Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Big FAT Fraud by Nancy Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi has officially declared that she can have no legitimacy in the role of "unbiased" broker of the Democratic nomination.
She said on ABC news that since this is a delegate race, the popular vote or any other metric doesn't count.
Nancy Pelosi's statement is a fraud.
The Democratic nomination is a race to reach a total of 2.025 delegates. Only if one candidate can secure that amount of delegates is the system as straightforward and simple and she claims. The truth is that neither of the candidates will reach that number.
What Ms. Pelosi claims is that in this scenario a simple majority of pledged delegates is the next step. I disagree profoundly. A simple majority is not used in the nomination that uses proportional representation in EVERY contest and in EVERY state.
If Ms. Pelosi wants to be fair and un-biased, then she has to apply the same spirit and principle throughout the nomination process.
Yes, it sounds conveniently simple and favorable to supporters of Sen. Obama, but it's not the spirit of the Democratic nomination.
I submit that if we all rush headlong and push for a simple "majority" principle to be applied at this stage (and not at any other stage of the process), it would amount to a unfair, distorted and potentially stolen nomination.
It's unfortunate that neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton won the "magic" number of delegates. But it doesn't mean should throw the rules out of the window and follow the "simple majority" that is used by the Republicans.
I support Sen. Clinton, but I believe that Sen. Obama can and should win this nomination within the rules, without having surrogates like Pelosi give blessing to twisting the rules.
The rules are clear - if no candidate wins the "magic" number, then all delegates, including the superdelegates, have to cast their votes for the candidate they think can win the General Elections.
The leadership of this party is shameful and Ms. Pelosi's surrogate statement is disgraceful.
Comments (48)
What Nancy Pelosi has said is that the method the party has chosen to assess the will of the voters is what superdelegates should use to assess the will of the voters. That seems to me like a perfectly reasonable opinion for a party leader to hold; she wants her party's voters to feel as if they've chosen their own nominee or her party's in trouble in the fall.
If she had introduced any other criterion but one dependent on the party's mechanisms for finding out what the voters want, I'd agree with you.
This "majority"/"best judgment" thing is a smokescreen. The "best judgment" of any superdelegate whose brain is turned on is going to lead him or her to follow the will of the voters.
March 16, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that the party has chosed proportional representation to assign delegates until now. Proportional representation is a deliberately weighted system.
Simple majority is what republicans do.
And that's the new criterion that Pelosi has introduced. The rules for superdelegates say NOTHING about "assessing the will of the people". Pelosi is simply applying pressure on the superdelegates.
Either you follow the rules all the way or you don't.
March 16, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying it's a rule; neither did Pelosi. It's just the most reasonable course of action.
March 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever you think about how well the delegate count represents the will of the people, it's what the party's chosen to use, and IT'S ALL WE'VE GOT. What would you suggest? Guessing?
March 16, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So...you're willing to be that the delegates (super or not) will vote for Clinton. The person who has dismissed most of the US as unimportant, along with blacks, activists and rich people? The person who has spent these past 4 months of the campaign race-baiting? The person who endorsed the Republican nominees? The person who (laughably) embellished her political accomplishments even though they were easily proven?
You think our supers are eager to fall in line behind that?
Now, poking around the internet I see you Clinton supporters got your talking points, and this is where it's going. Do you really want to go there? The person losing in popular votes AND delegates trying to rearrange the rules to fit?
No thanks...I already had 8 years of Bush.
March 16, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I support Clinton even though I disagree with several things she did or said. Nevertheless, for Obama to win this nomination in the way Pelosi advocates would be the same as him rigging the rules as he accuses Clinton of doing.
March 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevertheless, for Obama to win this nomination in the way Pelosi advocates would be the same as him rigging the rules as he accuses Clinton of doing.
No, because there's no rule-rigging involved. You're the one trying to demand that they super-dels make their decision in one particular way. They're free to take anything into account that they want to take into account, including the argument that Pelosi makes.
