home
Um, I'm assuming (5.00 / 8) (#3)
by angie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM EST
those are all rhetorical questions, right?
I am a Hillary supporter, and I'm cynical enough to know that if the situation was reversed Hillary would be the one blocking the MI & FL revotes.  But, if that was the case, I would no longer be a Hillary supporter, because while I can accept that politicians are politicians, I can't accept any disenfranchisement of voters, even if it "helps" my candidate.  What I can't fathom is how Obama's supporters can still be backing him when that is exactly what he is doing.  

I don't think Hillary would be acting like Obama (5.00 / 7) (#19)
by NOBAMA08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:59:59 AM EST
if the situation was reversed. I think Hillary would've agreed to a revote then worked her butt off to win those states. Read Anglachel's Journal :

"As for the canard that Hillary would be running the same campaign were she in Obama's place, uh, no. She was in Obama's place, the front runner, earlier on and she did not try to prevent primaries from happening. She did not create training camps to to teach outsiders how to interfere with caucuses and intimidate voters. She did not go around speaking of her opponent as a monster. She did not tell him to drop out because she had it all sewn up. She did not say he was only driven by a lust for power, even as we who watch are increasingly seeing how accurate a description of Obama that is. Not at all. She praised him and all of her opponents. She urges all Democrats to this day to stay with the party, regardless of nominee. She speaks respectfully of Obama as a person even as she criticizes his policies and statements. She pledges to support him as nominee should she not be the voters choice. In short, she is running a strong, pro-Democrat and pro-Hillary campaign.

While she did not strongly support revoting Michigan and Florida at the start, it was not merely that she was ahead in those states. It was because those states had already held objectively valid elections. Michigan's incomplete candidate slate was due to the acts of the candidates who removed themselves, not because they were blocked. The prohibition on campaigning in those states applied equally to all candidates, and Obama broke that rule in Florida with cable ad buys. At no time did she ever say these states should be included because I'm ahead and not including them would change the outcome of the race. At this time, Hillary is strongly demanding either to revote the states or else seat them. She is not blocking the count of their votes.

Obama is campaigning on disenfranchising voters, leaning on an equivocal rule to cover his ass. This is a substantive difference between these candidates - one wants to win election by counting the votes, even if it means doing over the voting, and the other wants to win by disenfranchising voters who might not vote for him. These are not differences of degrees, or matters of opinion. Hillary will take her chances with the voters and abide by their decisons. Obama demands that we not count votes unless they are votes for him. He is arguing that we should not allow these Democrats to participate in anything to do with the party unless it is certain they will not endanger his front-runner status. That they have a right to vote and he has no right to win eludes him."


[ Parent ]

objectively valid? (none / 0) (#65)
by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:08:32 PM EST
those states had already held objectively valid elections

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Both Michigan and Florida held flawed primaries. When the voters are told in advance that the state delegates would NOT be seated, it discourages voters from participating. Even though there were record turn-outs, the fact is an unknown number of Democratic voters...both Hillary and Obama supporters...chose not to go to the polls.

We can only guess at the results of a valid primary contest. Perhaps Hillary would have won a larger percentage of the vote, perhaps she'd have had a smaller victory...nobody knows. But when primary voters know in advance that their votes are not going to lead to delegates, it cannot be considered a valid primary.

[ Parent ]

Please quantify your analysis. (none / 0) (#99)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:44:04 PM EST
Otherwise, you are simply making a supposition and then presenting it as fact.

Well, here's the primary fact: Over 2.1 million voters went to the polls in the Michigan and Florida primaries, and further, the Florida Democratic primary experienced record turnout.

We either allow those states to conduct a re-vote, or we seat their delegations as determined by those primaries. Anything else is tantamount to committing political suicide in the '08 presidential election.

[ Parent ]

It can't be quantified (none / 0) (#119)
by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:45:34 PM EST
That's part of the problem, isn't it. If we knew how many Clinton supporters and how many Obama supporters stayed home rather than vote in a primary that was declared void, we'd have less of a problem. But we don't know. You can't quantify an unknown like that.


[ Parent ]
On the other hand (none / 0) (#131)
by blueasthesky on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:33:03 PM EST
On the other hand, maybe the disenfranchisement  had the opposite effect, spurring voters on to defy the DNC.  I can imagine a voter saying:  "Taking away our delegates!  Well, I'll show them!"  

In any election, there are thousands of factors that can spur somebody to go to the polls or to stay home.  You can't quantify any of them.  What you're saying here is no different from any election.  

[ Parent ]

If that number of people, (none / 0) (#134)
by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:41:14 PM EST
those that voted, were paticipants in a poll to guage support of candidates that would be a pretty massive sample with a degree of error somewhere near zero.

The idea that they were not a proper guage of the people's choice is way beyond ludicrous.

To think that a re-vote would somehow change what was already indicated is downright foolish.

The only possible change would be that some Republicans, those who did not participate in the Republican primary, might come out to try to game the vote.

[ Parent ]

G*d D*amn Great post there ! (none / 0) (#93)
by thereyougo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:22:41 PM EST
Its almost as if Obama was copying Rovian speak, using the obvious to turn it against your opponent.

Oh, I've never doubted the Obama campaign to use any means to win, we're heard enough about the caucus experience here from reported 2000 complaint.But I never thought they'd copy Rove.Never.

[ Parent ]

It's kind of (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:02:18 AM EST
dispiriting that it can't be just a rhetorical question.

It's getting to look like the advent of cannibalism.

[ Parent ]

Blowback would've kept Clinton honest (5.00 / 7) (#34)
by Davidson on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:11:25 AM EST
If the reverse were true, the hellish blowback she would've received from the media and also her supporters, who have never supported out of love for her personality but for her stand on Democratic issues would've almost certainly kept Clinton honest.  Also, I can't see her rigging the nomination only to ensure she loses the GE with a 48-state "strategy."  She's no one's fool.

Here's Angalchel's take on the matter as well, showing that Clinton has already had opportunities to mess with us and she hasn't.

[ Parent ]

she can't do right can she?! geez (none / 0) (#95)
by thereyougo on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:27:20 PM EST
but I have noticed something, they've called off the dogs against Hillary.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft