tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5218352582681472014.post1372258266479321292..comments2022-11-07T06:36:09.196-05:00Comments on The Soapbox: The "Rules"ASKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00138397608552478601noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5218352582681472014.post-63838277918696550672008-04-25T17:13:00.000-04:002008-04-25T17:13:00.000-04:00A much-needed post to outline the rules that we of...A much-needed post to outline the rules that we often discuss but that none of us fully know. <BR/><BR/>Clinton is being framed as a "do anything to win" type of candidate, when in reality this post clearly shows that she is well within her right to demand that Florida and Michigan be counted, and within her rights to continue drumming up the fact that she won in these two states. The media rarely talks of a scenario where these states are counted, which would completely alter the entire shape of this race. Of late MI and FL haven't even been incorporated into the conversation. This makes Clinton's argument to the people and to the superdelegates that much more difficult. If the "rules" conversation was not pure surface analysis, and we were all discussing them in the detail they deserve, Clinton's perception would perhaps be transformed from a 'sore loser' character to one who has a just cause to get these voters enfranchised.<BR/><BR/>As the post claims, most people have surely not read the rules or read detailed anaylsis of the rules. It seems that right now the conversation is like this: Florida and Michigan broke the rules and none of their votes should, or will, be counted. It is not this simple. Points 3, 4, 5and 7 underline this:<BR/><BR/>The DNC does not have to strip the two states of all their votes, only 50%. If 50% were counted, Clinton closes the gap that much more. When considering point 4, a 100% sanction seems all the more harsh. Regarding Florida, a 2-1 Republican majority imposed the state law to move the primary date up, and what measurement is there that Florida Dems did not 'properly' oppose this? Or that they did not "[act] in good faith" and take "all positive steps?" The rules do not list any quantifiable measurement of what fulfills these obligations, so they are seemingly at the Committee's discretion. The DNC has wiggle room here, and even if the Florida Dems did not make a good enough case, the Committee should favor enfranchising hard-working Floridians rather than punishing Democratic lawmakers that evidently did not "act in good faith" to the DNC. It is all in the DNC's hands now. Do the right thing here, people.<BR/><BR/>Point 5 makes it clear that Clinton has the right to take this all the way to the convention in August, and should. She is justified in appealing the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters by the DNC. <BR/><BR/>For Michigan, point 7 is spot on: Obama did it to himself. He pandered to Iowa and perhaps it paid off with victory there, but the Michigan vote should be counted as is because he elected to remove his name, no one forced him to. He should have to live with the results. Man up Obama. Nowhere in the rules does it say he should have removed his name, and don't act like he did it to follow the DNC, he did it to appease Iowa and NH voters.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that Florida and Michigan should be counted as is because both candidates didn't break any rules (well, maybe Obama in FL with his national TV ad), the voters certainly didn't break any rules, but these parties are the ones who will suffer. And American democracy will suffer because of a power-stubborn, ridiculous, self-aggrandizing Democratic National Committee who sees their own rules as more important than the people's votes.pdrezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12422695445890662977noreply@blogger.com