6/1/2008
From http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/06/01/153615
Decision at the RBC: Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy issued a statement yesterday following the Rules and Bylaws Committee [RBC] meeting:
"Today's results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party's nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party's convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly. We strongly object to the Committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan. The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party. We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast."
What is Fair?
This question has been ponder in the literal sense for ages.
What is fair to one is not to another
What we really are debateing are rules.
Not solutions
but rules
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
It will be alot more
COUNT EVERY VOTE
There is Something Happening Here
Why are you all Scared?
Must be Senator Clinton has a large closing surge in the nomination. For the ones who think it is over, then Why, bother with posting negative articles and implying innuendoes?
Have I missed something here?
Are counting the votes scaring you or just the results? To those of you who have decreed over the past two months for Senator Clinton to get out, I say you are scared of losing the nomination and not the General Election.
To those who continue party divisiveness, I say 17 Million plus voters are at stake.
FYI It is not over.
It is Not Over We still do not have a nominee.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 08 The Inclusive Choice
Paranoid strikes deep, into your life it will creep
Everybody look what's going down ...
There is Something Happening Here
Why are you all Scared?
Must be Senator Clinton has a large closing surge in the nomination. For the ones who think it is over, then Why, bother with posting negative articles and implying innuendoes?
Have I missed something here?
Are counting the votes scaring you or just the results? To those of you who have decreed over the past two months for Senator Clinton to get out, I say you are scared of losing the nomination and not the General Election.
To those who continue party divisiveness, I say 17 Million plus voters are at stake.
FYI It is not over.
It is Not Over We still do not have a nominee.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 08 The Inclusive Choice
Paranoid strikes deep, into your life it will creep
Everybody look what's going down ...
The point in regard for counting the vote in Florida and Michigan has nothing to do with Hillary's winning or losing. Obama has already won, regardless.
The issue to be settled is whether or not Democrats will be required to follow the rules of our party. If they are not required to follow the rules, and Florida and Michigan are seated with no consequences for having held their primaries out of turn, then what happens in 2012?
Is the DNC going to say: "This time we really really really do mean it?" Where is the incentive if there are no consequences for states who did not abide by the Democratic Primary calendar in 2008?
What if even 4 other states had acted in such disregard of our party rules as Florida and Michigan did? Counting or not counting these votes is not about Hillary winning or losing. She has already lost. It is about keeping order in our Party.
That is what the rules committe will decide this Saturday.
Read More »"Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.
Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.
Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.
Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent.
In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.
However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly. In fact, they weren't punished at all. And what about Florida & Michigan? Well, we all know what happened to them.
Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of all their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren't applied equally and fairly. And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.
So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:
1.) Read the damn rules first!
-and-
2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status."
http://power-2-people.blogspot.com/2008/02/dnc-primary-rulesdisenfranchisement-of.html Read More »
In a Democracy, we do not change the rules in the middle of a campaign to benefit a candidate. That’s what happens in banana republics.
The plain bare truth is that the Democratic leaders of Florida and Michigan disregarded the DNC primary calendar and held the elections according to when they wanted to. Florida, in particular, gives a lot of excuses about the Republican legislature, etc. That argument doesn’t hold water. Many states, such as Texas for one example, have Republican legislatures and we held our primary according to the DNC calendar.
So that is the first hypocrisy—that Florida and Michigan “had” to hold their primaries when they did. They did not. They had other choices and they could have gone to the DNC to discuss alternatives and they did not. Their leaders chose to defy party rules. Key word: Chose. The Florida Democratic leaders were not victims in this even though they are positioning themselves that way after the fact.
The second hypocrisy that is going on here is that the Hillary campaign is really concerned foremost with the voters of Florida and Michigan and “want their votes counted.” Well of course they do. It is to their advantage.
But get real and consider this scenario of what could just as well have happened if other states acted with such disregard for ALL the voters of ALL the states as did Florida and Michigan. What if, for example, on Tuesday January 29 that North Carolina, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Georgia, Colorado, and Minnesota had also decided to go out of turn like Florida?
What would you be saying? Would you be on the side of counting these states too, or only just the ones that Hillary carried (which in this example, would have been a grand total of l). Why is it OK to give full benefits to two states who disregarded the primary calendar rules of our party?
It is true that it was the leaders in these two states and not the people who made that decision. And again that is where the democratic process comes in. If you don’t like what your leaders do, you vote for different leaders. But what you don’t do is change the process in mid-stream. That is not how a democracy works.
I found this very enlightening. I was watching MSNBC until a pundit came on that I hate , when I flipped the next channel , which is Fox News and happened to catch the robot anchor fussing with Dick Morris , former respectable Democrat. He was talking about the DNC Meeting on the 31 st and how it's all going to go down. He was saying that even if they seated those delegates , Hillary would still be behind Obama by 100 and he concluded that this nomination is over no matter what happens tomorrow and that Obama is the nominee.
Then , I was reading Daily Kos and came across this little gem that actually shows us what the DNC Rules really are and it's even better. If the DNC allows the delegates to be seated , they can only seat 50 % of them. Ha ! So, I am so not worried about Hillary seeking to benifit from breaking the rules anymore at all as a matter of fact, I'll join in the call to seat them. But let me be clear. I will continue to defend Howard Dean so don't get any funny ideas on attacking him and thinking I'm going to let you.
