- Twitter (0)
- Facebook (0)
- Google+
- Comments ()
Soapbox
May 31, 2008
- Twitter (0)
- Facebook (0)
- Google+
- Comments ()
The distribution of votes in Michigan was fair, I thought. Clinton's hard core protesters and Ickes were wrong. They apparently wanted to say that the uncommitted votes should stay uncommitted and Obama should get no votes. We were told to vote uncommitted if we wanted Obama! I find it quite hypocritical of these protesters to say they are protesting for everybody's vote to be counted, and then try to steal the votes of Obama's supporters away from us!
The voters of Michigan were told by the Michigan Democratic Party and our senators not to stay home on primary day, even though our candidate's name was not on the ticket. If we were a Obama or Edwards supporter, we were instructed to vote uncommitted, and that are votes would be heard. Many Democratic voters did not believe and stayed home, or voted Republican, and or for the candidates on the ticket. Well, Senator Levin, I heard you and believed you but perhaps you should inform Ickes and the Clinton campaign what you promised us.
Obama circumvented democracy as GW Bush and the Supreme Court of the United States did.
Apparently some observers do not understand the difference between a general election and a nominating process to determine a nominee for a major party. A party owns its own name and the right to determine their nominee in accordance with rules drafted and adopted by the party. These rules were agreed to by ALL CANDIDATES including Senator Clinton and her camp. That is the issue here.
This issue has been mishandled at many levels by the party, but the efforts by Clinton to claim all these delegates is the worst kind of historical revisionism, and an attempt to change the rules in the last two minutes of the fourth quarter. She needs to be careful before she destroys the respect she has gained from so many of us over the last two-three months- and destroys the party with it.
Comparisons to Florida in 2000 are not only wrong, they are terribly inaccurate and nothing but an ad hominen argument.
Party rules that have populations that do not well represent the diversity of the U.S. have a greater likelihood for impact on the choice of the party nominee is not democratic and fair from the start. I see the choice to go their own way in MI and FL as courageous and good for the Democratic Party. I see it as civil disobedience. Rules should serve the good, not rig the game. If FL and MI did not insist on being seated the rules probably wouldn't change. Why ask Sen. Clinton to give up & not fight for what is right & in her best interest? A fair primary system is in all our best interest.
Had I been choosing, I'd have sent all of the delegates from Florida and Michigan as uncommitted and let them vote their conscience. Ideally, I'd have chosen them by random drawing from the ranks of registered democrats. But what do I know?
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.