A consensus is emerging on "superdelegates"
Interesting article in the NYTimes reporting that Al Gore is emerging as the central figure in the debate over Democratic superdelegates. The short version is that he's leading the consensus that the superdelegates to remain neutral for now and eventually cast their votes based on the voting.
With Howard Dean tied up in the mess over Florida and Michigan, Al Gore is probably the only credible figure to lead this discussion.
Here's the most challenging bit, near the end.
There may end up being a meaningful difference between who won the state/district, delegate count, or popular vote, but, I think it's notable that not a single one of these party insiders or "elders" proposes the current Clinton spin, that superdelegates are somehow obligated to ignore the people's vote.
The bottom line is that a consensus appears to be building that would seem to shoot down the Clinton argument, meaning she has to win this thing through the voting. (How weird is it I have to write that sentence?)
The next question is Florida and Michigan. Most of the quotes I've seen from neutrals tend to echo what Ms. Pelosi says in this article, "the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month."
I think the Dem insiders are hoping a winner will be clear enough that Michigan and Florida won't matter, but neither of these states as they stand will be allowed to change the outcome.
Oh, and also it appears there will be no Edwards endorsement
(So, was the "Edwards endorsing Clinton" story a campaign pushed rumor?)
[Posted by Mike - Born at the Crest of the Empire]
With Howard Dean tied up in the mess over Florida and Michigan, Al Gore is probably the only credible figure to lead this discussion.
Here's the most challenging bit, near the end.
Several senior officials cautioned that the party elders had not yet determined whether superdelegates should be urged to cast their votes for the candidate who has the most delegates, or the one who won their state or Congressional district, or the winner of the popular vote. Because Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton might lead in different categories, the question is a vital one.
There may end up being a meaningful difference between who won the state/district, delegate count, or popular vote, but, I think it's notable that not a single one of these party insiders or "elders" proposes the current Clinton spin, that superdelegates are somehow obligated to ignore the people's vote.
The bottom line is that a consensus appears to be building that would seem to shoot down the Clinton argument, meaning she has to win this thing through the voting. (How weird is it I have to write that sentence?)
The next question is Florida and Michigan. Most of the quotes I've seen from neutrals tend to echo what Ms. Pelosi says in this article, "the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month."
I think the Dem insiders are hoping a winner will be clear enough that Michigan and Florida won't matter, but neither of these states as they stand will be allowed to change the outcome.
Oh, and also it appears there will be no Edwards endorsement
At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said. ....Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said.
(So, was the "Edwards endorsing Clinton" story a campaign pushed rumor?)
[Posted by Mike - Born at the Crest of the Empire]
posted by Libby Spencer at 8:46 AM
6 Comments:
A lot of voters in Michigan and Florida stayed home because the primaries weren't supposed to count. Seating those delegates would be a form of election fraud.
If Florida and Michigan are to be represented in the convention, there absolutely have to be new caucuses or primaries. Otherwise, it would be a transparent effort by the Clinton campaign to steal the nomination.
Yeah. Your point is very valid. I probably wouldn't have voted in an election that I was told didn't count.
And yes, it is a clear effort by the Clinton campaign to gain those very dubious delegates.
I find it nearly impossible to believe that Fla and Mich will be allowed in if they tip the balance.
HATE TO REMIND ANYUNE BUT COME NOVEMBER YOU'LL ALL BE SINGING DIFFERENT TUNE, BECAUSE THEN YOU'LL WANT THE GREAT STATES OF MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA TO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, WELL IF IT'S NOT HILLARY THEY SHOULD DO WHAT OBAMA WANTS, VOTE REPUBLICAN SINCE THEIR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER, HE DOESN'T NEED IT!
Another puzzling strategy by the Clinton camp. It just whole ruthlessness meme and if it's supposed to make her look tough, it's not working. It makes her look a cheat instead.
I still honestly haven't decided who to vote for since I have until May and who knows if it will even matter by then, but this sort of game plan pushes me in Obama's direction. Considering the public discontent with the way GW was appointed, you would think the last thing they would want to do is suggest that the race be decided by insider machinations. It will come back haunt her in the general if she wins this thing.
I'm actually under the gun. I'm battleground Texas March 4.
There's an article out there today about memes saying that by working all these angles, Clinton is fulfilling the negative impressions people have of her and, in turn, elevating Obama.
Election fraud? I voted because there was another item on the ballot and because I'm not going to let some apparatchik take my rights away from me and that's just what they did. I don't react well to being disenfranchised and I feel the same was as I did when the Republicans screwed us out of our votes in 2000. New primary, my ass - my votes were stolen and that's a "transparent" effort to narrow my choices to the people the DNC prefers. In fact this entire primary system is rigged to deprive certain states of their rights in deference to a handful of hick states and only a national primary has any claim to fairness.
Yes, I know - the Clintons are the root of all evil. They sank the Maine, you know.
Post a Comment
<< Home