Truemors
Digg
del.icio.us
AddToAny
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
NOW Where Will the Finish Line Be Moved? (Additional links added)
by Karen Hatter | May 22, 2008 at 09:46 am | 3002 views | 73 comments
The time for debating credentials has long since become a moot point. Senator Barack Obama, according to his Party's rules, having received what has been described as an "insurmountable" lead in pledged delegates, with him at present garnering the majority support of Super delegates, should be named the Democratic nominee for President of the United States at the conclusion of the vote at the Democratic National Convention.
The remaining delegate count in Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico, even if Senator Hillary Clinton were to receive all of the remaining pledged delegate votes, would still not provide enough pledged delegates to declare her a valid front runner.
The mathematics being used to justify Senator Clinton's logic seeks to incorporate winning numbers for her from two primaries that she, Senator Obama and Senator John Edwards agreed to bypass due to the Democratic Party's decision when Michigan, where it should be noted Senators Obama's and Edwards' names were not listed on the ballot and Florida ignored the Democratic Party's instructions. The penalties were known to all before the actions were taken.
The reality is that no Democratic candidate was to campaign in either of those states nor were the delegates to be seated. At the time, Senators Edwards, Clinton and Obama all agreed to abide by the Party rules. At some point, Senator Clinton changed her mind and decided to ignore the Party's instructions as did the states of Michigan and Florida.
In an effort to devise some means of including the voters of Florida and Michigan and in an effort to avoid penalizing Senator Obama, who abided by the Party rules, the Democratic National Committee will meet to work out a compromise.
Any compromise that may come out of the Democratic National Committee meeting on Saturday, May 31, 2008, concerning the Florida and Michigan delegates, must result in some form of splitting of the delegates between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Again, she will not have the numbers to support her nomination.
I've listened for months as the criterion discussed, not the reality of the Democratic Party's rules, shape shifted and morphed to attempt to accommodate the rationales put forward by Senator Hillary Clinton and her supporters, who obviously desire Senator Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.
As the contest began, stunning everyone by being the first winner out of the gate, when he wasn't supposed to win there, the all important first win in Iowa was now dismissed. As Senator Obama won a number of states for weeks in a row, pulling ahead of Senator Clinton, the finish line kept moving.
No longer was it sufficient to win the majority of voter support in vote tallied numbers. Now, it was parroted by Senator Clinton supporters and picked up by the news media pundits and analysts, that the actual voter count didn't count. What mattered were the delegate votes apportioned after each state's votes were tallied which, to be honest, is a true statement of fact.
However, this issue was only raised because it was assumed by many within the Clinton camp, this again parroted by the majority of analysts, that she would pull enough of the 'big ticket' states, the states with large pledged delegate counts and manage to secure the lead toward winning the nomination.
After Senator Obama pulled ahead in the pledged delegate column, that was no longer the measure that would determine his lead in the race for the nomination of the Democratic Party. It was now determined that whomever received majority support from the Party's Super delegates would be in line for the nomination. Senator Obama now has surpassed Senator Clinton in getting a majority of Super delegate support.
All throughout the contest, rumbling beneath the surface of the exercise to determine who will be the Democratic Party nominee has been what to do about votes that had already been declared invalid because of the states of Michigan and Florida's refusal to abide by the Party's rules.
At stake is the reality that abiding by his Party's rules, Senator Obama has won the majority of pledged delegates through apportionment and gained the support of a majority of the Super delegates.
Will the Democratic Party disregard the will of the people, whose votes were acquired through the process put in place by the Democratic Party, dismissing the votes of the majority that voted for Senator Obama?
The rules currently do not support a 'do over' because some would rather have another choice for nominee.
Now where will the finish line be moved?
AN UPDATE:
When Senator John Edwards, himself a Super delegate, endorsed Senator Obama for the Democratic Party nominee on May 15, 2008, he released his pledged delegates to endorse the candidate of their choice. 6 of the 8 delegates pledged to Senator Edwards in South Carolina have given their support to Senator Obama.
