Clinton to Obama: "fair and quick resolution" to MI, FL needed

Insert My Usual Quixotic Post (4.00 / 2)

about how they're both wrong and we need a new election and still have 3 days to make that decision.

"A plague on both your houses"  -- Murcuccio (spelling not checked, google it yourself if your so damn set on correct spelling)

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 20:22:59 PM UTC

Mercutio n/t (4.00 / 5)

---

by: rich @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 20:24:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

^5 (0.00 / 0)

Pedants of the world unite!

---

by: PerfectStormer @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 20:37:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Fair and quick" means I win. (4.00 / 2)

All other candidates stayed off the Michigan ballot out of deference to party rules and one another.  HRC put her name on the ballot and "defeated" uncommitted.  Now she wants all the delegates?  Sounds fair and quick (or perhaps fairly quick) to me.

---

by: jellyfishhal @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 20:29:36 PM UTC

Actually, he removed his name from the ballot (4.00 / 2)

in a tactical political decision.  Hillary kept her name on the ballot, because, as her letter to Sen. Obama states, she was concerned about the way this would play in a general election.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:21:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK Whatever (4.00 / 1)

She was more concerned than all the other candidates, who all made the same tactical "decision" - you suppose that had anything to do with the Governor and the Dingells?

---

by: jellyfishhal @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:30:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Concern" describes her to a T (2.67 / 3)

As I've said downthread, HRC is the ultimate political concern troll. Words can't describe how touched I am that she's taken such an interest in my vote being counted. I'm at a loss for how to repay this modern-day Joan of Arc for her courageous and principled stand.

< /snark >

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:13:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ha! (2.50 / 2)

Obama removing his name = tactical political decision

Clinton keep hers on = concerned about the way this would play in a general election

snort...good one!

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 15:00:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Democratic Party's nominee (4.00 / 1)

will consider all feedback about seating the two "law breaking" states.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 20:42:19 PM UTC

It will be considered at the RB&C meeting later this month (4.00 / 2)

And I expect the DNC to reverse part of its decision.  It was political posturing on their part and has no place now.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:22:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ultimately (4.00 / 1)

it will be decided by the Convention's credentials committee, which will be controlled by our nominee, Senator Obama.

But, whatever keeps you rapidly diminishing hopes up....

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 15:01:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What a meretricious letter (2.40 / 5)

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the ultimate political concern troll.  When the DNC adopted the 2008 primary and caucus schedule, and when it enforced its own rules against Michigan and Florida, you didn't hear a peep of protest out of Hillary Clinton or her supporters. But once she was upset in Iowa and blown out in South Carolina, she changed her tune about those two states. Suddenly, those states become a voting rights and human rights issue--provided their delegates were seated on her terms.

Her bad behavior in regard to this dispute hasn't changed one whit since the dead of winter.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 22:28:50 PM UTC

Read my post about the rules (2.50 / 4)

And I would suggest reading the post over at MyDD about the misconceptions about the DNC's "enforcement" of the rules.

Funny to hear a bunch of people being in favor of disenfranchising millions... You should have lunch with Katherine Harris.

Hillary speaks for me.

---

by: XavierLA @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:25:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I suggest you stop lecturing people (3.00 / 4)

Especially when you lack the credentials to even enroll in the class, let alone pretend to be the instructor.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

---

by: Hy Dudgeon @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:07:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I only know this much: (4.00 / 1)

I did not get to vote for my favorite candidate in the primary, which is typically the ONLY time I get to vote for my favorite candidate.  That was because his name was not on the ballot. For that matter, nobody's name was on the ballot except for the then-presumptive candidate who happened to be the favorite of the Michigan Dem establishment.  Now, she claims she "won" even though nobody else ran.

I am not a party wonk; I don't know about rules committees and enforcement policy and all that bu%#$@*t political arcana, I only know that I didn't get to vote for my candidate, i.e., I was not allowed to vote for my candidate, which makes me feel disenfranchised.

For you to accuse me of wanting to disenfranchise all the people who voted for HRC knowing full well that the party said it would not seat the delegates seems a tad gratuitous.  I think you've got it backwards my friend.

---

by: jellyfishhal @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:41:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There were four names on the ballot. (4.00 / 2)

Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:28:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oops (0.00 / 0)

I stand corrected.

---

by: jellyfishhal @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your hypocrisy is astounding. (3.50 / 6)

Why are the DNC rules important now but not important when the primary was moved? (Hint for the willfully blind: Because it benefitted HRC both times.)

If Hillary is so concerned about disenfranchising voters why hasn't she made electoral reform her priority since the 2000 election? Has she even commented on the Supreme Courts recent ruling upholding Indiana's photo ID law?

I don't hear Hillary or Xavier concerned about the disenfranchisement of the estimated 700,000 Michigan Democrats who didn't vote because the election violated the DNC rules and did not count. I guess Hillary and Xavier decide who is worthy of being enfranchised.

I find it ironic (more likely pathetic) that while Xavier is deciding who's worthy and who should lunch with Katherine Harris, Hillary is dining with Rupert Murdoch.

Hillary doesn't speak for me, I have my own voice, and it's calling foul on the self serving hypocrisy of the HRC crowd.

---

by: qwerty7 @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:15:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again...who is disenfranchised? (1.00 / 1)

and it would be nice if the Clinton crowd actually responded to this issue rather than blathering on about disenfranchisement...

Which voters are disenfranchised?

1) The ones who voted in the Democratic primary with only one choice

2) The ones who voted in the Republican primary because the Democratic primary was f*cked

3) The ones who never even came out because the primary was f*cked

4) The 100,000s of other voters who would have become energized and activated in politics by a competitive primary like it has even in frigging Guam....Guam for crying out loud.

It seems like her supporters and the Clinton campaign are only interested in enfranchising voters in category #1...and only those who voted for Clinton.

So please, spare me the mock outrage.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 15:06:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Third Paragraph... (1.00 / 1)

...THAT'S the dealbreaker. The other four 'grafs are perfectly acceptable, and if they had been the entire letter would have gone a long way towards reconciling the two campaigns.

But oh my God. That third paragraph is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys (to borrow a phrase from Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy).

Best for Obama to say nothing and wait for his Oregon win to offset Clinton's face-saving victories in West Virginia and Kentucky.

---

by: helzapoppn @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 13:55:39 PM UTC