and she speaks with conviction, intent, and challenge. A few points worth noting:
--She will always stand for people's votes--it doesn't matter WHO they vote for. That is a simple proposition and reflects confidence--let the people vote. It also reflects a mature understanding of what happened in 2000 and 2004 (OH), and a growing understanding of the consequences of the DNC rules. I think this means that if she is the nominee or not, she, like many others, will work to reform the DNC rules (i.e., caucuses, primary schedule) to more truly reflect the will of the people.
--Revisiting the Obama response to the revote proposal. I know the obama excuses for not agreeing were something about who was going to pay for it (HRC affiliated), and "not wanting to break the rules"...and then after having removed his name from the ballot, still using that as a reason to somehow block a revote. It seems his response to the revote was not well thought out. And I believe Obama is a voting rights attorney, isn't he?
--Anyway, to reject a revote, in retrospect, now seems a clear strategy to deny HRC any chance at the nomination--cold, calculated politics. The victim included not only HRC, but Michigan voters. This is the risk he took, and now it is even more clear that Michigan and Florida votes would have challenged his campaign to truly work for the nomination instead of "riding the wave" to it. This is one of those risks that has come back to haunt him, and seriously challenge his nomination prospects, making it even more clear how closely divided the country is between the two candidates.
Well, HRC has certainly earned my vote now and in November. And yes, my vote does represent the hopes and dreams for my children and their future.
You and Sen. Clinton and her supporters/protesters would have a lot more credibility if this issue was raised in the fall when the delegates were actually stripped.
No one cared then because it was a political issue.
not quite responsive either to the diarist or my comment.
Yes it was, you just don't want to respond. It is probably because you are too busy drive-by 1 rating every non pro-clinton comment though.
Why Hillary stated that "The Michigan votes won't count" when she did not need the delegates, and when she did need them that it was suddenly a civil rights issue.
We still have not settled that question and enquiiring minds want to know
She will always stand for people's votes--it doesn't matter WHO they vote for.
Then why hasn't she publicly disagreed with her surrogate, Lanny Davis, who suggested that Clinton get the lion's share of the delegates in MI that were selected by people explicitly not voting for Hillary Clinton?
Also, why hasn't she severed ties with Mark Penn, who called broad swaths of the country "insignificant"? She made a show of firing him, but continues to pay him and listen to him.
I think this means that if she is the nominee or not, she, like many others, will work to reform the DNC rules (i.e., caucuses, primary schedule) to more truly reflect the will of the people.
Funny, because she had a lot of influence in the Party last year - after all, one of her top lieutenants, Harold Ickes, was part of the committee that originally stripped MI and FL of their delegates. If she will, as you say, always stand for people's votes, why didn't she stand for them back then in pushing the reforms the DNC needed?
Further, how could she possibly make the case for reforms after arguing here that states should be able to ignore any and all DNC rules that inconvenience them and suffer no penalty for it? How, if she were to reform the DNC rules, would she enforce these rule changes, after arguing for several months that states should be allowed to break the rules with no consequences?
know the obama excuses for not agreeing were something about who was going to pay for it (HRC affiliated), and "not wanting to break the rules"
You forgot the big one, which was that the Clinton revote wasn't going to be open to people who didn't participate in the Democratic primary the first time around. She wanted to disenfranchise all the people who believed her, and Obama, and the party when they said the MI and FL elections wouldn't count.
Anyway, to reject a revote, in retrospect, now seems a clear strategy to deny HRC any chance at the nomination--cold, calculated politics.
So you've agreed not to call Obama naive anymore? Excellent.
that Senator Clinton did nothing while her operatives in the DNC, to a person, including Harold Ickes, voted to strip Florida of its delegates. In fact, her campaign issued a press release defending stripping Florida's delegates just a few days later.
Just thought you should know.
