Fix in the works for Hillary?

[delldude]

Article

WASHINGTON (AP) - Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass.

But we're losing......its different.

Ickes explained that his different position essentially is due to the different hats he wears as both a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting. Clinton won the primary vote in Michigan and Florida, and now she wants those votes to count.

They make a rule now they want it changed....

"With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules and I felt I had an obligation to enforce them," he said.

Except its changed a little bit.....

Clinton won after all the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in either state because they violated the party rules.

Ahh,how convenient.

In response, the Obama campaign said Ickes' viewpoint runs counter to democratic principles.

"The Clinton campaign just said they have two options for trying to win the nomination - attempt to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters or change the rules they agreed to at the 11th hour in order to seat nonexistent delegates from Florida and Michigan," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. "The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics that could undermine Democrats' ability to win the general election."

But Big 'O',they're losing......

Ickes, however, expressed confidence that DNC Chairman Howard Dean will work out a solution to Michigan and Florida's stripped delegates

The fix is in....

First black president up to no good in harlem?

OBAMA ROBBED IN NY

Initial results in the 94th District, for example, showed a 141-0 sweep for the New York senator, but Board of Elections spokeswoman Valerie Vazquez said today that the ongoing recount had changed the tally to 261-136.

 

[Garfield1966]

I have always wondered how this works.

I suspect her core voters do not care that she is playing fast and loose with principles. The people who don't care for her won't change their mind. I guess if she wins the nomination the dems will not have a choice but to vote for her or go for McCain and I don't see that happening.

I think it is underhanded but shrewd from a political point of view. I seriously do not think it will affect her chances negatively.

 

[local 12 proud]

Soooooooooo..........Clinton!!!!!

 

[rjh]

It's all politics, and if Obama had won those states he'd be arguing for the same thing. I believe the same would have happened with the 2000 election. If the roles had been reversed, Republicans would have been saying that Gore was "appointed". Politicians don't usually fight for what they believe is right or wrong, they only fight for what will help them out.

 

[jerseyfinn]

It's all politics, and if Obama had won those states he'd be arguing for the same thing. . . .

Very true.

But the part that I still don't get is why the DNC was so adamant about holding Florida and Michigan to their former ( later) primary dates.

All sorts of states jumped the queue this year, and I just don't get why Florida and Michigan are placed on double secret probation for followiong the pack. Indeed each party has its own "rules of engagement", but the writing has been on the wall for a long time with disgruntled voters who felt that late primaries render their vote meaningless -- my state, NJ is a prime example moving from June to February. While the DNC or RNC could indeed be displeased with a state moving to the beat of its own drum, ultimately unless the two political parties are willing to sit down and work out a timetable for regionalized or more proportioned primaries across the board, the parties have to accept what a state decides to do. Of course in this case, the DNC does not accept these decisions.

So now, the DNC has created one helluva mess for itself as this race is tight and votes and delegates do indeed matter. Bottom line is that when the DNC decides to punish the Democratic committees in those states, they effectively disenfranchise democrats who wish to participate in the primary process. So fitting that Florida is one of the states involved. The party which claims to represent the common man appears to have very little in common with the people they claim to represent. This entire thing can be turned every which way to produce validation and repudiation of delegates.

Although it's the dems who have created this present mess, this situation simply amplifies how out of touch the major parties are with their members.

Barry

 

[rjh]

Very true.

But the part that I still don't get is why the DNC was so adamant about holding Florida and Michigan to their former ( later) primary dates.

All sorts of states jumped the queue this year, and I just don't get why Florida and Michigan are placed on double secret probation for followiong the pack. Indeed each party has its own "rules of engagement", but the writing has been on the wall for a long time with disgruntled voters who felt that late primaries render their vote meaningless -- my state, NJ is a prime example moving from June to February. While the DNC or RNC could indeed be displeased with a state moving to the beat of its own drum, ultimately unless the two political parties are willing to sit down and work out a timetable for regionalized or more proportioned primaries across the board, the parties have to accept what a state decides to do. Of course in this case, the DNC does not accept these decisions.

So now, the DNC has created one helluva mess for itself as this race is tight and votes and delegates do indeed matter. Bottom line is that when the DNC decides to punish the Democratic committees in those states, they effectively disenfranchise democrats who wish to participate in the primary process. So fitting that Florida is one of the states involved. The party which claims to represent the common man appears to have very little in common with the people they claim to represent. This entire thing can be turned every which way to produce validation and repudiation of delegates.

Although it's the dems who have created this present mess, this situation simply amplifies how out of touch the major parties are with their members.

Barry

I agree with you completely. Every state's votes should count. I think the DNC put themselves in a can't win situation, no matter what they do with those delegates someone will be upset.

 

[delldude]

Aside from these issues...its like a friggin' soap opera going on forever...how can we turn it off? :down:

 

[Garfield1966]

Very true.

But the part that I still don't get is why the DNC was so adamant about holding Florida and Michigan to their former ( later) primary dates.

All sorts of states jumped the queue this year, and I just don't get why Florida and Michigan are placed on double secret probation for followiong the pack. Indeed each party has its own "rules of engagement", but the writing has been on the wall for a long time with disgruntled voters who felt that late primaries render their vote meaningless -- my state, NJ is a prime example moving from June to February. While the DNC or RNC could indeed be displeased with a state moving to the beat of its own drum, ultimately unless the two political parties are willing to sit down and work out a timetable for regionalized or more proportioned primaries across the board, the parties have to accept what a state decides to do. Of course in this case, the DNC does not accept these decisions.

