Check out the 'Petition to Stop Hillary from Seating MI and FL delegates'

[RiverStone]

Campaign to Retain a Fair Nomination Process

Target: Senator Hillary Clinton (CC: Democratic National Committee)
Sponsored by: Concerned Americans for a Fair Nomination Process

Senator Clinton's campaign has chosen to push to change the rules while the Democratic nominating process is already underway.

Her campaign is advocating for the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates after the Democratic National Committee stripped both states of their delegates in response to each state's decision to move up their primary date.

As Josh Marshall noted, it is inappropriate to "change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another." As Joe Gandelman points out, Hillary Clinton made that very argument months ago.

This campaign is concerned that Senator Clintons' attempt to seat delegates from states in which she and her opponents explicitly pledged to not campaign will have disastrous implications for the Democratic Party and the Democratic nomination process. As Ezra Klein warns, "This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart."

As a result, we strongly urge Senator Clinton, in the interest of the Democratic Party and the millions of Americans who have a strong interest in avoiding a fractious, divisive Democratic National Convention, to abide by the rules set down months ago and explicitly agreed to by her campaign and abandon her push to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated in the upcoming Democratic National Convention.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Concerned Americans for a Fair Nomination Process

Petition link here:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Give-Us-Fairness

[shaniqua6392]

1. Well I voted here in Michigan

and I want my vote to count. They were never asked to take their names off the ballot. They were just told not to campaign here or in Florida. Millions of us got out there and voted and we want it to count. There were plenty of rumors going around telling us to vote because they would probably seat our delegates in the end if they needed them. We were told to vote uncommitted so that uncommitted delegates could go to the convention and be seated. We voted. Count our votes. That is the way I feel about it. I don't care which candidate gets the most delegates in the end either. At this point I don't care who wins.

[mkultra]

4. werent asked but all agreed

All candidates agree to remain off the balots. guess who was on the ballots.

[nonconformist]

5. Kucinich and Gravel were both on the ballot, too... along with Uncommitted (for Obama and Edwards)

[shaniqua6392]

7. No they did not all agree to that.

The Michigan Dems did not want to take the names off, but only did it at the request of the individual candidates. The candidates were only told not to campaign here by the National Party. We were told that a vote for uncommitted would be a vote for either Edwards or Obama.

[mkultra]

9. so why did hrc campaign in FL?

[shaniqua6392]

15. I will have to call you a liar on that one.

Even though I don't really care for her that much, I have to defend her on that statement. She did not campaign in Florida or Michigan. Obama ran national commercial advertising that was shown in Florida though. She did not enter the state of Florida until after the polls had closed to have a rally for those who did go out there and vote for her. It was a publicity ploy, I admit. But it probably made her supporters feel better.

[mkultra]

47. well, how gracious of you

I guess her appearances ahead of the primary where called fundraisers.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. She didn't

But why worry about facts when it's so much easier to make shit up.

Obama was the only candidate to run ads in Florida. Clinton never campaigned there.

[Lucinda]

20. Thats not true at all. No one agreed to remove their names. And they were all ON the Flordia ballot.

Edwards and Obama took theirs off in MI to appease voters in NH and Iowa. It was not required.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. That's simply not true

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. There was an agreement.

And Hillary's reaction when asked about NOT taking her name off the ballot? 'It doesn't matter, because the votes won't count for anything.'

And whatever your state party may have told you, the NATIONAL party was very clear on the sanctions that would be levied if your state party went ahead with its plan to move the primary date. They were clear FROM THE BEGINNING. Before the vote passed. If you want someone to blame...blame the arrogance of your state party officials, who KNEW what would happen, and pushed forward anyway.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. No there was no such agreement

why do people lie with such impunity here?

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. Sure there was...

there was an agreement not to campaign; there was also a near-unanimous decision of candidates to withdraw their names from what was seen as an illegitimate contest (in a move that amounts to agreement). And there WAS agreement that the primary in Michigan was meaningless. Hillary even said so (before it became clear that winning wasn't as easy as she thought it would be).

[MonkeyFunk]

43. There were four candidates on the ballot

you call that near-unanimous?

No, there was no such agreement. Don't make shit up and expect not to be called on it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. There was an agreement that the Michigan and Florida primaries were meaningless...

the national party said so, every candidate with anything like a remote chance at the monination said so. Hillary even said so, until it started to look like she'd need the votes. Are you going to dispute that? If so, I'd REALLY like to know how.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. My point was that you were flat-out wrong

when you said there was an agreement to remove their names from the ballot.

