Primary Concern: Florida and Michigan
At her campaign celebration last night in Ohio, Hillary Clinton raised the specter of a nasty, divisive fight at the Democratic National Convention, claiming that she should be the party's nominee based on her big state victories, rather than on the pledged-delegate count. It was a slick and sophisticated attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game and declare herself the winner.
She said, "You all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states just like Ohio. And that is what we've done." Then, she listed the states she "won," boldly including Florida and Michigan in the litany.
Weeks before her boast, Julian Bond, the Chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and one of my heroes, penned a letter to DNC Chair Howard Dean noting that he is "deeply concerned" about the "will and intent of the Florida and Michigan voters."
But, both Clinton and Bond leave several important facts off the table.
First, the rules. They were known and agreed to by everyone involved, well before the first votes were cast in Iowa. All the campaigns, including the Clinton campaign, pledged to honor the "early window" that included only four states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Enforcement of the primary timing rule against Florida and Michigan was necessary to prevent the 2008 nominating calendar from falling into chaos. Moreover, a decision to overturn this action by the DNC could destroy our nominating process for 2012 and future years, as states realize that there will be no penalty for violating the primary timing rule.
Second, the DNC's Rules Bylaws Committee gave both Florida and Michigan a full and fair hearing, plus an open and transparent vote, and their efforts to "jump to the head of the line" were soundly defeated. No other state party organization or Rules Committee members supported them. None of the campaigns--including the Clinton campaign, which is very well represented on the Rules Committee--spoke up for the principle of allowing Florida and Michigan to go ahead of the other states.
Third, the new 2008 primary calendar was painstakingly worked out for the very purpose of increasing early voting diversity. Along with Iowa and New Hampshire, most Democrats agreed that both Latinos and African Americans should be added to the early voting equation. Adding Nevada and South Carolina to the early calendar increased regional and racial diversity while protecting the grassroots, small state nature of the early primary process. The DNC was right to protect these two states from encroachment in the calendar by Florida and Michigan.
Fourth, since there was no campaigning in either Florida or Michigan, and neither the names of Obama nor Edwards even appeared on the Michigan ballot, the idea that the votes cast there represent "the will and intent" of the people is nonsense. We must not allow the uncontested primaries in Florida and Michigan to "nullify" the will of the large mass of voters in all of the hotly-contested primaries and caucuses around the country where the candidates did campaign and the voters had the chance to meet the candidates, ask questions, hear their message and make an informed decision on who would be the best nominee for the Democratic Party.
Finally, I want to be clear that this is a disagreement between the DNC and the Florida and Michigan State Democratic Parties. This is not--and should not become--an argument between Senator Obama and the voters of Florida or Michigan. Senator Obama will reach out to the voters in Florida and Michigan as the presidential nominee of our Party, and will work hard to carry these two important states for Democrats in the November election.
Congressman Jackson is serving his seventh term in the US House and
is a National Co-Chairman of the Obama for President Campaign.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"This is not--and should not become--an argument between Senator Obama and the voters of Florida or Michigan"
It became that for me when he pulled his name off the ballot. here in Michigan. It became that when the Clinton campaign as well for shamelessly cow-towed to the "four states" You only further resentment, by continuing to miscast Michigan and Florida, as recalcitrant villains. You will lose by it, and the democratic party will lose by it.
"a decision to overturn this action by the DNC could destroy our nominating process for 2012 and future years, as states realize that there will be no penalty for violating the primary timing rule."
Precisely the intent -overturning this FKDUP lame BSHT with Iowa and NH !forever !!
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in a statement:
"The threat not to seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida at the Democratic convention is a hollow threat. They will be seated, and when they are, it will be plain for all to see that the privileged position that New Hampshire and Iowa have extracted through threats and pledges from candidates is on its last legs."
The DNC ENGAGED IN SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
The DNC set the dates for the selection of delegates:
Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14
Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19
New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22
South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29
The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries to select their delegates after the opening of the "window" on February 5
On August 9, New Hampshire"s Secretary of State, with the support of the state"s Democrats, announced he was going to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, A CLEAR VIOLATION of the DNC RULES.