I am growing impatient with the attacks on this great man.
I am going to keep this short and sweet. The problems with Florida and Michigan are not the fault of Howard Dean. They are not the fault of Barack Obama. They are not even the fault of Michigan and Florida voters.
Instead of bad mouthing the ones who are not responsible and calling for their replacement , perhaps , those doing this should direct their anger at the real culprits. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm who , whenever she is up for re-election , will be receiving some out of state assistance going towards her opposition. GUARANTEED !
In addition to this selfish governor , others to blame for the debacle in Florida would be the FLORIDA Democratic Leadership from top down , who LIED when they said they tried to stop the GOP from changing the dates. Oh , and Ms. Wassermann , who backed Republicans over the Democrats in local races recently , had already been blacklisted when she's up for re-election. The only reason why she's out there now trying to act like she's a Democrat again , is to make up for stabbing local Democrats in the back.
So, direct the anger at whom the anger should be directed and the blame towards those who are really responsible. I know the argument seems to be that we cannot afford to risk these two particular states in the General Election so we should just reward their bad behavior. First of all , we ain't getting Florida. Wake up. As long as there is a Republican Governor of the state of Florida , and idiots who don't know how to run an election , Florida will never go to the Democrats. As far as Michigan goes , let's be clear. That race was fake and in no way reflects the entire state of Michigan as TONS of voters did not bother even going to the polls and 45 % who did , made clear that their choice was not Hillary.
__________________________________________________________
Please Note...
Blog posts are written by PartyBuilder users and do not necessarily reflect DNC positions, nor are they reviewed or endorsed by the DNC. I
__________________________________________________________
If our opinions and views really mattered to the Party elite and leadership, it would only stand to reason that they would have someone reading the blogs posted that reflect the views and opinions of the party loyalist and grassroots activist and channeling our voices to the leadership. Their own words that state they do not read or review our postings can only lead me to believe they really don't care about what is on the minds of the people that have supported and built this party.
Since the very beginning of this nomination process, there has been, although very subtle initially, a bias in favor of Senator Obama as the Party leaders' pre-determined choice for the nomination of our Party. In recent days and weeks, since this race has been so close, their bias has become even more apparent. They have sent out letters to superdelegates encouraging them to end this process by supporting Senator Obama over Senator Clinton, so it will not go to the floor of the National Convention. They have made comments to the effect that by June 3, someone must drop out of the race. They are engaging in backroom strong arming tactics to sway the nomination process in the direction they desire, without any regard to the over all views and opinions of us, the people that make up this Party.
The rules of the nominating process permit the selection of our nominee to go all the way to the floor of the convention when the roll call of state's delegates is conducted, yet they want to put a stop to that process. Just what exactly do they fear by allowing the process to run its course to the end, in compliance with what the rules permit?
They use the excuse that continuing this process is destructive to our Party, something that I believe strongly is untrue. The openness and transparancy of our process thus far has been one of the major factors at bringing new voices and votes into our party. Democratic voter registration is hitting record levels. People voting in the Democratic primaries is at record levels. The American people are actually paying attention to our candidates and our selection proccess, something that we have not seen in decades. The longer that the American people are permitted to see and hear both of our canidates, the better they know them and the more they learn about our Party.
The Party says they want "Party Building", yet they want to take actions to return the process of selecting our nominee to the same old ways of selecting the nominee in advance of the convention, without a single roll call vote of the delegates. If the party leadership and elders are permitted to get away with this tactic, it will have a negative impact on many voters that are new to supporting our Party. Voters have been energized to become engaged in our Party because for the first time in decades, they feel their voices and votes really matter. To end the process without letting it go all the way to completion at the National Convention, will lead to many voters saying that they were wrong in thinking that our Party was offering anything new, that in the end, the Party resorted to the same old tactics that we have seen over and over to manipulate the process to achieve the pre-determined outcome that the party elite desired from the start.
The actions and comments that I have heard lately from current and former Party leaders are completely out of touch with what I am reading here on the blogs posted by those of us that are the real base support of this party. They have their agenda and apparently will do whatever it takes to make that agenda become a reality, regardless of what we think.
I have begun sending messages to the DNC through their "Contact Us" link on the Party website. Since they will not review what we have to say here on the Party Builder blogs, I intend to make them hear our words by sending them directly to the Party. If this is truly about "Party Building", as they bill this section of the DNC website, then why are they not interested in reviewing what is on our minds. Do we not have a say in the direction that our party takes?
Source: Lori Hansen Riegle Of Huffington Post
Having lost the national elected delegate race, Hillary Clinton now wants to count the popular vote from Michigan in her campaign's efforts to change the rules of the nomination race. It's a fraudulent argument as the Michigan primary ballot did not offer Democrats real candidate choices.
Here is what actually happened. The four top tier Democratic candidates -- Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Clinton -- all pledged to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) they would not campaign in Michigan, after the DNC ruled that Michigan's delegates would not be seated at the national convention because Michigan changed its primary date from February 26 to January 15.
