An Issue of Legitimacy and Democracy
There have been some who have tried to read my comments last week on CNBC's SquawkBox as stepping back from my support of Senator Clinton. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I personally know, respect and like both Democratic candidates. Both are qualified. Both will be an agent of change from years of profligate spending on a misguided war. Both will address the discontent that results from long unmet needs and the mismanagement of our nation's economic affairs.
That said, I truly believe Senator Clinton is the most qualified and prepared to be our next president. I unequivocally support her candidacy.
My point on SquawkBox was and remains that superdelegates should consider a number of factors in their final decision, particularly after the primaries and caucuses have run their course.
Clearly, the cumulative delegate totals must be considered. Absolutely, the cumulative popular vote is important. And, a practical analysis of electability and the electoral map must be weighed.
For me, the most important of those factors is the popular vote since Democrats have rightfully and passionately long argued that every vote should be counted. Practically, that popular vote should include participation of the fourth and eighth largest states in the nation. Most Democrats agree that ignoring the voices of Florida and Michigan is a mistake and threatens to impact the outcome of the fall elections.
Like many, I fear that not considering the wishes of millions of Democratic voters in those states will taint the attitude of voters everywhere about our ultimate nominee. Early polling in Florida has already indicated as much.
Without a "do over" for those states, the short-term gain could well come with long-term pain for our nominee, the party and the nation.
The party should be responsible and raise funds for a primary "do-over" in a way that doesn't give the competitive edge to one candidate over the other.
I believe, as I think most Democrats do, that the popular vote is the most democratic way to select a candidate. In fact, I recently signed legislation in New Jersey that joins the state in a compact to choose a president by direct popular vote.
When we listen to all of the people in our party, we end up choosing the person the entire party can support.
Loading comments…
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
Rasmussen is a reputable, un-biased pollster. May I suggest that as many people as possible go to the Rasmussen home pages and read the article, "Michigan and Florida Deserve a Re-Vote". As we know, the state legislatures of both states have ruled that there will be no revote, but this Rasmussen article gives a cool headed and clear picture of where we now stand, without taking sides and could be the basis for the beginning of a successful negotiation. Also, while you're there, look at Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary poll dated 3/7/08. As far as I can find this is the most current Michigan Clinton/Obama poll. All the ones listed at Real Clear Politics are from early last January and are clearly outdated. The poll shows Clinton 41%/Obama 41%. Also, look at Michigan Presidential Election poll dated 3/31/08 which shows McCain 43%/Obama 42% as opposed to McCain 45%/Clinton 42%---All of which shows that the people of Michigan support the two of them equally and that neither is significantly stronger against McCain then the other. Now, please read the MI and FL article and allow an informed and impartial observer to explain the nuanced reality of our current MI/Fl state of affairs. Let's use our cooler heads and negotiate.
Karela: Thanks for the links. Rasmussen is one of many polls that I access on a regular basis. Most seem to change almost daily.
I have ave read the article and considered the points made. However, the article is that author's personal opinion. While I think some good points were made, overall, I simply don't agree with the premise that MI and FL votes should be counted as is OR should be allowed to have a revote. They had their chance. They preferred a flawed election where their votes would be disqualified, rather than following the rules like the other 48 states. They made their beds, and now they don't like the lumps in it. But, all MI and FL voters will be able to vote in the GE. They simply won't get a say in the primary nomination process. We don't get to vote twice and neither should they.
Why shouldn't they be able to "vote twice"? Technically speaking it wouldn't be voting twice since (even you your own words) the first vote is "disqualified". That means it's nil -- at this point in time (cos the "disqualified" status can change). A re-vote would replace the first primary and it would set to seating the delegates.
Hey NorVaGal! Thanks for reading and getting back. I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't saying that there should be a re-vote as that is ruled out. And I sure didn't mean that we should take the vote as is in MI/FL. I thought that the article did an excellent job of showing that that would be unreasonable and unfair. I only meant that it laid out the problems clearly as they now stand and without heat or favoritism---it was the first time that I'd heard anyone do that, especially with the professional authority that Rasmussen can certainly speak from. What I hope for is that if people could take a breath and step back a bit, they might catch a glimpse of the other side's position and perhaps cooler heads could prevail in negotiating a compromise that might be reasonably fair to both sides. On one of the Sunday morning shows today, Howard Dean pointed out that the candidate who went to the convention with the most delegates won would apparently, under the rules, have a slight edge in the seating of the credentials committee. Unless the sky falls, that is going to be Obama. Mrs. Clinton will not get 100% of what she wants from that source either. It would be better for all to negotiate now and then go do their best in the last ten races and then we'll know more. Sorry for confusion.
