an OUTSTANDING campaigner! This is why he's winning! And when it's down to just him and McCain...he's going to make John McCain look like he's already dead. Now...that doesn't mean I think that Hillary can't win Florida...I absolutely think that she can...but don't sell Barack Obama short...that was Hillary's first...and BIGGEST mistake!

[TahitiNut]

46. The Kabuki of sending "delegates" to Denver WON'T UNDO THE FUBAR.

It's political posturing and rank hypocrisy. Read http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/510

[Prophet 451]

80. And that would be fine

I'm of much the same opinion. Problem is, the Clinton campaign has said they won't accept any resolution of MI that reduces the number of delegates they would get i.e. from what I understand, they have ruled out a re-vote and will only accept the MI delegates seated as-is, something which simply cannot be done.

[Barack_America]

125. Who stirred up their anger? Who insisted they should be angry?

Which campaign started the inflammatory rhetoric? And why?

Furthermore, knowing the "who" and, more importantly the "why", how can you support it?

The questions the OP poses still apply.

[AtomicKitten]

10. Hillary has dispensed with all sense of fair play and rules.

And it appears some of her supporters are perfectly fine with that.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Heh-indeedy. I'm glad you guys have the patience to actually type out the lies...

... Because I sure don't. That's teamwork! Just call me when you need snark!

:rofl:

[Sundoggy]

14. Hear hear n/t

[Bentcorner]

22. When did she Hillary sign a pledge saying that Michigan and Florida shouldn't count?

If she had signed something like this, I would be very disappointed in her and her campaign. It's one thing to sign a pledge agreeing not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


It's quite another to say neither state should count.

All states count.
All voters count.

[Pawel K]

29. You are being dishonest

This is the full quote from the clinton campaign, it is the same quote mentioned in the article you posted:


The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

[Bentcorner]

34. I'm dishonest? I'm not the one stating things that aren't true....

When did she sign a pledge stating that Michigan and Florida shouldn't count? The only thing I have been able to confirm is that she along with the other candidates signed a pledge agreeing to not campaign in either state.

[Pawel K]

42. When she signed the pledge her campaign came out and said that those states shouldn't count

as I just showed you.

In addition a direct quote has been posted above of Clinton herself saying that Michigan will not count. That is the end of this discussion, why are you doing this to yourselves? You can sit here and split hairs or you can admit that saying Michigan and Florida should count is madness. Your choice, I could careless eighter way.

[dbmk]

56. To be precise

The pledge was on not campaigning and not participating. But that in itself invalidates a result. That should be clear to anyone.
It strikes me that it follows by logic that if the results should count and anyone gain from that, that it would be equal to participation.

The 0 delegates thing was a decision by the R&BC. But as far as I can see, thats just an administative precision on the moral and logical conclusions to the pledge.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf

[stillcool]

163. It was signed on August 28..

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.
Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the
Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar...

Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Who's lying?

The pledge didn't say they agreed it shouldn't count. They agreed only not to campaign in those states.

Obama, by the way, broke that pledge. Clinton did not.

[GarbagemanLB]

25. Hillary said on NHPR that Michigan's primary wouldn't count for anything.

[Pawel K]

30. Again, a lie

Full quote from the clinton campaign:

The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

[Bentcorner]

37. That's not the same thing as saying she signed a pledge stating that Michigan and Florida shouldn't

count. That's just not true.

[GarbagemanLB]

38. Hillary is ON RECORD as saying Michigan won't count. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. It's not the end of the discussion, obviously.

Where's the part of the pledge that says that? That's what you guys are harping on.

I know you guys really really want these states not to count, but it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. The situation NEVER should've come to this. NEVER. It's a real failure on the part of the DNC that this is being fought over at this stage.

A year ago, nobody here thought Iowa and New Hampshire deserved the primacy they were given. Now you guys are willing to disenfranchise two large states and risk the general election over that premise. It's just insane.

[Pawel K]

50. The pledge she signed not only mentioned campaigning, it mentioned paticipation

you can sit here and try to argue with me about what the meaning of "participate" is or you can reread my OP one more time with an open mind and agree that what you guys are doing with this Michigan and Florida thing is down right dishonest.

[MonkeyFunk]

54. And Obama wanted to seat the delegates

back in September. Evidently he didn't think that violated the pledge.