So now, the DNC has created one helluva mess for itself as this race is tight and votes and delegates do indeed matter. Bottom line is that when the DNC decides to punish the Democratic committees in those states, they effectively disenfranchise democrats who wish to participate in the primary process. So fitting that Florida is one of the states involved. The party which claims to represent the common man appears to have very little in common with the people they claim to represent. This entire thing can be turned every which way to produce validation and repudiation of delegates.

Although it's the dems who have created this present mess, this situation simply amplifies how out of touch the major parties are with their members.

Barry

Someone gets to be first and someone gets to be last. If FL and MI can't understand the concept them they suffer the consequences. In most races by Super Tue things are over. This time they are not and I am betting FL and MI played by the rules. Bet you next time they accept the rules or work something out. At least the Dems don't have a winner takes all mentality.

 

[Veritas]

-- my state, NJ is a prime example moving from June to February.

New Jersey was in compliance with the DNC rules which permitted all states to hold their primaries no earlier than February 5, 2008.

Only four states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, were permitted to hold their caucuses and primaries before Super Tuesday.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

It depends on the meaning of the word "is" is -- as her hubby said a few years ago.

:mf_boff: :mf_boff: is what this nation this nation 'is' if Hillary gets her way. Aren't you tired all of the Clinton drama?

I can't wait for the youtube of her inevitable meltdown.

 

[777 fixer]

I don't know if a "fix" is in. However it seems that the Clinton campaign is pulling out all the stops and getting nasty.

< http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/poli...1/30/Democrats/ >

I bet even money that if you were to go through any politicians speeches you would find "similarities" to the speeches of others.

 

[Garfield1966]

I don't know if a "fix" is in. However it seems that the Clinton campaign is pulling out all the stops and getting nasty.

< http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/poli...1/30/Democrats/ >

I bet even money that if you were to go through any politicians speeches you would find "similarities" to the speeches of others.

I stumbled across Oberman last night and he showed her saying the exact same thing Edwards had said earlier about "being able to track Blockbuster videos but not being able to track immigration status". They all do it. If that were the extent of their 'crimes' we would have nothing to worry about.

Seems like she is getting desperate.

 

[Veritas]

I bet even money that if you were to go through any politicians speeches you would find "similarities" to the speeches of others.

Just ask Joe Biden.

 

[777 fixer]

I stumbled across Oberman last night and he showed her saying the exact same thing Edwards had said earlier about "being able to track Blockbuster videos but not being able to track immigration status". They all do it. If that were the extent of their 'crimes' we would have nothing to worry about.

Seems like she is getting desperate.

Can't help but wonder if it crossed anyone’s mind over at Clinton HQ that same allegations could be leveled at her. I'm going out on a limb here but my guess is no.

Bet you there are a lot of bloggers out there digging up her old speeches looking for similarities to other speeches. You shall reap what you sow!

 

[jerseyfinn]

New Jersey was in compliance with the DNC rules which permitted all states to hold their primaries no earlier than February 5, 2008. Only four states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, were permitted to hold their caucuses and primaries before Super Tuesday.

True. But this only amplifies the point that the party leadership is lost in the woods. Lots of states ( or more precisely their voters ) are sick of this dysfunctional status quo. So Michigan and Florida decide to independeltly act upon this situation; in one state at least, it was the legislature which puts things in motion. When B43 leaves town and all of the melodramatic hysteria dies down, I hope that people begin to admit that American politics is the real problem here and not an individual inhabitant of any specific office.

Now I'm someone who feels that we must acknowledge tradition for tradition's sake. Hence New Hampshire and Iowa are those traditional states who get their moment in the sun first. A slightly more rational ( and objective ) news media might also emphasize that voters in both states do not come close to representing what we might loosely call "mainstream" outlooks/individuals. But they are indeed citizens with a viewpoint which gets to be heard because of tradition. The political party leadership is simply hell-bent on trying to conrol the whole ball of wax, damn the interest of the voters.

At least the Dems don't have a winner takes all mentality

Oh Garfield, that's not what they were saying in when we go to the infrequently used, but completely constitutional Electoral College 8 years ago. Yet IMO, the Electoral College is where it belonged ( but not because my guy won ). This too is about tradition, albeit Constitutional tradition and law ( which dems would still wish to change and dump the College ). As to the idea of winner take all versus proportional votes versus caucus versus superdelegates -- well that too is a function of tradition and choice/decisions made by the individual parties within each individual state. And all of this is deposited beneath the Constitution.

I think that it's pretty clear that many folks are not very comfortable with the idea of superdelegates determining the outcome of a tight primary contest. I personally am ambivilant about whether or not the dems should do away with superdelegates. Fact is, that politics is about power and who is gonna hold it. Superdelegates are an old traditional form/idea of how this might sometimes be accomplished, and this year looks like that kind of year. Do away with the superdelegates and now the flow of the game goes down to the states, or in truth, a handful of states with local individuals who now wield this influence/power. Remember you can't take the "P" out of power, politics, or *ussy :unsure:

So they're gonna play the game one way or the other. Tradition has the comfortable advantage of having been tried and tested before. The losing side will never be happy. But in a close primary, it comes down to individuals who can step back and read the tea leaves and try to divine who the best candidate is for that moment -- and this is both an objective and a subjective decision. So do you put the power in the hands of those far away or do you put it in the central authority at the top ? ( the convention) This thing is not gonna work out perfectly, but I guess that given the velocity of events, there will indeed be an outcome with a winner.

Hopefully the DNC will acknowledge the wisdom of stepping back to let states vote when they want to. The party and candidates can easily adjust to that ( keeping superdelegates out of the limelight most of the time ).

Barry