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.
|
Frankly, to agree to a do over in either state would set a dangerous precendent. I believe that the delegates should not be seated based on what ALL parties agreed to BEFORE the race got 'interesting'. Blaming the Republican legislature in FLA (what about Michigan? I guess noone is to blame for that one?!) is copping out; I am glad that the Congressional (as opposed to state legislature) FLA Dems are opposed to a revote because they can see the larger picture.
I also hate that voters in states like Florida, Michigan, California and Ohio are usually somewhere in the middle of a political controversy that affects the rest of the country (ie recent and current presidential elections, affirmative action propositions, voting machines).
Threaded Mode
