I believe that Susan G just unfairly used her front page posting priveledges to take a cheap shot at Hillary. Specifically I'm referring to her snarky dismissal of Hillary's attemts to count the Delegates from Florida and Michigan.
I wouldn't feel this way, but for the fact that Markos has spent months arguing that the Delegates should, in fact, count; and that the likely nominee would almost certainly see to it that the Delegates do count.
And perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't recall Susan G using the Front Page to argue against Markos back when he was making those arguments -- it's only now that she doesn't like the candidate who is poised to win those Delegates that she impugns the motives of the one doing what Kos had suggested should and would happen.
It's bad enough when every third diary puts some serious anti-spin on every move or utterance of Bill and Hillary, but now we have to read snarky Clinton ripping on the front page? ("But she's not thinking of the polls and past primary victory -- she's only standing up for the rights of the citizens in Michigan and Florida, you understand:")
But Susan, Kos has been on Hillary's side of this for a long time, which to me is reason enough you should have left your cheap shot out of it.
The DNC set a calendar, and is losing a counter-productive battle trying to enforce its ridiculous (and obsolete) protections of Iowa and New Hampshire pre-eminence. But still, it's understandable that the candidates support the DNC's efforts.On August 23d, Kos wrote this
Way back on March 3rd, Markos wrote:
Pledging to not campaign in Michigan is one thing (as stupid as I might think it is), but slapping Michigan voters in the face by taking their names off the ballot, well, that's another thing entirely. They didn't move the primary up. The politicians did.
Hillary and Dodd are apparently the only two candidates on the Democratic side unafraid of incurring the wrath of irrational Iowans and Granite Staters desperately hanging on to the final vestiges of their undeserved primary supremacy.
And what about DNC threats to not seat Florida and Michigan delegates? Not going to happen, as Jerome says.And this:
Michigan and Florida have courageously decided to send more than a message to New Hampshire and Iowa, that they don't own the primary calendar. In response, the DNC is threatening those two states with stripping of their delegates:Amen. Hopefully we can find a real solution to the primary calendar problem for the 2012 cycle that acknowledges and reflects the diversities of our country and gives more Americans, not just those in Iowa and New Hampshire, a say in their politics.
"You are going to see big signs on the floor of the Democratic Convention that say `Florida' and `Michigan' and you are going to see rows of empty seats beneath them," one DNC member warned.
What stupidity. What kind of statement would that send to the swing states of Florida and Michigan for the general contest? I don't care what sort of threats the DNC makes, they are empty. Florida is going to be the big enchilada for the 2008 Democratic nomination. All their delegates will count. The DNC rules committee, and whatever they fancy their power to be, is irrelevant and will not be able to do anything, other than agree that they created this situation with their timidity and lack of providing a substantive solution to the calendar problem.
This (effort by the DNC to not count the Florida results) isn't a battle the DNC can win. So they might as well throw in the towel. They fucked up the primary calendar process by allowing New Hampshire and Iowa maintain their unfair lofty position at the expense of the rest of the 48 states and the District of Columbia. They now get to reap the results of their lack of political will and leadership.Way back on March 3rd, Markos wrote:
The DNC and RNC can threaten to not seat the delegates, but no state is taking those threats seriously. No presidential nominee would tell a state that their input at the convention isn't wanted.I could go on and on, but I think you get the point, which is that it was obvious all along that the nominee (or someone who thinks they are going to be the nominee) was going to fight for these Delegates to be seated -- and that, according to Kos, it would be right for them to do so.
I really don't think, given the history of this website, that you ought to use this issue to take a cheap shot at a candidate you don't like. In fact, I think Kos as usual had the right narrative about this all along and that the narrative you are spinning now is divisive and counter-productive.
orginially posted as a comment with minor differences so deep in the thread that no one would ever see it