After most of the votes were counted after the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon on May 21, including the previous total of pledged delegates, Senator Obama has won a total of 1,649 pledged delegates, surpassing the 1,627 needed to claim a majority of the pledged delegates.
Since May 21, 2008, Senator Obama has picked up the support of 10 more Super delegates from the states of Hawaii, Georgia, Alaska, Oregon and Wyoming.
As of May 25, 2008, the delegate count for Senator Barack Obama, including pledged and Super delegates, is 1,974. Senator Hillary Clinton's total delegate count is 1,779. Senator Obama needs 52 delegates to reach the 2,026 figure for nomination. Senator Clinton needs 247.
Former President Bill Clinton insists his wife, Senator Clinton, is ahead in the race, claiming she has the popular vote, winning the election and the electoral vote. He also believes the media has treated his wife unfairly during the campaign. The calculations used by the Clinton campaign to support these claims include votes and delegate counts from the states in dispute, Florida and Michigan, and does not include the caucus results in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Concerning the delegate count in dispute involving Michigan and Florida, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee, have submitted a memo to the 30 member panel of the Rules and By-laws Committee scheduled to meet May 31 to craft a solution to resolve the issues resulting from Michigan and Florida ignoring the Democratic Party's directive not to move up their primary dates.
A companion article by Politisite can be found here.
News Tools
May 22, 2008 at 09:46 am by Karen Hatter, 3002 views, 73 comments
Author
Crowd Power
Karen Hatter
All Locations, Everywhere, United States
Add a comment
Comments (73)
at 11:59 on May 22nd, 2008
What happened to a good ole competition at the actual convention? I thought the party primaries were to just get a good idea of which candidates were to be considered at the convention, not actually select the candidate of the party. and that delegates could switch at the convention if persuaded or if there had to be a run-off.
at 17:30 on May 22nd, 2008
Hi Rene. The pledged delegates are meant to vote for the candidate that won their district or what ever the divisions may be used by their state. The idea of the competition at the convention, as it stands now, would be among the Super delegates, who are free to change their minds.
Having Super delegates be the ultimate decider of the Democratic Party nominee, with the pledged delegate majority in support of a candidate, would undermine the apportioned delegate count that was arrived at by the actual voters who voted in the primaries.
at 12:13 on May 22nd, 2008
Darn those line movers. I wish they'd catch those rascals. Always moving lines without askin the rest of us.... Oh... sorry :) Thanks for the piece Karen
at 12:19 on May 22nd, 2008
You're welcome and thanks, Phrolen!
at 13:44 on May 22nd, 2008
Karen Hatter, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 15:30 on May 22nd, 2008
Thanks, Jordan!
at 14:40 on May 22nd, 2008
Karen, you said: "Obama....should be named the Democratic nominee for President of the United States."
Sorry, he can't be--not until the convention. Why do you think that normal party procedure, bylaws, rules and standards should be changed for Obama?
The finish line hasn't been moved. It's where it has always been: at the convention, after the official vote. The only other "finish line" is the one where candidates themselves decide that they're finished.
There is still conflict over the Democrats seating delegates--and therefore counting votes--from two states. Long before the race "shook out" the final two, I was very uncomfortable with the national party's decision to not allow those delegates to be seated. I don't like the idea that people's votes aren't being counted. There could have been another way to "punish" those states' party leadership without punishing the voters.
Call the final two Smith and Jones. Or AAA and BBB, I don't care. But neither Smith nor Jones is the Democratic nominee until the Democratic Party meets in convention and elects Smith or Jones as such, and officially names Smith or Jones. That's just the way it is.
Let me repeat: why do you think the rules should be changed for Obama? Should they name him officially now and then dispense with the convention? What?
Every single delegate has worked to get their place to represent the voters in their state; every voter in this race should get to vote. Regardless of who's running, it ain't over until you cross the *actual* finish line. Them's the rules.
You might want to consider the mess the Republicans got themselves into back in 1912, and Teddy Roosevelt's subsequent bolt to form the Bull Moose party. It's eerily similiar, including a debate over delegates and counting.
at 15:26 on May 22nd, 2008
PEP, I am aware of Democratic Party procedure, as one of my relatives is a Super delegate. As the focus of my piece addresses Senator Obama's lead in pledged delegates, I did not include the words 'at the Democratic National Convention', thinking that my obvious meaning, when the entire piece was read. I will amend my article accordingly.