New Hampshire"s purpose was to push the New Hampshire primary AHEAD OF THE NEVADA caucus which the DNC"s RULE had scheduled for January 19.Edwards and Obama promptly announced their intention to ignore the DNC rules.
Senator Carl Levin MI
"We have not seen any public statement from the DNC following New Hampshire"s announcement on August 9 that they would move their primary before January 19 in clear violation of the DNC rules. Your silence in the face of New Hampshire"s action is a stunning contrast to the DNC"s reaction to Florida.In the face of New Hampshire"s decision to violate the DNC rules and your silence concerning that decision, and given our strong feelings about the need to reform our nominating process to make it fairer, Michigan"s Democratic leadership decided to elect our delegates on January 15, 2008"
Screamin' DEAN took this opportunity to strip Michigan of its delegates as well.
it's outrageous to me that self-righteous obama supporters think that leaving out hundreds of thousands of voters in michigan and florida is ay-ok, but scream "unfair, undemocratic" when talking about the role of superdelegates. it is patently unfair and undemocratic to exclude these two important states from the nominating process-- and I'm not advocating to seat them as is, but rather an opportunity for those states to legitimately vote must be worked out--period.
It is infuriating to listen to obamaites try to make the claim that voters in all the others states "where the candidates actually campaigned" are somehow more important than michigan and florida. that's a stupid and denigrating argument. let them campaign there--let's do it NOW.
She did win those States. You sound like the Repugs in Florida in 200 when Al Gore won, but he didn't. 1.5 million people voted in Florida and the Repug governor and legislature blackmailed the state Dem Party who wanted a paper trail this time -- you have your paper trail but this is the new date. Voters went and voted their beliefs and you want to disenfranchise them. Coming from a black man it makes it even more absurd to deny them their votes. When there were voting laws that prevented blacks from voting in the south with pole taxes, etc. -- I guess you'd argue that it was correct since "those were the rules and they knew that going in".
Bullshit then and Bullshit now. Those voters voted for HRC and if they had voted for BO, he's be after those votes -- just like he is with the Super Delegates that he said were wrong. Didn't stop him from buying a whole bunch of them with campaign money since 2005.
And what a hypocrite is BO -- he dumps on HRC for the Iran resolution but welcomes with open arms Dem Senators, Dodd, Daschle, Kerry and Durbin who voted for it too -- why doesn't he damn them? Because he is a politician pretending he is purer than Caesar's wife. He ain't.
Great argument..
Just to add:
Again, great point about how he condemns Hillary for her vote on Iraq resolution, yet he enbraces men who voted for it also who have endorsed him. Now if that isn't playing OLD SCHOOL politics, I don't know what is.
The only thing that "won" in Florida was Clinton name recognition. This was not a contested primary.
Amazing how Hillary stood by the rules until ot looked as if she might lose. In other words, change the rules in the middle of the game to my benefit. Usual Clinton strategy.
Okay, let's be fair about this. Let Michigan and Florida hold their primaries at the end, when all others are completed. Those delegates can then be seated. But of course the Clintons won't support this. They don't want fairness. They just want to win, by any means neceesary.
You should try to get your facts straight. Obama has always been willing to have a new campaign and election process for FL & MI, while Hillary doesn't want to do this. She just wants to pretend there already was a fair process and she gets to count the votes.
Once again, the people of Michigan and Florida, given the option of voting uncommitted, in essence backing Obama nd others, chose to vote for Hillary...
Oh sure, as long as it's a caucus and not a closed primary, which is the way the party leadership designed their states primaries to be set up.
There is another very important issue going on here.
The DNC's insintence on holding to their rules was the only thing that put the brakes on a primary calendar that was threatening to leapfrog out of control.
If, when it really matters the DNC collapses what credibility will thay have for the 2012 campaign?
Iowa and New Hampshire won't have to worry about voting in the snow because they will be scheduled for July...of 2009.
why doesn't congress just legislate in this area--that would stop the front loading of the primary contests
Any attempt to regulate the operations of a political party would be ruled unconstitutional under the right of free assembly. The constitution also specifically gives the states the right to manage their own ballots.
I think we need to stop this business of tiny states shaping the Presidential race...a one-shot national primary would help candidates with their funding, would end the months of ridiculous speculation about who a nominee would be, and would stop the media from using this all for their bottom line. The candidates could go on preparing for November without having to spend months getting involved in petty, assinine party internecine squabbles.
