FL and MI

[Beet]

Amen...does that mean Levin and HRC cannot read or are too damn arrogant to care?

Obviously HRC can read, since, back in October, she defended her decision to leave her name on the ballot in MI in the face of criticism from NH Dems, saying that the election wasn't going to count anyway:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah but Mr. Morden, look at the entire interview in context.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Three lengthy quotes all about the General Election. Now look at her rationale for seating the MI delegation on Jan. 25:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My personal preference would have been to advocate the seating of the MI and FL delegations from the beginning, and for the DNC to amend the rules to do so, so that there would be no violation of the rules, if possible, and then by 2012, come up with a more complete primary system that better represents 'fairness'.

But understandably, making such an argument before Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would have opened up attacks from other candidates on the grounds that "Hillary doesn't care what you think, she's pandering to other states, not your state." That kind of state-by-state provincial thinking is stupid, in my view (I would not expect Maryland to receive any kind of preferential treatment), but it would have had an effect in the early primaries.

She is extremely consistent in her reasoning: she sees Michigan and Florida as key states in the general election, and doesn't want the split to hurt the Democrats in these states.

[Beet]

My personal preference would have been to advocate the seating of the MI and FL delegations from the beginning, and for the DNC to amend the rules to do so, so that there would be no violation of the rules, if possible, and then by 2012, come up with a more complete primary system that better represents 'fairness'.

But understandably, making such an argument before Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would have opened up attacks from other candidates on the grounds that "Hillary doesn't care what you think, she's pandering to other states, not your state." That kind of state-by-state provincial thinking is stupid, in my view (I would not expect Maryland to receive any kind of preferential treatment), but it would have had an effect in the early primaries.

She is extremely consistent in her reasoning: she sees Michigan and Florida as key states in the general election, and doesn't want the split to hurt the Democrats in these states.

I understand all that.  My point was that she didn't say anything about seating the FL/MI delegates until after IA & NH had voted because she thought saying that might hurt her in those states.  In fact, she even conceded in NH that the MI primary "wasn't going to count for anything".  But then, once she no longer had to pander to voters in IA, NH, NV, & SC, she suddenly starts talking about seating FL & MI delegates.  Nothing you said refutes that.

I understand that as well. My point was just that it was an understandable political decision, although at this point there are no good answers unless one candidate can get a clear majority without this controversy coming into play-- which at this point looks like only Obama can. The best case scenario would be that the FL and MI delegates can be seated without controversy because their seating makes no difference in the results.

If their seating would alter the outcome, in that case I would disagree with Sen. Clinton because candidates and many voters undoubtedly behaved under the assumption that they would not be, unless some other arrangement could be worked out. But in the case that they would make no difference, then changing the rules to seat them would be a good move.