S-S-Something from the Comments
Milowent writes: "I am suddenly struck with remorse for counseling Brotherhood 2.0 NOT to make a presidential endorsement early in 2007. if they had, clinton would probably be out by now."
It's true! Blame Milowent!
Sandy writes: I also still have a little bit of a problem with Senator Obama. I'm a Michigan Democrat, and it still bothers me that he pulled his name off of my ballot when there was no cause for him to do so.
The primary system in this country is so screwed-up I don't even know where to start, but the solution to the screwed-upedness is certainly not for all the states to start moving their primaries up. All the candidates signed a pledge, at the behest of the DNC, saying they would not "participate" in the Florida or Michigan primaries. They couldn't remove their names from the ballots in Florida (it's illegal), but everyone but Senator Clinton and Dennis Kucinich interpreted "not participating" as "not being on the ballot." I don' t think this constitutes ignoring Michigan or leaving Michigan behind. If anything, Obama's economic stimulus plan is better for states like Michigan than it is for states like New Hampshire. Also, the Obama campaign has backed several efforts to seat the delegates from Michigan at the convention. I agree with both Clinton and Obama that we need to find a way to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention, and I'm confident it will happen.
Devin writes: "Hey Umm kinda off subject but i just read looking for alaska and i would just like you to thank you for writing such a good book it has helped me."
Hey, Devin, thanks for reminding me that this blog is about books and writing and not about Presidential politics. Also, compliments are never off-topic. And thanks for reading Alaska. And thanks for making my day with the last four words of your comment.
posted by John Green @ Wednesday, April 02, 2008
4 Comments
4 Comments:
I can see why Sandy thinks that Clinton leaving her name on the ballot means she is standing by Michigan. But when she was interviewed by a radio station in New Hampshire about this decision, she said she left her name on the ballot because the vote would not "count for anything" (her words). To me, this seems as if she just couldn't be bothered to remove her name. It certainly indicates that, at that time, she wasn't very concerned with the idea that the Michigan votes should count.
It's terrible that Michigan and Florida lost their votes, but the fault lies with their state leaders.
If you'd like to read about Clinton's interview regarding the Michigan ballot, Frank Rich reports it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html
Great comment, Marie. I hadn't seen that quote; thanks for passing it along.
Well, thank you, John, for starting such an excellent conversation.
RE: Michigan ballots
I think it was a wise and important move for Senator Obama et al to remove their names from the Michigan ballot (and, for the record, I say this as a Michiganian). Reason being, to not do so would have endorsed Michigan's self-righteousness in this case and allowed the state to make up its own rules in a setting where the rules were very clearly defined before the primary was pushed up. The Democratic party had its rules and Michigan decided to ignore those rules and if those rules are allowed to be ignored, what's the point in having them? If all the other candidates continued to keep their names on the ballot, it would have sent the message that any state can determine when their primaries are, rendering the party laws useless.
I love reading this blog, good sir.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home