While everyone's being so incredibly righteous, depending on which method suits only their candidate, why not also point out that the Florida Legislature controlled by Republicans voted DOWN the Florida Democrat Party's move to move the primary back to February 8. They did try to do this. They didn't have the votes against the Republicans (who had decided on the earlier date).
There are all kinds of articles on this but the quickest way to get some sense of it is with the FAQ at http://www
Florida is hardly the state where we should decide their votes don't count. We're talking about 1. 7 million people who went to the polls and voted DESPITE their party's inept handling of the date-move and they went with, um, Hope, that their votes would somehow be respected and counted by others in the Democrat Party. It wasn't their fault. They're being treated like scum by the DNC and by the candidates afraid of their votes.
Why not fine the Florida Dem party $1,000,000 and get some money for the DNC, which is always bothering me with calls for money while denying Florida its vote (AGAIN). As for Michigan, I don't care, since they were not forced to stay with their date.
And, at least in Florida, Obama did have national TV ads which showed during the last 10 days before the primary (good timing on the nat'l ads)..
But if anyone's looking for solutions, re-doing the Florida primary is not a bad idea if financially feasible, which it may not be. Go for the FINE. $1,000,000 would be good for the DNC and there would be punishment for Florida's error in ever thinking of an earlier date. Or have the re-do.
No non-representative caucuses, no ridiculous fewer-caucusing places so the seniors can't get there easily nor people who have to be at work during caucusing hours, nor people who have kids or who don't have transportation or are not in best health. God forbid we try to include everyone.
With Michigan, if people want to count their votes (I don't read about them requesting this as much),
Obama asked voters to vote Uncommitted if they voted. WELL, that means he recognized they'd be voting but he didn't want the vote to go to Hillary. That makes sense.
Then give Obama -all- the Uncommitted. But giving people the vote is not in the interest of too many for whom democracy means nothing but their own holding of power. They don't trust the voters.
They don't want their votes recorded. The 'rules' are only an excuse for some. Florida, at least was a level playing field.
Correction: tried to move the date back to February 5...
This was done...Flo
Hillary and Hillary supporters are amazing in their hypocrisy. They whine about how Obama wants to stay by the rules, because it suits him to do so. When their candidate, and they, are in fact the ones doing this.
Hillary agreed to all the rules that she is whining about now. One of her campaign managers was in fact the person that spoke out in favour of stripping FL and MI of those delegates. Hillary herself said in an interview that the ONLY reason she went back on her pledged word of not campaigning or counting MI, was that "it wouldn't count." So by her own words, these votes shouldn't count. But the ONLY reason she started saying otherwise, is because she started losing. So once again, Hillary is a liar and hypocrite. And the only reason she's now talking about "disenfranchisment" of the voters, is because she's losing and it suits her. No matter what pledge about it says otherwise or her own words.
The only thing that would TRULY enfranchise the voters of MI and FL and be fair, would be another election. Other than that? split the delegates with half or proportionally to the rest of the Dem votes and seat the delegates that way. But other than that? Just more spinning and cheating and moving the goal posts by Hillary and her supporters.
Only one way to deal with this. Add up all delegates from Michigan and Florida, divide them, half to Obama, half to Clinton, and seat them all. This is the only way to fairly represent all the people who voted in the primaries, while punishing the idiots in the Dem leadership in both states who agreed to go ahead with this process after being told numerous times they would lose their votes if they did.
If you have another vote, you are rewarding the people who cheated in order to try and make their votes more important than the other beginning primaries and caucuses. If you completely disqualify them, and don.t seat any, you are penalizing the voters who had nothing to do with the decision to hold the primaries early. The Dems are gong to need Michigan and Florida in the general election.
By holding other elections, you are also just playing into the Repugs hands, especially in Florida where their gov is jumping at a chance for another go round. Wonder why that is? We've never seen anything strange happen in .Florida during elections, have we?