And you were just making shit up when you said there was near-unanimous agreement to do so.

[GumboYaYa]

51. Both Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot

in Michigan. They tried to do the same, but it was too late to do so. Both names appeared on the ballot in Florida. There was an agreement between all candidates not to campaign in either state. Pressing the definition of "campaign" to its limits, Clinton made several private appearances in Florida during the voting in the primary. She took the position that private appearances complied with the agreement.

[RoadRage]

50. I think it's Ironic that Clinton supporters WANT the FL & MI votes to count,

because counting them is the most effective way to ensure that she loses the election. In your head, flip it reverse.. and think about how you'd feel if Obama was the only candidate on the ballot in one state, had the most name recognition, and was in another state where he & his competitor couldn't campaign. Who would that favor? In this scenario - it would favor Obama... now, does it still seem fair?

Additionally, COUNTING these votes without a new primary is the fastest way to ensure Hillary will not win the election. Honestly it doesn't matter if YOU think it's fair or not - because I can tell you 90% of Obama supporters do not. And you will need each & every one of them to vote for Hillary if she goes on to the G.E.

By pushing to have these delegates unfairly seated.. you are ensuring a McCain victory. So, ask yourself, would you rather have McCain win because Hillary completely split the democratic base, or would you rather have Obama win and possibly be able to win the election?

[DJ13]

2. Signed. Thanks for pointing this out.

K&R

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. "Concerned Americans for a Fair Nomination Process" ROFLMAO!!!

What a crock of hypocritical shit! :rofl:

First of all, they're trying to disenfranchise 1.7 million valid Florida voters who came out in record numbers to let their voices be heard. Truly shameful.

Second of all, concerned for a fair process? What malarkey. I don't hear that group protesting the concept of caucuses anywhere. In fact, caucuses are about 10 times more illegitimate of a process than if FL seats its delegates. Where's the outrage towards them? Where's the outrage from this dumbass group to lobby for the end of caucusing, since the process as it exists is monumentally flawed, unfair and amateur?

God I hate fucking frauds. That's all they are. Partisan fucking frauds who will do whatever they have to in order for their candidate of choice to win. Disgraceful.

[mkultra]

6. they broke the rules

They knew they would not be seated but they did it anyway. Now, they want to cry about it.

The only fraud here is HRC.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Oh Enough Of The Broken Record Crap Already. Such A Crock Of Shit.

Have the balls to just come out and admit that you don't mind disenfranchising 1.7 million voters who came out in record numbers and let their voices loudly be heard, because it just simply doesn't benefit your candidate and you'll do whatever you have to, whether ethical or not, to ensure your candidate's victory. You ain't foolin anybody with this whole 'broke the rules wah wah' garbage, least of all me. Get a spine, stand up, and say the real reasons why you don't want them seated. Then maybe I'd have a shred of respect for your position.

[mkultra]

17. They can revote

The rules where established. Only you need to admit your motives as only YOU want to change the rules mid game.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Broken Record. Until You Have The Spine To Admit Your Real Motivation,

I don't have much else to say to you.

You and I both know why you hold the position you do, and it's a disgrace.

[RiverStone]

32. So they broke no rules?

Yes or no?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Please Stick To Your Subthread Below. Only One Subthread Per Partisan Fraudulent Hypocritical Hack.

:hi:

[RiverStone]

37. Please answer the question - in any thread!

:hi:

[iamjoy]

11. Just Curious - Caucuses

what do you have against caucuses?

I have concerns with them - namely that people who are out of town and people who have to work at that time lose their chance to vote. But, I think there are some advantages. It can be used for party building and it gives people an opportunity to have a second choice

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. I've Only Begun To Learn About Them This Year. My Mind Is Boggled By The Fact They Exist.

From non secret balloting, to peer pressure, to blocks of time, to far less turnout, to the whole way the thing is run. It's got to be the most inaccurate way of deciding victory I've ever seen. It reminds me of choosing a class president in 5th grade or something. But for General Election primaries? I'm in awe that this is the way so many states award their delegates. So unprofessional, amateurish and inaccurate in my opinion.

[shaniqua6392]

12. Thank you for saying that.

I am a Michigan voter and I feel the same way. My vote should be counted. If they can count the votes of a few who show up at a caucus because they can get the day off work, then they can sure as hell count mine. If I don't work, I don't get paid so a caucus is out of the question. To sign that petition is to disenfranchise me and every other person who voted.