WTF? In the 2004 democratic primary the winner was decided with 21 contests left. Big states like Illinois, Pennsylvania, NC, Oregon and New Jersey didn't have ANY impact on the outcome. Were they disenfranchised??? Every primary season there are states left out of the process and it's almost always one I'm living in at the time. Why hasn't anyone cared about this until now? And what about the stanglehold the two parties have over the process making it almost impossible for an outsider to get in? Is this democratic? What about the media shutout of candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul? Where were the party people then? Did any of the other campaigns speak up when Kucinich was kept out of debates? I didn't think so. This whole process has never been fair or the least bit democratic.
Noelle,
I am so sorry to explain this to you but in the parlance of a prizefight, neither candidate has given the other the knockout punch! This decision is decided when one candidate reaches the required number of delegate votes to nominate period.
Don't forget that there have been other times that candidates went to the convention without reaching that number and that's what conventions are charged to do...
NOMINATE.
So much to learn and so little time for us to do the learning?
Sen. Obama Supporters who bash Sen. Clinton are hurting Obama. If Obama has locked the nomination up then why oh why do Obama Supporters go on and on about Sen. Clinton. Polls show this helps John McCain.
Obama supporters need to help their candidate win in November. Moderate Independant voters will decide this election in November. Sen. Obama is rated as the most liberal serving Senator. These voters may be scared of that.
Whenever I read a post on a blog or an article that bashes Sen. Clinton in the same tone that should be reserved for the current President, I thnk to myself, "How can this person be an Obama supporter when they are doing something that is exactly what Sen. Obama claims he wants to end in or politics,"
I'm not an Sen. Obama supporter but I respect him as a candidate. I de believe he has tried more than most candidates to speak about his message and not just bash the other guy. BUT YOU UNDO HIS GOOD WORK when you drag his campaign into the mud he is trying to avvoid.
So am I naive? are all you Hillary bashers just acting on Obama's secret orders so that he can maintain the high ground? Or are all you Hillary Bashers really just republicans doing a Karl Rove and pretending to bash Hillary on Obama's behalf to turn her supporters against Obama in the fall?
we don't, you do.
Mschmal: If Sen. Clinton signed the DNC pledge, agreeing that states moving their primaries up early, in violation of DNC rules, would not be counted and would forfeit ALL delegates (pledged and unpledged), WHY, OH, WHY, does she and her supporters GO ON AND ON about allowing those states, MI and FL, to be counted now????? WHY, OH, WHY is she subjecting all of us to this discord?????
I wonder that you say Obama supporters "bash" Clinton, but you have no recriminations for the language that Clinton supporters use to "bash" Obama. I will admit that both sides go over the top at times. But, for some reason you ONLY see negative behavior attributable to the Obama side. This makes me very suspicious of your seeming concern that Sen. Obama is being hurt by his own proponents. Surely you cannot believe that Sen. Clinton has been helped by her and her surrogates' vitriol?
Nope. I smell a rat.
Democrats, republicans, third party members, independents, moderates, liberals, and conservatives ALL have a choice in November: vote for McCain and continue the Bush/Cheney legacy, or, vote for the Dem candidate, who ever that will be, and take a chance on change. It's just that simple.
Do you really not know that there is just cause to not like Hillary? Do you honestly not know the things Hillary has done and said about Obama, lies? Things that have come from her campaign..
I am not a Republican, I am not in Obama's secret message club...I research, I read, I am a news junky. All the rumors and nastiness is comeing from the Clinton Campaign..
I would like to know what has been said about Hillary? That she is a lier...tru
keir.....a
Maybe Obama should call in his lawyers to force Hillary drop out like he did to his primary opponents the first time he ran in the Illinois state primary. Quote:
"The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
... in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.
A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.