You don't like that, because if they do take those other things into account they're very unlikely to support Hillary. So you try to make up a non-existent rule about how they should make their decisions.
March 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, because Pelosi makes it very clear that if they don't support "simple majority" in pledged delegates - there will be consequences.
March 16, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
Absurd!
Pelosi is talking about what she believes. If you were truly concerned about the rules you would be screaming "foul!" about Clinton's intention to have Florida and Michigan count now.
Even if you don't like it, the only METRIC that counts is that of Delegates. Whoever has more Delegates at the end, wins.
What is very suspicious, and a FRAUD, is to hear Clinton contradict herself in the same breath:
- We must count the votes of Florida and Michigan because the will of the People is what counts. The People must be heard!
- It is completely right for the Superdelegates to overturn the will of the People.
You are stating what you are stating only because you support Hillary and convincing the Superdelegates to vote against the People's will is her only chance.
Truth is: No matter what anyone says, the Superdelegates are free to vote as they wish. And that is what they will do.
In the meanwhile Hillary is attempting, at all cost, to give them a reason to vote for her. For the looks of it, her tactics are backfiring on her...
Again, you may want to deny it, but the only metric that counts is "Who has more delegates at the end." (And it doesn't look like she is catching up soon.)
March 16, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear you don't know what you are talking about. Clinton wants MI/FL to count because no candidate has won the nomination with 2,205 requirement. This makes this contest exceptionally close. And if there is a revote and Obama wins, I have no problem supporting him.
Pelosi is wrong to talk about what she believes. She is a leader of the party. She should be talking about what the rules say. And they don't support what she believes.
As I said to other commenters - I challenge you to post the link to the rules that confirm Pelosi's point of view - that a simple majority of pledged delegates is what supers should rubber-stamp to decide the nomination.
Again, I believe Obama can win this nomination by following the rules. Even though I support Clinton, I will support him if he does.
March 16, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said to other commenters - I challenge you to post the link to the rules that confirm Pelosi's point of view - that a simple majority of pledged delegates is what supers should rubber-stamp to decide the nomination.
Difficult to do because Pelosi isn't claiming that there is such a rule.
Pelosi is pointing out, accurately, that if the super-dels decide to overrule the caucus and primary votes, as they are free to decide, there will be consequences that they should consider. It will damage the party. It will piss off millions of voters. It's within the rules, and the super-dels are free to decide that they have a compelling reason to do so in spite of the damage it will cause. But has Hillary given them a sufficiently compelling reason to do so?
So what's your objection to the super-dels taking all of these things into account when they make their decisions?
March 16, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My objection to that is that THE ONLY METRIC for the superdelegates to use in their consideration is the chance for the Party to win the White House.
Just the fact that neither candidate has won the nomination makes it crystal clear how close this race is.
So both Obama and Clinton are doing exactly the right thing by pitching their electability arguments to superdelegates.
Pelosi is simply trying to pressure the superdelegates to vote for her favorite candidate, disregarding any other consideration.
March 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
My objection to that is that THE ONLY METRIC for the superdelegates to use in their consideration is the chance for the Party to win the White House.
Says who? There's certainly no rule saying so.
What's your objection to them taking into account the damage that would be done to the party? That certainly seems like something that party leaders might want to take into account.
Among other things.
March 16, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this should be as clear as day. Either you want Obama to win the nomination. Or you want a Democratic nominee to win the White House. I think any thinking Democrat would go with the second choice, Obama or Clinton.
You pick whatever you prefer. As I said before, there is no reason to believe Obama will not win this.
March 16, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, better proofread next time.
You switched "Obama" and "Clinton."
March 16, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't switch anything. I meant exactly what I said.
March 16, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI - Including delegates from MI and FL will increase the number of delegates required to clinch the nomination. 2025 is the number required WITHOUT MI and FL.
So - if we add in MI and FL, and then Clinton might catch up on Obama's delegate lead by a little bit (assuming she wins both contests) - but the "magic number" will be higher (I think it would be around 2180) - so neither will be able to clinch the nomination without superdelgates.
