Would Hillary be champion of voting rights in FL and MI if they were Obama states?

She's a fighter, I think we can all agree on that. However, the question is "What is she fighting for?" She's fighting to win, and that's fine. But I don't think that she should get to wear the flag of freedom for it. If the tables were switched and Obama stood to gain a bunch of delegates from those states, I think she'd be fighting like hell to stop Obama from getting them counted. It's not about voters' rights. It's about winning the election.

that if the tables were reversed she would be pulling for Obama to get those delegates.

the promise she had made prior to January 29th that she would work to get the delegates seated.

Floridians heard her.

What she signed was a pledge not to campaign in the state.

She is also on video saying the votes would not be counted.

Of course that was before she needed them...

And she said she work to get the Floridian delegates seated long before the primary vote and her record-shattering victory.

......then she would be screaming that the rules need to be observed. She would drag out the signed pledge and pound on it and throw a tantrum about how unfair that would be........

Some people here might have to actually think if they see this.


K&R

Right back at you.

nice try, but your premise fails.

The candidate of unity, hope and change is not interested in MI, FL if it does not enhance his nomination. I thought so.

Unlike the candidate of divisiveness, disillusion, and status quo, who has actually dismissed Obama's legitimate primary victories because they weren't in "significant states."

idiots in charge did. I am sure the supporters of unity, hope, and change would fight tooth and nail for all people to vote. Oh wait no they wouldn't

Reversing a premise does not make it applicable or even coherent. I'm not sure where you learned this, but it doesn't make your point or even come across as intelligible. Try again.

And you know, honestly, it's getting old to see you put down the concept of "Hope" in all your posts. I know it irritates you to no end, but some people have been inspired. Should they go back to being as pessimistic and dour as you are?

Now that will win us elections.

that seems to emanate from the very pores of Obama supporters. If it annoys you maybe you need more hope?

I know I'm wasting keystrokes here. I know. But I have to ask; Why is it that you feel the need to bash those concepts? Why? Do you not want those things? Do you honestly feel that much animosity toward those people? These are tried-and-true Democratic ideals that have been used through the decades by all kinds of Democratic candidates, regional and national. When you so easily cast them off as a platitude, you insult not only the Obama campaign, but every other politician that gave an honest effort to meet those goals.

And lest you forget, the candidate from Hope, Arkansas?

Anyway, it's old, and I don't want to add another name to my ignore list.

tenets of these very well. And i truly believe he wants this for the country. Not so much his supporters. Just words to be mocked and distorted, while bringing up blue dresses and blow jobs. So see add me to your little list. I do not really care.

If that's all the explanation you're willing to give, I don't think I'll be missing much.

which I think most Obama supporters would acknowledge deep down. The fiasco has worked out nicely for them. It may not work out so well for Democrats in the GE, but what care they?


Oh, and BTW, I was championing Michigan having a sanctioned primary well before January, so please don't accuse me of only wanting it because it would help Hillary. Howard Dean's dismissal of Michigan pisses me off.

than to pull a dirty trick of the kind the Clinton's are so fond of.

Their support or lack of support is not about voting rights, so why is anyone pretending that it is?

and sit down and see what can be done about MI and FL to satisfy everyone. Ohh he isn't going to is he?

I just shake my head when Obama supporters whine that Michigan shouldn't count 'cos Obama wasn't even on the ballot. As for Florida, some say it's not fair 'cos he didn't campaign there. Well, that was his choice. He chose to pander to the anointed four and kick the rogue primary states to the side.

Of course, Hillary is trying to have it both ways. She pandered to the anointed four by signing their pledge and only after winning the rogue primaries did she say they should count. She's not trying to change the rules, she's pandering.

I was assured my vote wouldn't count. I didn't vote for her. I didn't vote for any of them. This is nothing more than bowing to a tantrum. Not one person informed the voters that in several months Hillary would have a tantrum and want the rules changed in the middle of the game when she started to loose. She signed the same pledge everyone else did, she wasn't worried about disinfranchisement then. Now when she is loosing she is worried about it?

