Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Obama Sells Out

In the race for the Democratic nomination, Obama wants to win, and if that means disenfranchising voters, he's all for it. Barack Obama always talks about how people are the engine of change, that people are the most important; yet for Obama, the people are just a means to be used or ignored.

Because a few of Michigan's state democrats moved up their primary, the Democratic National Convention punished the whole state and stripped Michigan of its delegates. Now as the Democratic Nomination is so close and the fact that Michigan's voice needs to be heard, the Democratic Party and Michigan are trying to find a solution agreeable to all.

Holding a revote seems like the most fair situation, as structuring it in a primary fashion was what was decided before the race began. It also gives both candidates an equal chance to campaign and battle it out. Yet Barack Obama doesn't want this, indeed he doesn't even want Michigan's voice heard.

The Baltimore Sun reported that Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said that in response to the possibility of reholding a fair and legitimate primary in Michigan:

Obama's campaign balked, according to Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer, who told the Free Press: "That's what I've been told by his campaign, but it's not my place to inquire about motivations."
Now the motivation behind Obama rejecting Michigan's shot of Democratic representation is that Hillary has a good chance there. So instead of actually fighting for the state and having the voters heard, Obama wants the whole state ignored. One can only imagine this Obama strategy in a general election.

But as it is Michigan has vast implications for the race to be President. In a general election, Michigan is one of the few swing-states, that means that to win the Presidential Office Democrats need to win it. So if Barack Obama wants to be President he has do everything possible to motivate that state's Democrats. Telling those Democrats that their votes don't matter is not a good way to do that. Obama in completely voiding Michigan's Democrats is effectively diminishing the Democratic Party's chances at the White House.

Some may question Obama's strategy because of it affecting the Democratic Party's Presidential hopes, yet for me, losing the Presidency is nothing compared to telling a whole state its voters are worthless, especially when your whole race has been based around the people.

Any politician, in any country, who disregards and actually doesn't want the voices of people heard is a disgrace, and shouldn't hold a public office of any kind.

20 comments:

Scott Tribe said...

Well Scott, Hillary agreed along with all the other candidates that the Michigan and Florida primaries would not count toward delegate totals at the Convention because of the clear violation these 2 states did in contravention of DNC rules. That was probably agreed to by Clinton in the days when she was touting herself as the 'inevitable candidate' and figured she didn't need those 2 states votes to win.

Now of course, that she's losing and her campaign is sputtering, she's changed her mind on that. The fact HIllary supporters seem to conveniently forget that she agreed along with everyone else about the Michigan and Florida situation shows how desperate she - and they - are in trying to find some way for her to win.

Anonymous said...

Scott Tribe: Please point to a source for this claim you make.

Wrong is wrong, no matter what and no matter what labels you assign.
-scott

Anonymous said...

Tribe:

"Her advisers said it would be foolish to rebuff an important swing state, especially since doing so could alienate Democratic-leaning independents who could be leaning toward Mrs. Clinton." Oct. 9th 2007 http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/
2007/10/09/top-democrats-pull-from-michigan/

Anonymous said...

Tribe: You'll see that quote was dated 2 days after the deadline for having your name on the ballot in Michigan.

Anonymous said...

Tribe: Jan. 26 Hillary Clinton wants Michigan delegates seated.
http://www.mlive.com/elections/index.ssf/
2008/01/clinton_calls_for_michigan_del.html

Feb. 15 Hillary wants Michigan delegates seated: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=20601087&sid=afMu2IHmjtdo&refer=home

Anonymous said...

unfortunatly, like scott, we have a lot of "any man but a woman" blogs out there, if one is up to par with economic politics in canada, it goes to figure that the clintons are the one we would want to be in the white house, not another inexperienced wind bag they have had for the past 7 years, who will put the economy further down the bankrupcy trail. dragging canada with them, so putting Canada first it would be logical to go for the one who has a past fixing the american economy, not voting for a man, who is more tan than the rest, and a lot more winded...

Justin Socie said...

Clinton doesn't want a revote. She wants the delegates that she would get if the party just sat the delegates in line with the original vote, according to this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/06/uselections2008.hillaryclinton3?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

Anonymous said...

to the last anon poster: ok so you are for clinton--that is great but to suggest that someone who disagreed with you is some sort of misogynist is pretty lame. Further to suggest that people only support obama because he is black borders on offensive. That kind of talk embraces the worst aspects of political debate, and I think it shows you have no real credibility on this subject. Your post demonstrates a laziness that you can hide by pointing to political tactics rather than issues.

Anonymous said...

second to last anon: You said "unfortunatly, like scott, we have a lot of "any man but a woman" blogs out there," I hope this is a miscommunication, because I am not for "any man but a woman."

Justin Socie: The address you typed is incomplete, try next time to break it up in two lines. Hillary Clinton is for seating the delegates as is, but she's also for holding a revote. The thing is either decision has to be approved by both sides, so her campaign has offered a more suitable position to both ie revote.
-scott

Justin Socie said...

Here you go: Hillary Clinton today rejected the growing but controversial call for a re-running of primary elections in Florida and Michigan.

