[Q]Dem Delegate Fight Pits Sharpton Vs. NAACP
February 13, 2008 9:24 AM
Interesting development in the Democratic delegate fight -- one that pits civil rights leader against civil rights leader.
As you know, the DNC stripped the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties of its delegates as punishment for moving up their primaries to earlier in the process than the national party wanted them to.
With no candidate campaigning having taken place in those states, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, cruised to early victories in Michigan on January 15 -- where hers was the only name on the ballot -- and in Florida on January 29, and is now claiming those delegates. Needless to say, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, disputes this.
The DNC has said both states can holds caucuses to comply with party rules and have recognized delegates.
Yesterday, Clinton's side of the argument got a boost when NAACP chairman Julian Bond wrote to DNC chair Howard Dean to express "great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted." Not seating the Michigan and Florida delegations would remind Americans of the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries," Bond said.
This morning, Rev. Al Sharpton sided with Obama, writing to Dean to express the opposite sentiment.
"I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice," Sharpton wrote. "Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair both to the candidates (including Senator Edwards) and to Democratic voters everywhere."
Sharpton said that Bond's argument of disenfranchisement "should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters. To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument."
[/Q]
OMG - I agree with Sharpton - The Apocalypse is here now!!!!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/dem-delegate-fi.html
If Hillary gets away with this, it is CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!!!
February 13, 2008 9:24 AM
Interesting development in the Democratic delegate fight -- one that pits civil rights leader against civil rights leader.
As you know, the DNC stripped the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties of its delegates as punishment for moving up their primaries to earlier in the process than the national party wanted them to.
With no candidate campaigning having taken place in those states, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, cruised to early victories in Michigan on January 15 -- where hers was the only name on the ballot -- and in Florida on January 29, and is now claiming those delegates. Needless to say, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, disputes this.
The DNC has said both states can holds caucuses to comply with party rules and have recognized delegates.
Yesterday, Clinton's side of the argument got a boost when NAACP chairman Julian Bond wrote to DNC chair Howard Dean to express "great concern at the prospect that million of voters in Michigan and Florida could ultimately have their votes completely discounted." Not seating the Michigan and Florida delegations would remind Americans of the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries," Bond said.
This morning, Rev. Al Sharpton sided with Obama, writing to Dean to express the opposite sentiment.
"I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice," Sharpton wrote. "Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair both to the candidates (including Senator Edwards) and to Democratic voters everywhere."
Sharpton said that Bond's argument of disenfranchisement "should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters. To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument."
[/Q]
OMG - I agree with Sharpton - The Apocalypse is here now!!!!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/dem-delegate-fi.html
If Hillary gets away with this, it is CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!!!