MyDD :: Simple Question

Simple Question

by RLMcCauley, Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:30:51 PM EST

It's my understanding that despite a lack of protest before MI & FL were stripped of their delegates (with the assistance of one of her staff members) Senator Clinton now wants their votes to count. It would be an outrage if voters votes didn't count. That's my understanding of the situation.

If that's the case. Why the hell does her campaign keep talking about how even pledged delegates don't have to vote in a way that represents the will of the people who voted?

"There is no such thing as a pledged delegate," Clinton said at a news conference in California, where she has been fundraising."

I understand the technical issue and that's not what I'm talking about. Technically MI & FL have no right to have their delegates seated. Technically no one has a right to a primary vote at all.

What I'm talking about is the moral issue that Clinton is referring to. The right for your vote to count. The right for it to count towards the person you voted for. That's the whole point of the MI & FL hubbub.

"Pledged delegates are a "misnomer. The whole point is for delegates, however they are chosen, to really ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee against Senator McCain," Clinton said. "And I think that process goes all the way to the convention."

Well, if you somehow take pledged delegates away from the candidate to whom they were pledged then the voters votes didn't count.

Someone please enlighten me about how this statement is consistent with every vote counting.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, delegates (all tags)

Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

No one can "take" the pledged delegates away ~ however, Hillary is only stating the way the primary process has always worked. I don't understand your problem. And to try and draw a parallel between this and the FL amd MI mess is pretty disingenuous. Those "rules" that everyone keeps talking about are not the regular "rules" of our primary process. The committee has arbitrarily and selectively enforced those rules re not seating the delegates from FL and MI. False analogy.

by Mags on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:37:17 PM EST

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

Her position is that she could clearly convince them to go her way. So let's say there as a revote and MI and FL went for Obama and Clinton convinced a majority of the pledged delegates to support her anyway. Did the votes of the voters count then?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

Them's the rules....

by Mags on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (2.00 / 1)

That's true but that could be said about MI & FL as well and it doesn't address the voter disenfranchisement argument made by Clinton. It's just as much voter disenfranchisement if you vote for one person and your vote goes for someone else.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:19:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

And the FL and MI delegates having no vote is the rules too. Harold Ickes voted for it, all the candidates agreed to it, and Hillary only made an issue of it when she found out she couldn't win legitimately. She wants to play this, "pledged delegates can vote for whomever," argument she's free to pursue meaningless academic debates on the legal fineries of the rules. But no pledged is going to flip for her, and there's no compelling reasons for supers to vote en mass for her to overturn the votes of everyone else - and all these arguments succeed in accomplishing is to make her look cold, calculating, and desperate.

by TheSilverMonkey on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (2.00 / 1)

The diarist is right. While I can understand why a pledged delegate might break faith with the voters who sent him or her to the convention under the most exceptional circumstances (eg. Obama turns out to be the Manchurian Candidate), those who think voters cast their ballots so that delegates can act as free agents are kidding themselves.

I don't understand why Clinton is even bothering to make the argument, actually. Could you imagine the meltdown which would occur if she actually won by flipping pledged delegates? Ai yi yi.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:05:24 PM EST

An even simpler answer (none / 0)

Your question:

Why the hell does her campaign keep talking about how even pledged delegates don't have to vote represent the will of the people who voted?

My answer:

They don't.

by Trickster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:07:42 PM EST

Re: An even simpler answer (none / 0)

While she may be factually correct, not a good talking point.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An even simpler answer (none / 0)

Yes they do. This has been said before, denied that it was an idea, and said again.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (2.00 / 1)

It's my understanding that despite a lack of protest before MI & FL were stripped of their delegates

You understand incorrectly.

It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything, but I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008. I did not believe it was fair to just say, 'Goodbye Michigan' and not take into account the fact we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009.

That's what she said back on Oct 11, 2007, when all assumed (including her campaign, to its discredit) that she was going to be the nominee. So she has said this when she was up, and is saying it now that she is down. She has been consistent.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:39:14 PM EST

Re: Simple Question (2.00 / 1)

If you call that a protest that's fine. But that makes it even more interesting that the voters, in the end, appear to be not at all important to her anyway since she appears to be saying that she'll fight for delegates pledged to Obama.

That's the part of the post you didn't talk about...

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (2.00 / 1)

I'll talk about whatever you like.

I think her comments about pledged delegates changing votes is just political posturing to keep her opponent on edge. I think our media is bored and so our days have been filled with non-news and reduce the conversation to betting on horses, rather than discussing issues and qualifications. So I'm not particularly moved by this. I'm sorry that I don't have a more emotional reaction for you.

I have also said many times that I expect my candidate to make a "most votes" argument legitimately, and that I will not support undermining the results of a fair contest. I have defined what a "fair contest" means to me, and it includes finding a solution that both parties feel is fair to FL and MI.

