Hillary v. Hillary
Hey, Merritt, you’re a Hillary fan, so I have a question for you: which Hillary do you support, the one who pledged not to campaign in either Michigan or Florida and supported the Democratic National Committee in “punishing” those states for moving up their primaries, or the Hillary who campaigned in both places anyway and now wants to change the rules and count the
delegates?
Last October, HRC said:
“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.”
“I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan.”
Just wondering.
(But, in answer to the tag, “Just what we think of Merritt,” I think very highly of Merritt).
Chares, all of the above. I’m a blind supporter.
Wow, that kind of takes the wind out of my sails. Come on, fight back.
To be fair, some things changed between statements, no?
Like she started losing?
Hillary Clinton “was a good senator before, and she can be a great senator in the future.”
A.B is right. The only thing different that I can see is that Hillary is losing. Does anyone seriously think that she would be taking her current position about Michigan and Florida if her and Obama’s vote totals were reversed?
Now, whether the Democratic National Committee should have done what it did with those states in the first place is another question, but that was the decision, and both Clinton and Obama agreed with it.
Curiously, my Captcha words are “darling civic.”
Wouldn’t obama “empty suit” do the same if the situation were reversed?
Charles,
Whether the DNC should have done what it did is the most important question. The DNC made threats to these states and got the primary candidates to go along with them. When the threats didn’t work and the Michigan and Florida’s democrat committees(not the people of the state) moved their primaries up the DNC had no choice but to move forward with their threats. The fact is both candidates did fund-raisers in Florida and campaigned in Florida. Hillary’s campaigning in Florida is pretty well established but Obama’s is less so. Here is an example of Obama’s campaigning Florida:
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.....p?p=129013
The DNC was flat out wrong to use this tactic to try to prevent the state committee’s from moving up their primaries. What they have done and will do is disenfranchise the votes of two entire state populations. It may be the most ironic action in politics this decade; the party who began the decade with the motto “count every vote” will be the party that ends up not counting the votes of millions of it’s members.
Charles,
Sorry, but I hadn’t heard what the DNC’s attorneys had come up with as a plan for FL and MI until now. They say that FL and MI should only be allowed to seat half their delegates. In essence saying that only 50% of the vote should count. Some people might say that means that each FL and MI voter only counts as 1/2 a vote. Where have I heard of the scheme to only count the vote of a person in fractions? Oh yes, the Constitution, when it gave slaves (or more correctly slave owners) the right to be counted as a vote but only 3/5ths of vote.
What if everyone just followed the rules? None of this would be happening. What’s the saying…all’s fair in love, war and politics? No wonder our kids have flexible morals.
To set the record straight at least in Florida, the State Legislature (controlled by the Repubs) were the ones that changed the date of the presidential primary not the democratic committee.
Did you know that caucus votes do not count towards the “popular vote.”
I prefer to call the Senator from IL, a fog of a man. A fog has a shape but nothing but air.
BTW I will be at the rules committee meeting in Washington DC this saturday, should be interesting.
pcpolitico
Good luck in DC, PC. Hope you can give us a first hand report on how the meeting went. I appreciate you setting the record straight on how the Florida primary date was changed. Just so that no one will get the idea that the Republicans jammed a bill down the throats of the Dems I refer to this video:
http://www.democraticcentral.c.....aryId=2130
I certainly will give everyone a first hand report on how the meeting went and the other activities…tell what you’d like to know?
and to add to my earlier comment, the repubs are not solely to blame for Florida, the Dems had a hand in this as well.
I did sit in on a conference call with Harold Ickes this week, very interesting…
My initial thought about whether the Democratic Party should have stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates was that the party shouldn’t have. It seemed to me that each state should be able to set their primaries when they please.
Upon further reflection, though, this isn’t a question of state election laws, it’s a question of political party decisions. Yes, the states can set their primaries whenever they’d like, but the individual parties, which aren’t public agencies, can make their own rules, too.
And, more importantly, the time to protest would have been when the decision was made, not when the decision turns out to work against you. This reminds me of the spineless Scott McClellan, who wants us to hear his concerns about the Bush administration now, instead of when he might have made a difference.
And how perfect is this? My Captcha words are Dr. Mendations, so close to “mendacious.”
Charles,
What do you think about a decision by a public body, such as a legislature, that causes penalties to be incurred on a citizenry by a private group? Can you think of another public issue where that has happened? Just curious. Also, Hillary has been asking for the MI and FL delegates to be seated since January. I hate to keep referencing other websites but pcpolitico is on the prowl and I want to get it right. IJS
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap.....egates.php
Pcopolitco, please do keep us informed. It should be a fascinating meeting.
James, I’m too exhausted by Field Day to respond to your last comment, but I’ll try to get to it tomorrow. Did you go to Field Day yourself?
I Didn’t make Field Day. I decided to take today off for the 4th grade picnic and clap-out.
You’re a good dad, James. It’s hot out there. My wife is covering this one.
I too find the intermixing of public bodies and money with two political parties unseemly. But it’s nothing new.
When Clinton claims she is the candidate of the “hardworking,” she is referring to people too busy making ends meet to pay attention to her campaign, a campaign which hurts her credibility.
She still claims to have won the popular vote. That statement needs so many disclaimers, including omitting Iowa and three other states who had caucuses, that it counts as a lie. At least after the coming weekend, everyone should know that her saying she won Texas is also untrue.
It’s been close, but someone had to lose.