[RiverStone]

21. Valid voters - but not a valid primary

The contests in FLA/MI were NOT even a close facsimile of a legitimate count. You speak of disenfranchised voters...think of all the thousands of people in both state who never went to the polls because they were told their votes would not count.

The petition simply asks NOT TO SEAT delegates based on this bullshit.

The remedy for this is to make sure that EVERYBODY as a chance to participate in a legitimate vote. A re-do is the best solution and ideally in the form of a primary (not a caucus).

You think your pissed about this OPERATIONMINDCRIME, if said delegates were to be seated as is - there would would be an all out revolt by the Obama camp. It would indeed be a disaster for the party convention. Too bad both the DNC and state party leaders could not get there shit together before all this happened --- but when the dust settles --- all voters should get to vote for all the eligible candidates!!!

Nothing more - nothing less.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Bullshit. It Was Far More Valid Than Any Caucus.

Enough of this theoretical 'thousands stayed home' crap. You can't have a record breaking turnout that far more than doubled the turnout of 2004, equaling 1.7 million voters, and make a claim that so many stayed home. Guess what; thousands of voters stay home for a multitude of reasons in EVERY goddamn election. But if you have 1.7 MILLION that actually fucking SHOW UP to vote, you can't possibly hold a valid position that their intent is not known. It's such horseshit.

Furthermore, those who stayed home had NO leanings either way towards any camp, so when you have a sample size of 1.7 FUCKING MILLION voters to use it is COMPLETELY legitimate to assess that those that stayed home would've had the same general makeup. Based on that simple statistical fact, coupled with the 1.7 MILLION people who came for a record turnout, along with a 300,000 vote margin, your whole 'bbbbbbbut thousands stayed home' argument falls completely apart for the dogshit it is. Hey, know what? COUNTLESS thousands can't make it to caucus events either. Where's your rallying cry for them?

Fact is you're another damn hypocrite who is only fighting against the seating of the delegates because you don't mind disenfranchising MILLIONS of legitimate voters who LEGITIMATELY let their voices be heard, based SOLELY on the fact that it helps your candidate to hold such a position. You should be ashamed of yourself. I can't wait for someone to actually have the integrity to stand up and admit the REAL reason why they're against it, which is simply the selfish ass reason that it doesn't help their candidate.

[RiverStone]

31. So you support giving a free pass to the rule breakers...???

Quit the smoke and mirrors.

MI and FLA state parties moved the primaries up against the wishes of the DNC.

If we were to allow those delegates to be seated, why have ANY system for our party's primaries. Why not let any rouge state say: fuck it, we are going to be first!

Why do you want to legitimize such defiant behavior MINDCRIME?

I still say that the voters were fucked over not by their own actions - but by their state party leaders. And the vote was a sham.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Another One With The Broken Record Crap. What I Support Is NOT Disenfranchising 1.7 MILLION Fucking

voters. THAT should be what matters to you too.

And you keep repeating that the vote was a sham. How was it a sham? Can you POSSIBLY even begin to justify that? How can you POSSIBLY be so ignorant to declare it a sham, when 1.7 million voters went out in RECORD numbers to cast their votes legitimately? Open your fucking mind for god's sake. Your arguments are ridiculous.

Fact: 1.7 Million voters let their voices be known. Fact: They far more than doubled the 2004 turnout. Fact: There was no foul play during the voting itself. Fact: There was a record turnout, and more than enough of a turnout to declare that the intent of the state was well known. Fact: You want to disenfranchise those voters NOT for rules, NOT because of a falsely perceived shame election, but SOLELY because it is in your candidates best interest to hold the position you do, even in SPITE of it being unethical and disgraceful.

Wake the fuck up.

[RiverStone]

36. We both do not want to disenfranchise voters!

And by breaking the rules - we did!

You did not answer my question:

DO YOU THINK ANY RULES WERE BROKEN????

Can you answer that question directly?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. The DNC Rules Were Broken, Duh. But Who Gives A Rat's Ass? Do You Think That Justifies The

disenfranchisement of 1.7 million fucking voters? Who are you fucking kidding?

