My FL/MI rant
This will be my last political post for a few days as we're heading to SF tomorrow for Memorial Day Weekend. Can't wait to see all my buddies!
I also can't wait for resolution of the problem of Florida and Michigan's delegations to the Democratic Convention. Frankly, I've grown disgusted by the rhetoric. Hillary's comparison of the current situation to the civil rights movement is over the top, as is her campaign's suggestions that Obama should get none of the uncommitted delegates from Michigan where he wasn't even on the ballot.
And all of that is especially jarring when her husband seems to think that seating half of the delegates is an appropriate penalty.
Come on, let's get real. Of course Florida and Michigan voters deserve a say, now and in November. But they aren't being penalized for being black, people of color, women, etc. They are being penalized because they broke the rules.
Hillary is fond of sports analogies and talks about "not stopping the game" until every minute has been played. But if a team breaks the rules--recruiting violations, fouls, etc.--the team is penalized. And it may not be the players' fault!
Let's say the coach breaks the college recruiting rules. Is it the players mistake? No, but THE TEAM is penalized, perhaps with no post-season play, as a deterrent to a repetition of the behavior and to ensure that the teams who played by the rules aren't put at a disadvantage.
Hillary likes to talk about this race for the presidency as if we are "hiring" someone. Well, run with that workplace analogy... imagine you're facing some merit-based situation at work: a job promotion, a sales contest, etc. Should the individual or department that starts a week early and gets the jump on everyone else be rewarded for it? What would you think was fair if you lost out because someone broke the rules while you played by them?
Is the current primary/caucus process the best way to select a nominee? Should Iowa always be first? Good questions. Debate them! But don't change the rules after the fact. If she felt this strongly about the issue, she should have made her case before they voted. Pledging not to campaign in those states because they broke the rules was hardly standing up for the "civil rights" of those voters... how can she make this argument with a straight face?
And face it: Hillary is only talking about Florida and Michigan now because it matters to her own self-interest. Had she dropped out a month ago, do you honestly believe that she'd still be making this case as vociferously?
If John Edwards was out jumping up and down about the rights of the voters in Florida and Michigan, I'd applaud him for it. He'd have nothing to gain from it personally. But Hillary? Hmm.
I'm in a great mood today but this issue is one thing that gets me hot and bothered right now. Every time I start to have some respect for Hillary again, she slips back into this "scorched earth" mode. The only thing I've seen that makes any sense of it is this...
Who knows.
I also can't wait for resolution of the problem of Florida and Michigan's delegations to the Democratic Convention. Frankly, I've grown disgusted by the rhetoric. Hillary's comparison of the current situation to the civil rights movement is over the top, as is her campaign's suggestions that Obama should get none of the uncommitted delegates from Michigan where he wasn't even on the ballot.
And all of that is especially jarring when her husband seems to think that seating half of the delegates is an appropriate penalty.
Come on, let's get real. Of course Florida and Michigan voters deserve a say, now and in November. But they aren't being penalized for being black, people of color, women, etc. They are being penalized because they broke the rules.
Hillary is fond of sports analogies and talks about "not stopping the game" until every minute has been played. But if a team breaks the rules--recruiting violations, fouls, etc.--the team is penalized. And it may not be the players' fault!
Let's say the coach breaks the college recruiting rules. Is it the players mistake? No, but THE TEAM is penalized, perhaps with no post-season play, as a deterrent to a repetition of the behavior and to ensure that the teams who played by the rules aren't put at a disadvantage.
Hillary likes to talk about this race for the presidency as if we are "hiring" someone. Well, run with that workplace analogy... imagine you're facing some merit-based situation at work: a job promotion, a sales contest, etc. Should the individual or department that starts a week early and gets the jump on everyone else be rewarded for it? What would you think was fair if you lost out because someone broke the rules while you played by them?
Is the current primary/caucus process the best way to select a nominee? Should Iowa always be first? Good questions. Debate them! But don't change the rules after the fact. If she felt this strongly about the issue, she should have made her case before they voted. Pledging not to campaign in those states because they broke the rules was hardly standing up for the "civil rights" of those voters... how can she make this argument with a straight face?
And face it: Hillary is only talking about Florida and Michigan now because it matters to her own self-interest. Had she dropped out a month ago, do you honestly believe that she'd still be making this case as vociferously?
If John Edwards was out jumping up and down about the rights of the voters in Florida and Michigan, I'd applaud him for it. He'd have nothing to gain from it personally. But Hillary? Hmm.
I'm in a great mood today but this issue is one thing that gets me hot and bothered right now. Every time I start to have some respect for Hillary again, she slips back into this "scorched earth" mode. The only thing I've seen that makes any sense of it is this...
Who knows.
Labels: election2008
posted by michael at 6:02 PM
Subscribe to this RSS feed
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home