Jeralyn Merritt has the text of "4 State Pledge":
... I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.
Merritt thinks that the exclusion of the delegates is not commensurate with the scope of the pledge:
Now, can people stop saying that Hillary Clinton agreed the votes in Florida or Michigan wouldn't count or to the non-seating of the delegates? It prohibited only campaigning. Even fundraising was allowed.
The exclusion of Michigan and Florida was a penalty imposed by the DNC. In my view, it was an unfair one and should be lifted. The votes should count as is, the delegates should be awarded and seated.
पोस्ट्स
१८ टिप्पण्या:
Jeralyn Merritt is in the tank for Hillary.
With Michigan and Florida's regular delegates added back in, Clinton would have 1,435 delegates to 1,404 for Obama
versus
the present count of 1,368 for Obama and 1,226 for Clinton,
not including superdelegates;
counting superdelegates and the MI and FL regular delegates, Obama would be ahead 1,663 to 1,645, with 380 superdelegates yet to commit.
I have no idea whether these numbers are correct, but the source, demconwatch, seems good.
Take out the first 'c' and whaddya get....?
Not that I really care about how screwed up this whole process is but the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI, makes trying to say MI should count, just sound bogus.
but the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI, makes trying to say MI should count, just sound bogus.
It sounds Soviet.
It sounds Soviet.
Well, they are Democrats.
Merritt seems to have a point. It doesn't look like Hillary disavowed the delagates. Just campaigning. Though, "participate" is vague (presumably on purpose).
Going in to their primary, my Michigan relatives all lamented the fact that their votes wouldn't count, and wondered why their party had disenfranchised them. If the answer is, "to turn their delegates over to Hillary, of course," they're gonna be really pissed.
Help might be on the way for Obama supporters, Al Sharpton is threatening a lawsuit and/or mass demonstrations to picket the DNC. The images of that run in loop in the background of every cable tv station should help awareness and sway independents and undecided voters.
Stop the Vote!
Anyone see Governor Rendell on TV yesterday? Fox News I believe.
He wants re-votes but does not think Michigan caucus method should be allowed because caucuses disenfranchise elderly, workers, etc - you know all the groups who supposedly vote for Hillary.
And yes Commisar Rendell is in the tank for Hillary.
I found Daschle's response to Rendell amusing: Caucuses do not disenfranchise the elderly, workers, etc. I wouldn't have guessed that Daschle has no objection to Voter ID laws!
Mike;
I missed Daschle's response - of course Commisar Daschle is in the tank for Obama.
The pledge was necessary to protect and enforce the no seated delegate penalty. No one can be disenfranchised, since the primary votes are not binding to the delegates in any other way but arbitrary rules of the party. They are not bound at all if a first vote in the convention fails to bring a victor.
The attempt to maintain the fraud that party nominations are democratic processes are the root of the Dem's problems. The whole purpose of proportional voting assures no winner if there is a real contest. Imagine a third person with 15-20% of the vote! The whole system is rigged for the party elite to select the candidate. They just never envisioned Obama when they made these plans in the 80s. They do and will continue to look very stupid.
“…I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential…”
“Now, can people stop saying that Hillary Clinton agreed the votes in Florida or Michigan wouldn't count or to the non-seating of the delegates? It prohibited only campaigning. Even fundraising was allowed.”
It is obvious that Merrit cannot read or reads selectively. She missed the word PARTICIPATE.
Except Jeralyn is ignoring this Clinton statement:
"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."
The Associated Press
Thursday, October 11, 2007; 4:21 PM
No one can be disenfranchised, since the primary votes are not binding to the delegates in any other way but arbitrary rules of the party.
There's a very good argument to be made that denying Michigan voters the right to vote for the primary candidate of their choice violates equal protection. Just borrow the holding from Smith v. Allwright, change the federal office being selected from Congressman/Senator to President, and change the amendment violated from the 15th to the 14th:
The right of a citizen of the United States to vote for the nomination of candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives in a primary which is an integral part of the elective process is a right secured by the Federal Constitution, and this right of the citizen may not be abridged by the State on account of his race or color.
If Clinton sees no problem with reading "I shall not participate" as meaning "I shall go ahead and put my name on the ballot", I see nothing wrong with reading "I shall not participate" as meaning "I shall not get any delegates".
What Hangzhou said.
She skipped the into part of the letter:
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा