May 27, 2008

Obama Supporters Crossing a Very Dangerous Line

Knock Hillary Clinton’s motives all you want but she does have the moral high ground here. All the votes should count. If Puerto Rico and Guam get to help decide, Michigan and Florida should decide as well.

After Saturday, John McCain will be able to run ads saying “here is Barack Obama trying to silence the people of Michigan and Florida”.

Since the race is “over”, I really suggest Obama not give McCain this type of opportunity to gain an edge in a state that, if it goes red, will give Obama a much tougher time in winning the electoral college.


11 Commentaires:

Blogger jaybird a dit...

Obama has said that Florida and Michigan should be seated. He is not suicidal he knows that it would be good to have it sorted so that FL and MI come out happy. He has said so on more than one occasion.

Don't confuse what MI and FL dems want versus what HRC and her local supporters in MI and FL want. They are not the same. First there was a significantly lower voter turnout in MI and FL this primary when you compare to others in the calendar. Why? Dems didn't go because they knew that the primary wouldn't count. That wasn't an Obama or Clinton decision it was a DNC decision.

In MI 33% (i think but in the 30s) voted uncommitted when only HRC and Kucinich (maybe Dodd) were on the ballot. So it isn't simply that his name wasn't on the ballot but 33% of activist dems went out of their way to vote against HRC EVEN though they knew it was only a beauty contest.

In FL, they were both on the ballot it is true but given that it was early in the campaign she had significant name recognition which again, because neither could campaign (based on DNC orders) she was obviously advantaged.

When Clinton thought she was inevitable and that FL and MI wouldn't matter she did NOTHING to argue for their enfranchisement.

So to recap - he has said he wants them seated and he wants the dems of each state to be happy but that doesn't mean that he needs to give HRC exactly what she wants since her agenda is not the same as what the local dems themselves want.

5/27/2008 5:20 p.m.  
Blogger Lord Kitchener's Own a dit...

I ask because I'm unsure, but what is Senator Clinton's stance on just HOW the Michigan votes should be counted?

Does Clinton get 55% of the delegates and Obama 0% because his name wasn't on the ballot? Does Clinton get 100% of the delegates because she's the only candidate left who's name was on the ballot? Does Obama get some, or all, of the 40% of votes that were cast as "uncommitted" by people who couldn't even bring themselves to vote for Clinton when she was the only choice offered?

"All the votes should count" is a great line. It loses something though (doesn't it?) when the total quote is "All the votes should count, including the totally meaningless votes from the election in which one of the two candidates wasn't even listed as an option, and during which the candidates were forbidden from campaigning and voters were told again and again that the vote was essentially meaningless".

I have to say, from my perspective, Clinton's message seems much less "count all the votes" than "keep counting votes until you can figure out a way to count them such that I win". I expect that before we're done, Clinton will be insisting that we count all VOTERS, and that we go door to door to obtain the opinions of all the voters who didn't bother to vote. We can't have them left out too, can we? Non-voters represent a much larger percentage of the American population than all of Florida and Michigan put together after all. Their (silent) voices must be heard too, right?

5/27/2008 5:26 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

nobody told obama to take his name off the ballot...first of all

this isnt some travesty that his name wasnt there...his campaign chose to remove it, because they knew it would have less of a chance of getting overturned if he wasnt on the ballot.

secondly, if an obama organizer is calling for people to head down and protest, I suggest Obama calls them off...period...or it looks bad for him

5/27/2008 5:49 p.m.  
Blogger jaybird a dit...

Trust me, I would be shocked if the Obama camp has anything to do with getting out protesters because you are right it would be unhelpful.

To answer LKO question - according to Lanny Davis (most strenuous supporter of Clinton evah) Obama should get 40% of the 33% of those that voted uncommitted in MI. I think you can find his argument on and or huffington post.

5/27/2008 6:34 p.m.  
Blogger Leny Vilekoskytch a dit...