Obama, Edwards and Richardson kept their pledge and removed their names from the ballot. At the last minute, Clinton left her name on the ballot, with the full knowledge that the results would not count. Obama, Edwards and Richardson complied with the rules, while Clinton did not keep her pledge.
Although there was no other viable candidate's name on the primary ballot, only 55 percent voted for Clinton. Instead --
45 percent of Democratic voters cast their ballots as "not-Clinton" - 40% who voted the "Uncommitted" line and 5% who voted for one of the remaining candidates that were not viable.
An additional 27,694 voters did not have their votes counted, most of these likely due to "write-in" votes -- anyone writing in Obama, Edwards or Richardson's name had their ballot ruled invalid and discarded.
"Uncommitted" won more votes than Clinton did in major cities such as Grand Rapids, Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and Ann Arbor. The "not Clinton" vote also won in Wayne (the state's most populous county), along with several other counties. If write-in votes had been counted, the results would likely have tipped against Clinton in several more cities and counties.
Democratic turnout in Michigan was lower than every other state primary except Utah -- a state that gave Bush 70 percent of its vote in 2004.
Recent analysis of the 2008 turnout in other states compared to Michigan's turnout -- indicates that more than 700,000 Michigan Democratic voters, who could have been expected to participate, stayed home rather than vote. They didn't participate because they understood there was no real Democratic election choice in Michigan.
Michigan primary history had previously established a precedent for the 2008 situation. During the contested presidential primary of 1980, the DNC ruled that Michigan delegates would not be seated at the convention because the state was holding an open primary not recognized at that time by party rules. President Jimmy Carter and his challenger, Senator Edward Kennedy both kept their names off the ballot -- they honored the rules.
Clinton did not follow the precedent set by Carter and Kennedy. Instead, the Clinton campaign tried to claim Michigan delegates that were not earned competitively. When that gambit failed, Clinton began counting the popular vote in Michigan as part of her national total.
The facts associated with the Michigan Democratic primary make it clear that Michigan voters were disenfranchised by the election. As a result, the primary vote cannot be considered an honest and valid measurement of the support for any Democratic candidate in Michigan.
Perhaps a fitting postscript can be found in a recent Michigan poll by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA. In that highly respected poll, Obama led McCain 43-41 percent, while McCain led Clinton 46-37 percent. Obama was running a full 11 percentage points better than Clinton in Michigan -- when matched against McCain.
If Michigan had not moved up its original primary date of February 26, a vigorous and fair democratic primary election campaign in Michigan could have taken place. Then the real voice of Michigan Democratic voters would have been heard. Anll the current evidence indicates that the voters' choice would have been Barack Obama -- not Hillary Clinton.
TRUE STORY : If my nephew knew I was sharing this, he would KILL me .
My nephew Jacques and I are two or four years apart. I'm older than him. He's the son of my oldest sister . There was this one Easter , I don't remember our exact ages (obviously) , but I think we were both under ten because he still had his baby fat....anyways, where my two nephews and three of my other sisters , were all hanging out in one of our rooms watching cartoons and playing with the toys in our Easter Baskets.
Soon, we started trading candy with each other. Jacques ate all of his Malted Eggs and wanted one of mines. I told him he had to trade me something. So, we decided to trade my delicious malted ball that would be gone in an instant, for his little green lime flavored loli pop. Even though it lasts longer, given the disgusting tart flavor and lack of popularity, I thought it was a fair deal. He agreed.
No sooner had I placed the green sucker in my Easter Basket, Jacques had chomped down the delicious Chocolate Malted Egg. He was entitled to that. I decided to save mine and eat it last because I hated that flavor. But he wanted my Malted Egg so bad, that I felt sorry for him and agreed to trade. In any event, (and this is where Florida and Michigan voters need to pay close attention), Jacques had a change of heart. He wanted his sucker back.We argued fiercely over that sucker.
Some of my sisters took his side because he was balling his eyes out and they wanted him to stop crying before Mama would hear him and would come down the hall yelling at all of us and take all our baskets away. Jacques and I think one of my sisters, argued that it wasn't fair because a loli-pop last longer than a malted ball. But, I stood my ground. It was LIME flavored so it had lower value. A deal was a deal. Period. My nephew screamed and threw a fit like he always did and here came one of my older sisters (I forget which one).
"What are ya'll doing in here?” she snapped. We made our case and it was decided that I was in the right and Jacques was wrong. The only way to get his sucker back would be to give me my Chocolate Malted Egg back. But he ate it up so he was out of luck. So, I guess that's why I am always leaning towards Howard Dean’s side in this whole debate about Florida and Michigan. The rules are the rules and you can't change the rules after the fact.
It's just that simple and maybe it will take the Super Delegates to do what my older sister did when she heard us crying and fighting. Maybe the Super delegates will come down the hall and say..."What are ya'll doing in here?" And finally, to my nephew Jacques ; If you get a hold of this , please don't be pissed off at me. I didn't use your last name and they have no way of finding out that much info anyway.
Love Ya! Auntie Dee
COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.
Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.
"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.
Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.
She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.
New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers.
Posts