yet it was you're candidate who rejected the most recent proposal by the MI Democratic party.
Hillary is trying to bully the party into getting what she wants.
But if you believe those delegations should be sat based on the current results, you're fucking insane and I really don't care if you vote for Obama if he's the nominee or if you ever vote Democatic again. Frankly, I wouldn't want the vote of people who are trying to force bullshit elections on the rest of their party.
Sorry if you don't see those as two junk elections.
And it's interesting how this is being reframed as a "resolution."
Look, MI and FL are settled - they moved up their primaries, they lost their delegates.
What remains is the possiblity of negotiating circumstances by which they could be sat, but if you think that it's going to be on Hillary's terms, fuck off.
She agreed to the party's rules, she stood by the other candidates.
Only after her campaign of inevitability fizzled and her December prediction that it would all be over on Feb. 5th went "poof!" did she care about MI and FL.
MI and FL only mattered when she needed them, not because this is some issue of defending voters' rights(which its not btw - party's have jurisdiction on their nominating contests and no rights have been violated).
I think everyone is open to discussing seating MI & FL and would like to see it happen, but it's not going to happen if the Clinton camp insists that it's according to the current results.
Sorry. That's nuts.
And I really don't think you're going to have much success in bullying the party on this matter. What's more likely is that a resolution is achieved whether Hillary likes it or not.
I mean, she's rejecting the proposal of MI's own Democratic party. She's standing by the results, calling them fair elections(elections that don't count for anything aren't fair - their meaningless), in an attempt to screw over her opponent.
No reasonable person would look at FL and MI and say that they were genuine contests - not w/ one candidate on the ballot(Obama took his name off, as did Edwards and others, to support the party's rules, though I believe Kucinich kept his name on too), not w/o campaigning. And saying that Obama ran ads in FL is tit-for-tat nonsense that gets us no where.
I even support giving Hillary an advantage in the allocations, but no fucking way would I take 70 delegates to nothing out of MI.
There isn't just one side at the table and nothing is going to be resolved so long as the Clinton camp attempts to bully the party and the Obama camp into bending to its will.
If the Clinton camp continues to push in this manner, I'm pretty certain we'll reach the point where they can take or leave what they're given on May 31st. At this point, I would like nothing more than for the Clinton camp to have to ask elected officials of the party to go back on their own rules and reward states for breaking those rules.
Let me say in closing that just a few years ago Terry McAuliffe, still DNC chair, told Carl Levin that if MI moved up its primary, he(McAuliffe) would strip it of its delegates.
Even Hillary's own advisors are on record as saying that it's 2,025, so if you want to talk about changing the rules, well, this new number of 2209 seems to fit the bill.
So, maybe call them out for going back on what they have said within the last few months?
I liked MI's current proposal - a 69-59 split - but it's pretty apparent that the Clinton folks will only accept what they want, which isn't exactly the way that negotiations work.
Of course, you could point out the complete lack of credibility w/ the Clinton position - she should have spoken up about MI and FL much sooner, instead of saying the race would be over on 2/5; she never should have agreed to abide by the DNC's rules if she wanted MI and FL to count(even McCauliffe(sp?) is on record saying in 04 that he would deny MI delegates if they moved up).
Hardly seems reasonable to turn this all back on Obama.