Scott, you don't think that Clinton's stand is a principled one, do you? She is only wanting to change the rules now because she is going to lose otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Justin: I suggest you read the story instead of just the headlines. No where in the Story does Hillary reject a revote, she does say she wants to seat the delegates as voted in Florida, and I do think she has an argument for that, but she don't preclude a revote.

Not only does Hillary not reject a revote, but her top advisor says this, in the very story you referenced: "Let's let all of the voters go again if they are willing to do it," Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe said Tuesday night on MSNBC."

-scott

Justin Socie said...

Scott: I read the article. Did you?

"Hillary Clinton today rejected the growing but controversial call for a re-running of primary elections in Florida and Michigan.

As it stands now, delegates from the two states won't have a say in the nomination battle because the states violated Democratic Party rules and held contests too early in the primary season.

At a Washington press conference at which she was surrounded by
generals and admirals who endorsed her, Clinton reiterated her insistence that delegates from the two states be seated at the August convention in accordance with the January contests, which she won.

"It would be a great disservice to the voters of Florida and Michigan to adopt any process that would disenfranchise anyone," she said at a press conference in Washington. "Therefore I am still committed to seating their delegations."

She said the Republican leadership of that state set the primary date, not the Democratic voters. "The Democrats really had no choice and I don't think they should be punished for that."

On Capitol Hill, members of Congress from Florida and Michigan met behind closed doors last night in an attempt to negotiate a compromise that would help seat their delegates. But few traces of a consensus were apparent today, with some senior Democrats ruling out a re-running of the disputed primaries.

"There are 1.75m reasons not to do that," Florida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said, referring to the number of votes cast in her state. "We had the largest turnout in party history."

Wasserman-Schultz, an influential Clinton backer, put no stock in reports of Floridians skipping the vote because they believed they had no say in picking the nominee. She admitted that the two Democrats' campaigns and the two states have a long road ahead before an agreement is reached."

dan said...

To use a similarly stupid argument... there's no actual proof that Obama doesn't want to have Michigan and Florida vote again. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama say he'd like to see a new primary/caucus soon anyway.

Even if Michigan and Florida are done again there's virtually no chance that Hillary can win fairly, unless the Obama campaign implodes. Otherwise Clinton will need superdelegates to override the votes of the American people, or have pledged delegates betray those who sent them there.

Anonymous said...

Justin: You're strictly going by the headline, which was an extrapolation based on her insisting that those delegates should be seated, which as I said still complies with a revote as the article says her advisor articulated.

Dan: The thing is there was spokesperson of the Obama campaign that openly said no revote in Michigan. In that article and in everything I've seen, no where Does Hillary Reject a revote, she only prefers to have those delegates seated.
-scott

dan said...

No proof Obama doesn't want an eventual revote.

Anonymous said...

So your saying the Obama campaign as referenced should not be believed?

Justin Socie said...

Scott, you didn't answer the following: Scott, you don't think that Clinton's stand is a principled one, do you? She is only wanting to change the rules now because she is going to lose otherwise

Also, it sounds like you are arguing that the ournalist in the Guardian article was lying about the context. Is that your argument?

dan said...

The Detroit Free Press article in question quotes a Michigan Democrat (Brewer), apparently unaffiliated with the Obama campaign, as saying the Obama campaign were opposed to a Granholm proposal whose details were unclear. The Free Press also reports that Brewer and Carl Levin believed the Granholm proposal or a redo had serious financial, fairness and logistic problems.

How you find proof here that Obama does not want Florida or Michigan to vote is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

Justin: I think right is not determined by rules or laws, but laws and rules are determined by whats right. I don't think anyone could say that taking away the democrats votes in those two states because of the actions of a few is right. So in Hillary Clinton trying to get them some representation, which is better then none, I do think she has some principled stance.

I'm not suggesting the journalist was lying, I'm suggesting headlines exagerate, and I think that's a pretty common view.

Dan: Brewer talked to an Obama spokesperson, that spokesperson did not want a redo. I don't like how you are being so sensationalist and saying you don't even understand how I could see it that the Obama campaign doesn't want a redo.

Also you misrepresent the Free Press article.

You say: "The Detroit Free Press article in question quotes a Michigan Democrat (Brewer), apparently unaffiliated with the Obama campaign, as saying the Obama campaign were opposed to a Granholm proposal whose details were unclear."

Yet no where in any article does it say the details were vague actually the free press article goes into some detail.

You also say:
"The Free Press also reports that Brewer and Carl Levin believed the Granholm proposal or a redo had serious financial, fairness and logistic problems."
But this what was actually said:
"Brewer, who said he thinks a do-over primary has serious financial and logistical problems." First I don't see Carl Levin saying those things anywhere. Second, there was no question or doubt of fairness, you added that. Also Brewer only talks of financial and logistical problems because its a state sponsored solution and the states do not prefer to pay for another primary.

dan said...

I'm only trying to match your sensationalism.

-there are no details as to Granholm's proposal in the article, hence it is vague as to what the Obama camp "nixed"

and

"Levin said a do-over is neither practical nor fair."