Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyB06
IMO, there is very little that is "straightforward" about politics at this level. Perception always plays a role.
As I recall Obama, Clinton and Edwards all pledged to not campaign or appear on the ballots of Mich/Fla because they "jumped ahead." at the last minute HRC put her name on either the FLa or Mich ballot ....so you might wonder why this hasn't been hit on as a campaign issue by the Obama campaign.
Secondly, these were state party decisions, supported by the legislatures, I think, and HRC's albeit "self-serving" argument is that the people, separate from the party, are being disenfranchised. Of course, it's postering, but there is a deeper point in all of this. National CNN Columnist (and Bruh) Roland Martin suggests both states be set aside and voters of those states take it out on their elected officials who made this decision.
at the end of the day some political solution is going to be reached, becuase those are heavily populated states and the DNC doesn't want "dissafection" to carry over into the fall campaign.
I'd guess Obama would like the situation to remain static, but I don't think that'll be a viable posistion to hold once an idea emerges that gains momentum.
|
Re: the names
All candidates names were originally on the ballots. Due to Florida's rules no candidate could pull his or her name off of the ballot. All candidate's names were on Florida's ballot.
Obama and Edwards pulled their names off of the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not but it "didn't matter" at the time since the vote's "didn't count." That's her story and she's sticking ... well she's saying they SHOULD count now.