03-28-2008
|
#32 (permalink)
|
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by amhersthungboi  The argument is that Obama will accept any DNC decision, as correctly stated by HazelGod. If that is the case, then Obama must also accept the 1982 DNC decision that pledged delegates are not bound to their candidate, and can switch candidates prior to the convention vote. Accordingly, Clinton can try to convince pledged delegates to switch sides.
Ultimately, both sides are left in an indefensible position. | You're being a willfully dishonest douchebag. Again. It's just YOU who has created an indefensible postion re: Obama with your strawman argument.
Though I've already deconstructed it once, I'll quickly do it again: Quote:
Originally Posted by amhersthungboi Obama: Honor DNC rules regarding MI and FL (0 delegates), but the DNC rules regarding pledged delegates is unseemly | This is a quintessential strawman tactic. You've fabricated an "indefensible" position of your own design and attributed it to the Obama campaign. The fact of the matter is that his campaign hasn't challenged the technical legality of DNC rules regarding pledged delegates.
What his campaign has rightfully pointed out is that Hillary's desperation tactics subvert the intent of the DNC rules (pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them") and notion of democratic process altogether...and of course that Mrs. Mendacity has shown herself to be a shameless liar willing to renege on her promises as soon as it might possibly benefit her: Quote: |
The Clinton campaign has said that they had not been planning to try to actively convince the Illinois senator's pledged delegates to switch sides and would not do so in the future.
| A despicable lie exposed by the voice message on my answering machine right now. Quote:
Originally Posted by amhersthungboi Clinton: Honor DNC rules regarding pledged delegates, but override DNC rules regarding MI and FL |
The other prong of intellectual dishonesty is your presentation of this "conundrum" as such. In fact, the separate issues of pledged delegates voting the intent of their electorate in Denver, and the states of FL and MI working out a compromise with the party to have their delegation seated are not mutually exclusive propositions. The one actually has nothing to do with the other.
Get it through your head that the issues of the states is totally beyond the scope of the candidates and their campaign. That rules were violated is not in dispute...that's why they were sanctioned. Any agreement reached between the states and the party leadership to seat their delegation must be reached by those entities (FL, MI, DNC) alone...the campaigns are not involved. A more obvious conflict of interest would be difficult to imagine.
To their credit, Obama has repeatedly and consistently stated that he would like to see those states represented in the convention and his campaign will abide by any resolution decided upon by the DNC.
The only thing consistent coming from Camp Clinton is their willingness to disregard the rules when it's to their advantage...to wit, her repeated braying to have the states' delegations seated based on the results of the election as-is. Id est, in violation of the party rules that resulted in their sanction to begin with.
Regardless of any decision reached by the national party with regard to FL and MI, all candidates should respect the intent of the voters whose delegates have been selected through the electoral process. To flippantly disregard its intent as Hillary has done is both dishonest and disdainful of the entire democratic process. Hence the reason I opened this thread.
I'll reiterate how utterly unsurprising it is that one who so fervently supports such a disingenuous candidate routinely resorts to similar dishonesty himself. |
| |
|
| |