The moral high ground. I like that. The moral high ground. Because nothing captures the moral high ground like saying that the rules shouldn't be applied. The moral high ground is also often available for those people who respect and honour the DNC rules and calendar until they decide they don't. But the moral high ground had to be locked up when Terry McAuliffe (the Clinton Campaign chairman) said that the rules shouldn't be applied. The same Terry McAuliffe who was prepared to strip Michigan of half its delegates in 2004 when the state was planning on moving up its primary that year.

5/27/2008 6:54 p.m.  
Blogger KC a dit...

According to the Michigan exit polls Clinton got even MORE votes due to the lack of anyone else on the ballot than she would have gotten otherwise. If Obama had been on the ballot he would have gotten the overwhelming majority of the undeclareds and a significant number of those who voted for Clinton. The exit polls suggest a 46-35 division of the delegates.

Its a bit rich to hear you say that the fact that Obama didnt HAVE to take his name off the ballot is somehow an argument for counting them. The fact of the matter is that he did and because he did the Michigan results didnt reflect what the public wanted. Clinton herself signed a declaration promising not to campaign in the State. Clinton has said that Obama "made a choice". Well Clinton made a choice when she didnt stand up for democracy in Florida and Michigan when the decision was made that those states primaries wouldnt count.

I agree that Obama has to be careful here but Clinton is sure showing her colours as someone who will do anything, reverse any stance, and bend any rule to win. It would be one thing if Clinton was advocating for some sort of reasonable settlement but her surrogates have actually had the audacity to suggest that Clinton should get all 73 delegates (even though the exit polls show that some of those would have gone to Obama or Edwards); AND be allowed to get some of the 55 undeclareds (ie she should get the votes of people who went to the box, saw her name, and voted for nobody).

Ballots with a single (credible) name on them are seen in authoritarian, one party countries and we never suggest that those places are "democratic". Certainly that should apply here.

PS No doubt Clinton left her name on the ballot just in the event of what has happened as well.

5/27/2008 8:10 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

its an obama organizer who posted on kos that they should go protest

5/27/2008 8:19 p.m.  
Blogger Gauntlet a dit...

So the DNC decides the MI and FL aren't going to be seated because they break the rules. There are no protests from either of the candidates.

Then, Clinton finds herself with an insurmountable deficit in elected delegates, and suddenly, it's a travesty that these people were disenfranchised.

So she has the moral high ground for insisting that their votes should be counted?

People truly on the moral high ground tend to be there before it's convenient.

Some Obama supporter suggests that people protest any change to the situation now, and that's what, the moral low ground? The campaigns were told that the states weren't going to be seated, they made strategic decisions on that basis, and now because Clinton is losing that might change.

Certainly. The moral high ground would be to say that the rules should only stay consistent where they are advantageous to Clinton. That's obvious.

And yes, of course, anything that any Obama supporter does or says is sanctioned by Obama. That always follows, doesn't it?

How much nonsense can you pack into three paragraphs, man?

5/28/2008 12:20 a.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

all states should count

that is the moral high ground

5/28/2008 12:59 a.m.  
Blogger calgarygrit a dit...

The DNC will reach some sort of deal, because the optics are bad if they don't.

The deal should, and likely will, seat 50% of the delegates from each state because that's what the Republicans did and, after all, both states did break the rules and the candidates didn't campaign there. This removes it as an issue for the Republicans during the campaign.

Florida, I imagine, will be seated according to the vote totals. Michigan will probably assign the uncomiteds to Obama or reach some sort of compromise on the way they're divided up. You can't give Obama 0% of the delegates there because he followed DNC rules. The fact is, Hillary didn't complain about this until it was convenient for her to. Taking the so-called moral high ground is a little rich.

As for Obama, he'd be fine with a compromise like the one I talked about above since he'd still win. Obviously his campaign is willing to give a little for the sake of optics on this and isn't going to go out of its way to make sure the delegations aren't seated.

5/28/2008 2:11 p.m.  
Blogger Jordan a dit...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5/29/2008 12:36 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home