The liberal blogs have spent the last three months crucifying Hillary Clinton for making up "new rules" regarding the Florida and Michigan primary votes and delegates, citing incomplete and inaccurate viral "facts" as proof that she is moving the goal post...again.
A reading of the "principles" (and the rules) involved, according to former Clinton Administration legal counsel Lanny Davis, instead needs to focus on what was done by each state to "cure" the outstanding problem (holding primaries outside the DNC's calendar), what was not done to honor the cure, and the larger principle of what is at stake:
The legal principle ... is pretty simple. In U.S. contract law, the party breaching a contract usually has the right to "cure" the violation during the term of the contract. But if the other party stands in the way of that cure, the breaching party cannot be further sanctioned — and certainly, as a matter of fairness, the party preventing the cure should not stand to benefit.
Both Michigan and Florida proposed new primaries to address the calendar violations. DNC Chairman Howard Dean agreed to accept this as a "cure." Hillary Clinton said it was an acceptable solution. Money was pledged by NJ Governor John Corzine and Democratic strategist James Carville to pay for new primaries. The Clinton campaign signaled their willingness to contribute. Let's see. Who's missing here?
Oh, yeah. Barack Obama. His campaign did nothing but drag its feet on this proposed "cure," hoping to run out the primary clock and thus not have to give up anything.
Now we have arrived at crunch time on Florida and Michigan and what to do about the huge - and growing - Florida/Michigan debacle. Clinton's supporters are rightfully adament that all delegates be seated and that the popular vote be counted in the final Democratic primary tally:
So what is the fairest solution for the Rules Committee, taking into account Michigan's and Florida's willingness to revote but for the failure of the Obama campaign to sit down and work out details to solve their "concerns"?
[snip]
In Michigan, Clinton received 55 percent of the vote. According to Thegreenpapers.com, she thus should receive 73 pledged delegates based on that percentage.
[snip]
Florida's compromise solution is even easier. Clinton won 50 percent of the vote, while Obama won 33 percent of the 1.7 million Democratic votes cast. According to Thegreenpapers.com, that would give Clinton 105 delegates and Obama 69 delegates. That leaves 11 elected John Edwards delegates yet to decide, as well as 13 still unpledged superdelegates. (Eight supers have already decided for Clinton and five have decided for Obama).
This "math" might not be acceptable to Obama's number-crunching geeks, but since the first principle: curing the original problem was addressed by the parties in violation and was subsequently ignored by Sen. Obama's campaign, what argument is left? Not to count 2.3 million votes? Obama might be able to "disappear" a few delegates (using "his" math), but it's pretty hard to "disappear" 2.3 million voters - who will be like a huge angry beehive - multiplied by a few hundred times - in November if they are 'dissed any further.
Speaking Of 'Dissing:
Tell Howard Dean and the DNC to seat the delegates and count 2.3 million votes!
Comments