You're just wrong - the pledge was not to campaign in those states. Clinton kept to that pledge. Obama, however, did not.

[Pawel K]

57. Ok, so you choose to argue about what participate means?

Fine, ignore the rest of what I said. Keep pretending that you are really that dumb and you can't see through this bullshit. The pledge not only talked about campaigning but it also specifically mentioned participation. You are trying to split hairs over something really minor. The facts are clear, Clinton said Michigan will not and should not count. She signed a pledge that said she will not participate (meaning it will not count) in Michigan and Florida. Those are the simple facts that I know you fully comprehend.

None of you made any effort to seat Florida and Michigan until after Hillary lost in January. You can not get any more disingenuous than that, I'm sorry that I can't get through to you on that; I certainly tried. Good day.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. You're wrong

I believed disenfranchising two large states was a huge mistake long before Clinton won. I believed it would be resolved in a timely manner, and it's very disappointing that it's still an issue.

But speaking of disingenuous, how many Obama supporters, a year ago, supported disenfranchising states in order to maintain Iowa and New Hampshire's positions of primacy? Back then, there were polls here and NOBODY liked the primary schedule. Now you guys are willing to write off the general election in order to defend that stupid system.

[Pawel K]

65. You have completely ignored every claim I have made. What am I wrong about?

Am I wrong about you not throwing a fit over this before January 2008? If I am then my apologies, I did a quick search here using your username and the term Michigan between March 2007 and January 2008, couldn't find anything relating to it. Maybe you can point me to those threads where you were outraged by this?

Am I wrong about the pledge? The pledge not only talks about campaigning (as you originally implied) but it also talks about participation. Clinton signed this pledge that said she would not campaign and participate in Michigan and Florida. During her campaigning in the early states she said that it is clear that Michigan should not and will not count. You can not get any more clear than that.

Amd I wrong about the fact that you already knew all this information? If I'm not wrong on that point then the main point I made in the OP is dead on. You know better but you are willing to throw away any moral fiber you have for some politician named Hillary Clinton.

I will ask one more time, please stop this.

[netgui68]

148. If being honest, ethical, and fair cost us the General....then

Yes...I will stick to principle ANY day. I have looked at all the information surrounding this that I can find...All but one of the Democratic state legislatures voted to move it up...after being sternly warned that there would be stiff penalties for doing so...they laughed in the DNC's face and said "Dare ya" the DNC said okay smart ass!!! The Democratic politicians in the states and the Democratic constituents did not protest, speak out against or do jack crap to stop it. If they are mad I say take it out on your local officials who caused the problem, if you do not like it and do not live in that state..tough shit for you and we know your motives. If you do not like the way the DNC handled it...write them and tell them your beef and make a suggestion on how to penalize fairly for primaries going forward.

Personally I wish the DNC had just cut their pledged delegates in half and striped them of their super delegates. Perhaps that would keep us from having to listen to the ridiculous arguments that are going on...however, somehow I think Clinton and you guys would still be fussing about how unfair it was to take a single delegate or Super Delagate from them.

[JeanGrey]

82. You are wasting your time. It doesn't matter how much common

sense or facts you interject into this, it is all part and parcel of Hillary is going TO BE THE NOMINEE COME HELL OR HIGH WATER. It's just desperation, sad as it is to see.

[stillcool]

162. You're just wrong...

The only way the delegates would be seated was if they did not count. In other words they would not be seated if they would change the election. About breaking the pledge...If you're talking about the national ad, that is old crap, as we all know that the Obama Campaign cleared it with the DNC before the ad ran. Nice try. And if you're talking about any fundraising the candidates did, that was allowed.

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.
Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the
Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar...

Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[suzie]

85. Michigan is a reliably Democratic state

Florida is reliably Republican. The constant theme from Clinton supporters is that Florida votes must count or we'll lose Florida. It was highly unlikely that Florida would ever be in the Democratic column come November before all this controversy.

Florida is not a swing state--it's a Republican state.

[Bentcorner]

88. End of discussion? You realize this is a discussion forum, right?

I think you are trying to shift the topic. The OP said that she signed a pledge stating that Florida and Michigan shouldn't count. Though I am now supporting Hillary for the nomination, I wouldn't be doing so if she had agreed that any American voters "shouldn't count".

