What has changed?

[ExPatLeftist]

I really do not understand something and I am hoping that some kind and civil Hillary Clinton supporters will explain their viewpoint so that I can attempt to understand...

Harold Ickes voted to punish FL and MI by removing 100% of their delegates.
Now he talks of this as a travesty of justice in the most damning terms - something that he himself voted for.

Hillary Clinton agreed (and signed that agreement) to remove the delegates from those states and did not seem concerned about disenfranchisement at that point. Now, she compares this same action (which she agreed to) to some of the largest miscarriages of justice in our nation's - and the world's - history.


Simple questions for those of you that agree with them: What has changed to justify their polar opposite positions on this issue over time? And how is this not hypocrisy?

[tekisui]

1. Great question.

[ExPatLeftist]

2. Thanks! I hope that someone will explain this to me.

I am at a total loss to find any logic behind any of this...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. She was/is losing.

Pretty simple. (Requires a lack of principle, but remains simple)

[ExPatLeftist]

5. It seems that simple to me as well

But those making these arguments can't have that as their only justification, can they?

Is this not even being SPUN to attempt some sort of justification? I have heard none yet - I really hope someone that supports these acts will answer...

[glowing]

4. I am from FL and I still don't think the votes should count.. so there.

ass hat high ups, Not everyone campaigned, not everyone voted, and it was not a fair process at all. To somehow recognize FL as a legitimate vote is preposterous to me. It pisses me off. I voted for the feeling. I voted for civic duty. But I voted knowing that my vote would not count, and many other's voted knowing that their vote would not count. It was, "I'm doing it anyway, and if they try to use it I'll be pissed". That was my feeling and it was the general attitude at the polling place.. In January, before Super Tuesday, did we ever think FL would be that important in the selection? If we had a re-Vote today of Clinton and Obama, I'm telling you Obama would win FL over Clinton.

TO me she's stealing the election. I know that this was a compromise. Its a compromise I can live with; though I'm not happy about. So, there it is... I'm pissed that they are counting our fraud of an election for jack shit.. otherwise, perhaps Edward's, the man I voted for, would have had a chance or a greater percentage...

On Edit: ok I can move on now... blew steam.. off the ole' chest. I can breathe and get back to that glowing thing I like to do. (thanks for letting me rant)

[ExPatLeftist]

Yes, it is odd that there is so much dramatic "concern"

over "disenfranchisement", and yet Hillary does not seem the least bit concerned about the "disenfranchisement" of those that did not vote because they KNEW that the election would count for naught - and they knew this because, among MANY others, Hillary Clinton told them so.

[glowing]

8. Thanks for letting me do that in your thread..

I will be sending a letter to Karen Thurman Florida DemocratIC party chair... I will express in a better tone and level way my distaste of the theaft, once again, of Florida.

[pdxmom]

6. I am not a Hillary supporter, but I can tell you what I heard one of the

Hillary surrogates say about it. I don't remember which show it was on, but one of the surrogates was asked this question outright, and the answer was basically that, despite knowing that their votes wouldn't count, millions of people came out and voted anyway and if that many people felt that strongly about their right to vote, then they now felt they had to support those voters. Basically, they changed their minds.

[ExPatLeftist]

7. I am not against changing one's mind

and am against the whole "flip-flop" meme in general... I think people always continue to grow and may change their opinions over time.

That being said, this was a VERY short amount of time - and it seems a bit more than coincidental that it becomes a "national emergency" only after Hillary Clinton is poised to lose the election...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. January 15- February 5th. 3 weeks!

Damn straight it was a short time. The only thing that changed in that span of time was control of the nomination.

It clearly was not an honest change of heart.

[Thrill]

10. Hillary and Ickes thought it would be over Super Tuesday. They had no idea they would need FL and MI

Thats the bottom line.

So then you start wanting to change the rules.

[Ravy]

11. All of the DNC RBC voted to punish MI and FL by 100%.

It was wrong then.

Now, they all talk about that being a travesty of justice. Not just Clinton supporters, but the Obama supporters, too. Obama wanted the delegates seated as much as Clinton did, he just didn't want all of them.

I am agnostic on the selection, but it amazes me how the both camps can see only what the other camp is doing and be totally oblivious of their own camp doing exactly the same thing, perhaps to a different degree.

In the RBC, the Obama camp was for strict adherance to the rules, and delegates be damned if they violated the rules, so they insisted that at least the automatic penalties still applied.

But in the case of the Texas county that did not hold their caucus on the correct day, they were all over the Clinton camp for taking the "Rules are the rules" tact and said that the voters should matter, no matter what the rules said.

They are two sides of the same coin.

My big issue with the DNC is putting themselves in a position to allow all of this to happen in the first place. They did not take a principled stand when NH leapfrogged Nevada in the primary. The actions of the DNC have tainted the process. Howard Dean, who I voted for in 2004 and still admire greatly, should have not let this happen. Overall, I still give him an A as DNC chair, but he got closer to a B grade from me with this fiasco.