Question of the Day (Updated)
These things hardly qualify as news developments any more.
After a court ruling, the Clinton campaign argues that the people of Michigan (and Florida) must be counted, their voices must be heard. And, superdelegates must reach their own independent judgement on who would be the best candidate, unbound by the leader among pledged delegates.
The campaign, in one form or another, says both of those things almost every day. They're fundamental pillars of Hillary's continuing candidacy. But how can they keep both balls in the air?
If you think it's crucially important that Michigan and Florida voters be heard from and counted -- how can you argue that superdelegates should be allowed to set aside the votes of everyone else? And if you think superdelegates should just use their independent judgment -- who cares about Michigan and Florida?
Update: Like clockwork, we see tonight there's a statement from Clinton spokesman Phil Singer about the letter her donors wrote to pressure Nancy Pelosi:
"Senator Clinton has been vocal in stating that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment about who’d be best for party and country. The nominating process should be completed so that every vote, including those in Michigan and Florida, gets counted.”
There it is, in two sentences: Count every vote, so the superdelegates can ignore them. Do they even think about this stuff? Or do they employ a system of extra-terrestrial logic under which contradictory ideas are believed to be perfectly consistent as long as they are both in Hillary's self-interest?
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (1)
You forgot the part where pledged delegates are also free to vote however they wish in Hillary's mind.
"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.
"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.
Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.
"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/clinton.delegates/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker
and also in the minds of her 21 fat cat donors...
"We therefore urge you to clarify your position on superdelegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the national convention in August."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/26/clinton_donors_warn_pelosi_on.html
So why oh why in Clinton's eyes do we even bother with a popular primary vote? Think of all the time and money we could have saved if we just disenfranchised all the voters.
This is why we need Obama's change.