It wasn't Hillary or Obama or Edwards that decided to take away pledged delegates from Michigan and Florida. It was Howard Dean. Everything I have ever read about this topic is that she along with the other candidates signed a pledge stating that she wouldn't campaign in either state. To the best of my knowledge, she kept her word. He did not campaign in either Florida or Michigan.

[GarbagemanLB]

113. 15 second AUDIO CLIP of Hillary saying MICHIGAN DOESN'T COUNT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

[Pawel K]

121. You guys are trying to paint me as a liar by lying, please stop it

I already posted the original pledge she signed down in this thread. The pledge strictly says campaign and participate. If you pledge not to participate in something you are pledging not to count those votes. Spin the hell out of this if you want but that's a basic common sense fact and I don't appreciate being called a liar over it.

[fascisthunter]

111. An Undeniable, Unspinnable Fact

A fact has been offered and they lie and lie and try to spin in return. How the hell can one have a discussion or a debate when one isn't being honest? You just can't...

Now some of these same liars are whinning that DU as a whole won't listen to their arguments, because they alienate themselves by their own actions. I think "the Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a product of it's own doing.

[Voltaire]

138. OH BULLSHIT

Its the same thing because the implied result was that the votes would not count. You people make me sick.

[stillcool]

161. All candidates signed on August 28...

Editorial: Follow DNC rules on seating delegates
February 25, 2008
By Editorial Board

On September 1, the campaigns of Clinton and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) issued press releases stating that they had signed pledges affirming the DNC’s decision to approve certain representative states and sanction others for moving their nominating contests earlier. But now that the race is close, Clinton — whose top advisor Harold Ickes voted as a member of the DNC to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates — is pushing for the delegates to be seated.
Her argument is that not doing so disenfranchises the 1.7 million Florida Democrats who voted and that her pledge promised only that she wouldn’t campaign in the states, not that she wouldn’t try to seat the delegates. However, the results of the contests in Florida and Michigan are not necessarily representative of the voters’ preferences in those states. Given that most of the candidates removed their names from the
Michigan ballot, and that many voters stayed home from the vote in Florida with the understanding that their contest would not affect the final delegate count, the delegate totals that the candidates accumulated in these states may not accurately reflect the will of the voters. Had there been no restrictions in Michigan and Florida, the turnout, and thus the results, may have been different.

The Four State Pledge all candidates signed on Aug. 28 stated, “Whereas, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar...

Therefore, I ____________, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules ...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window.” When the candidates pledged to campaign only in approved states, they were also agreeing to the terms listed above, which explicitly mentioned stripping noncompliant states of their entire delegation.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said that the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if they would decide the nomination. Other compromise proposals include holding new nominating contests in these states, but such contests would be expensive and cumbersome. The irony is that had Florida and Michigan not moved up their primaries, they would have voted in February and March, when they would have been even more important than in earlier months in determining the Democratic nominee — and would not have created an enormous controversy that has the potential to divide the party.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/25/editorialFollowDncRulesOnSeatingDelegates

[MonkeyFunk]

41. And they adhered to it by not campaigning in those states

which is what they agreed to do in the pledge.

You're saying they broke the pledge, but you're not quoting the part of the pledge you think proves your point.

And again, only Obama broke the pledge by running ads in Florida.

[suzie]

84. Just curious

According to Clinton supporters, Obama broke the pledge by running national ads prior to the Florida primary. But, Bill Clinton came into the state for fundraisers shortly before the primary. Local Democrats were called and advised where the fundraiser would be held. Media people from around the area were advised when he'd be arriving so they could meet him at the airport before the fundraiser.

But, I suppose that wasn't campaigning--it was something else.

[Secret_Society]

24. Do you have any evidence of such a pledge?

link? image? maybe like the one Obama signed about gun control and then lied about in the debate about?

[GarbagemanLB]

27. No, it's an elaborate hoax by the Obama campaign and the media.

...

[Secret_Society]

40. I assume your serious about that since you didn't provide evidence?

[Pawel K]

51. Have you read the pledge yourself? It talks about participation

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf

As I said to a couple other people here, you can sit here and try to argue with me what "participate" means or you can stop being intentionally dishonest for the good of this country.

[Bentcorner]

115. It doesn't say "Should not count" like you said it did. And by "participate", that only means

they would debate. It doesn't say anything about the people of Michigan or Florida not counting.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. razzle dazzle me Chicago style..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn5-VN3SH1o

[redqueen]

43. Did the DNC ask that candidates remove their names from ballots?

I swear I saw that posted here... and a link to back it up... would love to find it again.