I have been consistent and clear on that point. Please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere; they aren't constructive.

by bobbank on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:35:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

It's not a conspiracy theory if she says it. As far as what you care to read or what you think is helpful, that's irrelevant to me.

Posturing (right) about overturning the will of the voters seems to be acceptable to you though. Interesting.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:59:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

Wow, I've actually never heard that whole quote. That truly does impress me as an Obama supporter to find out I was dead wrong about a beef I had with Senator Clinton. I agree, it does look like she was consistent.

Anyway, aside from the diarist's main point, it remains the case that the DNC - within its own rules - stripped those states of their delegates with the support of Clinton insiders. And this was prior to any voting such that it was fair to all concerned. It seems to me that an argument in favor of Michigan and Florida necessarily promotes a system that at least in some sense disenfranchises the votes of states that don't break the rules. If it weren't for the rules we'd have had a national primary in December.

Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."

by brimur on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:27:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

That's what she said back on Oct 11, 2007, when all assumed (including her campaign, to its discredit) that she was going to be the nominee. So she has said this when she was up, and is saying it now that she is down. She has been consistent.

Not even close. You catch this part: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything..."? In other words, the election in Michigan (and Florida) isn't going to affect the nomination outcome in any way, shape, or form. Those delegates will eventually be seated, but they won't be allowed to swing the nomination to one candidate or the other. So Hillary was essentially arguing then the same thing that Obama and his supporters are arguing now. Hillary, on the other hand, has now decided that those elections WILL count for something. That's not consistent.

by RP McMurphy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:45:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (2.00 / 1)

See, I have this really odd mental disorder - I read entire sentences. I don't just stop reading right before a conjunction like "but".

by bobbank on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:28:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

See, I have this really odd mental disorder - I read entire sentences. I don't just stop reading right before a conjunction like "but".

Well, if you know anything about the conjunction 'but', you know it's the logical equivalent of 'and' and is incapable of negating the preceding conjunct and remaining true. For example, if Hillary Clinton said "it's clear this election won't count for anything but it will count for something" she would be spouting nonsense. P * ~P. And, as the rest of the quote illustrates, she does nothing of the sort:

...but I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008.

So yes, you're wrong.

by RP McMurphy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:20:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (2.00 / 1)

Actually what she said was that it was clear this election wasn't being counted (fact) BUT she did not agree with that and thought we needed a more realistic solution.

by bobbank on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:14:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

Actually what she said was that it was clear this election wasn't being counted (fact) BUT she did not agree with that and thought we needed a more realistic solution.

Alright, I think we're arguing two different things. You note that Senator Clinton was unhappy with the status quo of stripping Michigan of its delegates. That's true. However, it's also true that she acknowledged that those were the rules and agreed to abide by them. In this sense, her position hasn't been consistent.

by RP McMurphy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

I mean, let's put it this way. Clearly she would not be fighting as passionately as she is for these votes to count if her campaign didn't need them to count. I get that. But if you're honest, you know that, with roles reversed, your candidate would do the same.

I think the full quote, in context, is sufficient to refute the argument that Clinton somehow flip-flopped. She didn't. I won't deny that she turned up the volume, re-emphasized, etc. But I don't see anything wrong with that.

If it helps any, I have been forthwright in saying that Clinton was counter-productive by holding onto the notion that MI results should stand as they were. Perhaps if she had set a more realistic expectation, there could have been an agreement reachd. Perhaps not. I don't know.

My larger argument is that a re-vote is the only fair solution to MI, that it is important to do this, and that it will benefit the eventual nominee, regardless of who it is.

by bobbank on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

Did she fight passionately to stop the DNC before the decision was made? Her comment was quite dispassionate so I hope you've got more.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

I gave you an opportunity to have dialogue by being candid. You want to have another meaningless semantics battle. Knock yourself out; it doesn't interest me.

by bobbank on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 03:51:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

I'll take that as a no.

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

You sir, bring up a brilliant point and the same can be made about the superdelegates, who Hillary apparently hopes will overturn the will of the voters if she does not have enough pledged delegates or popular votes in her favor.

Yes, them's the rules, as it is in MI and FL, but it seems awwwwful undemocratic.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:31:49 AM EST

The simplest and most elegant (2.00 / 1)

explanation, I think, is that no one in the Democratic party knows WTF is going on! If you think Hillary is unnaturally motivated to win, keep in mind that Tom Daschle said (on Obama's behalf) that they're ok with any solution, as long as it doesn't change the outcome.

Um ... democracy sometimes requires changing the outcome. Sheesh!

Reasonable people can disagree.

by mnicholson0220 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:13:13 AM EST

Re: The simplest and most elegant (none / 0)

When did Daschle say that? Have a link?

My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!

by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple Question (none / 0)

It's not consistent with the moral principle her campaign has been driving at for weeks now.

by tessellated on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:38:03 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login