That's just the way it is in a tight race.
March 16, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
You say:
"Clinton wants MI/FL to count because no candidate has won the nomination with 2,205 requirement."
!!!!!?????
Please explain why she signed the pledge to not count the Florida and Michigan votes. What "new" idea from Hillary's campaign are you trying to sell us??
After signing the pledge I mentioned above, and before anyone knew if the 2,205 would be reached, she changed her mind and decided that "now" Florida and Michigan count.
Bad try!
March 16, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pledge that both candidates signed, as far as I know, was not to campaign, advertise and organize in these two states. I may be wrong, but it doesn't change my point at all. My point is about Pelosi and her attempts to pressure the superdelegates with her so-called "opinions".
March 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment revises history. Clinton first mentioned seating FL delegates right after she lost SC. Super Tuesday hadn't even happened, so no one knew that there'd be no clear lead at that point. IIRC, according to media outlets Clinton was leading in delegates (with Supers added) at the time. It was clear she was laying the tracks to get her talking point train of seating the FL and MI delegates counted.
No one is stupid enough not to see that.
March 16, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should write down the winners of all contests up until SC, to see what I mean when I say that no definitive winner emerged until then.
March 16, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, It is impossible to get to 2025 voter delegates when there is more than one candidate getting votes (25% is enough). Just because no one is going to do the impossible, doesn't mean there isn't a very clear winner in the contest. Pelosi is right, just picking a random nominee when there is a very clear winner is highly problematic.
March 16, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi is wrong. She is pushing her personal opinion. As a party leader she should be pushing the rules.
March 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But everyone keeps saying there are no rules for superdelegates.
Some supers who are elected officials will support either Clinton or Obama regardless of the will of their constituencies (for example, Sens. Kennedy and Kerry). Others will feel it necessary to go along with the will of their constituencies or face losing their next election (John Lewis).
Supers who aren't elected officials will be under pressure to use various criteria to determine who they should support. For the next few weeks or months, until this nomination is decided, the campaigns and other Democratic Party members will make public statements to try to persuade the supers. In the end, it doesn't matter what anyone says (not even Nancy Pelosi)--the supers can do what they like for any reason they like.
Pelosi can argue what thinks is best, but there are no rules. Relax.
March 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everything you said except for two things:
- there are rules. we have already heard from the people who actually set up the entire superdelegate system
- if we truly agree to leave superdelegates without any outside pressure then people like Pelosi should stop making stupid comments and should start reminding the public what the rules are.
March 16, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I took it differently.
1. She said it's a delegate race, not only pledged delegates or only superdelegates. So delegates are what matter most, not states won or popular vote.
2. She said if superdelegates overturn the will of the people, it will damage the democratic party. She did not say the rules should change, but gave her opinion that the way superdelagates vote can do damage. That's what she, as a party leader and a superdelegate is supposed to do, exercize her best judgement. Her best judgement is obviously that the pledged delegate count is very important and not overturning the pledged delegate lead is very important.
I don't see any contradiction in this or any attempt to change rules.
March 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is funny. According to your points:
1. Delegates matter, not the will of the people (i.e. popular vote, etc)
2. Superdelegates cannot overturn the will of the people.
Don't you see the problem with that? The problem here is because you cannot use two completely different systems in one contest (proportional representation and simple majority).
That's why there is nothing in the rules about superdelegates rubber-stamping pledged delegates winner.
March 16, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The delegate count, though highly imperfect, is a much more accurate measure of the will of the people than the popular vote (and, again, it's the party's chosen method). I'll paste in something from a comment I made in another thread:
"Two states have 100,000 registered democrats each, and both close their nominating contests to anyone else. Historically, they have the same level of turnout for general elections.
In state #1, which has a caucus with 10% turnout (10,000 voters), Candidate A wins 90% of the vote. That's 9,000 votes.