[Jamastiene]

48. Oh, woe is meeeee!

How will I eeeeevvvvver live with myself knowing I've disappointed Pawel K? :dilemma:

Who are you, anyhow? :rofl:

:popcorn:

[Pawel K]

49. Another person that's been here since 2003 with over 16,000 posts proves my point

I didn't want to name any names, I see I didn't need to.

[Erin Elizabeth]

55. How about "Obama lost Michigan?"

I love that one. That's like when I say I lost the gold medal in the Olympics (which...I was never in....).

Sooo stupid.

[VotesForWomen]

60. the primaries are about choosing the best candidate; if you screw FL and MI, your candidate could li

likely lose the GE. the DNC would be foolish not to take that into consideration. it's called reality. hell, right now, Obama could barely show his face in Florida.

[BlooInBloo]

66. "if you screw FL and MI" - and the lie continues. The state parties screwed the voters. Nobody else.

[VotesForWomen]

78. they can hold their primaries whenever they want, for all i care. you're saying their votes don't co

don't count; you can justify it however you want, but the consequences for the GE are going to be there just the same. and what exactly gives IA and NH special rights over the rest of the states? yeah, i call that a screw.

[shaniqua6392]

98. This Michigander got screwed by the Dems

and I am pretty pissed off about it. I am sure I am not the only one. Many people in Michigan are furious. They are just so confident that we are all going to fall in line and vote for Obama. The entire Democratic Primary system is ridiculous. Have them all on the same day and go with the popular vote. Screw these delegates and super delegates. It is as bad as the electoral college system and it sucks. Iowa and New Hampshire are not even good representative states anyway. Why should they get to go first?

[VotesForWomen]

156. hear, hear. one-day national primary. nt

[habitual]

100. of course they can hold their primaries whenever they want

they did just that..... and why should you care? CUZ THEY SCREWED THEIR CONSTITUENTS FOR IT.

NOT BO, the state party leaders screwed the voters in those states. but i can see why you'd want to say you don't care about rules, when it is the rules that are biting you in the a**.

of course, now that the rules don't fit your desired outcome, well:

-- BO is making their votes not count
-- Hillary wants every vote to count (after she didn't care when it was going to help her not to)
-- The system is unfair
-- The states should do whatever they want

grasping at straws is a terrible thing to watch happen. I'm sure you'll be giving a few more reasons why this is somehow not fair or BO's fault. I'll add them to the list. :)

[jillan]

68. According to the DNC rules, if a state breaks the rules - 50% of their delegates count.

Right now 0% of Fla and Mi count....


Rules are there for a purpose.

If Obama wants to keep those states from counting in the primaries, don't come crying when he loses those states in November.

[lligrd]

70. Actually, The Rules State That The State Automatically Loses

50% of their delegates but that the Rules committee can impose stricter sanctions. If you're going to cite the rules at least cite them in their entirety.

[IndependentDem]

71. in my opinion-- the only people that have the right to be outraged...

about the Michigan and Florida cluster-fuck are the people that were outraged by it in the beginning. IMO, ALL of the candidates should have stood up for Michigan and Florida in the first place, unfortunately some of them were too busy pandering to the privileged early states and didn't give a damn until after they needed the votes.

just my two cents.

[Pawel K]

116. Totally agree with you

:toast:

[emilyg]

73. I'm sorry I disappoint

how many "Hail Mary's" will it take?

[IronLionZion]

74. My favorite is the guy who insists "if you believe in math, you are a tool"

his journal rails against the whole delegate process and says we should throw out the results because it's unfair to Hillary. i love it. The tools won!

[AZ Criminal JD]

75. You are lying

Which is standard for Obama supporters. Hillary did not sign a pledge that it would not count. The pledge she signed said that she would not campaign in Michigan and Florida. She didn't. Obama broke that pledge when he ran radio commercials in Florida. I am really disappointed in the Obama supporters.

[VotesForWomen]

76. i disagree with your version of events, but did you ever stop and think that dems might just need FL

FL and MI in the GE? did you ever think that giving the the big F-you might not be a very good idea? or are you more concerned with obama being the nominee than dems actually winning the GE?