As is the most likely scenario, the delegate count from Michigan and Florida will be split between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, as I stated and if that is the scenario, Senator Obama's lead will increase, pushing him further in the lead.
The Super delegates appear to be the delegates that will be the determining factor at the convention.
at 15:32 on May 22nd, 2008
Oh, unfair, Karen. Who made you the decider?
And I am a Democrat.
at 18:15 on May 22nd, 2008
Rene, that is not my decision; that's what's being reported. There was a report on National Public Radio this morning, stating that type of compromise was in the works. I have nothing to do with the process.
at 00:34 on May 24th, 2008
And the fact that he didn't bother to get on the ballot in FL is one reason why he and his camp don't want the convention, traditionally the place to discuss/fight out the issues re: delegates, seating delegates, balloting, floor demonstrations, etc., to consider FL/Michigan. Pretty much by not getting on the ballot in FL, Obama disregarded FL voters, and media attention will bring that to light, and I'm sure he doesn't want that.
at 10:54 on May 24th, 2008
Neither Senator Obama or Senator Edward's names were on the ballot in Michigan. Senator Obama was on the ballot in Florida. Had any candidates removed their names from the ballots in Florida, according to Florida's rules, they would have been eliminated from the race altogether in Florida.
In September 2007, Senators Edwards, Obama and Clinton all agreed not to campaign in Michigan or Florida or any other state that sought to defy the Democratic National Committee's decisions by moving up their primary dates.
at 00:29 on May 24th, 2008
Karen, I'm calling "unfair" too. I responded to your original article. No, that article did *not* make it clear that you were discussing the convention. Rather, the article, as originally posted, without alterations, made it sound as though you were calling for him to be proclaimed the candidate now. (Aside: I've had issues, as you'll recall, with you doing this before, and sometimes not making it clear later on that you changed things.)
I'd prefer to engage in discussion on an article that stays what it was. I can concur with making a change if, for example, someone had erroneously said that McCain was a Korean War POW in their original title/article, and then stated that was a factual error and they fixed it.. That doesn't affect discussion and conversation.
And the fact that your cousin is a super delegate doesn't have anything to do with your article or your commentary, unless you are directly quoting him/her in quotes and with him/her identifed. I mean, one of my cousins served for many terms in Congress, but that doesn't have a darned thing to do with what I write or discuss, unless I quote him precisely.
Could you address my concern re: the Democrats' decision to punish the party leaders in FL by "ignoring" the votes of party members? I had that concern long before there were just 2 candidates runing, so it has nothing to do with Obama.
at 10:37 on May 25th, 2008
In my response to your first comment, mentioning my omission re: the Democratic National Convention, I stated I would, " .... amend my article accordingly."
It would seem, since you quoted, in your comments, what I'd originally written, anyone reading the thread would see what had been amended.
I did not say my cousin was a Super delegate. My reference to my relative related to my understanding the Democratic convention process, having someone involved in the process within my family.
The Democratic Party instructed Florida and Michigan regarding moving their primary dates, which put them in violation of Party rules.
The meeting scheduled for May 31, 2008 in Washington, D.C. is meant to decide upon some strategy to address a reality that would not have resulted had Michigan and Florida abided by the rules of the Party.
All parties involved are in agreement some compromise will be created to seat delegates at that time.
at 15:38 on May 22nd, 2008
Karen is not the decider per say...... her article title is merely a play on words from Michelle Obama who has repeatedly asserted that "They" have continually moved the finish line. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obamas-they-problem here is an analysis of the problem which I did a while back.
at 15:48 on May 22nd, 2008
Phrolen, my title is not a play on Michelle Obama's words because I was unaware she'd said them.
at 22:57 on May 22nd, 2008
Let me correct myself............"The title is the rooted in the same misguided ideas that Michelle Obama has been asserting"
at 23:07 on May 22nd, 2008
Misguided is in the eye of the beholder, as I find many of your assertions as well.
at 23:10 on May 22nd, 2008
well at least we meet eye to eye on one thing :)
at 00:32 on May 24th, 2008
phrolen, thanks for including the link. I didn't see that piece as that was the week I was galloping around closing out a community project.
After reading your piece, I can see why you would see the resemblance.
at 15:47 on May 22nd, 2008
Well, IMHO, if they do make Obama the candidate for the Democrats, we can probably look forward to McCain as President. Karen just sounds like she's going along with all the media.
Beside, who's to say any of those primaries have not been pre-empted/stolen, and by the very ones who stole the last two elections? to benefit the Repubs, in the long run. I've seen some indication around the web that some think that is actually happening. no, I didn't highlight it, and no, I will not look it up.
at 16:46 on May 22nd, 2008
The people have chosen Obama. Even if you seat the Florida and Michigan voters at the convention, the DNC will not allow this race to be stolen from the people. If Hillary cared about the voters of those states, she wouldn't have agreed to the rules of the game 15 months ago. She agreed to take away their votes and the only reason she cares now is not because she wants the people of those states "to be heard," but because she cares about her own legacy.
Either way, it makes very little difference. Even with those votes, she still can't come out ahead.
Rene, I'm not sure where your contempt for Obama finds its cause, but if you're a Clinton supporter and you back McCain because Obama beat her in a fair fight and against many odds, then you don't hold the values of your proclaimed party affiliation.
at 19:41 on May 22nd, 2008
Don't know where you get that impression. I don't back McCain, and I can see the writing on the wall even if you can't.
at 17:14 on May 22nd, 2008
Obama will be president, in my opinion, due to the fact that he can speak clearly without skirting the point. unlike the current buch of bad apples that confuse me every time anything is uttered. My vote is for a vote of articulation.
at 22:09 on May 22nd, 2008
All I can say is that I am glad I am not an American Democrat. What a poverty of selection. A woman who has no scruples and no morals or a nice guy who is completely unprepared for the job. I can kinda see why such a high percentage of democrats will vote McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. Such high negatives for both of these candidates. Whadayathink? Edwards not looking to bad now?
at 00:43 on May 24th, 2008
It's interesting that you identify "a woman who has no scruples or no morals" (always gotta love the slinging of "morals" at women in high places) and "a nice guy" etc.
How about just looking at them as people? And I'm not sure how you decided that Hillary has "no morals" and Obama is "a nice guy." Re: the latter, have you been following the exposing of Obama's series of lies? How does that make "a nice guy"?
at 18:12 on May 23rd, 2008
When people say that Obama doesn't have the experience, I guess I can understand that. And I can see what they would fear it. Our current Pres came into the game woefully inexperienced and look where we are now.
But if I remember correctly from my history classes in h.s. - and I damn well may not - Abraham Lincoln was far from experienced also and yet proved to be one of the three greatest presidents we have ever had.
For my part I remain hopeful about Obama.
at 18:18 on May 23rd, 2008
Lincoln may well have been an excellent President but that was at a time when the requirements of the job were nothing of the scope required today. The stakes are much higher now. Nuclear weapons, global conflicts, complex tax policies, world capital markets, and just what's required to get your legislative agenda through both Houses. Obama may have been an effective President in Lincoln's day (OK a free white version of Obama, that is) but I would not be so sure that Lincoln would even make it on the ballot today.
at 00:41 on May 24th, 2008
Hmmm...the stakes in Lincoln's time were: the cementing or sundering of this nation, the freeing of slaves, the fitting together of states' rights and federal oversight (meaning the limiting of states' rights, a sore that had been festering for awhile outside of slavery issues) and the cost was horrendous. More soldiers were killed in some battles than on the shores of Normandy.
So don't be so quick to dismiss what Lincoln had to deal with. It was only the future of our nation!
at 18:54 on May 24th, 2008
You make a good case for Lincoln. I am not convinced that America wants to be led by someone with such little experience today. I guess we may have the opportunity to test that senario out if he can get past McCain.