Michael Crawford

Hillary Clinton Hits Democrats Over Florida and Michigan

Filed By Michael Crawford | May 22, 2008 1:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Democrats, Florida, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michigan

A couple of weeks ago I asked Has Hillary Clinton Lost Her Damn Mind? and judging from this clip from a radio interview in which she literally throws the Democratic Party under the bus, the answer is a resounding yes.

iPhone users: Click to watch

I think that what's happened with Florida and Michigan raises serious questions about the principles of our party.

Now obviously, I did well in both states, but beyond that, it just says 'wait a minute, the Democrats are going to be disenfranchising people?'

The Republicans made a decision right after those states held their elections, they quickly said 'okay, we're going to penalize you a little, but we're going to seat your whole delegation, your going to have half a vote, let's just go on.'

And here we are, months later, talking about denying people their rights to be heard, and yet 2.3 million people showed up in Michigan and Florida.

As Jed points out, "It's important to remember that Clinton is attacking the Democratic Party for a decision that she herself embraced."

The state Democratic parties in Florida and Michigan knew what the consequences would be if they moved their primaries too early and they made the decision to do so anyway. Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates agreed to the rules and agreed not to campaign in those states.

Now that her campaign is on life support, Clinton is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game and sounding ever more like a Republican in the process.

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Steve Ralls Steve Ralls | May 22, 2008 3:12 PM

That's right . . . why on earth would we want to count every person's vote?! You'd think we live in a DEMOCRACY or something!

I have a lot of friends in Florida. They voted for Senator Clinton, and they want their damn vote to count. They're American citizens, and they'd like the right to cast a vote (and have it counted) like the rest of us.

But instead, let's keep attacking Hillary . . . for having the audacity to suggest that when somebody votes, it should mean something.

If the Democratic Party can't embrace that concept, then they have some serious issues they need to work out before November.

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | May 22, 2008 3:53 PM


If Clinton was so concerned about making that every vote would count, why would she agree initially to the DNC penalty for FL and MI jumping the primary gun? It only became an issue for when Obama started racking up primary and caucus wins.

The rules should not be changed in the middle of the game just because Clinton is losing the race for the nomination.

I do think that an agreement should be made somehow seat the delegates in MI and FL because the votes of people in those states should be respected. I don't think the rules should be changed just so that Clinton can continue her losing quest to be president.

This is such a canard and she knows it and so does anyone else who looks at the issue or has been paying any attention.
I don't even care that it doesn't matter at this point and Fl and MI won't put her over the top in delegates; the point of punishing the state parties there was to keep this from happening again and again in the future.
If they are seated as is , in 8 years (after Obama's 2 terms are over) , we can expect a national primary where all states hold their caucuses and primaries all on the same day and that day could be January 1st. We'd end up with a 1 might primary where everything is decided all at once. That would be bad for the party, bad for the voters and bad for lesser known candidates who will have no time to let voters get to know them and their issues.
It would also mean that issues-candidates who are in the race to bring light to certain causes , will have virtually no time to make a case for those causes because it would all be over on 1 night of voting early on.

Whether or not Clinton agreed to punish the states originally is irrelevant. She voted in favor of war with Iraq too, but that doesn't make it any more right. No matter what, every state's vote should count. Period. In Florida where they were all on the ballot, I think half a vote is perfectly acceptable. And for Michigan? Just split the delegates 50/50. Give them half a vote too if you want.

Oh Please Hillary being described as a Republican??? I just ate so please dont make me lose my dinner!

Senator Clinton agreed to the rules when it was convenient for her to do so. Now that she it is working against her, she wants to change them.
The sooner the superdelegates make the decision to support Senator Obama, the sooner the admission of the Florida and Michigan will become a moot point. Then they can be seated because it won't make any difference.
If this goes to a floor fight, it could lead to a Democratic loss in November - and the end of Senator Clinton's political career.
She has every right to pursue the nomination as
far as she chooses, but at some point she will have to ask herself which is more important - her own political ambitions or the good of the Democratic party? If people support the policies of Senator Clinton, Senator McCain will certainly not address them. If this is an election about issues, I can't understand why people would not vote for Senator Obama.

Steve Ralls Steve Ralls | May 23, 2008 10:12 AM


I happen to believe that the rules of democracy over-ride the rules of democrats.

You know, as well as anyone else, that if the United States were monitoring an election in another country, and some people were told to vote at 8am, and some at 10am, and the 8am people showed up when they were told to, cast the vote they were eligible to cast, and then had those millions of 8am votes thrown out, while the 10am votes counted . . . we'd call the election a sham and the results invalid.

But somehow, when it happens in Florida or Michigan - instead of Burma or Russia - we call it "fair game." Especially if we happen to be routing for someone other than the person the 8am voters rallied behind.

If the only way Senator Obama thinks he can win anything is by throwing out the votes of people who don't support him, then he shouldn't be in the race in the first place. But if he believes that votes count for something, he should be first in line to call for Florida and Michigan to be seated.

It is OUTRAGEOUS to punish voters for showing up when they're told to and voting for the person they support. That's what democracy is about . . . whether the DNC and Howard Dean like it, or not.

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | May 23, 2008 10:50 AM


No one said that punishing FL and MI for breaking the rules that were set from the beginning is "fair game." If it is "outrageous" now to follow the rules, why was it not "outrageous" to agree to those rules in the first place?

I don't like the rules, but they are the rules that everyone including Clinton agreed to. The only reason she is now calling them outrageous is because she is losing. When she that she had the nomination in the bag, the voters of FL and MI didn't seem to matter so much.

The cynicism with which Clinton is invoking the civil rights movement etc around this issue is incredibly disappointing especially after her campaign has repeatedly used racially code language to advance her candidacy.