If she is worried about disinfranchisement then worry about the other voters to.

Split everything 50/50...
Do a complete re-vote...
Or tell us Floridians to pay attention next time and handle the situation beforehand, NOT if Hillary's need arises in the middle of the game.

Noone knows how the vote would have came out. Not everyone voted. It wasn't voter apathy. It was voters being told their vote would not count. Hillary might have done even better than she did. Who knows. But to award delegates on this premise is speculation at best and random at worst.

How can they even talk about Michigan when the next President of the United States name wasn't even on the ballot.
Thats insane.
Rove wouldn't even try to pull that off, fer Cris sakes.

In fact, I think that Edwards would have done much better if Michigan had been held earlier. He would definitely have made it a three-way contest.

But they voted anyway, record turnout in both states. I wonder if the will of the people has any merit in this case? Seems like a lot of people exercised their right to "waste their vote" in record numbers. I wonder what that means? maybe, just maybe they think they have a voice and a vote.

and seat the delegates accordingly. I'm cool with that. Or split them 50/50? There is no magic number one way or the other you can just ad-hoc assign as making an election legit. If millions upon millions came they'll come out again. If everyone knows their vote will count how many more might show up? If Hillary wins fair and square she wins. There isn't even an accurate count that could get close to seating this fairly with what we have to work with giving these circumstances.

She walked out with a gob of delegates with only a percentage of voters voting, and wants them.

My tennis shoe is getting wet here and I don't see a cloud in the sky.

I may look like an old fool but I'm not an old fool.

but I do know the Florids citizens had a problem with financing it. Florida is in dire straits financially right now, remember who the Govenor was until just recently. I have heard stories of closing hospitals for the needy, elementary school kids walking to school, all sorts of crap, laying off teachers etc.etc. No, the Florida citizens are in no mood to spend millions to re-vote.

I think Hillary should get every vote/delegate she earned. Unless it is fair across the board and everybody plays by the same rules (in this case lives by a pledge they signed) it is not fair and whether or not it's an itsy bitsy group of people here or masses there it is still disinfranchisement and should not stand or count. Telling people their vote would not count left a huge void in the election integrity. IIRC she signed the same thing the other candidates signed. What if a group was going to use a bus and go vote, say a 35 seat bus, happens all the time here in Florida, an elderly population we have, and most don't own property, and they were told their vote wouldn't matter at all, and they stayed home? Now multiply that number by 10 busses per county and then by 69 countys. There alone is 25,000 voters that may have voted if told the truth.

The point I was making is this:

Under these circumstances an accurate or even close will of the voters cannot be obtained.

If Hillary was so concerned about voter disinfranchisement, why did she sign the pledge to start with, and why now is Florida so important. Did her disdain for voter DI just suddenly appear.

Nobody is trying to screw her out of anything but we aren't going to screw everybody else for her either.

The time for her to show this unparalleled disdain was before the election and before she signed anything, not when she desperately needs the delegates later. Thats bullshit, and anyone with the mind of an billygoat see through this.

I think you are smart enough to see it to.

but surely we will still hear the moans of 'voter's rights' without ever acknowledging that she herself signed off on the plan to stop M & F from moving their primaries up.

it's BS and most know it.

and I think we all know the math would be different in this race if those states had had their primaries early on.

If Obama is comfortable disenfranchising all those voters, it tells me everything I need to know about him.

BOTH candidates were entirely comfortable with not counting those delegates.

So, I only see two possibilities:

They are willing to "disenfranchise all those voters" on principle.
They are willing to "disenfranchise all those voters" only where politically convenient.

So that tells me all I need to know about BOTH of them.

I'm willing to be critical of both candidates, as I've conveniently not shut down that
part of my brain that engages in critical reasoning and replaced it with the part that
gets a dopamine rush off of thinking I'm right at all costs.

Though I think we can all agree that it worked out quite nicely for Obama.

Whether those voters' votes should count is one issue.

Whether Clinton should be receiving any praise for her position is a separate one, and the topic of the OP, if I remember correctly.

As to the second issue, my answer remains no.

If person X is selling pro-war bumper stickers up until the point they sense a turn in the tide and realize a peace movement is catching on, at which point they promptly begin selling peace bumper stickers - we would be hard pressed to suggest they are a champion of peace. Bottom line - they are acting in their own self-serving interest.

Both candidates are acting here in their own self-serving interest. The fact of the matter is, BEFORE the elections they agreed to abide by a principle, and only one of them has changed their position. It's hard to say that at THE TIME THEY AGREED it wasn't based on principle, because neither knew to whom the benefit would run.

That is a completely separate issue from whether the votes should be counted. I may believe in peace, but that doesn't mean I'm going to celebrate the ex-war profiteer who is now trying to profit off of my beliefs.

which tells me that she cares a little more about those voters than Obama did. They couldn't force the DNC to make the votes count.

I think we can all agree that Dean messed up big time.

And the ultimate prize is in November. If the Democrats lose Michigan, a blue state, because of this, I think we all know who to blame.

You obviously have no interest in addressing this topic on an objectively intellectual level, as opposed to merely a partisan one. I'm done here.

It is funny, because I think we would have ended up agreeing ultimately on whether the votes should be counted, but seeing as you are too busy with your Hillary-luvs-voters-with-hugs-and-kisses and Obama-is -evil bullshit, I'll find something better to do.

And I was quite vocal about counting Michigan well before the primaries occurred. I have a fierce love for the state, and I was quite struck when Michigan went into a one-state recession before the rest of the country did that no one seemed to care.

But, I think it should be done the way that we should be doing primaries to begin with. This whole country votes on ONE day.

So, if someone wants to to rid of caucuses, get rid of SD's, etc, and have a country wide Democratic revote - sign me up.

That is the ONLY way that voters won't be "disenfranchised."

Shit, I was "disenfranchised" this election season - I didn't get to have my vote counted for D.K. here in Ohio.

Does this mean I think that EITHER Clinton or Obama's current stance on the revote situation is correct? No.

You should have moved to Michigan for 30 days and signed up! He campaigned there, too.

Only he'd already dropped out.

I could have voted for him, but I knew it wouldn't count (literally wouldn't be counted) - so I didn't bother.

If he later changed his mind and said "Hey, I was on the ballot - even though I said votes for me wouldn't count, now they SHOULD!" I would just shake my head and say, "That's silly...."

My family are for Hillary, but they voted "uncommitted", since they thought that if there was a chance "uncommitted" won, they could vote in a slate at the convention.

I just can't believe that Dean got away with it. South Carolina? Are you kidding me? He would have been right to actively engage swing states. He is so stubbornly stuck on his 50-state strategy (which has some merit, I agree) that he's in danger of losing the big ones. I think it was a great strategy for getting back the House. I don't think it is necessarily the best one for the GE.

so what is yours?

CLEARLY states can not be allowed to set their own primary dates without restriction. If they do, we'll have an endless backwards leapfrog across the calender. The primary season is already way too long, based on the descent into madness that we are seeing on the two campaign trails and in the media.

If we agree that we absolutely need that rule, than we need to agree as to a punishment for breaking it. The punishment MUST be a strong enough deterrent to stop states. It simply can't be worth it to break the rule or states will.

Personally, I think mandating that all the states vote on the same day is the only reasonable option. Either that, or the only punishment that I can think of that would be severe enough is taking away that or minimizing that state's influence in the convention.

If they are going to have early states de facto choose the nominee, I think it should rotate. The real objection was to Iowa and New Hampshire getting such a disproportionate voice. Since they haven't chosen anyone who was able to get a decisive national win since 2000, maybe they should lose their chance.