In state #2, which has a primary vote with 50% turnout (50,000 voters), Candidate B wins 51% of the vote. That's 25,500 votes.
So your "popular vote" count favors candidate B by more than a 2-to-1 margin even though Candidate B has won only 51% of the votes and candidate A has won 90%. Whether or not one or the other process is more reflective of the popular will is irrelevant; those are the only clues we've got as to the proportion of the voters in each state favoring each candidate. Using those clues, the delegate count, while not capturing anything exactly, is going to award the vast majority of state #1's delegates to Candidate A, and it's going to split state #2's delegates down the middle."
That's why the party uses a measure of voter choice that attempts to make up for the differences in voter turnout that the states' different processes make inevitable.
March 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that case we should only use the delegate count and forget all the nice theories about the will of the people. And we should also ban obtaining delegates that don't represent the votes cast for the candidate (Edwards delegates in Iowa). According to that logic, which I agree with, "will of the people" has no place in breaking the tie in the nomination.
March 16, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, my point is that the delegate count IS the best representation we have of the will of the people.
I actually agree with you about the Edwards delegates; his supporters don't get to revote to say who they would throw their support to, so it doesn't seem fair to me that his delegates should just get to choose. They're not people whose elevated position within the party makes them trusted arbiters of the party's best interests (e.g., superdelegates).
It also doesn't seem fair to me that two states whose elections were designated invalid before they were held, a designation that influenced voters' behavior, should now get a do-over.
But in both cases, them's the rules.
March 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you partially agree? :-) Perhaps we should then agree on the "partial will of the people"?
March 16, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The rules are clear - if no candidate wins the "magic" number, then all delegates, including the superdelegates, have to cast their votes for the candidate they think can win the General Elections."
Well, I don't think the rules quite say that. Yes, pledge delegates and superdelegates can choose who they want on the basis of whatever metric. But if we want to maintain even a pretense of democracy in this process, I think thos delegates are not gonna reject the selection of millions of voters simply because in "their judgment" one candidate is more lectable than another. And even if that was blaringly true, in my view the will of the people should still prevail. Otherwise, why have primaries in the first place?
March 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you would agree that Obama should not have taken additional delegates in Iowa.
They don't represent people's votes cast for him.
If they represent Edwards, they should be taken off the convention, according to "the will of the people" theory.
Obama campaign simply "convinced" these delegates. That has nothing to do with the will of the people.
March 16, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure why you would be upset with the superdelegates siding with the candidate who has won...
-More states
-More delegates
-More popular votes
-More primaries (no one mentinos this)
-More popular votes in the big states (this is true too, but Clinton would have you believe that she is the only big state contender)
In addition, Obama brings:
-Unity
-Hope
-Grassroots, progressive support
-New people to the party
-An end to 28 years of a Bush/Clinton being the Potus or the VPotus
In addition, the 2025 number is exactly all of the delegates combined (super and pledged) cut in half + 1. Its basically 50% + 1 delegate. In spirit, then, the DNC is honoring a +1 majority principle.
While you are correct that the superdelegates can go either way they wish, I would think it foolish to go against that principle if thats what the pledged delegate count ends up being - for either candidate.
March 16, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have any problem with anything you are saying at all. I just don't want Obama to push for rules in MI/FL and change the rules for superdelegates.
Either he wins fair and square or he doesn't.
March 16, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is Obama "pushing for" changing the rules with the Super Delegates? He is saying that the Super-Delegates should base their decisions on the outcome of the pledged delegates. I should think that that should be weighted extremely heavily in any decisions the Supers make.
I would hope EVERYBODY push for following the rules in regard to FL and MI. It was the states themselves who broke the rules.
March 16, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
More faux history...it's Clinton that pushing for new rules for the FL and MI delegates. Obama is saying the same thing today that he said last fall: He'll follow whatever rules the states and the DNC come up with.
You're conflating the issue of MI and FL with the seperate issue on superdelegates that he has also always said: superdelegates should go with the will of the people.
