Friday, April 11, 2008
Letter to Andres Martinez's "Stumped" Column in the Washington Post...
Bill and Hillary seem to think that it is unconscionable not to count the votes in Florida and Michigan, while at the same time advocating the right of pledged delegates to vote for someone other than the candidate they have agreed to support on behalf of the voters. Is there a disconnect in their thinking? If pledged delegates are not going to support the candidate they have pledged to support, then it seems to me that they have disenfranchised the voters they have pledged to represent.
Am I confused here?
TR in Cleveland
Yes, you are confused. But if it makes you feel better, we all are.
And yes, you have touched upon some deliciously Kafkaesque (or is it Clintonesque?) logic. As you point out, Hillary Clinton is arguing that the pledged delegates chosen in two illegitimate contests be seated at the convention, lest the voters of Michigan and Florida be disenfranchised. Meanwhile, her campaign is suggesting that the pledged delegates chosen in all other 48 states need not stick to the candidate voters assumed they were choosing.
I think we'd all be less confused if Clinton just came out and said it: Pledged delegates are really, really pledged in all states she won (including the illegitimate contests) but delegates from states she lost are free agents. That's essentially the argument."
James C. Collier
READ MORE ACTING WHITE...
Technorati Tags: Acting White: Angry Politician, Side Bar #5, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Double-Standard, Democrats, Acting White