-"Working as a civil rights attorney to make sure that everybody's vote counted." (11/20/07)
-"There is no place for politics in this debate, no room for those who feel they can gain a partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls". (1/31/07)
-"That we can participate in the political process...and that our votes will be counted." (7/24/04)
Those were the words of Senator Barack Obama, a man now apparently opposed to all that he stated previously. The third quote really speaks to the essence of the problem with not holding revotes in Florida and Michigan. It is now well known that it was the attorneys of the Obama campaign who blocked revotes from happening. Why? Because they might put him behind in the popular vote, and Obama didn't want to risk losing.
The point is that silencing people is not the way to go. I, as I'm sure the people of Florida and Michigan feel, could not care less about the process; couldn't care less about the DNC's stupid rules. After all, the people of Florida and Michigan didn't choose to move their primaries up. They didn't choose to have their delegates stripped. But they did, however, choose to show up in huge numbers to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Why should the American people have to suffer for the DNC's rules? Since when did PROCESS become more important than PEOPLE in America? There is no positive excuse for Obama to make. He, for his political benefit, is refusing to let the people of Florida and Michigan have a say in this election.
Just remember, first, when asked if he would allow the delegates to be seated as they were, he said no, because his name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and he didn't get to campaign in Florida. Then, last month, when confronted with the opportunity to have his name on the ballot and to campaign in those two states, he rejected the plan. Why so scared, Barack Obama? That's really all this is---cowardice. But let me pose a question to Obama and his supporters---Is it winning if the only way you can win is to silence millions of Americans? I think not, but apparently Obama disagrees.
1 comment :
Hillary, Obama and Edwards all signed a pledge in September, 2007 (see below) NOT to accept any delegates won in Michigan or Florida. Of course, now she wants to break that pledge and force the entire party to play by HER rules!!! HEIL HILLARY!!!
Democratic Central
Progressive blogging in Central Virginia
Hillary and Florida and Michigan
by: cvllelaw
Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 15:04:16 PM EDT
I have been saying since before it became an issue between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that it was important that the Democratic Party stick by its rules, and when they said they would not seat any delegates from Florida and Michigan primaries conducted in January, it was important that they stick by that position.
Maybe it's the father in me. Or the former Party Chair, who took over a local party that didn't even know if it had binding bylaws. Or the Little League coach or Cub Scout leader who tried to bring order out of chaos.
The Democratic National Committee passed its rule on August 29, 2006, containing the rule that only four states would have nominating activities in January -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the
second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache...
When Michigan and Florida (and other states that backed down) started talking about having primaries in January, in violation of the rule, the DNC asked all of its candidates to sign the so-called "Four State Pledge" -- the pledge not to campaign in any state that had nomination activities in January except the four whose early activities were sanctioned by the Party.
WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _____________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/ms...
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all signed the Four State Pledge in September 2007. Most of the candidates took their names off the Michigan ballot; only Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel did not. (Thanks to Vivian for correcting my earlier version on this point.) http://www.palmbeachpost.com/n...
The Clinton campaign issued a press release on September 1, 2007:
We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...
The Party Delegate Selection Rules contained an "out" -- if a state legislature took action that had the effect of throwing a state party into non-compliance, the DNC could overlook the non-compliance if the state party could prove that it tried to challenge the change:
A. Subject to Rule 18.C. of these Rules, wherever any part of any section contained in these rules conflicts with existing state laws, the state party shall take provable positive steps to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the provisions of these rules.
B. Provable positive steps shall be taken in a timely fashion and shall include: the drafting of corrective legislation; public endorsement by the state party of such legislation; efforts to educate the public on the need for such legislation; active support for the legislation by the state party lobbying state legislators, other public officials, Party officials and Party members; and
encouraging consideration of the legislation by the appropriate legislative committees and bodies.
C. A state party may be required by a vote of the DNC Executive Committee upon a recommendation of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to adopt and implement an alternative Party-run delegate selection system which does not conflict with these rules, regardless of any provable positive steps the state may have taken.
Although there was an argument that Florida's early primary could be blamed on the Republican legislature and the Republican Governor, the Florida Democrats made no effort to challenge the bill. Indeed, the Democrats voted for the change in the legislature, presumably assuming that the DNC wouldn't have the guts to stare them down. In Michigan, which has a Democratic legislature and a Democratic Governor, there was not even that possible rationalization. Democrats proposed the change and got it enacted. Thus at a DNC meeting in December, the DNC voted to tell Florida and Michigan that their primaries would not count. Some refused to believe it, and some refused to follow the rules, confident that they would be able to bully the DNC into seating their delegates anyway.
"As some members of the DNC noted today, the threat not to seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida at the Democratic convention is a hollow threat," Sen. Carl Levin said in a written statement. "They will be seated, and when they are, it will be plain for all to see that the privileged position that New Hampshire and Iowa have extracted through threats and pledges from candidates is on its last legs."
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/n...
The candidates were permitted to go to Michigan and Florida for fund-raising, but they were not supposed to make "campaign" appearances there. None of them did, though Hillary made plugs for herself on national news programs, specifically encouraging Florida voters to vote for her. She did not campaign in Florida until the votes were cast, but she let it be known that she would be flying into Florida on the night of the primary, and she had a rally at 7 PM in Florida on the day of the primary. You wouldn't do that unless you were expecting to try to argue after the fact that the rules shouldn't apply to Florida.
Barack Obama got a ruling from the DNC that it would not violate the ban on campaigning in Florida to run national ads that ran in Florida, among other places. But since he wasn't on the ballot in Florida, they were of little value on Primary Day. The Clinton campaign has maintained that there was an organized effort to encourage those who wanted Obama to vote "uncommitted." There was indeed some effort, but you can't beat something with nothing; even a non-campaign for Hillary Clinton will always be more effective than a non-campaign for "uncommitted."
Hillary Clinton wound up winning in Florida with 50% of the vote; Barack Obama got 33% and John Edwards 14%. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20... Of the 121 delegates that are to be chosen as a result of the Florida primary, 67 will go to Clinton, 41 will go to Obama, and 13 will go to Edwards. http://www.fladems.com/content...
In Michigan, Hillary got 55% of the vote, to 40% "uncommitted", 4% for Dennis Kucinich and 1% for Chris Dodd. Mike Gravel got 0%. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20... Hillary Clinton got 73 delegates, and "uncommitted" got 55. http://michiganforedwards.blog... The bizarre situation would be that Hillary supporters would have the right to seek to be "uncommitted" delegates, so in theory Hillary could end up getting all 128 Michigan delegates, despite having won 55% of the vote against no real opposition.
Of course, after the primaries resulted in victories for Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign began pressing to have the results count -- basically, all of the delegates from both states would go to Hillary. The DNC has continued to say "No." So this week, as the DNC is stiffening its backbone, Hillary has made another statement:
If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote. The nearly two and a half million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process and I think that's wrong. The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored. Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about what we should do to ensure that the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted.
In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections. I don't see any other solutions that are fair and honor the commitment that two and a half million voters made in the Democratic primaries in those two states. Whether voters are clamoring for solutions to the challenges that we face or not, or whether people are coming out in droves to be heard, we have a basic obligation to make sure that every vote in America counts.
I hope that Senator Obama's campaign will join me in working to make that happen. I think that that is a non-partisan solution to make sure that we do count these votes.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/... In other words, count my victories, or have another primary.
I don't have any problem with another primary, though I thought that the Clinton campaign's rationale for a (cheaper) set of caucuses was interesting -- "We can't have caucuses because Barack Obama kills us in caucuses (Nevada not included)."
In any event, it seems that we may be getting close to having a "do-over" in Michigan; Florida is a tougher nut to crack. But if we end up with delegates selected in compliance with Party Rules, it will only be because someone -- Howard Dean, perhaps; Barack Obama, certainly -- has had the backbone to enforce those rules. Florida and Michigan knew exactly what they were doing when they set up those illegal primaries. They were gambling that no one would say "Rules matter." I have little sympathy for them or for any campaign that is trying to enable their scofflaw behavior.
cvllelaw :: Hillary and Florida and Michigan
http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1719
Post a Comment