Their position is indefensible considering the condition that MI is in. Their job is to take care of MI, not play cheap political stunts to try to get a certain candidate installed as president.

If they cared about MI, you would not be in this mess. This is not Obama's fault and the sooner you realize that and start holding your own elected officials to account, the better off MI will be.

I would be going ballistic if my state's politicians had pulled this stunt knowing that my votes would not be counted. Maybe it's time for you to use your energy to go after the people who are responsible and stop letting them deflect the blame to someone else.

If a man steals a car, his position is indefensible. If the judge at his trial sentences him to life in prison, the judge's position is indefensible. If he sentences the man's children to prison, he is insane.

You may not like the way they are seated, but they will be seated. Again, the voters of MI and FL need to stop trying to blame Obama or Dean or anyone outside of their states for what their elected officials did. Their elected officials knew what the punishment was and they went ahead and broke the rules anyway.

It will be a mess however he tries to do it. The problem is not what happens now, but what has already happened: the nonsense between the state and national DNC created a meaningless primary where voters could not possibly be represented properly. THAT was indefensible, because no one in power could not have thought this would end well. No seating compromise now actually reflects the voters' will, it's just a worthless gesture to deflect blame.

Because there has yet to be a fair election. And now, because many of MI public officials have wrongly deflected blame for the fiasco to Obama and Dean, there is really no way to have that fair election. The one that would have been held if MI had only waited a few weeks like 46 other states did.

It's too late to fix what's been done, but to blame anyone outside of MI for this mess is deflecting blame. The blame rests with the people who broke the rules.

Being upset because Clinton is not getting enough of an advantage is insupportable. It's great for people to support their candidate, but it is a little silly to think because they do support them that someone this whole mess is only unfair to them. It is unfair to everyone because the people's voice did not get heard as it should have been.

if you Google it, you will see that he actively tried to not have a revote in Michigan.

She'd be doing everything she could to make sure they wouldn't count. She doesn't care about the voters.

That is the question... Both are politicians......

and look at their actions, then one is acting very hypocritical. You see the point?

think.. Either one will work for me... I don't see much of a difference.... Both have campaigns that are scripted, everything they do and say is prepared, every move they make is a kodak moment... I am not oblivious to the fact, these are politicians, period....

1. You have no idea if you see this better than me simply because i support one of the candidates, there is no logic to that.

2. The tactics she is using are the type of POLITICS that we all hated for the last 8 years, and all stood against. But now that it is Hillary doing it, well, 'it's just politics.'

Sorry, i hate these tactics greatly and I see that HILLARY is the one using them. So, while it may be politics, so was all of Bush's maneuvering, should we just excuse his actions as 'just politics'????

on Edit: I see i misread your first line and missed the 'think' and thought you made a blanket statement claiming to know better than me. Apologies for #1 above which was my response to my error in reading.

and that is what makes it hard to see the truth on both sides of these campaigns... Since I don't care, I research through opinion with no reference to find the truth... I will vote and support whoever the candidate is and will be happy to have a Democrat in the White House....

Bush, what the hell has bush to do with this.. He is a republican and an asshole, he is a crook and a liar and a thief and I never supported him or any other republican.....

to me for the last 8 years i got so burned up when he would blatantly try to manipulate and deceive us. They would say ANYTHING to get their way and it was ruthless and disgusting. So many times i yearned for the days when this nightmare would be over. And now, I am faced with a candidate that MAKES ME FEEL like this is all going to continue if she becomes the candidate. I am worried about her 'winning at all costs'

that is what bush has to do with this. her tactics remind me of his.

I like them both and would welcome either one in the White HOuse... It has made this primary so much easier to bear, I can tell you that.....

while i hate her tactics now, if she becomes our nominee i'll still think it a thousand times better than the alternative. But right now, i'm too wrapped up in this nomination race.

Which seems to matter not at all to her currently. :thumbsdown:

Especially since the state party machinery was clearly in her corner.
Talk about a knife in the back.
Trust me, that got party officials here looking at her in a whole new light.