And please tell me why this is fair? I understand why BO would like that. What you are saying is it now it’s OK to overturn the will of the Democratic voter and award their vote to someone else....? Great, you guys will do anything to get this guy the nomination - buy superdelegates, have Jesse Jackson Jr go in and intimidate them with primary challengers, what ever it takes. The fact that he has not won a single major state (other than IL) we need to win in November makes no difference to you. That’s right give him the nomination by whatever means necessary and lose in Nov. Let’s not disenfranchise the black vote, but it’s OK to disenfranchise the women’s vote and the Latino vote and FL and MI – they don’t matter to the Democratic Party after all do they?
The 'rules' that you mention instruct the Superdelegates to vote according to their best sense of what is good (however that is determined -- some mention electability being important).
There's no having it both ways. There is no rule when both candidates cannot reach 2025,
that the one with more delegates gets the superdelegate votes.
Jon, your solution would not mean respecting the vote-proportion of the state.
What the Repubs have done (the vaunted 'Party of ideas for the past 10-15 years and it's true here) just cut the number of delegates to half while giving the proper proportions for THAT STATE (dependent on the actual voting intentions) while keeping the total 50% smaller.
You say, "All the campaigns, including the Clinton campaign, pledged to honor the "early window" that included only four states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Enforcement of the primary timing rule against Florida and Michigan was necessary to prevent the 2008 nominating calendar from falling into chaos."
Hello, we are seeing the nominating calendar falling into chaos. We should have had winner take all but no, the Dem party wants to make the process fair. Well, here you go. We got fair.
I never thought I would see in my lifetime a Jackson actually argue for the disenfranchisement of voters.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You are either are on the side of the franchise or not. You obviously have chosen political expediency over what is right and democratic.
What exactly do you mean by "a Jackson"? Are your referring to his namesake or his colour? The bottom line- Michigan and Florida broke the rules - period. Our votes ( I am a Michigan voter) were disenfranchised the minute we voted "undecided".
Hillary has no more right to thoses votes thananyone else. THEY DON"T COUNT!!!!!!
How much easier do we have to make it for the Hillary supporters who never graduated high schoo;l?
It seems it is you who didn't graduate high school. And demeaning people's education is probably why so many Texans and Ohioans said no to the snooty Starbucks latte swillers and ivory towered slacker college clowns who chose Obama.
That's right, turn it into a question of race, keep it up Obama supporters, keep it up. Maybe someday in the future people will wake up and realize it was you (Obama supporters) who turned this into a race about race.
What about all the hundreds of thousands of voters who decided to stay home b/c they assumed the election would be just a beauty contest?
Like the Washington State Primaries. Guess what? Obama won those. So should he be awarded delegates now?
It's like saying..."
Get a clue dork.
I
In Washington, parties are given the option of using either the caucus or primary numbers.
The caucus results were Obama 68% to Clinton's 31%
10 days later,
the primary results were Obama 51% to Clinton's 46%
The delegate count is better for Obama with the caucuses.
500,000 people voted in the primary and about 150,000 n the caucuses.
The latter will include mostly activists, college students, and people who can get out of work for hours each day. There are fewer places to vote, transportation can be difficult for some who are poorer or older or in not-best health.
Texas primary had 1.5 million for Clinton and 1.4 million for Obama.
The caucus had about 120,000 from what I could tell. In Texas, as most of us know, these two forms were complementary though one could vote in both and be counted in both. What a truly weird system.
Those people were just plain idiots...t
Too bad, Jessie. Florida and Michigan have been championed by Hillary. She will move to bring the Florida delegation on line. She did well in those states, and it makes sense that she will be able to submit a specific plan for the economic revival of Michigan, Ohio, perhaps Wisconsin, and any others in the Midwest (as well as Pennsylvania) that have been heavily hit by globalization. Obama will do his thing about what she has said about NAFTA, but she has more specifics she can trot out in the way of past legislation than Obama. I doubt that Michiganders will give much of a crap about Obama's lofty speeches. Floridians know that Hillary spoke up loud and clear for their needs. Again, she'll have more specifics about Cuban moves and counter moves, and there are a lot of practical voters in Florida compared to wild eyed Obamistas.
I'd say Jesse Jackson can whine all he wants ... somehow, those delegates are going to count ... and when they do, they'll be more in her favor than Obama's.
As a Michigander and an administrative manager of a Michigan non profit, - can I tell you that Hillary does not have as much of a fan base here as she would like you to think..
I work every day with folks who are the victyims of NAFTA (championed by Bill Clinton - how's that for "experienced"?) So does Hillary denounce Bil'ls support of NAFTA ?
How many folks really undertand NAFTA?
She still got 55% of the vote. Not much of a fan base but it works for the general. I'd even settle for 50.01% in the general. People knew they were voting for HRC. Just like the 40% uncommitted knew they were not.
the demos are in a bind. give it to hillary and lose the black vote. give it to abama and the lose the racist vote.
the demos know how to lose an election give them that. her comes mc war why do you think bush was dancing on the steps of the w hite house. mc war will continue his war w hile he fills his coffers from the industrial military complex.
god bless america imperialism forever baby.
"A nation that spends more year after year on military offense (and I mean offense) than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death". (Gunnels)
even obama knows better than to take on the industrial military complex. we are an imperialistic war mongering arrogant country. one can only see that if they step outside their nationalism.
americans argue over if the surge is working in an illegal war. we need to ask forgiveness from the vietnamese and the iraqis for our war mongering
A deal's a deal. True colors are starting to show.
How about this...do like the Republican party did and seat only half the delegates as punishment.
Florida-everyone's name was on the ballot-no one campaigned-so it was essentially a level playing field. Delegates are seated and Florida is "punished" for pushing up the date.
Michigan-have a do-over since not everyone's name was on the ballot...c
Voter's voices are heard, delegates seated and punished inflicted.
I think those voters in MI and FL should go to bed without dinner and certainly, no fruit cup for them!
amazing...
if FL and MI voters were upset that both candidates didnt contest there then they would have stayed home instead of turning out in RECORD numbers...
Why is the Obama camp so AFRAID of letting FL and MI voters being heard...
And BTW Clinton DID win MI and FL by the rules set.... She didn't campaign in FL (although poor obama was but helpless in running his national market buy adds there + in MI there was a concerted effort by Obama supporters to get people to vote Uncommitted)
I think the fairest way forward is for FL adn MI to revote in a closed primary...
And for the record : you can spin this all you want but Obama will not have 2025 before the convention
So keep on drinking the Kool-aid..
Obama and people like you cant GAME the system.... and hope people wont notice
Ofcourse the main flaw is also that the system is so vulnerable to gaming....
Once this is all done democrats should 1.get rid of the undemocratic caucus system 2, make the primaries open only to democrats and independents 3. make all states winner take all, 4.eliminat
Anika,
You could always just vote Republican. They seem to have the primary system you like.
You can spin that Obama won't have the 2025 because he will. Obama leads in number of states won, popular vote and delegates. The SD's will go with the vote of the people. They don't want to tear the party apart. You talk about the Kool-aid, but I find my argument to be logical. I think you might be drinking some Kool-aid yourself. The large state arguement is also bs. Obama won this fairly up to this point by competing in every state. Hillary could have done the same, but she didn't and she paid for it when Obama won state after state by large margins. His lead comes from winning delegates, nothing more. Just bad strategy on Hillary's part.
Do the math. Hillary picked up less than 10 delegates last night. She is still 130 behind and there are only 577 left. There were 370 awarded last night., and she made up very little ground. By the way, I think the SD's are probably doing the math too and seeing how detrimental a long drawn out negative campaign would be for the Dems in November
http://www
I am not impressed that HRC won CA, NY, NJ and MA. These are typically blue states no matter who is running.. You could have the democrate donkey run in the states and they will be blue. If Obama was the nom he will carry those states. Conversely there are states that will be red no matter what. However I think Obama has a better chance than HRC to bring out the Repubs and Independants that can turn swing states blue. I think if HRC runs it will be just blue vs red states as usual.
anika,
You so patently biased. It really does not matter what the media does. Hillary Clinton agreed to the rules. It was not until she was behind in the delegate count that all of a sudden Michigan and Florida became so important and so reflective of the will of the people. Congressman Jackson presented a well reasoned analysis that no one can dispute. He is absolutely right the issue is between DNC rules and the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties. It has absolutely nothing to do with the voters in Michigan and Florida. The voters in those states should be angry at their state parties for violating the rules. Obama had absolutely nothing to do in setting up DNC rules. Clinton never raised any objections to those rules. Since both candidates agreed to the rules, it is really despicable that one candidate is trying to change the rules, not for the good of the party, but in order to advance her own candidacy at the expense of the party.
