So, now the governors of FL and MI are saying that something needs to happen so that those Democrats who voted in FL and MI have their voices heard. Originally, the heads of the Democratic parties in each of those states thought the evenutal nominee would request this. Since it is shaping up to be such a close contest, the governors are addressing this now. Clinton has supported seating their delegates for quite some time; Obama has had a lukewarm response to this latest declaration. Of course, there are issues as to how this would happen - go with the vote that has already happened (and it was OBAMA'S choice to take his name off the Michigan ballot, so don't fall for that ploy that only Clinton's name was on it. That is simply not true - four of eight Democrats were on the ballot.); have another vote allowing the same people to vote; caucus, which is widely decried as undemocratic; or seat half of the delegates. Those are some options. Personally, I lean toward the former - go with the vote the way the people voted. It will be HUGELY expensive to re-do these votes,a nd just because they do not favor OBAMA does not mean they should not count. People in FL do not live in a bubble - they have access to tv, the internet, newspapers, etc. They knew as much about the candidates when they voted as anyone else did who had their primaries earlier on in the season. It DOES seem like a ploy to help the Obama campaign to re-do the vote. That being said, many people in FL have said it will help him Oh-So-Much that he wanted to disenfranchise them - not. Many are saying it will actually be WORSE for him rather than better because of demographics and his response to those who have already voted.
Regardless, something has to happen, besides the DNC acknowledging that they have acted in a predjudiced manner toward these two states (again, SC, IA, and NH ALL had early primaries, and have faced NO penalties as a result - none).
And Obama is saying he is now going to go negative on Clinton because she had the 3:00 a.m. ad (which worked, by the way), has questioned his preparedness, especially since he has YET to call a Senate subcommittee meeting for the committee he pushed hard to get - the one that deals with Afghanistan, NATO, and the rest of Europe; the backroom bargaining with Canada over NAFTA, things like that. My response is: GO negative?? He HAS been negative for MONTHS!!! The false attacks on Clinton's NAFTA position; the Harry and Louise mailers on health care; calling her divisive, etc., etc., etc. He has been negative for quite some time - it is just that the media hasn't COVERED it!
Along THOSE lines, I heard some woman on Washington Journal this morning saying that Clinton needed to stop being sarcastic, and that is why she didn't vote for her. Are you FREAKIN' KIDDING ME???? Such a double standard at work here! Obama has been VERY sarcastic about Clinton, but I guess women are just supposed to grin adn bear it, taking whatever abuse these men (and women) hand out. Grrr - made me mad.
I may not get to this blog for a couple of days - a close friend has landed in the hospital after a series of heart attacks, so we are going up to see him and his wife for a couple of days.
In the meantime, keep the faith people - help Clinton out. You people in Mississippi - VOTE FOR THE ONE WHO CAN ACTUALLY EFFECT CHANGE!! That would be Clinton. Not the guy who has been running for president from the day he got into the Senate. Oh, and not the right-wing guy, either!! Just sayin'!
No comments:
Post a Comment