"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
http://www
Let's make a deal, Susan1968: We'll work on Obama's trying to force opponents out in 1996 and YOU work on Hillary trying to disqualify caucus voters and cheat her opponent out of the presidential nomination in 2008. I'm game!!
"I unequivocally support her candidacy.
Unequivocally? wow, that's really strong support.
I feel an "issue of legitimacy ".
I question how any Governor or Super Delegate can support a Presidential candidate that has fabricated a story of experience claiming she was under sniper fire. Bill's impeachment didn't do the Democratic party any good.
GivePezzA Dispenser
I question a Democrat making comments like yours.
But my mother loved me.
So, do you think Hillary really has faced sniper fire in her life and just confused the location? Or do you think she was hallucinating on the occasions when she recounted in that incident in such elaborate detail?
Give Peace A Chance
Try staying on topic, it won't kill you and might actually do you some good.
You made a mistake that was as shortsighted as not wearing a seatbelt, John.
Hey, that was uncalled for. Have a conscience.
The fact that you won't "step back from Senator Clinton" and you still see her as a qualified candidate makes me automatically think of your entire post as a bunch of pure crap. You won't step back from a LIAR? You think this type of LIAR is qualified? You won't step back from someom=ne who will not protect and defend the constitution? You won't step back from someone who, theroughout her career, has thought of rules, agrrements and the constitution as a joke? You will still support this criminal mentality? The I must step back from anything you say. You are either bought, a liar yourself, or just plain stupid. We don't need any more of her "qualifications". We have had enough of that for the last seven years. I can not trust you. I especially can not trust the pathological LIAR Hillary. Since the very beginning:
"Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidenti
FreedomhaterQ
Who is Zeifman? Wheres he been?
You don't know.
See how easy Swiftboating is?
Joe Blow will say Obama was his daughter's pimp.
If the popular vote is the most democratic way to elect a candidate, then why do superdelegates have any role at all? I think both caucuses, elections, and deliberations by superdelegates all have an appropriate role in selecting a candidate. But Clinton supporters seem to be very enthusiastic about superdelegate decisions while dismissing caucuses. I think that "disses" ordinary citizens and the discussions they have.
She screams bloody murder about disenfranchising voters and all the while threatens the electorate with having the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters.
Good luck in your career, Corzine.
If the popular vote is the most democratic way to elect a nominee, then why do we have state primaries to elect pledged delegates to go to the converntion. If this isn't the fair way to nominate our candidate, than why is it set up this way? We have these rules in place for now. Next time we can go to "winner takes all" like the Republicans do, but that way seems even less democratic. Since neither Clinton nor Obama are going to reach the pledged delegate threshold, then it's very simple. You go with who got the most pledged delegates. Popular vote is not really the issue in a system that awards delegates based on primary results. I'm so sick of everyone trying to change the rules. If everyone wants to change the way it's done, we'll have to wait until after this election. And for God's sake, let's stop this Super Delegate nonsense. Even the repugs don't have this artibrary, undemocratic, and elitist system. While we're at it, we need to get rid of the Electoral College. That is insane. Obama won this nomination with dignity and hard work. He ran the most brilliant campaign in the history of this country, against a well established political machine. Hillary never was the "underdog.
Corzine, I know you will never read this and yes, I do give you props on the Darfur work, but the idea that the super delegates should vote to override the decision of the pledged delegates is a JOKE. The democratic party is the party of Jefferson who said: "...the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance
[sarcasm] I'm so very glad and deeply touched that you take such care in weighing all the relevant factors in your decision, and I am sure that your personal political goals would never play a role in influencing you. [/sarcasm] But guess what, when I elect a pledged delegate they are running on a very simple one line platform: to vote for a particular candidate at the convention. When I vote to elect someone who ends up as a super delegate I am voting for them based on a complex platform for governor or senator or whatever and the last thing that is on my mind is how they will vote in a nomination as a super.
So, please, grow a pair and respect the will of the people and the founding principles of the party, or don't and stfu.
Big Waaah! I live in Oregon, and have been "disenfranchised" as long as I remember, with a May primary I have had the dubious pleasure of seeing such stellar candidates as John Kerry chosen long before my vote even happened. This time around, thanks to the fantasy world the Clinton campaign is living in, I will have a chance to actually choose between two people. Funny how getting this far has made the Clintons too abhorrent for me to even consider them.
