The Clinton campaign appeared to have lost the Ickes-Levin exchange, and there's a pretty good reason why. You can't argue for being a stickler for the rules, as Ickes claimed to be on the disposition of the Michigan uncommitted delegates, at the same time you're arguing to override the rules by seating the delegates period.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments
I'm watching this, and Ickes is clearly a man with the weight of the world on his shoulder. It seems like everyone has hoisted upon him the role of "magic man" and "parliamentary knife fighter" that will somehow salvage enough delegates from this process to keep Clinton afloat. I feel bad for him because he's to smart to be making arguments like "55% committed delegates for clinton and make the rest uncommitted so that we can try and sway them too!" It's kinda painful to watch an otherwise intelligent person (probably the smartest guy in the room) forced to make these kind of arguments due to desparation.
Levin's original statement was a stretch in and of itself. His attempt to turn the tables on New Hampshire is admirable (if the current system is viewed in a negative light), but he never mentioned why it was the New Hampshire decided to jump from Jan. 22 to Jan. 8. That would be Michigan jumping New Hampshire. All bets were off after that. Hey, New Hampshire's secretary of state was talking about moving the primary ahead of Iowa's caucus to Dec. 11, 2007.
What was up with Ickes legal reference to affirmative action?? Given the racial backdrop of this campaign, that is the last legal analogy i would have drawn!
ickes was getting punked by every person he questioned!! especially with respect to rep. wexler.
I am dumb-founded by this whole process. I believe both Florida and Michigan knew exactly what they were doing from the start and think they set out to upset this whole process for Hillary Clinton. She's about as underhanded and untrustworthy as they come. Frankly I think she's secretly in bed with the Republicans.
Originally, I didn't think either of the state's should have their delegates seated at the convention. After watching the first part of the hearing I thought FL might find resolution if they agreed to 50%. However, Hilary, true to her her deep-seated demonic, greedy nature wants it all. She needs to give it up and get a prescription for Prozac.
And Michigan - what can you say about a state that would even consider holding an election without all respresentative candidates on its ballot? If we Americans are too blind to see through this baloney we are not deserving of the democratic society that we have [previously] been afforded.
I will likely change parties and cast no vote in this 2008 election - the process has never been the same since Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004 - and which state was involved . . . ?
Florida and Michigan wanted to be important in this election cycle, and the irony is, they are! Despite breaking the rules and trying to win by cheating.
Rep. Wexler did a fine job, but the more I think of this, I don't think that representatives of either of the candidates should have been able to speak. The final committee decision should be made irrespective of the wishes of the candidates. I understand that state party representatives of Florida and Michigan should present their cases, as something needs to be resolved regarding those states that fairly represents the will of the people in those states.
The committee should only consider an outcome that is both fair to the voters who voted and those voters who didn't bother because everyone new these two states were so-called "beauty contests." Heck, I knew both primaries didn’t count and I live on the West Coast.
It's kinda painful to watch an otherwise intelligent person (probably the smartest guy in the room) forced to make these kind of arguments due to desparation.
That has always been the problem with the Clinton campaign. They all think they are the smartest guy in the room. It is sad, but it inspires no pity.
Post a Comment