What happened in the Florida Presidential Primaries?
Tonight John McCain (R-AZ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) won the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries in the state of Florida. Unlike McCain, who will walk away with a winner-take-all 57 delegates, Hillary Clinton gets none. This is because the National Democratic Party is punishing Florida for moving its primary election up to a date earlier than the Super Tuesday Primaries next Tuesday, February 5, 2008. As a result, Florida Democrats voted in a meaningless primary election and their voices will, therefore, not be heard.
As a side note, there are ordinarily 114 Republican delegates at stake in Florida but the National Republican Party cut the number in half to punish Florida Republicans for the same reason. Nevertheless, the victory is huge for McCain, who will now be the undisputed Republican front-runner, remarkable considering his status just six months ago.
Is this the right outcome? Should the Democratic Party use this type of leverage to force states to stay in their designated pecking order and hold their primary elections when the National Party tells them to? It seems the obvious answer is, "no." In a democracy, each person should have one vote and each vote should be given equal weight. In this case, the 1.5 million Florida voters who voted in the Democratic primary might as well have stayed home. When the Democrats go to convention in Denver this summer, Florida's delegation will have no votes to cast. This seems strangely un-democratic.
Ironically, Senator Clinton went to Florida, despite the meaningless vote, and claimed a huge victory. She vowed to fight to force the Florida delegates to be counted. She spoke enthusiastically to a packed room of supporters about how they will not have voted in vain. (This in sharp contrast to McCain's stump speech in which he vows to fight so that military members will not have died in vain. But, I digress.)
The question now is, will Senator Clinton muster up some Rudy-like energy and see to it that the Florida voters' delegates are counted? Will she rise up again, like she did in Michigan, to ensure those Florida delegates get to cast their votes at the Denver convention? I'm no predictor of the future, but it would not be out of the question to predict that she, and her formidable campaign staff, will be successful in yet another tough fight. And, if she is, we will all confirm once again that Hillary Clinton does not have the Rudy Syndrome. And, for that reason, she will almost certainly be the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States come November.
As a side note, there are ordinarily 114 Republican delegates at stake in Florida but the National Republican Party cut the number in half to punish Florida Republicans for the same reason. Nevertheless, the victory is huge for McCain, who will now be the undisputed Republican front-runner, remarkable considering his status just six months ago.
Is this the right outcome? Should the Democratic Party use this type of leverage to force states to stay in their designated pecking order and hold their primary elections when the National Party tells them to? It seems the obvious answer is, "no." In a democracy, each person should have one vote and each vote should be given equal weight. In this case, the 1.5 million Florida voters who voted in the Democratic primary might as well have stayed home. When the Democrats go to convention in Denver this summer, Florida's delegation will have no votes to cast. This seems strangely un-democratic.
Ironically, Senator Clinton went to Florida, despite the meaningless vote, and claimed a huge victory. She vowed to fight to force the Florida delegates to be counted. She spoke enthusiastically to a packed room of supporters about how they will not have voted in vain. (This in sharp contrast to McCain's stump speech in which he vows to fight so that military members will not have died in vain. But, I digress.)
The question now is, will Senator Clinton muster up some Rudy-like energy and see to it that the Florida voters' delegates are counted? Will she rise up again, like she did in Michigan, to ensure those Florida delegates get to cast their votes at the Denver convention? I'm no predictor of the future, but it would not be out of the question to predict that she, and her formidable campaign staff, will be successful in yet another tough fight. And, if she is, we will all confirm once again that Hillary Clinton does not have the Rudy Syndrome. And, for that reason, she will almost certainly be the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States come November.
Once again Atty Jones hit the nail on the head. What are the Clinton's fighting for as opposed to McCain and the rest of the republican candidates? I believe General H. Clinton (to quote Romney) has no idea how to be the actual Commander in Chief? Did I hear correctly that she said she would withdraw all troops within 60 days of inauguration? Is she nutz? I think the end of Charlie Wilson's War taught us a few things (well at least the American movie goers learned this if they were paying attention!)I fear for my grandchildren and great grandchildren if we allow the democrats to get a hold of the white house once again. Just one CAT's opinion!
Reply to this
WHERE IS THE NEXT BLOG ENTRY -- have you been a little busy with Super Tuesday and Super Delegates and some guys campaign? The View was great today about watching the returns/results stuff on tv and Whoopie had some great lines about being a Super Delegate herself!
Hope to read something soon - I have the movie on request at the Library cuz the local movie rental didn't have one now.
Reply to this
A horrible thing to add in our time of war is what Samuel Johnson once wrote, "The last refuge of scoundrel is patriotism." Now, this is not to in ANYWAY meant to put down our troops...
I am an Army Veteran, but this war & 911, has taken our free country away from us! No matter who becomes President, they will be puppets! In fact, they all already are!
Our leader's are a farce, no matter who we choose. ( You're probably thinking "She's read 1984 one too many times.) But if you truly sit back and look back upon our history? I am not delusional, I am an unfortunate realist!
In the words of George Santanaya "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Have you ever read Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr:
Clear and present danger is a term used by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the majority opinion for the case Schenck v. United States, concerning speech against the draft during World War I: Clear and present danger is a term used by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the majority opinion for the case Schenck v. United States, concerning speech against the draft during World War I: “ The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
Does that not sound an awful like "Homeland Security?" In fact, I am sure, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. set the precedent.
Concerning democracy, I'm not sure that the true meaning even applies any longer! We dropped the bombs. We had the stand off @ the Bay of Pigs, oh yeah, um Pearl Harbor!!! But the only thing that took over the Constitution of the United States was due to the precedent set forth by Holmes and Jr. GW Jr. - No other President but Bush Jr. has taken more advantage of the ideation!
Oh and to add to my distaste; these lines should be read closely: They assert that his moral relativism influenced him not only to support a broad reading of the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech," but also led him to write an opinion for the Court upholding Virginia's compulsory sterilization law in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), where he found no constitutional bar to state-ordered compulsory sterilization of an institutionalized, allegedly "feeble-minded" woman with the words, "three generations of imbeciles is enough."
I wonder if Senator Hillary Clinton has ever ready those lines... We may have a vote, but we've lost a great many freedoms, and "they" are not done with us yet!
Donna Marie
Reply to this
As much as it makes me cringe to say it, I hope Clinton gets the Democratic nomination. The reason being, I think she will be an easier candidate to beat than if Obama is nominated. Both Clinton and Obama have Rudy-like drive and desire to become President, but Obama is a cult of personality. He says all the right things, even though he may not be saying anything at all. He has very little experience, but that doesn't matter because he is such a good orator and just generally likable. Which scares me a lot due to number of people who won't vote on issues, they will vote on the candidate the seems the "nicest", and he has that down pat.
Clinton on the other hand is a much more polarizing candidate, she has been in the public eye for many years and the public has had plenty of opportunities to view her personality, and whether you like her stance or not, she does seem to say exactly what she wants to do and she also seems to have a "hard edge" to her personality, somewhat cold. That may not be a desirable trait for the voter who wants to cast their vote for the "nicer" candidate. If it comes to McCain vs. Clinton, I believe, for that type of voter, McCain is the "more likeable" candidate.
However, if it is McCain vs. Obama, it will be an ObamaNation. (Bad joke intended)
Reply to this
Poor Japan(
Reply to this