TOOOOO much thinkin' and truthin' goin' on!!!

that the MI and FL delegates would not be seated due to their having early primaries. That was apparently the penalty they agreed upon with the State Dem parties. NOW THAT SHE'S LOSING to Obama she wants to change the rules and count those delegates/votes.

As you say, it's not about the voters rights, it's about HER "winning".

IMAGINE what this woman's priorities will be in the White House? Same as George W. bu$h's. (ie: "ME, ME, ME - it's all about ME and what I want!! To HELL with the country and the rest of the world, the economy and the economic experts - WHO cares what THEY say! I want my GAS TAX HOLIDAY AND THAT'S THAT!").

I think we've had enough of THOSE kind of priorities for the past eight years, haven't we?

COULD WE PUHLEEEZE have a President in the White House that AT LEAST SOME OF THE TIME puts the wellbeing of this country, the health of environment, the economy, our PEOPLE, and our standing in the world ABOVE his/her OWN damn narcissistic SELF and his/her own damn personal PROFIT?

Self serving little weasel. She agreed to this in 2007. If she had ANY problem with it, THEN was the time to raise objections.

that your vote didn't count. The "rule" would make complete sense to the upper echelons of the party who were punishing state party leaders, but not to you the the lowly voter. All you know and feel is that your vote has been taken away from you. MI and FL didn't stop having their primaries. They were simply told they wouldn't count. Still, millions of voters, including Obama supporters and Hillary supporters and in the case of Michigan, Edwards and Obama voters were told to vote uncommitted, did go out an exercise their right to vote.

I understand those two states broke the rules and I have accepted the fact that when Obama becomes President, which I'm sure he will, I'll always be thinking about the fact that he didn't care and actually preferred that my vote did not count. Politically, it was in his best interest for it not to count even though he didn't cause the problem. It's simply a psychological nagging at my brain that I will vote in November for a person who didn't want my huge swing state vote to be dealt with before he won the nomination. This race would be different if FL and MI had not screwed things up, but possibly not by much and it still would be Obama's to win. I sure would feel better having a President who didn't sit back and hope my lost vote wasn't addressed in some way. Maybe he still will. I would very much like to think he is better than that.

Does anyone actually believe she is really concerned about disenfranchised voters? If this were the case, she wouldn't have agreed to the rules set down before the primaries started.

Why not get out of the gutter and assume she would not disenfranchise voters?
Do the right thing and you dont need to speculate if there are others who would be as despicable as yourselves.

senator Clinton on the relative value of voters to superdelegates---

"They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television, and they vote, and that is part of the process."

is what he would be...

to help all the people who were disenfranchised in Florida's 2000 (s)election. So may answer is--of course not!

You are correct in your estimation that if the shoes were on the other feet, she'd be playing the roll of the one trying to stop them from being seated.

But that's not the point.

What's done was done and is in the past. Something needs to be done in the future to allot FL and MI's votes, proportionally to their vote, if we want those states to turn out for the Dem nominee in November. They needn't necessarily be the same number of total delegates they'd have if they'd played by the rules is all.

The Democratic Party Charter says ALL members of the party must be guaranteed FULL participation in the nominating process.

Neither the leadership nor the candidates of the party process can change that.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

I say yes, you say no... who knows? What we do know is that Hillary is going back on her word in a disingenuous way that is harmful to Dems. If she really cared she'd be pushing for another election in those two states now wouldn't she :shrug:

...if this is still a democratic party !

trying to stop the seating of delegates.

It's sheer hypocrisy for the Clintons to cry and whine about MI & FL being disenfranchised while they call for Caucus voters to be disenfranchised.

Rp

Which is why the candidate of "hope" fails to impress with his "hope their votes don't count!" scheme.

..:puke:

Methinks she supports that which helps her best.

Which of course means the Cubs would actually win the World Series before she would support their admission to the convention were she in Baracks place.

But then again we all knew that, did we not??

:spank: