<p>For those who worship Obama, it is going to take a lot of “nuance” to reason away this one… Bonus points to anyone who can argue that this is actually the new kind of politics we have been waiting for.</p>
<p>CNN) – When the Democratic National Committee meets Saturday on the thorny issue of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations at its August convention, party officials will have to fashion a solution that satisfies supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton and presidential nominee front-runner Sen. Barack Obama.</p>
<p>Sen. Barack Obama showed he was willing to use bare-knuckle tactics during his first race in Chicago.</p>
<p>It may take a Solomon-like decision to appease both candidates.</p>
<p>Obama’s current position: the procedural rules that were previously established, and intended to apply to all candidates, should be followed.</p>
<p>Obama’s position in the Chicago election: the procedural rules that were previously established, and intended to apply to all candidates, should be followed.</p>
<p>Hillary should sue? Are you kidding? Michigan decided to hold their primary early in violation of party rules. They were warned what would happen. They decided to do it anyway. All the candidates but Hillary withdrew their names from the ballot because of it. She claimed she wasn’t going to because “the votes won’t count anyway”. So she wins the primary. Tough to do when your name is the only one on the ballot. Now she claims she won more votes than anybody else and we should change the rules so she gets those votes.</p>
<p>Those who stayed away because their votes would not be counted should be the ones suing. They played by the rules and they are going to be disenfranchised.</p>
<p>Did you even read this article? He played by the rules in his old election. Invalidating signatures b/c they dont look real(i.e. not signed) is legal(these are the rules w/ nearly every petition). Running for a position that you thought(via the incumbent’s words) would be empty is also a non-issue.</p>
<p>I agree with alipes07.
The article tried to sensationalize a nonissue.</p>
<p>There’s nothing hardball about playing by the rules, something that he did in the state election, and something that he was attempting to do in the primaries until Hillary backed off her prior commitment to follow the rules, and then she started the pressure to change the rules to count votes for primaries that both she and Obama had previously agreed shouldn’t count.</p>
<p>As for disenfranchised voters: All of the voters in Mich. and Fla. were disenfranchised when a Democratic primary was scheduled in their state that by the party’s rules couldn’t count for the election. The voters in those states didn’t get to hear Hillary or Obama campaign (which is understandable because both candidates knew that the primary woudln’t count).Obama’s name wasn’t even on the Mich. primary.</p>
<p>The primaries weren’t fair because the candidates couldn’t campaign. Therefore, I don’t think any of the votes in those states should count. Even the people who voted didn’t have the opportunity to have a full or informed choice. Many people probably didn’t bother to vote because they thought that their vote wouldn’t count.</p>
<p>Since the Dems probably will give Fla. and Mich. some delegates in order to shut up sore loser HIllary, I back the idea of apportioning those delegates based on what Hil and Barack would have won if the primaries had been held later, and Hil and Barack could have campaigned in the state. Let some unbiased statistician figure this one out.</p>
<p>The irony of the whole situation is that if Fla and Mich HADN’T moved up their primaries, they would have really been in the kingmaker seat (which is the reason they moved up the primaries in the first place).</p>
<p>Disenfranchising the primary voters in two populous states seems like a dumb punishment, but who knew that the delegate count would be so close.</p>
<p>But those who did not vote are also disenfranchised. One way or the others some FLA and MI voters are going to be disenfranchised. So why favor those who disregarded the rules? They had plenty of time to complain before their primaries.</p>
<p>Philadelphia is similar to Chicago in this respect. It is HARD to gather valid petition signatures. You have to have a real organization, and people who are trained to do the right thing, and hard-working. Getting enough valid petition signatures is a substantive test of campaign competence and public support.</p>
<p>And for precisely that reason, people cut corners with it all the time. Fake signatures, multiples from the same people, people who give as addresses places that don’t exist, people who don’t live anywhere near the district. The rule of thumb with a well-run, good-faith campaign is that you probably need to get 2-3 times the required number of signatures to be confident you have enough, and everyone expects that, if your opponent is for real, one of the things he will do is check your petition signatures.</p>
<p>That’s not bare-knuckles anything, or disenfranchising anyone. That’s a basic check against common petty corruption in urban politics.</p>