Do you think any of us buy for a second that you truly believe others were disenfranchised? Just HOW were they disenfranchised huh pal? And where's your outcry towards caucuses huh ya hypocrite? Where's that fucking outrage? Are there not tons more disenfranchised by them itself? Huh? Do you really believe for a second that those supposedly disenfranchised by breaking the rules (crock of shit) come anywhere NEAR the number of the 1.7 million voters you support having disenfranchised? Do you have ANY evidence or reason to believe that if those that stayed home showed up, that they would've significantly split out ANY differently that what we saw? Are you trying to claim that a sample size of 1.7 MILLION FUCKING VOTERS is NOT representative of the voice of the state? Do you really think your arguments are fooling anybody? Your arguments are crap, and they're a facade. You're hiding behind them because you don't have the integrity to just stand up and say "I don't want them seated, because it would hurt my candidate. I don't care if that's unfair, I don't want to hurt my candidate". Grow a spine. You ain't foolin me for a damn second. None of you are.

When you decide to be intellectually honest, maybe I'll continue this conversation.

[RiverStone]

40. Finally an answer...

Yes - the rules were broken!

And everything that followed was from that original domino being knocked down.

I'd be making the exact same argument if the candidate's respective situations were reversed.

The fundamental point is that if we let 2 states do what ever the fuck they want - why have any rules at all? The best thing we can do is learn from the arrogant players that caused this clusterfuck and NEVER let it happen again.

And BTW, maybe you need to take a walk or something...

Though I don't dig your constant stream of angry name calling - I do appreciate the debate.

Conversation closed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. You Didn't Rebut Any Concept Posed To You, Waged No Real Argument, Have No Support For Your Position

, didn't even attempt to overcome the overwhelming logic thrown at you, and in fact failed miserably to even begin to get any competent point across as to why those 1.7 million voters should be disenfranchised or why their intent was not made clear enough to matter. You've served up talking points; no more. And I don't buy your 'if the situation was reversed' argument for a second, and neither would anyone else.

You've refuted nothing, debated nothing, overcame nothing, offered nothing, and walk away having said not much of anything at all. Yes. This conversation's closed. You were manhandled in it. See ya! :hi:

[Egnever]

26. Partisan fucking frauds who will do whatever they have to in order for their candidate of choice to

look in the mirror

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Nice Try Pal, But You Fall On Your Face.

I technically support Hillary, but overall I'm excited as hell about BOTH candidates, love BOTH of them, and will be excited no matter WHO gets the nom.

See, I'm not a closed minded partisan hack like you are. I'm looking at this FL issue from a COMPLETE standpoint of OBJECTIVITY and voter intent. Don't worry, I don't much expect you to get it....

[PermanentRevolution]

54. Speaking as one of those FL voters...

I'm going to be pissed beyond words if our delegates wind up being seated.

You throw the disenfranchisement label around a lot, but what happened in Florida isn't it. Disenfranchisement would be if the DNC ruled AFTER our primary that the delegates wouldn't be seated. Then, we would have gone to the polls thinking that our votes were going to count, only to learn after the fact that they wouldn't. THAT would be wrong, and I'd be screaming bloody murder for my vote to be heard. But that's just not the case. Every single voter in Florida had heard REPEATEDLY going into the primary that our votes on that issue were meaningless. We voted anyway, even though it wouldn't count. Not seating delegates that everyone KNEW were not going to be seated isn't disenfranchisement. What it IS, is petty, spiteful bullshit on the part of the DNC to try and assert their power over state parties and keep Iowa and New Hampshire in a state of artificially-inflated importance, marginalizing states that actually present a far more representative sample of the nation. BUT since the DNC made it clear from the outset that we would be punished for re-scheduling our primary, it's far more destructive and hypocritical to rescind that decision than to keep it.

I have absolutely no problem with Florida's delegates being kept out, because I understood from the beginning that that would be the case. I have a problem with the DNC for making that decision in the first place, and I have a BIG problem with my state legislators for voting in favor of the move despite knowing that this would be the outcome. But I'd rather my vote not count than watch the DNC pull a bait-and-switch at this stage of the race by suddenly validating what had been billed from the start as an invalid vote.

[CitizenRob]

10. Once again... Hillary chooses politcal expedience over ethics.

"As Josh Marshall noted, it is inappropriate to "change the rules in midstream to favor one candidate or another." As Joe Gandelman points out, Hillary Clinton made that very argument months ago."

[Maribelle]

16. Hillary is working within the rules of the DNC. Any other pomp is a lie.

Josh Marshall is so incorrect on this.