It's actually the Clinton campaign opposing the re-vote, Obama has already publicly supported it. A re-vote should happen in at least MI where Obama would likely win.
Clinton's campaign voted and agreed to strip MI and FL of their delegates last year. Now that Hillary needs the votes she wants to seat them, without a re-vote. I can't imagine how you could accuse Obama of gaming the system unless you really are that stupid, or are deliberately lying.
"Caucases whhhaaaaaaa wwwhaaaaaaaa" democratic or not you are totally ignoring, or deliberately trying to shift focus away from, the fact that OBAMA IS WINNING IN THE POPULAR VOTE, Obama is winning in the delegate count as well. Forget about every worthless, inaccurate thing you've just said and focus on that fact:
Even COUNTING Florida Obama would still be winning the popular vote, and delegate totals:
http://www
"Clinton's campaign voted and agreed to strip MI and FL of their delegates". Are you mental what kind of vote can a campaign do? She agreed not to campaign in FL and didn't although BO did by TV ads (not a nice thing to do). She also didn't take her name off the ballot in MI and neither did Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel.
Too bad the general election isn't a huge caucus so Obama could win. In a general with Repugs, Indys and Dems voting...e
personally, I blame the Neo Rethug leaders of FLA who caused this mess
Taking these arguments in order, in what sense was Florida uncontested? The Florida primary followed on the heels of Obama's South Carolina blowout of Clinton and Edwards, so arguing that Obama was disadvantaged by being lesser known ignores all the cable news coverage swirling around Barack which had practically turned him into a rock star even then. Furthermore, although no candidates campaigned in Florida, Obama ran ads on CNN calculated to cover Florida and - like Clinton - held fundraisers prior to the primary. Both Clinton and Obama were well known, and 3 heavily-covered primaries preceded Florida. Is Jackson saying that Obama needed to physically appear at rallies to attract votes, and anything else is unfair? People voted freely, and Clinton won handily. DNC rules aside for the moment, how can anyone say that Clinton had any advantage over Obama with Florida voters?
In Michigan, all Dem candidates were originally on the ballot but Biden, Obama, and Edwards had their names taken off when the DNC announced sanctions, as a deliberate pander to voters in Iowa. Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich left their names on the ballot, risking Iowa voter displeasure on the chance that the DNC could not enforce any sanction that shut Michigan voters out of the Denver convention. All bets were made, and Obama may yet lose if Michigan votes are allowed. Clinton won over Undecided, which was an alias for Obama to his Michigan supporters. This was a deliberate Obama strategy which may have helped Barack in Iowa but could bite him in August.
All of this is inside-party stuff, not constitutional questions or some kind of violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. None of it would be much of an issue if the Dem primary race wasn't so close and individual candidates weren't jockeying for position by making pious arguments in favor of their own candidate.
If Hillary Clinton has One Ounce of Integrity, she will renounce / reject / denounce the FLA delegates and the attempts of the Neo Rethug FLA leaders trying to shove their slimy paws into the Dem race.
Otherwise, she might suffer the legacy of destroying the Democratic Party.
If Hillary Clinton has One Ounce of Integrity, she will renounce / reject / denounce the FLA delegates and the attempts of the Neo Rethug FLA leaders trying to shove their slimy paws into the Dem race.
----------
REPLY
she don't
So you're comparing Florida delegates to Louis Farrakhan? Exactly what did these Democrats do that they should be denounced like a racist anti-Semite?
If only Obama could inspire his supporters to think rationally.
We know that she has NO integrity.
Kellygrrrl
You are absolutely correct. But then again when were the Clintons ever concerned with the fate of the Democratic Party? They tend to view the party as their personal fiefdom. Look at what Clinton did when he was president: he lost the democratic majority. The irony is that his and her lack of interest in cementing the party led to his impeachment and almost cost him his presidency. I say to the Clintons: this time many of the people you have abused and denigrated may not be there when you are in trouble. We are beginning to catch on to your games.
Loading comments…
Posted March 5, 2008 | 04:57 PM (EST)