Well, you knew it was going to happen, the Democrats seem to be able to find a way to screw up the equivalent of a two car parade. The states will be seated with a 50% impact to their votes. What a pitiful joke. With all due respect to the voters in those states, the primaries were moved and the penalty (not being seated at the convention) was announced well in advance of any notion that there would be a close race for the nomination.
What I’d like to know is: Where was the fire to include these states results were in January? Back when Hillary was the front runner, she didn’t seem to care if the state’s votes counted. Now that she’s lost the nomination, she cares deeply that these people’s votes count. Now that there votes count and she’s still not the nominee, she’s trying to change the rules again.
Someone in the Democratic party (Nancy Pelosi, this would be a good role for you…) needs to sit her down and explain that she has lost the nomination and if she wishes the future support of the party in any elected office that she’d better tow the party line…I can’t help but notice that John McCain when faced with losing to Bush in 2000 could have continued to be a pain in the ass or join in with the party. Had he not joined in, he would not be the nominee now.
Coming back to the Democratic National Committee for the moment, if I were running a state primary, I’d move it wherever I wanted. There is obviously not backbone or conviction about following the rules, which were clearly set out in advance. The only saving grace in this comical compromise is that the outcome of the nomination process was not changed.
Get a clue Democrats!
I think this has less to do with Hilary and more to do with beating McCain. In some places, 50% to 75% of Hilary’s supporters said they would vote for McCain over Obama. That, in and of itself, it majorly stupid and why the Dems can mess up those parades, but the leadership wants to give Clinton supporters as few reasons as possible to be upset when she loses.
I see your perspective, but I’m not sure about it. People say things in the heat of the moment like “I would vote for x over y” – but it’s really unclear if that’s a firm position or just the emotion of the situation. It’s hard to see how this action helps that issue in any case, it was determined before the primary elections even happened and to me is less about the candidates (except that one is using it as a lever) and more about the dysfunction of the party.
The only good news is, the compromise didn’t change the outcome and we can stop reading about this and start thinking about the general election.