[CitizenRob]

18. So what rules did she work on when she was AGAINST counting their delegates?

[Maribelle]

35. Do you have a link proving she was ever 'AGAINST counting their delegates'

?

She only (paraphrasing) she would work with the DNC using their rules (not her rules) to get the delegates seated.

She signed a four-state pledge to not campaign in Florida, as did Obama and Edwards.

[mkultra]

19. Only avenue is a revote

The only avenue she has available to her is a revote in those states.

Which, as far as im concerned, is fine. all parties can have an equal chance to campaign there and be there.


Thats the only fair course.

[RiverStone]

24. Yes!

A revote is the only FAIR resolution.

The cost and logistics remains a challenge, but probably both the state party and DNC would need to share in it.

[harun]

22. FL and MI were told that their delegates would be seated at the

convention after it was clear they would not influence the outcome. Since they will likely influence the outcome, they should be awarded 0 delegates.

[Skarbrowe]

38. My vote simply doesn't count anymore. Being a Floridian, soon to

ex-Floridian, I think I'll just stop voting. I'm not saying this to be snarky or whiny. I am truly exhausted, beaten up completely, dead in the soul, from my vote not being counted because of lousy machines or some mistake that was made that wasn't my fault. I think I am truly starting to tune out. Not from anger, or because this or that candidate didn't win, simply from a broken heart. I don't think I care anymore. I'm older and I hope the best for all you youngin's. :) I'm seriously, serioulsy tired of my vote not counting. No more votes for me. I'll be in between here and where I am moving to about general election voting time and I don't think I'll hassle with a new registration.

Oh and Go Obama! Extremely well run campaign. ( Oh, and if by some chance the stupid pollsters have Obama and McCain close in November, I will vote. But, it probably won't count.

[goldcanyonaz]

45. Michigan will only hear from their voters, not a bunch of out of staters bullying them.

[demokatgurrl]

48. OMG THIS STUFF JUST MAKES ME FUCKING WANT TO

SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!

HILLARY IS NOT SEATING ANY MOTHERFUCKING DELEGATES!!!! Our party should never have done this in the first place- if the FL and MI party officials screwed up by agreeing to a STUPID rule (why the hell shouldn't a state be able to move its primary to whatever goddam date it wants to?) then penalize THOSE folks not the fucking voters who were, in FL anyway, already robbed of their right to vote in 2000!!!!! It is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

[Spider Jerusalem]

49. States shouldn't be able to move their primaries to whenever they want to for very good reasons.

The earliest contests taking place in small and less populous states gives candidates who may not have a huge bankroll a more level playing field. Allowing states like Florida to move to the front of the line makes it all about money. Which is NOT a good thing.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

52. Thanks demokatgurrl

Thanks demokatgurrl. At least someone has some morality on this forum. So many here are concerned with winning a damn horse race that they stray far from the principles that are suppose to represent their party and their country. I know most of you haven't exactly had great role models with King George ruling over you for the past 7 years, but do you really think it is just to disenfranchise Florida voters yet again? MLK once said an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Maybe some of you people should think about that for a little while.

Sure, maybe you can get away with disenfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida this election cycle and still win the general election, but do you want to chance it? Better yet, why not start compiling a list of states who's voters don't deserve a voice next election cycle. What's the difference between a few million people here or there? Their just statistics, right?

The fact is, Florida voters turned out to vote on a state constitutional amendment. Most of us already felt that our primary vote had been stolen. My congressman emailed me to persuade me that, that was not the case, but even the poll workers shared that opinion. When I walked into my precinct, the guy checking my card said, another democrat with a strange look on his face, and then in conversation said it was too bad that the votes were not going to count. I also discovered to my surprise that there were still electronic voting machines even though Florida was suppose to be switching to all paper ballots (they didn't have any paper ballots on hand either).

All in all, I don't think the vote count necessarily represents the electorate (if that word can be used in this case), but I believe that it would be wise to count our votes and our delegates. I would be willing to go to the polls again if need be, but the fact is the DNC should never have disenfranchised us to begin with. We already got that from the republicans and the supreme court in 2000. Maybe by 2012 we will have a national primary with every state voting on the same day. In reality that's what it will take to cut out most of the cost of campaigning. It would help to create a more equal playing field for all candidates as well as allow voters to actually vote for who the want (not pick from the lesser of 2 or 3 evils that the voters of New Hampshire send our way).

[Kahuna]

53. Thanks for the link. K&R