Armstead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-07-08 02:58 PM
Original message |
Using Florida and Michigan as pawns is dirty pool |
|
I honestly don't know whether Hillary's recent positioning of herself as the defender of voter representation in Florida and Michigan is something she sincerely believes in or not.
But either way, it is using those states as pawns.
If she has believed that the voters got a raw deal because of pols pushing up the primaries and thus getting them exiled, then she should have stood up for them publicly back when it counted.
Or, alternatively, she could have tried to negotiate behind the scenes with the other candidates to form a united front to stand up for those voters.
But coming as a champion of those voters after she had a defacto victory after the campaign ban is grandstanding of the most cynical kind. Maybe it'll work politically, if she succeeds in getting delegates seated from those states. Or it could fan the flames for a real polarizing debacle later on down the line towards the conventions.
It's dirty pool, and potentially very polarizing. This "win at any cost" strategy could ultimately win a battle for her but lose the war for the Demnocrats in November.
|
SoFlaJet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-07-08 03:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
anything that favors her is good with her...Look I don't like what the national party did to us Florida democrats, and figure they would do everything possible to NOT make it feel like 2000 all over again-I was wrong and so is the Clinton campaign especially (IMO) with Michigan where she was the ONLY DEM ON THE BALLOT
|
MethuenProgressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-07-08 03:04 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Why does Obama endorse the disenfranchisement of so many voters? |
|
Just because they didn't vote for him? That's not very Democratic of him.
|
JackORoses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-07-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Obama follows Party Rules. Hillary, like Joe Lieberman before her, plays by her own rules. |
|
That's not very Democratic of her. But she could care less if it gets her what she wants.
|
MethuenProgressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-07-08 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. He just knuckles under to the Establishment Powers that Be? |
JackORoses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-07-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. He respects his Party. Plus he is not trying to steal an election, like Hillary. |
|
She is now dependent on MI and FL.
|
Armstead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-07-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
9. Didn;t Hillary "knuckle under" too? |
|
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 04:36 PM by Armstead
That's my issue is the timing.
She went along with it like the rest, and didn't pretend to be Joan of Arc about it when it was being debated and decided.
|
juajen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-07-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Again, Hillary broke no rules; unless there is a new one that |
|
says candidates can't win. She made the right choice when it came to leaving her name on the ballot; the others did not. If this were Obama, you surely would be singing a different tune. What do those candidates say now is the reason they didn't leave their names on the ballot. Having their names on the ballot was not against the rules, campaigning in Florida was.
|
JackORoses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-07-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. she is trying to whip people into a furor to put pressure on the DNC |
|
She is trying to subvert their ruling and force them to seat the flawed delegations from MI and FL.
She doesn't care about her Party or the Voters. She cares about winning. You haven't heard a peep out of her Campaign about scheduling a revote in MI or FL. Why? Because that wouldn't give her an advantage.
|
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Feb-07-08 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. That is ridiculous. Time to look in the mirror... |
|
Supporting an agreement both Obama and Hillary were party to cannot, in any way shape or form, be labeled "endorsing the disenfranchisement of voters." That is a blatant mischaracterization of what is happening -- because it serves your purpose. SURPRISE! Your shtick has gotten old. It's time to step back and look at yourself in the mirror. Because virtually every DUer has spent some part of their time on-board railing against the way the Republicans bend the rules and ignore them when it suits their purpose. From the nearly-criminal all night voting session on the Medicare bill, to Bush's signing statements, we ALL seem pretty upset when W and GOP renege on common decency and fairness. The rules were set, and agreed upon by all, including Hillary. I guess it appears that, once again, Hillary Clinton voted for something she didn't actually intend to vote for, because she thought what she voted for wouldn't actually come into play.
And THAT'S the leadership you're wasting all this bandwidth over? Holy shit!
.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 01:14 AM
Response to Original message |