home
prose and promise (5.00 / 0) (#12)
by demps on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:13:37 PM EST
makes a very good point. I have been made to wonder, do supporters of Senator Clinton actually believe that she is greatly concerned as to the disenfranchisement of Florida or Michigan? I am myself uncomfortable with the idea of suppressing their vote, but at the same time I recognize that Clinton has assumed her position because it benefits her candidacy. Prior to her campaign being placed in jeopardy she was quite comfortable with the disqualification of these states. So I might wish that Michigan and Florida were allowed to vote, but I don't for a minute believe that Clinton is a sincere champion for this effort. And I also believe Obama's argument against has more legitimacy than is allowed on this blog. Though once again, of course he takes his stance because it benefits him politically. On another matter, I don't believe Clinton should drop out, but I do have concerns about bringing this to the convention. The superdelegate primary proposed has  tremendous appeal in my opinion

Let's suppose Clinton isn't concerned at all (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:17:00 PM EST
about the voters of MI and FL. Does that make Obama right in his anti democratic actions if she does feel that way? Why does what Clinton feel matter with regard to your beliefs in democracy? That's a little like me saying becuase I hate Bush, I think we should have denied his voters the right to vote in 2004. It's about the same level of logic. It sounds very much l ike you are saying the ends justify the means. That becuase you don't like Clinton, that should influence how some of us view the right to vote. An odd argument unless you are so partisan you can't even see what you are saying anymore.

[ Parent ]
The "Obama blocks revotes" (none / 0) (#89)
by mattt on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
meme has been way, way overplayed, I think to the detriment of Dem chances in MI and Fl if he does carry the nomination.

He did propose a means to count the vote in MI (at least; not sure about FL): a caucus.  But Clinton followers give him no points there because a caucus is seen as favoring his chances, so it was just a self-serving move.  Meanwhile, the quickie revote proposed by Clinton would be dominated by party insiders with little time for grassroots organization, and therefore favor her chances.  But nobody talks about how self-serving that proposal is.....not to mention her suggestion that the January primaries were "fairly decided" and should count as-is, despite the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

They're both playing to win with the hands they're dealt.

Meanwhile, nobody wants to talk about the 100 or so superdelegates Clinton had committed even before Iowa, before the voters in their states had a chance even to see the competition.  Take them away and Obama is leading in superdelegates, too.

If you want a perfect world, max-democracy scenario: have fair revotes in MI and FL, with time to organize and campaign.  Wipe out any superdelegates who committed before the first votes were cast.  Poll the participants in caucus states that did not report popular vote totals, and add those numbers into the total PV.

Clinton would probably win FL and MI, but certainly by smaller margins than in January.  Maybe much smaller, and MI might even be in play.  She'd lose about 100 superdelegates relative to BO.  And Obama would gain popular votes.  End result: Obama leads in every category, in most by wide margins.

[ Parent ]

How much does it matter? (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by ChrisO on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:21:10 PM EST
I'm sure we can point to a ton of policy postions by both camps that are the product of political calculus. Are we now going to require that candidates not only espouse positions we support, but that thye prove to us that their support for those positions is based purely on what they really really believe is best for the nation? And how would we determine that?

If I think Obama's self interested position is wrong, and damaging to the party, while Hillary's self interested position is the right one, I really don't care about the depth of Hillary's commitment.

[ Parent ]

Absolutely! (none / 0) (#49)
by alexei on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST
This is the right position and Clinton is also framing the issue the right way.  

[ Parent ]
The (none / 0) (#81)
by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:47:47 AM EST
question of FL and MI is about citizens having their votes either counted or having a chance to re-vote.

It shouldn't matter to anyone who benefits. Of course both candidates will try and maneuver to their benefit. They are Politicians and that's what politicians do. And supporters will huff and puff about whether their candidate is helped or harmed.

It was and is up to the Democratic Party and the DNC to make this right. Unless they do, it will damage the party and will probably lead to a Republican victory in November. People don't like seeing Democrats trying to disenfranchise voters. They think that's what Republicans do. And doesn't matter much if you don't find it disenfranchising. It matters to the voters in those states and in many others that are needed for a Democratic victory in November by either candidate.

[ Parent ]

What matters is Nov (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:24:19 PM EST
Sure, we can see that she needs their votes. But we can also see the end game. Nov. Obama's position (makes will of the people null and void) sure isn't going to help in Nov.

[ Parent ]
I have no reason to doubt Hillary's sincerity.... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:30:32 PM EST
...but then I don't buy all the Republican and Obama talking points about her lack of character. I don't believe frankly that Obama is a sincere champion for party unity, either, except as it advantages him.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft