She raises some very good points:
Don't veto the people's choice.
"I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that," she said, adding quickly, "I don't think that will happen."
She said the governors, lawmakers, DNC members and others picked as super delegates are chosen through a grassroots process and are accountable to the party's voters.
"I do think that they have a respect -- it's not just following the returns, it's also having a respect for what has been said by the people," Pelosi said. "It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided."
Then a little later:
"Well, I don't think that any states that operated outside the rules of the party can be dispositive of who the nominee is. That is to say they can't make the difference because then we would have no rules," she said.
Pelosi added, "But I do think that the best outcome for us is if one of the candidates pulls ahead and this issue is disposed of long before we get to the convention. We certainly don't want to ignore Florida and Michigan, but we can't ignore the rules which everyone else played by."
These are excellent points, and the same thing a lot of us have been saying. The rules were set out months ago, rather they were right or wrong, or if we liked them or not. To change them now would be disaster for the entire party.
Think of the precident this would also set. In the future if a state decides to break the rules of the party, then they would just have to cite Michigan and Florida in order to get their delegates seated. We could end up with a much worse primary calendar down the road.
Questions all of us should be asking, rather than insulting the candidates: Who in the state legislatures are responsible for the ballets that had the names on them for people to vote for in the first place? Why weren't "rules" made clear to the citizens in those states through media, direct mailing, whatever to get the message out? Why aren't these representatives speaking out about how this crisis should be handled now that they created it? Why were the candidates' names even on the ballots, if citizens were not supposed to VOTE? This was a problemactic system from the start; the winning candidate in Florida should not forfeit precious delegates and Michigan should be redone with all running candidates on the ballet! We're so bombarded with messages to get out and vote -- to the point of strangers driving us to the polls, supplying breakfast, wheelchairs, etc. -- yet the vote, in the end, will not count in 2 whole states?! Absolutely appalling and irresponsible on the part of your state legislatures, people! In total, 1,737,197 people voted on the Democratic ticket in FL that day that just "shouldn't count!"
I am a registered Democrat from Louisiana. I realize that Louisiana is typically a Republican state but there is no reason that it could not go to a Democrat in the presidential election. I sometimes feel slighted by the Democratic Party because I feel like they think they can’t win here so why put forth the effort.
When the presidential primaries began I was excited by the choices available. This is a BIG change for me as I normally look at it as I am voting for the lesser of two evils. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter but initially would have supported either Senator Clinton or Obama. That changed when Michigan and Florida were disenfranchised by the Democratic National Party. Now we are talking about compromises instead of using the legitimate vote of the people. I do not care who agreed with it or who was not or the ballot. Senator Obama chose to remove his name from the Michigan primary. Senator Obama’s campaign has refused every opportunity to allow a revote and thereby made void millions of registered Democrats their constitutional right to void for the presidential nominee.
As a Democrat that felt cheated in the 2000 presidential election, when clearly Al Gore carried the popular vote and in my belief only gave up on any legal recourse because he was being pressured to bow out gracefully, this new situation has left me very uncomfortable with the Democratic Party.
As I stated, I am a Hillary Clinton supporter and feel that she is the best choice for president but I would gladly support either candidates if I felt like they won the nomination fairly. I believe there should be a revote or count the elections as is; no other compromise would be fair. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE, isn’t that what this is supposed to be about anyway.
Any Super Delegate that chooses the nominee without figuring in Michigan and Florida is making a serious misjudgment and I fear it will be at the peril of the 2008 Presidential Election and the Democratic Party as a whole.
Voting in a primary is not a constitutional right. That is a talking point the Clinton administration has been pushing. The Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the constitution has no bearing over the party selection process.
As far as "letting the people decide", even if Michigan and Florida are seated as is, Obama still comes out ahead in pledged delegates and popular vote. Even with the remaining contests, Obama wins the popular vote, short of Hillary wining every race with a 100% turnout and a 90% plus vote in her favor.
Having said that, if Hillary did end up wining over enough super delegates, would it be fair that they overturned the will of the people, even counting MI. and Fl.? That's a serious question that I haven't really heard asked by any of the pundits or strategists out there.
Post new comment