WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
This is good. Last week, just before the Florida primary:
Today it was reported that Swisher, a former Edwards supporter, has endorsed Senator Clinton. (We'll get her added to the lists shortly).Sarah Swisher, first vice chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, serves on the Democratic National Committee's rules committee. That committee punished Florida for scheduling its primary today, a week before an approved window. Friday, Clinton said she will ask her delegates to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan.
"It's not helpful when you have candidates express themselves in direct conflict to rulings by the DNC," said Swisher. "It's helpful for those participating in the nomination process to adhere to the rules of the party. We didn't see any letters of support for Florida months ago," said Swisher.
...
"State parties were very well informed about the repercussions of violating the DNC rules," said Swisher. "Michigan and Florida chose to do so at their own peril and with full warning."
I'd like to hear Swisher's thoughts now on the Florida situation.
del.icio.us
28 comments:
She Supported Edwards. She has been with the Iowan Unions. She does not believe Obama is the right candidate and endorsed HRC.
She is one of the 50 members in the DNC council which voted to keep Florida and MI away.
There are many who dont agree with Clinton on this issue but is with HRC for being the right democrat in the race
""State parties were very well informed about the repercussions of violating the DNC rules," said Swisher. "Michigan and Florida chose to do so at their own peril and with full warning.""
I find Dems citing failure to follow rules as a reason to disqualify votes to be pretty damned amusing considering the position they took in Florida 2000...
Anonymous said...
'She Supported Edwards. She has been with the Iowan Unions. She does not believe Obama is the right candidate and endorsed HRC.
She is one of the 50 members in the DNC council which voted to keep Florida and MI away.
There are many who dont agree with Clinton on this issue but is with HRC for being the right democrat in the race'
The key to this statement is that She (Sarah Swisher) is voting for the best candidate she believes will win the General Election.
that 'Anonymous' clearly indicates she is aware of the position of clinton, but is wanting the Dems to win the General Election and the best person in her professional opinion is Hillary, and not Obama.
I do not believe it a women thing, it is more concieveable that she is viewing it from the position of
EXPERIENCE.
YES HILLARY HAS !!! the policies and the Experience as a policy broker with years of experience in the brokerage area of both sides of the houses.
Yes anonymous...
EXPERIENCE does count, and YES HILLARY HAS what it will take the get her policies for a better america. !!!
Remember
EXPERIENCE. YES HILLARY HAS !!!
Anonymous said...
'She Supported Edwards'. So what about all those Edwards supporters that went over to the Obama camp?
'She has been with the Iowan Unions. She does not believe Obama is the right candidate and endorsed HRC. '
So what is wrong with her (Sarah Swisher) being with the Iowan Unions? What is wrong with her opinion that she believes Obama is not the right candidate? Why can't she endorse Clinton. I understand it is common practice for some super delegates to change camps during the primary season.
You hostility towards both Sarah Swisher for her decision is not very democratic and if she joined the Obama camp she would be 'Snow White' and not worthy of critisim?
Remember - Super Delegates are chosen to bring balance to the forefront. It is with their Experience that they have the experience to choose and yes they know that Hillary has the experience to be the next President of these United States of Americia.
So Anonymous Remember.
EXPERIENCE. YES HILLARY HAS !!!
With the choices their are, HILLARY is the best by far.
GOOOOOOOO HILLARY!
Sigh...the whole superdelegate thing is just depressing.
People act (and think) that politics is just like real life or something. It's not, it's a tough, give and take game of Ruling the country. Nothing is insignificant or vapid, and what appears to be 'flipflopping' is give and take.
Is no one asking themselves why E.Kennedy should go over to Obama? It's not for some shallow reason of not liking Hillary, and for Caroline's "he's like my Father" (JFK was no angel, nor was Joe). Some might think that E.Kennedy has been promised some power he doesn't have VP?High Cabinet posting? Certainly something that Hil wasn't willing to promise him in return for his support.
Look a little deeper into our politics and you'll see it's not something to be dealt with simply.
