MyDD :: My Logic

My Logic

by stevent, Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:13:06 PM EST

If granting Clinton additional 25 to 50 delegates will not make a difference to Obama but yet can make Florida and Michigan count, why not proceed with it? Why attempt to disenfranchise voters? What this circus did was ensuring a prolong hatred among the supporters. This is one of the best chance given to unite us from both sides but instead threw us, on the losing side, over the cliff. Harold Ickes said it right, this will certainly not unite us. He made an extremely heartfelt closing statement and i guess we shall fight the nomination in Denver.

(1)If your argument is base on the 'rules' then lets make judgments based on those rules. Else, by trying to invoke the rules at your own discretion is just mocking us.

(2) Regardless of whether Clinton supported counting the votes of Michigan and Florida early this year does not mean that voters should be disenfranchised. It is clearly the case that 2.3 million people who voted had their votes not counted.

(3) In Florida's case, it's the Republicans who attached a paper ballot bill with the change of date. Maybe those from the other side has forgotten what happened in 2000. Florida should have their delegates fully restored as it wasn't their choice to make in the first place.

(4) As for Michigan, if you intend to punish them, you should punished Iowa, NH and SC. It's the rules. And Nevada was supposed to go 2nd and Michigan had stated from the start that as long as the first 4 states do not change their dates, Michigan will comply by allowing the 4 states to go first. So rules are rules. By cherry picking, you will only stifle hatred among the supporters. Millions of people had invested heavily on the candidates and if the DNC decided only to enforce the rules on 1 candidate, the outcome will be chaotic. By not seating Michigan fully, Iowa and NH will always monopolize the first 2 spots and there will be no reason for them not to go first.

Tags: DNC, Clinton, Obama, Nomination, Denver (all tags)

Permalink :: 7 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: My Logic (none / 0)

Seating them fully does not punish them for violating the rules, that was not an option.

by libertyleft on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:21:25 PM EST

I'm sorry but you're just really confused (none / 0)

You are listening to dishonest people here and they're messing with your head. It isn't fair that they're doing this to people who supported Hillary's campaign because they thought it was the best thing for the country. Turning this into a fight about whether it's fair that Iowa and New Hampshire go first and then confusing that with whether or not Obama actually won the nomination is a mess of illogic and confusion. "Allan Katz, a Rules Committee member and Obama supporter, said the Obama campaign had enough votes on the committee to support the campaign's proposal to split the delegates 50-50 in Michigan. Ultimately, the campaign agreed instead to support the compromise negotiated by the Michigan Democratic Party as a way to resolve the matter." Do you realize that Obama's campaign had enough votes on the committee today to get the delegates split 50-50 in Michigan? They passed up the opportunity so that more people, Clinton people could be in on the final decision. That's the campaign that you're railing against. Ickes was one of the people who voted last year to strip them of their delegates. Hillary herself told the voters of those states that their votes weren't going to count. How can the party go back after the fact and say they're going to count the votes of people who showed up in spite of the fact that everyone was told their votes wouldn't count? How is that a straight election? And yet Hillary is given a net gain of delegates in these states. Essentially because she demanded them and because many people don't want to split the party up. She lost the nomination fair and square to a campaign that was run better and a candidate who appealed to a broader coalition. Please just help us beat McCain this November. We need your passion on the side of Democratic issues. You know how much is riding on this otherwise you wouldn't have been supporting Hillary in the first place. Peace.

by Sun Dog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:23:52 PM EST

Re: I'm sorry but you're just really confused (none / 0)

Shoot, I'm still not used to the format here. That wasn't supposed to be in one big paragraph and I didn't intend for that quote to be unattributed. That quote was from an AP article and I'll link it right here. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24905193/&am p;GT1=43001

by Sun Dog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Logic (none / 0)

Well, you can point to the 2.3 million "disenfranchised" voters, but what about the countless voters who stayed home because they weren't going to bother voting in an election that they were told wasn't going to count?

Also, if the DNC had folded, the nominating process in the future would be complete chaos with states leap-frogging the other with no regard for DNC threats.

The voters in Florida and Michigan should focus their outrage on those who decided to play chicken with the DNC and move their primaries up - their elected state officials. Vote them out.

by GrahamCracker on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:43:11 PM EST

Re: My Logic (none / 0)

Well it's not political feasible to split Michigan 50-50. So it's not an option for Obama. The Rules and Bylaw Committee are not supposed to make compromises. The purpose is to enforce rules or not enforce at all. Selected enforcing is certainly a way to piss people off and they had just done that. What they didn't realize is that they had once again gave the right ample ammunitions on their decision making. Back door deals, no transparency etc.....

How hard is it to be fair? We are talking about the judicial section of the democratic party. I hope that you are understanding this, many Hillary supporters as angry as they are will not vote for McCain as never in our conscience will we vote for a Republican especially how much they screwed up now. However this doesn't mean that we won't write in Hillary in our ballot. And this is just going to reinforce many of our perception that writing in Hillary is the best choice to have our voices heard. Perhaps then we can argue state to state in the Supreme Court about states not counting our write ins.

by stevent on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:52:20 PM EST

Re: My Logic (none / 0)

IA and NH were given waivers (following the rules) to reestablish the order the rules originally set. That is why they are not punished. The followed the letter (waivers) and spirit (order) of the rules.

Stop swimming in de-nile, and heal thyself.

by IowaMike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:39:08 AM EST

Re: My Logic (none / 0)

The order that was agreed upon was Iowa, Nevada, NH, SC. But somehow NH decided to move itself ahead of Nevada into the 2nd spot. So in essence they broke the rules but instead of getting punished, got the blessings. That's when Michigan followed. When discussing the 4 early states, Michigan had stated that they will agree to the 4 states and not move their date if the 4 states did not move their dates. Apparently Iowa, NH and SC decided to break the rules.

Get your facts right.

by stevent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:03:45 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.