How about next time having a short and sweet 12 week, 3 region primary. Done deal. We have suffered enough.
Sign me on to this, although ideally, I'm for one same-day, nationwide primary, abolishing the superdelegates, most popular votes determines the nominee.
And let's end the electoral college, recess appointments, signing statements and executive orders.
Now that would be genuine democracy
I hear you, since I am from Washington. Never before has anyone cared who we wanted for he nominee either. That is the good part. Clinton isn't so despised because she is sticking with it but rather how she has gone about her campaign. Her strategy was to ignore the caucus states and concentrate on the primary states and have everything sewn up by super Tuesday. In which case you wouldn't have had a voice anyway. She underestimated her opponent, failed to plan past super Tuesday, and ended up in a quagmire with diminished funds. In desparation she began the kitchen sink strategy. In desparation she acted in a manner unbecoming of a Democrat by tyring to pray on the fears and prejudices she believed were in voters like you and me. This whole hoopla over Florida and Michigan is really about the frustration of many states in the way the system is set up to favor the opinions of voters who don't know Washington State from Washington DC and think that bears roam the streets of Portland and Eugene.
What I see in these comments is that Obamabots are willing to say or do anything to support their candidate. Does anyone doubt that if Obama won and Hillary lost, the Obamabots would be scxreaming to seat the delegates.
Why do any of you pretend that you care remotely about the Demcratic Party or, for that matter, the democratic process. Just be honest: you are worshippers at the altar of Obama, he is your God, and to see him get the nomination (even though it means dragging the party to defeat in November) you will say or do anything.
The Obamabots are well on their way to destroying the Democratic Party. I hate to say it, but their behavior is more becoming to the communist nations--with their cults of personality--than it is to a Democratic nation.
Well, for a member of the Green Party (no, I don't support Hillary, and never have) I guess I should be glad the Obamabots are destroying the Democratic Party. But I'm less happy about their willingness to destroy the democratic process and discount the votes of millions simply and solely because to count them might threaten their guy's chances at the nomination.
Goooooood job, Obamabots. Now, don't you think it's time for you to say your prayers, "Noster Obama, qui in caelis est, sanctificetur nomen tuum..."
Yes, Sen. Obama has always aided by the rules, and that what we as his supporters want him to do. NOBODY in the Obama camp would yell to change the rules after the process was started.
Another example of the destructiveness of this issue is the false claim that Obama has, in some way, disenfranchised the voters of Florida and Michigan.
Wow. It's amazing. I have heard EXACTLY the same accusations leveled about the Clinton supporters. Seems the Democratic Party is well on its way to being destroyed either way. But, at least Obama supporters can take comfort in the fact that their candidate has played by the rules every step of the way; and, if he loses it won't be because he simply rolled over and played dead when confronted by unscrupulous campaign tactics.
But, as you are a Green Party member, thanks for being so concerned.
Obama has always played by the rules? Gee isn't he the candidate that ran ads in Florida? Yes, I believe he was. Wasn't that against the rules? Yes, I believe it was. Didn't he have rallies in Florida? Yes, I believe he did. Wasn't that against the rules?
Yes, I believe it was.
Those who play by the rules and win, generally, do not scream, as in whining to "seat the delegates.
This whole issue is BS hypocrisy.
The ONLY REASON why HRC has made such a big deal about this is because she is behind Obama. If places were reversed she could give a rats a** about MI & FL.
Don't even tell me that she would cause that is BS.
The only person that is destroying the party is HRC not Obama. Obama has ALWAYS stated that he would follow whatever the DNC would decide upon. So how can he be responsible if both states legislatures and party officials voted against having a redo. How explain it to me.
This whole issue doesn't mean anything cause we will have our Dem winner right after May7th. Both states will be seated in the convention and they will participate.
Its stupid to think that MI & FL will engage in revenge voting due to this issue. If they vote for McCain they only have themselves to blame. If they want to go vote Republican as a spite move, fine .. I hope they it. They get to live with blood on their hands from condemning more soldiers to die, kissing Roe V Wade good bye within the next 4, watching our economy go further into the toilet with no healthcare reform.
abot
If you think Florida voters won't think long and hard about supporting a party that voids its' vote you are fooling yourself. What makes you think Florida voters think our vote counts for anything in the Democratic Party?
Wow, you really need to do some homework.
JOhnny boy,
We all know you and Ed Rendell have been promised some whorishly lavish position in the Clinton adminstration for your horrendously personally motivated shilling of Hillary, even offering to pay for the revotes.
But if YOU were the candidate who as per the rules, didn't campaign in either state and who's name wasn't even on the ballot in one of them so that your opponent was literally unopposed while they sailed on name recognition and with the local political machine in place to deliver the votes for them, suddenly, after you're winning wants to count those unopposed, uncontested elections you both agreed not to run - especially one where a major portion of your voter demographic had already voted and could not vote again, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs, crying bloody murder and outright accusing them of political sabotage, hypocrisy, cheating, rules violation, you name it.
You're trying to pull a Bush vs Gore Supreme Court style election theft.
Not this time.. The forces of corruption will NOT prevail.
And when Obama is President, I'm going to LOVE seeing what he does to clean house in the Democratic party and gets rid of a slew of you corrupt ,dirty, old school Democrat bastards.
Lawless
I hate to think fellow Democrats are as clueless and wanton of fellow party members concerns.
If we were talking about the general election, as an Obama supporter, I would agree with the Clinton supporters and Mr Corzine.. The problem with any body's complaining about "disenfran
The rules were agreed to at the start of the primaries. Michigan and Florida broke the rules. If they are allowed to have a determinative vote at this point, we will have a single day national democratic primary next election because every other state is tired of Iowa and New Hampshire picking our candidates first.
If Hillary Clinton and her supporters want a single day national primary, let them state it loud and clear. Otherwise, do not count the popular vote in the totals, split the delegates, and seat them all at the convention. The state parties must be held to account for breaking the rules.
And Obama makes no promises for his endorsements? He has outspent Hillary in the wine and dine the superdelegates by a factor of 3. Richardson didn't get offered anything? Daschle? Seriously, you sir, are naive to think the same wheeling and deeling doesn't happen from Obama. Perhaps we should explore what Jesse Jackson Jr. is doing on behalf of Obama, threatening african americans superdelegates and delegates with language like "traitors to your race for supporting Hillary."
You don't go up the political ladder of Chicago without the help of the Daley's and I'm sorry to inform you, our POLITICS ARE FILTHY DIRTY HERE! However, I love it, cuz our crooks help the poor! Crook County baby!
Not counting voters on a technicality, now that IS a BUSH/ROVE tactic....
SEAT OUR DELEGATES! GO HILLARY!
Why did HRC agree their votes wouldn't count just a few months ago?
What I find hysterical is that here is a man who outraised Hillary in campaign contributions by millions and still lost three out of 4 contests on March 4. What the heck did his campaign do with all of this money, because obviously they did not use it wisely? Now that's what I call a scandalous story. What is he the Steinbrenner of Politics?
The best that Hillary can do is recover her Senate seat with dignity, perhaps run for Gov of New York, but the numbers are the numbers. Obama has proposed a fair 50/50 split of the delegates. He raised money from all of us who give $25 at a time, not $2300.00 and bundle. Hillary's $20 Million this month (we'll know April 22nd) may very well be less than $10 Million for the primary and $10 for the election if she is the nominee, it is her campaign's job to raise the money. You cannot criticize Obama, they have raised money from all of us in the United States, not politics as usual where the wealthy party elite.
I reject and disavow this rude post.
Governor John Corzine is an honorable man. Who do you think you are, Dan Savage? Give me a break. NJ has one of the best school systems in the country. What we need to do is clean house with all of you rude dysfunctional degenerates who post this gibberish and make public examples of you at the Democratic Convention. Maybe castration by tongue lashing.
Ignoring the HC vs BO for a second --- isn't it just juicily ironic that all these states wanted to have an early primary because conventional wisdom was that only early primaries really mattered? One way that the last few months have been terrific for America has been the number of conventional notions that have tumbled off the decks --- if only the pundits and consultants who have been responsible for promoting them would actually have to pay some kind of equitable penalty for being so wrong. Say, having to shut up for a half decade or so.
oh Jon
you're just mad you couldn't buy us a new primary
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
