It gets worse and worse

[ellid]

Now she's saying that pledged delegates can vote for whomever they please. Doesn't that basically negate the whole idea of a primary and send us back to smoke-filled rooms?

Comments

[antoniseb.livejournal.com]

I think there is nothing that can be done about this until the last primary at the beginning of June, but after that, I expect a large group of superdelegates to commit to the pledged delegate leader (presumably Obama), and turn off the spigot. She is doing a lot to hurt the Clinton Legacy(tm), and seems to have ruined her chances of being 'The Next Ted Kennedy'.

[fitzw.livejournal.com]

From the article you cited:
Some states require their delegates to support the candidate they are pledged to but most do not.
Those aren't HRC's words; those are the words of the author of the article.
With other commentary later in the article, it means, in strictu sensu, that she's right.
It doesn't mean that they will, though: …the altered [DNC] rule, which dates to 1982 and says only that pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

[tx-cronopio.livejournal.com]

I swear, she's becoming delusional.

[brieza.livejournal.com]

It sounds like she'll do anything to secure the nomination. And the fact that she considers the people's opinion to be worthless doesn't endear me in the slightest.

[persevero.livejournal.com]

According to my friendly politics lecturer, that is entirely true, and delegates have occasionally availed themselves of it. You only *think* that you have a democracy. Thank Merlin for habit and custom, eh?

[celandineb.livejournal.com]

Well, since Obama is trying to basically disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida, while Clinton has supported either an acceptance of their primaries or a revote, he doesn't have a lot of moral high ground here IMO.

A pox on both their houses. But I will still vote for either of them over McCain, who is anti-choice, pro-permanent war, totally ignorant of economic realities, and basically a horrible possibility.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

To be honest...I really don't have all that much sympathy for the voters in Michigan and Florida (especially Michigan, since the Democrats in Florida may well have been torpedoed by the Republican-controlled legislature). They were told months in advance that if their primaries were held early, their delegates would not be seated. Evidently local pols decided that the DNC was bluffing and took a chance, and found out that no, it wasn't a bluff.

Also, those primaries were not fair because Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot, despite her (and all the others) pledging that they would not campaign in either state. We have no idea how the votes would have been distributed if any of the major candidates had campaigned in these states, or if Edwards and Obama's names had been on the ballot in addition to Clinton's (my bet is that Obama would have done well in Florida and Edwards in Michigan).

At this point the only fair solution is to seat the delegates and split the votes 50/50. It's too late and too expensive to hold a revote, and the Democrats really do not want to get into a credentialling fight during the convention.

As for Hillary Clinton, if she really means to engage in delegate-poaching during the convention, I may well do what my mother always threatened to do and vote for Gus Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Hall) even though he's been dead for eight years....

[celandineb.livejournal.com]

I disagree that a 50-50 split is fair. The FAIR thing would be a revote, regardless of expense; then we would know for sure how the people in those states feel. It's the principle of the thing. If they'd go 80% for Obama if he's on the ballot, then he should get 80% of the delegates, right? But if they go 70% for Clinton, then she should get 70%. *shrugs* I believe it's actually too late now, because of various state laws, to hold revotes, which is most unfortunate.

I think it was idiotic of the DNC to make a decision that disenfranchised voters, frankly, but they need to get it fixed in a way that isn't going to piss off every Democrat in those states (or even a substantial number of them), because if they do, both Florida and Michigan are likely to go to McCain and THAT would be far worse.

To be honest I am not convinced that caucusing (which is where Obama has done better) is a fair way to assess preferences, given that a much smaller number of people are able to participate in caucuses, and they are not representative of those who actually will vote. So Obama's success in caucuses cuts no ice with me; to me those are the smoke-filled back rooms, just as much.

In this state one cannot write in a candidate. So I cannot threaten, because I will vote and I will not vote for McCain, regardless. I will vote for Obama if he's the candidate, as I said, but I don't think he's any kind of knight in shining armor, that's for sure, and if he's elected he's not going to be able to magically bring people together in peace and harmony, which seems to be the hope/promise on which a lot of folks are basing their support of him. But I think I'd better shut up now.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

Well, there's always Ralph Nader...;)

[celandineb.livejournal.com]

I really doubt he'll be on the ballot either. And I wouldn't vote for Nader anyhow.

Not that it matters one iota who I vote for, since the state is almost certain to go Republican anyway. Makes me really feel like there's no damned point to even caring.