Does anyone else see the contradiction between Senator Clinton's claim that the rules that penalized Florida and Michigan for moving their primary dates ahead should somehow be nullified by either counting them or by giving them a re-vote and her claim that the "Super-delegates" should be allowed to vote for whomever they want regardless of who has the lead the lead in pledged delegates?
The Clintons seek to portray themselves as the defenders of democracy by claiming that Michigan and Florida delegates be seated despite the fact that only Hillary’s name was on the ballot in Michigan and only she campaigned in Florida (where was she the night Senator Obama won South Carolina?). At the same time, the Clintons insist that Super delegates should be allowed to vote for whomever they want without regard for who has the lead in pledged delegates. Doesn’t this position disenfranchise the voters from the states that Senator Obama has won?
This claim by the Clintons and their surrogates is just the kind of double standard that the Clinton campaign has employed all along and which is blindly adopted by the MSM. Under this double standard, Obama can be criticized for not "rejecting" and "denouncing" Minister Farrakhan but Hillary supporters who state publicly that they won’t vote for Obama because he is black are (according to Senator Clinton) "just voting their personal choices". Samantha Power cannot call Mrs. Clinton a "monster" but Howard Wolfson can equate Obama to "Ken Starr" and Hillary can state that she and Senator McCain have a "lifetime of experience" while Senator Obama has a "speech".
Some of the powers that be in the Democratic Party and certainly the so-called "Pundits" on the MSM tell us that this is just "good politics" that she is just "being tough". To some, these tactics reinforce Senator Clinton’s claim that the "super delegates" should take the race away from the voters and give it to her despite the number of pledged delegates. Senator Clinton will attempt to destroy Senator Obama by using every smear tactic in her arsenal—so that she can convince the "powers that be" that she is indeed the only candidate tough enough to beat Senator McCain in the fall.
Well, like Teacherken, (http://teacherken.blogspot.com ) I am from Virginia, and we have a great tradition in Virginia which goes back to the 1770’s inspired by men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry. Our tradition is called sic semper tyrannis (thus ever to tyrants). We don’t take kindly to tyrants like Senator Clinton and we don’t permit the "party elite" to tell us how to vote. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and all other "super delegates" need to pay attention to this. If Senator Obama has the most pledged delegates, he should be the nominee. If that doesn’t happen like, teacherken, I will not vote for Senator Clinton. I agree that we cannot vote for evil, merely because it is less evil than another alternative.
While I do not want to see a "hawk" like Senator McCain in the White House, Hillary’s vote on the Iraq war and her vote on the Iranian Army (calling them a "terrorist" organization) leads me to believe that she, like Johnson did in Vietnam, will only escalate the War in Iraq and with similar disastrous consequences for Americans that the War in Vietnam had. I am actually willing to see Senator McCain in the White House rather than vote for Senator Clinton as I see no difference between the two, except the fact that he served honorably in the military while she did not. Further, he has treated his opponents in this race more honorably than she has. Compare Senator McCain’s denunciation of the conservative talk show host who emphasized Senator Obama’s middle name with Senator Clinton’s statement that she doesn’t "believe" the Muslim e-mail is true, she can only "take [Senator Obama] at his word". Frankly, an honorable war monger is better than a dishonorable one.
Any claim by the party elite or the "super delegates" that Obama supporters should support Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee, despite Senator Obama’s lead in the pledged delegate count is asking us to compromise the principles on which our votes are based. The claim that the Democratic Party is making history because it is fighting over two non-traditional candidates does not impress me. I am not voting for Senator Obama because he is black—I am voting for him because he is right on the issues. While I too would like to see a woman in the White House, this woman does not deserve to be the nominee —unless she wins the most pledged delegates (a mathematical impossibility). The claim that the Democratic Party has brought new voters into the process is only valid if these voters can be kept in the process. My young sons, who voted for the first time (as Independents—because they think Democrats compromise too much) are not going to stay in the party in the fall and vote for a nominee who did not win the pledged delegate vote.
Even if the Democratic Party somehow co-opts Senator Obama into accepting Hillary Clinton as the nominee despite the fact that he has won the delegate count, he does not control MY vote. He can voice his opinion about my vote, but he does not control it.
Let me reiterate, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR SENATOR CLINTON IN NOVEMBER IF SHE IS THE NOMINEE BECAUSE THE SUPER DELEGATES VOTED FOR HER DESPITE OBAMA'S LEAD IN THE PLEDGED DELEGATE COUNT.
This is no threat, it’s a promise. Why is it OK for Michigan and Florida voters to have their votes count (even though they knowingly went against the rules) while the rest of us have our votes discounted by Super- Delegates who vote for Senator Clinton even though Senator Obama has the most pledged delegates?
Those of us who voted for Senator Obama need to make our voices heard. There should only be a deal to allow Michigan and Florida voters to re-vote, if the rules are changed to require Super-Delegates to vote in accordance with the pledged delegate vote. If Senator Obama has the most pledged delegates, the Super-Delegates should be REQUIRED to vote for him. http://www.democrats.org/...