March 16, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are missing my point. There is no way to accurately determine the will of the people. Because of:
a) proportional representation (not simple majority)
b) delegate switching (Edwards to Obama)
Either you agree with Pelosi that this is a delegate race - in which case, all that matters is how the delegates break the tie. Or you agree with Pelosi about the "will of the people" which can be only expressed through the majority of individual secret-ballot voets.
March 16, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
She said on ABC news that since this is a delegate race,
How dare she tell the truth so openly.
The rules are clear - if no candidate wins the "magic" number, then all delegates, including the superdelegates, have to cast their votes for the candidate they think can win the General Elections.
That's a false statement. There's no rule that says the super-dels "have to" decide their vote in any particular way. They are free to vote by whatever criteria they choose.
The Obama team isn't arguing that they "must" follow the elected delegate votes, contrary to Hillary's claims.
The reason Hillary supporters are pushing these ideas so hard is that, by the rules, Hillary loses. The super-dels will consider who can win the general election, and they won't be taken in by Hillary's extrapolations from primary voting, bogus arguments that would try to conclude that if Obama didn't win the California primary then he won't win California in the general. No, the super-dels will look at many factors, including Hillary-vs-McCain and Obama-vs-McCain polls. Unfortunately for Hillary, those polling numbers don't work in her favor.
The super-dels will look at the damage that would be caused by overruling the primary and caucus voters. If they have a compelling reason to do so they are completely free to override those voters. But they won't be under any illusion that the voters will be happy about having those results overruled. It's not that it's against the rules for them to do so, but there are consequences that they'll have to consider. It would take a very, very compelling reason to justify that. Hillary hasn't given them one.
They'll also be able to consider whether they want to reward the style of campaign Hillary has been waging. In particular, her endorsement of McCain over Obama is unprecedented. She gave McCain a free campaign ad, with a prominent Democrat saying that McCain is qualified to be commander-in-chief and Obama isn't. The super-dels would need a compelling reason to reward that sort of attack by one Democratic candidate against a fellow Democrat.
The super-dels can take all of those things into account, and anything else they want to consider.
March 16, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama campaign pushed "the will of the people" from the moment it was clear that neither one of them will win the nomination outright. The problem is that in a system that uses:
1. Primaries AND caucuses
2. Proportional representation
it's impossible to accurately breakdown the will of the people.
As I mentioned earlier, Obama got Edwards delegates in Iowa. That has NOTHING to do with the will of the people or any other kind of funny metric
March 16, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
Unfortunately you are right that "it's impossible to accurately breakdown the will of the people." The process for nominating each party's candidates is absurd (caucuses, delegates, Superdelegates, etc) and so is the process for electing our President (electoral college). However, we can't change the rules now as you say and yet it is the Clinton team that continues to complain about all the rules after they started losing this race, be it cuacus states or the punishment put down on FL-MI. Pelosi is giving her opinion and not suggesting a change in the rules. She's not Howard Dean or some other impartial observer, there's no rule that says she can't or shouldn't give her opinion.
Many of the remaining SDs have said that they WANT to vote based on the will of the people. So they've got to make some judgement about how to measure that. Delegate count is an obvious indicator. You could consider some sort of popular vote count too, although with caucuses that gets complicated. Number of states won is somewhat less important in my mind.
No one who supports Clinton was complaining about superdelegates and their choices back when she had a 100+ SD lead before even one voter cast their vote.
March 16, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The superdelegates will be the deciding factor in this nomination. There are no rules for superdelegates to follow--they may choose whomever they like for whatever reason they like.
During the upcoming weeks, each campaign, as well as various members of the Democratic Party, are going to make public arguments about what criteria the supers should use to evaluate the candidates. Obama's campaign will argue "will of the voters" using a metric that favors him; Clinton's campaign will argue "will of the voters" using a metric that favors her. And each will argue "electability" with criteria that benefits each of them as well.
As an Obama supporter, I happen to think Clinton's arguments don't make much sense; but I'm sure Clinton supporters think her arguments are very sensible.
One of the candidates will win when s/he persuades enough supers to push her/his delegate total to 2025. The candidates are free to use any argument they like and supers are free to support whomever they like. Whether we like it or not, the winner will be the candidate who does the best job of persuading the supers.
Both Clinton and Obama supporters need to accept this and quit arguing about "rules."
March 16, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I mentioned earlier, Obama got Edwards delegates in Iowa. That has NOTHING to do with the will of the people or any other kind of funny metric
The contest is defined to be a contest for delegates. It's not about some vague "will of the people" in any other sense. It's about delegates. That's the rule. You don't like that rule because it doesn't work in your favor.
And the example you give here isn't one that works very well in your favor. Obama picked up those delegates in large part because he put together an organization that didn't stop working in Iowa when there were still delegates at stake. Hillary's organizational skills look pretty shabby in comparison. She was caught flat-footed when the early primaries didn't go the way she hoped. Her team only figured out some of the ins and outs of the complex Texas caucus/primary system shortly before the day they were held.
I suspect that if she had put together a better campaign team she'd be ahead right now or perhaps even have the nomination locked up. But she didn't, and when it was obvious that some of her key advisors were giving her bad advice, she showed a Bush-like loyalty in the face of incompetence. That's why she's losing.
And it's yet another thing the super-dels are free to take into account when they make their decisions.
March 16, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
I never said the caucus system was a full-proof democratic system. I think I even said in one of my posts that the "delegate race" and the electoral college race may not be fully democratic. But that's what we have right now. You don't like it, call the DNC and start lobbying for a change. But as it stands today, it is as close to the will of the people as we can get for this year's nomination process. So it will not be in the interest of the Democratic Party or the country as a whole to subvert that to satisfy Hillraisers and other Clintonistas.
March 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to separate the rules from opinions. As Pelosi said, the race is about delegates (either pledged or super), not popular vote or other measures. Those are the rules.
For Pledges delegates, there are set rules on how they are awarded and Obama leads in those. Yes, technically they can change their minds and it's within the rules etc., but he leads right now in those and Hillary has little chance of catching him.
The rest of the discussion is only opinion (not rules saying supers must do so but just opinions on what they should do). Here Pelosi is saying that should super delegates overturn the pledged delegate count, it will hurt the party. That's it and I believe it's true. Again, this has nothing to do with rules but opinion. Everybody can chime is on what super should do, including the Clinton campaign with their arguments about
large state, blue/red state, etc. and the Obama campaign with their arguments about will of the voters, elected delegates etc. It's just a pitch to sway super delegates so it's not correct to jump on somebody making either argument as wanting to change the rules.
March 16, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are completely right except in one point: the very fact that Pelosi is making her opinions public is a pressure tactic. She is a superdelegate herself. Then she should either speak for herself or shut up and stop swaying others.
I support Clinton, but I think Obama will win the nomination. I have no problem with that at all. All I want is for him to win it fair and square, in the way the rules were designed. The entire "will of the people" argument is rubber-stamping the pledged delegate count. It makes zero sense because if you follow this logic superdelegates are simply unnecessary.
March 16, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
To those who think Obama is trying to change the rules regarding Superdelegates - really? Saying one 'Hopes' the supers will go with the will of the people expressed by the delegate count is expressing an opinion.
Contrast that with someone who has lately been pledging to get the rules changed so she can fully break a pledge she made last year. For cripes sake, she has even suggested again and again that 2208 is the number of delegates required to win. She tells a caller to a radio program who asks point blank if she is just another politician who says one thing and does another with regard to Michigan and Florida, that she will respect the DNC rules committee.
Making a concerted effort, even to the point of establishing a separate website specifically to denounce the rules by calling opinions facts is in fact TRYING TO CHANGE THE RULES.
... there's so much to be said for critical thinking.
March 16, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"... there's so much to be said for critical thinking. "
My point exactly. How sad it's missing in this whole discussion.
March 16, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment