<p>Here is an interview</p>
<p>[The</a> Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME](<a href=“http://thepage.time.com/excerpt-of-clinton-interview-with-texas-monthly/]The”>http://thepage.time.com/excerpt-of-clinton-interview-with-texas-monthly/)</p>
<p>Well, well, well, what a surprise…
NOT!</p>
<p>Question is: Do you think Senator Clinton would feel the same way if the tables were turned? In other words, if Obama was the only candidate who could possibly benefit from seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, and she, along with the other Democratic candidates, had abided by the decision handed down by the DNC?</p>
<p>I think most of us know the answer to that question:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I posted the link to this Texas Monthly article in another thread about when will Hillary quit. If you use the other link to read the article, it includes comments from readers (MANY comments); it’s interesting to read the replies.</p>
<p>poetsheart, your sentiments are echoed by many of the comments.</p>
<p>Would Clinton feel the same way if she wasn’t losing and those delegates would help her immensely? Probably not.</p>
<p>Does that make it in any way more wrong to seat the delegates? Absolutely not. She is right - the Democrats cannot allow MI and FL to be disenfranchised, both because it is unfair to the Democrats who were there, and because it could heavily backfire in the general. I don’t know exactly how to solve the problem of the clearly lopsided primaries (at least in MI, with all the undeclared; in FL since they were all on the ballot, it is, at least on the face of it, less of an issue).</p>
<p>Here’s the more telling question I have: if it was Obama suggesting this (or if Hillary didn’t benefit) would everyone still be reacting with so much vitriol? I think not, and I think it’s a shame, because it is clearly a bad idea to allow all the Democratic primary voters to be disregarded in those states.</p>
<p>While I agree it’s clearly self-serving of her, I’m dismayed by how easily that makes everyone lose sight of the actual substance of the issue.</p>
<p>In perhaps the first time I have ever agreed with Newt Gingrich on anything, I think that MI and FL should revote with both candidates fully campaigning. It’s the only fair way.</p>
<p>“the Democrats cannot allow MI and FL to be disenfranchised, both because it is unfair to the Democrats who were there, and because it could heavily backfire in the general”
Hold the Phone! The voters in those states were told in advance that THEIR VOTES WOULD NOT COUNT! So many stayed away from the polls and did not bother to vote at all, unless they want to vote on local issues on the ballot. If the votes that were cast are now suddenly allowed to count, what about the disenfrachisment of MILLIONS OF VOTERS who were told not to bother about voting for a Democratic candidate that day!<br>
Bottom line-The issue here is not who would or “benefit”, it’s about changing the rules after they have been agreed to and set.</p>
<p>menloparkmom: Maybe you didn’t read my post fully, but I stated very clearly that I’m not sure how to fix the problem of the lopsided voting in those primaries. My preferred option would be to revote the primaries.</p>
<p>However, it is very clear that in some way MI and FL must be allowed to count. Whether that means a do-over, or whether it means keeping the current results, or whatever else, it is simply bad policy to let 2 huge states get left out in the cold merely because certain Democratic officials made a dumb choice.</p>
<p>“However, it is very clear that in some way MI and FL must be allowed to count”
Why???
“it is simply bad policy to let 2 huge states get left out in the cold merely because certain Democratic officials made a dumb choice”
Yeah, and people have to learn to live with the consequences of their bad choices. They made a bad decision .You can bet the voters in Fla and Mi won’t let their state representatives forget about this decision in the future.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because both MI and FL are large states that the Democrats need to win in the general this year. Send the message that the voters there don’t count, and it makes it that much harder to win. Pretty simple and compelling reason why not to do it, yeah?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry… “their” choices? Pardon my ignorance, but are you implying that the voters in those states had direct input on the decision to move up the primaries? Because last I checked, that decision was made by Democratic party officials who, while elected, would not have had any particular mandate to do anything like that from the state. Nor could you fault the voters for foreknowledge, because I bet you none of those officials were elected on the “move up the primary” platform.</p>
<p>Look, I know you love Obama and hate Hillary, but try to see past that obvious bias for a second. It is clearly not in the Democrats’ best interests to make all the voters in MI and FL feel as though they don’t matter - when they manifestly do. The only question now is how to fix the problem that has occurred. I’m not entirely sure about the answer to that, but leaving their delegates uncounted merely because Hillary won their and Obama didn’t (the underlying theme coming through from lots of Obama supporters) is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous would be simply allowing them to count, because Hillary won. There needs to be middle ground.</p>
<p>“Send the message that the voters there don’t count, and it makes it that much harder to win.”
By “people” I meant Party officials. Party officials in those states made a huge mistake in their decision to ignore the policy set by the Democratic National Commttee. They played “chicken” with the DNC and they lost. And those that made the decisions will no doubt pay for their decision in the future.
Remember what happened to the SECT of state in Fla who was responsible for the decision of what type of ballot was to be used in the general election in 2000? She is no longer an elected official. </p>
<p>I’m sure the Nominee will make sure the Democratic voters in those states “feel the love” in those between June and Nov.
And I don’t see the Democratic voters of those states deciding to vote for McCain for President come Nov. because of the bad decisions made in 2007 by some bonehead state officials.</p>
<p>“menloparkmom: Maybe you didn’t read my post fully, but I stated very clearly that I’m not sure how to fix the problem of the lopsided voting in those primaries. My preferred option would be to revote the primaries.”</p>
<p>Does anyone know who pays for elections in Florida and Michigan?</p>
<p>^^^ I think for the primaries, it’s the DNC, which is why some have suggested a caucus as opposed to a primary. Caucuses are less expensive to hold.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yeah, Katherine Harris is out of office now, but not because of the ballots in 2000. In fact, after 2000 she served two terms in congress - elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2004. It was a different scandal that cost her a lot of her support in her 2006 bid for the US senate.</p>