Clinton supporters to swarm DC over Florida and Michigan
(CNN) — Supporters of Hillary Clinton are planning to swarm the capital in a little over a week to pressure Democratic Party leaders as they gather to decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations.
The Committee to Count Every Vote – a project of Hillary Responders – said Thursday it was organizing a day-long May 31 rally outside the hotel where members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee are planning to meet that day.
[snip]
“Our purpose is not to divide the party or attack the DNC or Senator Obama. Michigan and Florida, however, in addition to Hillary's strong support nationwide, cannot and must not be dismissed in DNC efforts to unify the party.”
Rally Info here.
When: May 31st – Meet at 7 am and rally until around 4 pm.
Where: Outside the Marriott-Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Rd, NW in Washington D.C.
.
15 comments:
You're setting a precedent here. Votes cast in Michigan--where Obama was not on the ballot--should not count towards the overall vote. Uncommitted got 40% of the vote in Michigan. The only way Clinton leads is if you count Michigan as a zero for Obama because he didn't technically receive any votes there. Yeah right...Clinton lost. Period. She got less votes, less states, and less delegates.
BHP--So what? It doesn't mean her supporters should roll over and die. Obama has not won the world and IF he gets the nomination, he will not win my vote. He's a very weak canidate and if you're listening to the pundits tonight, they are not fainting in the isles anymore. Was that ther plan, get him nominated and push McKane? Hmmmmm- our media might not be so transparant as we thought.
CNN reports: Supporters of Hillary Clinton are planning to swarm the capital in a little over a week to pressure Democratic Party leaders as they gather to decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations.
I thought they'd already decided. Michigan and Florida broke the rules that everyone (even Hillary Clinton) agreed to. The outcome? The votes aren't to be counted.
This is why people hate politics. When someone with power falls behind, they pull a few strings and change the rules.
As a pro-life Democrat, I will take a great deal of pleasure watching bitter, 50ish women committed to abortion become the sole reason Roe v. Wade was overturned. So there will be a bright side to an Obama loss for me.
Uncommitted got 40% of the vote in Michigan, and won Detroit proper. One imagines most of the people voting for Uncommitted were voting for Barack Obama. Let's say that 30% intended to vote for Obama and 10% for John Edwards. That means Obama would have received 176,994 votes on election day in Michigan. That number actually would've been higher had the Dailykos not inspired the "Democrats for Mitt" movement, where Democrats voted for Romney in the Republican primary. If you take the only vote count which Clinton is ahead--which counts Michigan as zero votes for Obama, and excludes four caucus states, with about six hundred and fifty thousand voters, which don't report popular vote statistics, and add the 176,994 votes from Michigan to Obama's total, he would then lead Clinton by 11,000 votes. And this is excluding Maine, Washington, Nevada, and Iowa from the caucus process. That's excluding a total amount of voters greater than the amount of voters in Michigan. You cannot simultaneously make the case that Michigan should be included in order to "count every vote" but argue that four states shouldn't be counted among the popular vote total at the same time.
So if Obama is such a weak candidate, what does it say about Hillary Clinton, who got less votes than Obama? It says she's a weaker candidate.
John K. says: Wait a bit here. Okay I got it. You lefties are holding a rally to disenfranchise the votes of the Democrats in two states? Someone in here tell me I am wrong! LMAO LOL LOL Operation Chaos Rules!
If she felt that strongly about it - why did she sign the agreement stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates in the first place?
Retired Millhunk-
You have to understand Hilliary was awakening at 3 AM every night preparing herself for being the commander in chief. Protecting all of us. She was extremely tired when she signed that agreement and she has a right to change her tune.If McCain gets elected I hope he reinstitutes the draft. That way the Hilliary supporters that vote for McCain can send their sons off to Iraq instead of someone elses.
Bram & RM,
Neither Clinton nor Obama nor any of the other candidates signed an "agreement stripping Florida and Michigan of their delgates."
They signed a pledge not to campaign there before Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina held their elections.
That's all.
(And, when I say "that's all" I am saying a Miranda Priestly "that's all.")
I stand corrected. Here is the pledge:
_____
Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007
WHEREAS, over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.
_____
So much for finality, predictability, and common sense.
If votes or polls from these states are used to determine convention delegates after Obama and everybody else complied with this agreement by not campaigning there, that would be a travesty of opportunism.
You still didn't answer the pertinent question Maria--why is it must Florida and Michigan be counted while Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine are not counted. Your friends in the Clinton campaign can't have it both ways on this one...But Clinton is synonymous with both ways...
John K. says: The best part of this is that the Democrats are arguing over rules. As if they follow them in the first place. Operation Chaos and Limbaugh Rule!
I feel bad for the voters of Michigan and Florida. They didn't do anything to deserve being disenfranchised. However, given the pledge to not campaign, Obama's name not being on a ballot, etc., I don't see why a single delegate from either state should be counted. If the party and candidates really care about counting every vote, new primaries should be held in both states, and the cost should be shared by the state and national DNC.
It was also a pledge not to participate. It's misleading to leave that bit out.
In Bram's post: "I ______ shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008"
Here's a breakdown of the no participation and no campaigning pledge.
If she pledged to not participate, how can she (or anyone who signed it) receive / be the beneficiary of the votes cast?
My main answer is here.
Some points I didn't address there:
TBOHAP: "why is it must Florida and Michigan be counted while Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine are not counted"
Nice try. No one is saying not to count the vote count there, except of course Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine because it is they who have chosen not to release any actual popular vote totals (read the fine print here.)
ERIC W: "However, given the pledge to not campaign, Obama's name not being on a ballot, etc., I don't see why a single delegate from either state should be counted."
Obama took his own name off of the MI ballot where he was polling badly to Clinton at the time. If you want to be picky, Obama ran a national ad buy at the time of the FLA election and so he was the only candidate who had any ads running there at the time of the campaign ban.
"If the party and candidates really care about counting every vote, new primaries should be held in both states, and the cost should be shared by the state and national DNC."
The Obama Campaign never agreed to do that.
GEEVES: Nice pledge: Don't campaign but OK to take the money and run. And, yes, both Clinton and Obama held many a fundraiser and as NYT's noted, "The pledge does not apply to fund-raising events, which officials said could provide a loophole for candidates like Mr. Obama, who has held fund-raisers for as little as $25 a person that have doubled as political rallies." Well, yeah, that and the TV ad buy, not that Obama is political or anything. See new post for the rest of my answer.
This party is screwed. It's split and there's no way that this primary can end without bitterness and scars. Obama's not the answer and neither is McCain but one of them will win.
CRAP
http://www.dtdstudios.com/fark/hillary_devil.jpg
Post a Comment