Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Huffingtonpost article on MI and FL still misleading
Thomas Edsall wrote a piece on the MI and Fl saga that appeared on the Huffington Post today. An excerpt:
"The Obama camp is determined to prevent Clinton from gaining the large block of delegates up for grabs in Florida and Michigan, calling instead for splitting each state's delegation down the middle".
The reason why the Obama campaign doesn't want the delegates from the original MI and FL seated is because those were the rules if those states held early primaries.
I don't think it helps anyone for a journalist not to make this resoundingly clear.
Advertisement
Comments (14)
Are sure about the rules? I'm sure that you are being sincere, but I would be more convinced if you can give me a link.
April 7, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iowa, NH and SC all moved their dates up as well but didn't lose a delegate. So anyone saying "those were the rules" is conveniently ignoring that fact...ie that FL and MI are being treated differently than the other 3 states.
April 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incorrect.
The states petitioned the DNC before moving up their contests and those petitions were granted because FL and MI would go ahead and hold their contests ahead of time regardless of the sanctions placed which would, even unsanctioned, affect the outcome of the races in all other 48 states.
FL and MI petitioned to change their dates upwards; those petitions were declined because the rules to which they had agreed to specified that the other four states would be the only ones allowed to hold contests prior to the first Tuesday of February.
Incidentally, FL in particular was given an option back on 8/27/2007 to hold their vote separately at a later date even though the Republicans had "forced" this earlier starting date upon them but FL declined to consider it at that time.
And here we are. You, muddying the waters to cling to a justification for disenfranchising 48 states' voters for the sole gain of 2 big bullies. Me, explaining that "if you don't like the rules, don't play the fucking game."
April 8, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a HUGE COWARD.
What is he so afraid of? Hold a fair revote in Michigan, and count the votes in Florida.
If he deserves to win, he will win, and there will be no "asterisk" for John McCain to trumpet throughout the fall. And if he loses, his integrity will never be questioned.
Only cowards stand behind "rules." Stand behind what is RIGHT and FAIR to the people of America.
April 8, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
MI will not have a revote because the Michigan State legislature turned it down. Obama said he would go with the DNC and the DNC said a revote would be fine. But the state did not set up that primary or caucus. And now they are out of time.
FL will not have a revote because all the ideas that would have made it possible to have one were against the Florida State constitution and had to be scrapped by Florida legislators. Obama said he would go with the DNC and the DNC said a revote would be fine. But FL cannot do it because they spent too much time arguing that the original invalid results should stand instead of trying to resolve the problem and now their state law prevents any other solutions.
So, how again is this Obama's fault?
Your logic is somewhat suspect, too: you posit that
A) this is a grave and obvious injustice; but
B) Obama "cowardly" benefits from supporting said injustice.
B does not follow from A.
Of course, this is without actually addressing the merits of your premises where it is OK for FL and MI to disenfranchise the other 48 states and bully their way out of a contract they willfully agreed to and that somehow this is all Obama's fault--which, per above, is demonstrably false.
April 8, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's total sophistry, and you know it.
You know all too well that the Michigan legislature turned down a revote BECAUSE OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS KILLED it. That is well-established knowledge.
You know all too well that saying "I want to seat the MI and FL delegates" and then saying "but only if they are seated 50/50" is a laughable way of standing up for the voters.
You have points about Florida, but the fact is that the REPUBLICAN legislature caused the problem. Once again, hiding behind rules is cowardly. He can be a man and say "Sure, let's do the 50% thing. I can live with that."
Finally, yes, B does follow from A, because it's going to come back and bite Obama in the ass in the General Election IF he wins and UNLESS he changes course.
Nobody is saying it's Obama's fault. I am saying that Obama is a coward for not solving the problem in an admirable way. Hell, if he had said "Yes, let's count these votes—I can still win" I might actually BE an Obama supporter again for doing the right thing—even if he hasn't done the WRONG thing.
April 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The coward is the candidate that runs around drumming up fervor to turn back rules that were crafted over a nearly 18 month period, that were first vetted by dozens of Democrats and unanimously ratified by nearly 450 leading Democrats from around the country.
The coward is the candidate that can't face up to the fact that those same rules were constructed by a committee that was heavily weighted with some of her most prominent supporters and some members of that committee now actually serve in high positions on her campaign. That the rules were crafted to some degree, to enable her to wrap the nomination in the first part of February and her campaign people through sheer arrogance managed to blow that opportunity for her.
A coward is a candidate that cannot keep her sworn word, or words that she repeated to various voters in the earliest states.
A coward is a candidate that whines every freaking time she gets caught out on her insipid b.s.
A coward is a candidate that goes to the smaller weaker, newspaper in Pittsburgh owned by someone who sued her and her husband when they were in the White House, because the larger more respected paper in Pittsburgh is owned and edited by the same people that blasted her character a few weeks before in the paper they also own and edit in Toledo, Ohio.
A brave candidate is the one that stands up for the rule of principles and rules themselves in spite of ridiculously convoluted rationale proffered time and again by a press that fails to do the hard work of verifying the facts of the matter and foregoing the truth for the profits brought by continued sensationalism.
Finally, your mendacious approach to logic insults the intelligence of any clear thinking person that knows just from fraud.
April 8, 2008 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should remember that "THE RULES" also allow for the delegates to be seated at the convention by the credentials committee.
Neither Clinton nor Obama ever made an agreement to not petition the credentials committee. It simply didn't happen, and it's rather dishonest to pretend that an agreement not to campaign was actually an agreement not to challenge the decision later.
Now I will be happy to agree that those delegates shouldn't be seated, but it is undeniable that there is a mechanism within the rules that allows for it.
April 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you guys are like hawks.
Iowa, NH and SC had PERMISSION to hold their primary before Feb 4th. FL and MI specifically did not.
All candidates signed pledges which said that they would not participate in elections in those states, and that they understood that unauthorized early elections would result in 100% loss of delegates.
The issue is not who moved primaries. The issue is who had permission to hold them before Feb 4.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8wX99qUo3Ow
Hate on the rules all you want, they're still the rules.
The credentials committee won't fly, check out the description here on TPM on how that committee works, and why it would never approve a seating of the delegates as such.
April 8, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and if anybody wants to argue that Hillary has the moral grounds on this one, you might want to consider her "concern" for the voters in late states last December:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_eBIpEuO4U
April 8, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree this is purely spin against Senator Obama.
My feeling is that we can all express our feelings that these TAINTED ELECTIONS must NOT be counted and that we should consider any nominee's status TAINTED should they try to claim the nomination based on these TAINTED elections where voter rurnout and voter choice were supressed. Eseentially I am suggesting Clinton's nomination should be in question and considered tainted were she to somehow get the tainted elections figure into some way of getting her nominated. This is a side of the argument I don't hear.. I just hear the spin that somehow senator Obama doesn't want to include the voters of Florida and Michigan which is hogwash...
I also think we should start really raising a ruckus with those who suggest we should be going by popolar vote. Delegates are the way that has been determined to create an even playing field between all states whether they have caucuses or primaries. To try to bring popular vote into the primary process at this time...ie without changing the rules beforehand is voter disenfranchisement for all caucus states.
We can bring these aruments up with the media until we start hearing them actually talk about it...
April 8, 2008 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cowardly Lion: Listen, kid. Are you gonna try and let that old Gulch heifer try and buffalo ya'. She ain't nothing to be afraid of. Have a little courage, that's all.
Dorothy: I'm not afraid of her.
Cowardly Lion: Then the next time she squawks, walk right up to her and spit in her eye. That's what I'd do.
Sexist.
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?
left: Only cowards stand behind "rules."
Dorothy to Scarecrow: Yes, I guess you're right.
Elitist.
Cowardly Lion: All right, I'll go in there for Dorothy. Wicked Witch or no Wicked Witch, guards or no guards, I'll tear them apart. I may not come out alive, but I'm going in there. There's only one thing I want you fellows to do.
Tin Woodsman, Scarecrow: What's that?
Cowardly Lion: Talk me out of it.
Defeatist.
Cowardly Lion: Shucks, folks, I'm speechless. Ha Ha!
April 8, 2008 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The true winner in Florida have been the Republicans.
I generated a post last night that theorizes that all of the name-calling from the vocal Obama supporters could be hurting Obama in Florida, one of the few places that he's slipping in the polls. (Again, I'm saying that the "problem" could be coming from his supporters because both candidates and the party say that eventually an agreement will be reached and Florida most likely count, somehow)
But, as it stands right now, I believe Hillary's appearance on primary night may have been her only one on Florida soil in several months (excluding a fundraiser) and Obama is not talking about visiting the state until mid-May, so the Republicans have had the place to themselves for more than half a year and the Democrats aren't only ignoring them, but a lot of people also keep calling them names.
So, once again, if you ask me, it's the Republicans who have come out ahead.
April 8, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if "standing by rules" governing elections is cowardly, then hijacking an election would be considered what?
A primary reason people want the Michigan votes to count is because they are Hillary supporters. Another, because Hillary got the most votes out of her and the few people that were on the ballot, not including Obama and Edwards. Another is they think that an election can be fair at this point which it can't be.
The general election, by law, is to take place November 4th. Florida & Michigan can't move their general up a week before then to make their votes more important. Those are rules too.
April 8, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment