Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Lou Dobbs tells it like it isn't.
So I'm watching CNN(more for background noise than anything else) and I hear Lou Dobbs doing a story on the Florida and Michigan redos.
One fact missing he didn't quite make clear:
the DNC rules, agreed to ahead of time by all candidates, state that delegates from Florida and Michigan would not count, because they moved up their primaries.
Can you do a story on this without stating why it became an issue in the first place?
To be fair, Obama is quoted as saying that in Michigan, his name wasn't even on the ballot. But a majority of the piece focused on Hillary's comments about how undemocratic it would be to disenfranchise voters.
So many new voters are just starting to pay attention to the election, especially those voters in Pennsylvania. If they heard this story, it sounds like Obama is disenfranchising voters.
No self-respecting journalist can do a story on this without making clear that it only became an issue when the Clintons chose to break with the DNC rules.
Comments (5)
Who said he was self respecting. He's just egotistical!
March 22, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dobbs...journalist, Dobbs...journalist, the two words just don't go together no matter how many times you say it.
March 22, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ovcatto's got it right...I just tried to say "Dobbs" and "journalist" together, outloud...and I threw up in my mouth.
Try it with other phrases: "Hillary's telling the truth" and "Hillary respects rules" are the two that make me gag most...
March 23, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Obama was not required to take his name off the Michigan ballot and did so for political gain in Iowa.
2. Obama was specifically and personally asked to leave his name on the ballot and refused.
3. Obama now refuses to co-operate with a do-over in Michigan because the likelihood is that he would lose.
4. Michigan's Senator Levin has been campaigning for over a decade to end the stranglehold of New Hampshire and Iowa on the first pass at determining who our candidates are.
5. The bargain with the DNC which everybody voted for did not allow New Hampshire to go first. When New Hampshire did so anyway the DNC granted a waiver. When Michigan retaliated by moving their primary they were not granted a similar waiver. As Sen. Levin states:
The Democratic National Committee proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. It gave New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. But Michigan and Florida, which had also moved up the date of its primary, were denied waivers. When Howard Dean, the party chairman, says that states should not be allowed to violate the rules, he ignores the fact that when the committee itself decided not to follow the rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present impasse.
March 23, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama took his name off the ballot because he was following the rules. How did you conclude that he was doing it for political gain? Would you have the same conclusion if he was behind in delegates? Obama doesn't refuse to cooperate with the re-do; it has to be fair. Clinton didn't care about disenfranchising voters until she was behind in delegates. Voters in Michigan and Florida new their vote would not count before they went to the polls. Stop the distortion. It's ridiculous.
March 23, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment