The topic of WTDAMAF?(What To Do About Michigan And Florida?) has been discussed ad naseum , and I'm not trying to rehash them out here. But one argument that is always brought up, by someone supporting Obama, is that Clinton's entire stance is politically motivated. But, that is as that may be. The underlying point to me is that Obama is not. Period. End of discussion.
The right to vote is fundamental to democracy. Any candidate who can not stand up for that principle, in a primary, does not deserve my vote in that primary.
In a primary, I will vote for a candidate who is most closely aligned with my principles. That is the Principled Vote. Now, I have cast many Unprincipled Votes. In a general, I have supported Congressional and Senate candidates who violated my principles, but they were better than they other guy/gal.
By this action Obama has lost my vote until the primary is over. And it makes me angry that I will have to make an Unprincipled Vote in the GE. I am aware that if Obama is the nominee, he will be subjected to attacks, mainly of which is that he is largely undefined, and the GOP will attempt to define him for the electorate. He is already carrying harsh baggage in this respect. I will of course eventually be swayed to come to his defense.
Honestly, I would rather eagerly leap to his defense, with full faith in him. But I can't. I can't be happy that he wins the nomination this way. I can't stand that he might get it before the convention. I would rather the candidates go back to work, convincing the legislative apparatus that will select them, regardless of the pleged delegate count after the remaining primaries. Let them demonstrate who is the better leader on the issues to be decided this election.
Then I could cast a Prinicipled Vote.
And it is sad, because based upon the values he espouses in speeches*, and has begun to demonstrate some leadership on, are values that I mainly agree with, and would like to see advocated more concisely, with action. And with this action, Obama would earn my vote, and probably the votes of those who are thinking of not supporting him.
Instead he takes the low road, for political expediency, which informs me, and many other voters, that he has not gained wisdom. I believe Clinton has, and can have faith that she would support this, even if it worked against her. But Obama is demonstrating that he will not.
*I will admit, he has moved me. In my previous job as a News Monitor, I was exposed to Obama before he burst onto the national stage at the '04 Convention. I saw the speech he gave the night he won the primary in Illinois. I believed he saw what was wrong, and what needed to be done to make right. Now, not so much.
- Aeryl's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Obama missed his chance
to get in front on this issue.
Imagine if early on he was pushing for revotes, demanding that the voters of two important states not be disenfranchised.
If he was arguing on principle, even though he stood to lose a few votes/delegates (a fact that his campaign would naturally push in their talking points) he would have come out looking like a hero.
Whatever short term losses he would have suffered would have been more than made up by the positive PR he would have received.
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
Yes indeed
He would have gotten my vote, but he shows himself as a manipulator. He may have come out unscathed or scathed, but now we kinda know who he is through his association's and lack of knowledge, including his dismissing the 'dismissive'.
A lot of "Democrats"
are accusing Clinton of being self-serving in this. But the honest truth as this race was supposed to be over quickly(the primary system is designed as a coronation, not a contest, look at how f'd up we are). It wouldn't have mattered what happened in Michigan and Florida. Clinton did, Obama, did, Dean did, Pelosi did. I disagreed with the penalty when I heard it, but it didn't really matter. My states delegates never mattered either. Big Deal!
But now, look at where we are. Every state in the United States is getting a voice in the nomination process. I am fired up and excited, my state could make a difference. But, my excitement is tarnished b/c Florida and Michigan aren't.
This is a historic election, and I believe Clinton knows she is on the side of history in this.
And as far as how to count them? IMO, Florida's totals, regardless of the rules, fall in line with the exit polls, which are a legitimate metric in determining the outcome of elections, the UN does it all over the world. Those should be awarded at 50%. Michigan, sorry Obama, but you took a risk. you decided to play along with the DNC's disenfranchisement, and said well if I can't win Michigan, no one will. No voter has the right to a candidate of their choice. People made their decision when you took their choice away from them. They should also be awarded 50% as-is. I'll even allow Obama the remaining uncommitted voters, since he is the only other challenger left standing.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Agreed
I think they are afraid of no clear winner. It would be practical in those cases to have the VP be the second person chosen.
However, after all those good ole boys have been slapping each other on the backs in the mens room with OB, they couldn't deal with a woman who knows what the hell she is doing in charge.
Heck, we had 8 years of prosperity with the Clintons, who would want that? We still got our white retribution to be dealt to us poor white folks don't we.
http://www.correntewire.com/ye_olde_writ... fiction link
Its not just Obama
Detroit News: Clinton, Obama reject Michigan 'do-over' options"
Also, Florida's revote was doomed without any help from the candidates.
As a Michigan resident, I can say a few things:
1) I wish there was a revote. If there isn't, so be it. Its not the first time a state had no say in the party nominee.
2) I blame the Michigan Democratic Party (mostly Clinton supporters) for putting the state in this clusterfuck.
3) I'm not conveniently forgetting that HRC has repeatedly called to seat delegates based on the sham election. Counting an uncontested election after telling the voters that votes didn't count is worse than not having a vote.
4) Why the eleventh hour effort for revotes? If MI/FL didn't spend so much time trying to count sham elections, there may have been enough time to work out revotes.
5) Ultimately, the candidates don't control the primaries. MI & FL legislatures have willingly not approved revotes.
6) For many reasons, Michigan will go blue in November. This shit doesn't have the doom and gloom impact on voters that people are projecting.
Please spare me the rightous indignation.
elections are about who chooses
I don't see that it matters that Clinton's motives are impure. Her motives have nothing to do with the voters of MI and FL. People keep talking as if voters were pawns. It is ugly.
motives don't matter--counting every vote should be sacred--
esp after 2000.
There's no possible way we can win with any candidate if we alienate FL and MI's voters--no way at all.
I'm in favor of Hillary's plan
Q: So if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say "Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot. Please take me off." ?
Clinton: Well, you know... it's clear. This election they're having is not going to count for anything.
http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cl...
“They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television. And they vote. And that is part of the process. An important part.” - Hillary Clinton
Counting votes is worse than counting votes
Not much to say to that comment. I keep thinking about how its better to remain silent and thought a fool than...ah, never mind.
oops
I meant counting votes is worse than not counting votes in the comment above.