home
Yup (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by RickTaylor on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:39:39 PM EST
Both candidates have been advocating what is clearly in their best interest. Hillary Clinton has called for the delegates to all be seated, even though she signed a pledge not to participate, neither candidate could campaign, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. While Obama argues the delegates should be split fifty fifty. By amazing coincidence, after careful deliberation, both candidates have decided the objectively right solution just happens to be the plausible solution that benefits them the most.

What I don't understand is why Hillary Clinton didn't protest the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan before the candidates agreed not to participate. Why did she sign that agreement at all? It was clearly not in her interest. If she'd protested early, she'd be in much better shape now, her opponents would have a much harder time painting her actions as a naked grab to fix the game in her favor, and there would have been a better chance of her actually succeeding in having Michigan and Florida delegates counted.

I can only think of two possibilities. On the one hand, maybe she just thought she had the election in the bag. Maybe she though she could win the nomination without those two states, and there was no point in raising a stink. Pride goeth before a fall.

The other possibility is she didn't believe the DNC penalty would stick. She assumed she'd get the delegates, even with Obama not on the ballot in one state, and was happy with the advantage of reaping the delegates without to campaign.

Neither of those explanations is flattering, but I can't honestly think of another. Either way, it was a bad miscalculation on her part.

I ciriticized Clinton for that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:43:42 PM EST
Do you read this web site with any frequency?

[ Parent ]
Re: I criticized Clinton for that (none / 0) (#218)
by RickTaylor on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:51:36 AM EST
I'm fairly new here, and regardless I didn't mean my post to be a criticism of yours, or to imply you hadn't. I think I basically agree with you; shockingly, neither candidate is an angel. Maybe that's more important to point out in Obama's case as more people pretend otherwise with him.

My final question was sincerely meant; I honestly don't understand why the Clinton campaign didn't challenge the DNC decision earlier. Maybe it would have had a political downside in some way I don't understand.

[ Parent ]

She didn't campaign in Michigan. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:33:00 PM EST
However, I didn't see that pledge impeding the operatives from both the Obama and Edwards campaigns, who urged Democratic voters to cast their ballots for uncommitted. I also didn't see Clinton running TV ads in Florida

And no, this wasn't a bad decision on the DNC's part. It was the DNC that royally screwed this up. If they wanted to punish both Michigan and Florida for moving those primaries forward, they should have stripped those states of their superdelegates, since they as elected officials were the individuals who actually acquiesced to move the primaries in the first place. Instead, they get to keep their status, while the voters of both states are disenfranchised for decisions not of their own making. Go figure.

[ Parent ]

Correction. (none / 0) (#107)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST
This wasn't a bad decision on Hillary Clinton's part.

[ Parent ]
Have You (none / 0) (#28)
by AmyinSC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:46:51 PM EST
Read the Pledge?  It was posted at this site not too long ago.  

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft