• comment on a post It's a Tie! (Popular Vote v. Pledged Delegates) over 5 years ago

    First, I don't see any recognition in your post at all of the following facts:  (1) Obama is almost certainly going to be the nominee; (2) McCain's policies would be disastrous for the nation; and (3) continuing to fight against Obama will increase McCain's chances of winning.   Perhaps there's a case to be made for continuing to fight given these facts, but a reasonable person committed to Democratic issues and values must at least consider them.

    Second, take a moment and consider this hypothetical.  If a McCain supporter, acting strategically, were to come onto this site and attempt to foment disruption among Democrats, what would he or she say?  My own view is that it would sound EXACTLY like this post.  I'm not accusing TexasDarlin of that.  I have no basis to do so.  But if you start sounding exactly like the enemy wants you to sound, it might be time to take a step back.  

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago

    I'm not outraged.  I think she's hurting the party unnecessarily and unfairly, but I'm well past the point of outrage.

    If there is faux outrage here, it's coming from her when she compares the DNC penalty (which she agreed to help enforce) to disenfranchisement of women and blacks.

  • comment on a post Clinton and Obama could put CA into play over 5 years ago

    Shouldn't it say:  Clinton would put California into play?

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago

    I think that's a reasonable position.  

    Look, an Obama and Clinton supporter found room for compromise!!!!

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago
    For the reasons expressed above, the solution of counting the votes but halving the delegates is more than fair to HRC and respects the voters, while still giving a penalty.  And Clinton won't agree to it.  Indeed, she's suggested its immoral.


    Respectfully, she is the one who is preventing a fair resolution.

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago

    Here you go:  http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/st ate/article518651.ece

    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/05/obama_suggests_halfsized _flori.php

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago
    And this is exactly why I am concerned about what she is doing.  Obama didn't impose the penalty.  Clinton didn't either.  Both of them were mum about it and both agreed to help enforce it (by not campaigning there).


    Yet, at the end of the day, after keeping silent when something could have been done, Hillary is out there convincing people that this is a great injustice.  She's doing it for political reasons.  And it is going to hurt us in November.


    There will be a solution.  Indeed, Obama's team has said they'd agree to something that would be quite fair:  count the votes but, like the GOP, reduce the number of delegates from these states by half.    It would remove the issue from the GOP arsenal.


    But Hillary is out there telling people this isn't enough.  And that's the problem.

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago

    I don't disagree that the DNC gets some blame here.  I said so above.

    But I am absolutely not attaching any false meaning to Clinton's or Wolfson's words.  They said what they said and their meaning was entirely clear.

    The DNC will resolve this in a few short days.  But the question is why is Clinton out there poisoning voters against Obama and the party?  

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago
    That's not true.  Obama's campaign has said they would agree to the DNC doing the same thing the GOP did: count the delegates, based on the unsanctioned primaries, but reduce the number of delegates by half.  Since it's exactly what the GOP did, it would mean the GOP can't make an issue of it in November.


    But it's not enough for Clinton.  Why not?

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago
    I agree with that.  But the problem lies in the way Clinton is attacking this issue -- which suggests that Obama's victory will be illegitimate and the Democrats don't care about the people of FL and MI.  

    The delegates from FL and MI are going to be seated.  It may not be exactly how Clinton wants, but that's reality.  Her overheated rhetoric is the problem.

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago

    You hit the nail on the head.  And the impact in November is exactly where my concern lies.

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago

    there were a variety of practical and political considerations that made revotes difficult.  They maybe could have been dealt with if things had gone quickly.  But Clinton didn't even support them until March, and at that point, it was probably too late.

    I wish Obama had fought for revotes (or rescheduling) right out of the box.  But he's not the one going around claiming this is the great moral issue of our times.  Claiming that we've become Zimbabwe.

  • on a comment on Clinton's Opposition to Revotes over 5 years ago

    I agree the original decision was a bad one.  They should have imposed a 50% reduction or some other penalty that would have been basically acceptable.

    But they didn't.  And Clinton went along.  She agreed not to campaign there.  So how can she now claim this a great moral crisis?

  • She didn't speak out about "disenfranchisement" akin to slavery.  She defended her decision to leave her name on the ballot.  On an interview with a NH radio station.  That's the best she did on speaking out?  I don't think that's a serious argument.

  • I don't think you've responded to the evidence, listed above, that Clinton OPPOSED revotes for many weeks.  How could she have done that if she has a genuinely held belief that this is fundamentally wrong and a revote was the way to right it?

Diaries

Advertise Blogads