[roseBudd]

79. Do you realize it would be political suicide for the dem party to award the nomination to HRC?

The dem party that hasn't won an election with a majority of the white and especially undeucated white vote since 1964?

[Bentcorner]

90. Even if she win the popular vote?

Back in 2000, we all seemed to think the popular vote was important.

[IronLionZion]

112. it's idiotic to say there is a popular vote

there isn't. If there were, then we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? The general election has a popular vote. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.

[Bentcorner]

114. Sorry you feel the need to be so rude. What if more people vote for

Hillary then Obama? Should the candidate with the least amount of votes be made the nominee by the superdelegates?

[IronLionZion]

129. What if horses had horns?

They'd be unicorns. When the dude said "If my aunt had a male appendage, she'd be my uncle." it was for you. If things were different, they would be different.

There is no popular vote. Hold a popular vote and then we can talk about who won it. I'm sorry if I was rude but there definitely is no popular vote here.

Here is a wiki explaining the delegate system for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008#Delegate_system

tiny version of above URL
http://tinyurl.com/3c8nm6

[Voltaire]

140. NO

Because that is not how the game is played.

[VotesForWomen]

157. so we're going to lose either way? you may be right. nt

[barack the house]

81. Also FL rules say you can't take candidates names off the ballot. You sign a contract by honor you s

stick to it. Especially when Hillary formerly said the 2 states didn't count.

[unlawflcombatnt]

83. You're the dumb one, not the Clinton supporters

"I also realize that my opinion probably doesn't mean shit to most of you "

You're sure right about that.

Unfortunately, it's the only point you're right about.

[Pawel K]

118. You've been here almost 4 years, over 2000 posts

and again, you prove my point.

Thank you.

[Jamastiene]

86. Until the bitter end...

In other words, until the last breath leaves my body or she wins the nomination.

[shaniqua6392]

87. I am not a big fan of Senator Clinton but....

SOMEONE HAD BETTER COUNT OUR FRIGGIN VOTES!!! I went out and voted in the Michigan Primary and it had better count. A lot of people are very pissed off at the Michigan Dem Party and the DNC and McCain is going to reap the rewards here in Michigan. The media is already praising McCain to high heaven here and criticizing the DNC and MDP for disenfranchising Michigan voters. I don't give a shit who did what or who said what. The bottom line is that if you don't count our votes simply because an earlier primary was held, the Democratic nominee will pay the price and lose this state.

[Towlie]

94. I don't see it that way...

"SOMEONE HAD BETTER COUNT OUR FRIGGIN VOTES!!! I went out and voted in the Michigan Primary and it had better count."

In Florida we were officially told ahead of time that our votes wouldn't count, so I figured it would be pretty stupid and frustrating to waste time voting. Therefore, someone had better NOT count the votes from my stupid neighbors who voted anyway.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

169. Your "stupid neighbors" did the right thing.

They voted on the only possible day they could vote. All squabbling between the national and state party aside, they knew that the polls were open and they went there to make their selection. If you realize the value of voting in a democracy, you'd never have an excuse to stay home.

With all due respect, staying at home on the one election day you were given actually sounds like a much stupider thing to do.

Sincerely,

Your "stupid neighbor"

[Raineyb]

170. So you're going to stay home and let McSame win?

Look, I'm sympathetic to your position but shouldn't the people who voted for the too early primary date be the ones you get mad at?

It sounds like two states said "you know what we're big states screw you all." I live in a fairly diverse large state and yet it seems like no matter what no one even wants to court my vote yet the candidates spent a year in NH and IA. Both of those states combined probably doesn't have the number of people the city I live in has. But my state as ass backwards and dysfunctional as the legislature is managed to set a date that won't screw over the voters of the state.

It's certainly not Obama's fault that this happened he should not be paying for the shortsighted schemes of a few state leaders.

I find it extremely ironic that the whole seeming purpose of pushing the primaries earlier was to give Clinton an advantage since she had name recognition and now it's all blown up in their face.

Regards

[Marrah_G]

89. That's okay, I am pretty disappointed in a fair share of Obama supporters here also

Life is full of disappointments and it's often hard to understand how others could not see things the way you see them. Fortunately most of us are Democrats and therefore have the same goal. We just have a differing opinion of who is best to take us closer to that goal.

[OzarkDem]

91. Very much so

Many have turned into overzealous martinets who routinely bully, misrepresent facts and hold their candidate above the rules. Its shameful and discouraging and certainly not representative of the Democratic Party.

[The Doctor.]

106. That's not being very nice to Clinton supporters... only a relatively small minority

are behaving like that.

[Pawel K]

119. Cheers

:toast:

[democracy1st]

92. K & R

[NashVegas]

95. Sorry, Dad

Oh wait. You aren't my dad, I haven't done anything to be sorry for and HC hasn't done anything BO wouldn't do.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pawel K]

117. Obviously you didn't read the pledge

but I really appreciate being called a liar by someone that doesn't seem to understand what "participate" means.

[The Doctor.]

103. My thoughts exactly. I hope they return to their senses. To be fair though,

it really is a very small minority of her supporters that have truly lost it.

The rest are either too polite to be so noticeable, or they realize that it's over and have opted not to exacerbate things.

[DemzRock]

107. I will support any Dem over McCain as I have always said.... BUT

that being said, you do know that if the Democratic Primaries were ran like the actual general election, winner take all per state, Hillary would have been the nominee ages ago. Now, I actually don't believe in the electoral college, but that's the way the main election will be ran. I seriously hope Obama can win it. I am beginning to think he can win the General Election. I also don't think McCain seems to want it that badly. Lets hope. hehe I used the H-word.

[frylock]

134. and if my aunt had nads she'd be my uncle

[BlackVelvet04]

120. Big surprise.....

yet another bash Hillary Supporters thread.

[Deep13]

127. Nothing any politician did should disenfranchise voters.

This is the single most basic right in a democracy. And besides, those elections were perfectly lawful. We are doing to MI and FL what Bush did to FL in 2000 and OH in 2004.

[pnwmom]

130. I'm neutral in this race, but I have a question -- why should Florida Dems

be penalized for the actions of their Republican Governor? The Dems weren't the ones who decided when to hold the primary -- that was Crist.

[kay1864]

135. Actually it was the Florida legislature, not the governor

But you are essentially correct--the Florida Senate and House are predominantly Republican.


Edited to update: Both the Republicans and Democrats in the Florida House and Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the early primary date. http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=35049

[pnwmom]

154. Crist led the push and the majority Republicans agreed.

The Democrats were in a lose-lose situation. Yes, they could have taken a position against a popular Governor and against popular opinion -- but they still would have lost -- the early primary would have taken place with or without their support.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1707616,00.html

[kay1864]

155. And they could have taken a principled stand

and have later won praise for it.

But they didn't. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

158. Too many unpopular "principled stands" lead to being voted out in the next

election.

In general, I'm not in favor of Democrats committing political suicide, especially on this kind of issue. What is the principle, exactly?

[kay1864]

160. The principle? Simple.

Don't go against the DNC rules and risk costing your state's voters the delegates they thought they were voting for.

In this case, such a stand would win their re-election--not being voted out.

[pnwmom]

164. Not much of a principle, IMHO.

They could have voted against Crist and popular opinion, but it wouldn't have made a bit of difference -- the date would have stood.

[kay1864]

165. Now you're talking about the *outcome*, not the *principle*

You asked about the principle, and I answered.

So if the Republicans have more votes, the Democrats might as well vote with the Republicans? What do you think "taking a principled stand" means then?

I could not disagree with you more that denial of Florida's delegates is "not much of a principle". It's only a real principle if you know you can win?

[pnwmom]

166. I mean that obeying the DNC is not much of a principle.

Not up there with the major ethical principles.

And for the Dems to take this "principled stand" wouldn't have changed anything.

[kay1864]

167. Well, that's kind of the point of a principled stand, now isn't it?

(please note that voting with the Republicans didn't change the outcome either)

And an "obeying the DNC rules" vote, as you call it, could now be seen as "voting to not deny the Florida voters their delegates". A stand they could have taken, but didn't.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

131. It doesn't matter which candidate you support.

The voters of Florida and Michigan are not pawns on a chessboard which you can speculate about and collectively punish in abstract.

They are real people who actually took time out to vote, and they deserve a say in the nominating process, regardless of who else did or said what. They personally broke no rules.

[bbgrunt]

136. You are totally right that the voters themselves

broke no rules. And I agree that we all deserve a say in the nominating process. But I know that the side that is now pushing this meme that "the voters deserve a say" is the same side that has been pushing the idea that superdelegates, and even pledged delegates, ultimately have the right to vote any way they want--which is the ultimate betrayal of ALL voters.

so come on, let's be fair. There is nothing anywhere that guarantees any voters a say in the primary. Do you think it is fair to proceed with seating delegates that have been elected through UNFAIR election processes? When some candidates were not even on the ballot? When another election was conducted while telling voters that their vote would not count?

[cascadiance]

139. But you are asking the rest of the country to accept a tainted election (AGAIN in Florida's case)...

... for which we at large don't have any direct control other than the rules that are laid down to ensure that we have an orderly process.

Yes, it DOES suck that Michigan and Florida voters were not allowed by THEIR OWN STATE PARTY ORGANIZATION to vote in a fair election that followed the rules so that it would be counted in picking our nominee. I don't think most here would disagree with you.

But it would be FAR WORSE to all of us to count the results of tainted and unrepresentative "elections" which were anything but fair elections after the fact to try and rationalize that you're rectifying them not being represented. This is not an option. The ONLY option that would address them participating in the vote is to have a revote. Hillary people said no to a cheaper caucus setup that could be oranized at the last minute, and didn't put up the money and resources to have a timely primary revote.

The only thing that can really help Florida and Michigan voters to be represented at polls now is a 50/50 delegate split. They won't affect the nominee outcome with that mix, but they can still affect party business and be participants there. That to me is preferable to having no representation at all.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

147. I don't mean any harm but I really feel like her supporters

are very much like Bush supporters. No matter what facts we bring to the table, those facts are ignored in favor of talking points given by her or one of her surrogates. I often wonder if some of those who call themselves Hillary Democrats are really trolls and are not Dems at all. Seriously, they resemble what John Dean refers to as followers of the Authoritarian cult. There's only about 28% of Americans who make up this cult.

I'm being serious. They continue to ignore irrefutable facts right in front of their faces, and like the Repukes, the Art of Projection is baffling.

Examples of this Clinton projection, fallacies and falsehoods:

1. Obama played the race card in SC.
2. Obama is trying to suppress the votes in MI and FL
3. Obama says superdelegates don't matter, it's the pledged delegates.
4. Pledged delegates don't matter, it's the superdelegates.
5. Superdelegates and pledged delegates don't matter; it's the popular vote.
6. Obama campaigned in FL.
7. Obama approved NAFTA and is really for it.
8. Obama was supposed to beat me in IN and I came from behind to win.
9. Little states and caucuses don't matter...unless it's KY and WV.
10. "Eggheads" and "African-Americans" are voting for Obama.
11. Ferraro: "He wouldn't be in this position if he weren't black!"
12. Bob Johnson: "Obama had 90% of the black vote from the beginning!" Me: FALSE!! Hillary Clinton had the *majority* of the black vote when the primary season began.
13. McAuliffe: "We are winning the popular vote...if you count MI and FL!" Truth: even if you included MI and FL, Hillary would still lose!

Baffling indeed! It's scary to listen to various talk radio shows and they call in using these same fallacies, presenting them as facts...

[roseBudd]

159. My favorite is "they are about tied and she is almost as popular"

[netgui68]

149. Bingo...absolutely the fair thing to do...I WONDER....

Hey folks...I don't like the speed limit on my road being 35 mph...so I broke the damn rules and chose to go 55 mph...when the guy in blue pulled me over...I did not like the $135 penalty known as a ticket...perhaps I should go down town and raise mortal hell because it was unfair for the penalize me for going the speed I wanted and tell them the penalty is too much and they should change their speeding ticket price to $50...wonder what they would tell me?

[cascadiance]

151. And usually you don't threaten the cop if you expect better treatment either!

This trying to continue fighting and badmouthing both the DNC and the Obama campaign and expecting them to "give in" isn't the kind of thing that you'd want to do to a cop, or he might clap you in irons and throw you in jail for resisting arrest.

If the Clinton folks wanted to be a part of an Obama administration, a lot earlier they should have acted more like fellow Democrats, instead of a Rove-laden NeoDemocrat group trying to force their way as much as possible.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

168. That this is SUCH a subject of outrage for you....

...when we've got a war in Iraq, an economy in the crapper, and sick people without health insurance, is a very, very strange sense of priorities for you, I must say.