Simply answers make for big broad and outrageous strokes. Like searching grandmas at airports and confiscating their nail clippers, or pulling fed money from schools that don't meet a national standard, an act that then truly damns those children to no chance of education. Simple answers may satisfy our desire for a better world, but our govt. and country are a lot bigger and more complex than simple answers can ever change. We the People don't rule or decide for the good reason that we don't know what we're doing. imho
LMFAO, go Iowa!
"So what is wrong with her (Sarah Swisher) being with the Iowan Unions? What is wrong with her opinion that she believes Obama is not the right candidate? Why can't she endorse Clinton. I understand it is common practice for some super delegates to change camps during the primary season.
You hostility towards both Sarah Swisher for her decision is not very democratic and if she joined the Obama camp she would be 'Snow White' and not worthy of critisim?"
My hostility is NOT from a perspective that she has been with unions. My hostility comes from the FACT that IOWA spoke and Obama WON the caucus in Iowa. And as the FIRST VICE-CHAIR of the Democratic Party of IOWA, she recognized that Hillary is NOT being helpful and is underminding NATIONAL rules that were set up by the DNC. Yet she is still throwing her support behind the individual who will SAY OR DO ANYTHING to regain power for herself.
Had she thrown her support behind Obama, it would have been a GENUINE representation of her support for the IOWA voters, NOT her own PERSONAL agenda and therefore would have integrity, but as it stands it simply just shows that MOST people will do ANYTHING, including selling their souls for power.
You also keep touting this experience Hillary has. What experience is that? First lady? That is NOT experience, it means her HUSBAND has experience.
She stated that she can work in a bipartisan fashion to get "MANDATED universal healthcare". I say NO she can't. Why? Because in order to get her plan passed (which is EXACTLY the same as the one she has now) she would have had to work in a bipartisan fashion in 93/94, and SHE COULDN'T. What makes ANYONE think she can do it now, is mind-boggling to say the very least.
Nobody GENERIZES and MOBILIZES the Republican Party like Hillary. You want a Republican in office, vote for Hillary. If you want the Democrats to regain the Whitehouse, vote OBAMA!
Sure Hillary has experience but it is largely voting for war and empire, surrendering to Republicans and corporations etc.
If one were to accept this risible "argument" of experience at face value then Senator Clinton has to answer for Clinton 42's record e.g. extreme rendition, Helms-Burton, the Financial Services Moderniza-
tion Act, NAFTA, the gutting of AFDC, militarizing the Mexican border, the incarceration of 100,000 more black men than Reagan, the Iraqi Liberation Act, further militarizing the drug war in Latin America, starving 500,000 Iraqi children through a medieval set of sanctions, the Mark Rich pardon etc. Apologies for this incomplete list of whorish accommodation with the Republicans.
Were one looking for an unprincipled right-wing democrat - keeping in mind Stephen Douglas is no longer available - then Lady Macbeth would have to be your first choice. A vote for HRC is a vote for an unabated continuation of neoliberal trade policies abroad and permanent military bases in Iraq.
Let the dilettantes continue with their chorus of "experience" and enable the election of John McCain and a virtual third term for George W. Bush. The Clintonista-DLC- corporate-Tory wing of the Democratic Party, for the sake of humanity, has to be marginalized.
This Super Delegate this is bogus. It is specifically loaded to enable the entrenched to stay entrenched. Let's set aside experience for a minute, and discuss who owes favors and is now redeeming them.
People - this is Obama's entire point ! Politics as usual doesn't get anything accomplished. She is now Change (and she insults my intelligence saying that she is real change) - she is just a change from Bush.
Don't you guys get it? This is the insiders AGAINST us - just as in 2000, just as in 2004, and now in 2008.
I live in Florida, and I am livid that they took away our vote (and it was my PARTY'S decision to move the date, and I am being penalized). Now HRC wants to give us our voice back AFTER she showed up in Florida 2 days before the campaign for photo opps, 10pm news, and 'fund raisers'. She specifically violated her pledge to not campaign in Florida (or stretched the limtis of that pledge).
People - we need some new blood in the party. Both Dems and Republicans are failing the people they claim to represent for their own gain.
Vote the lot of them out !!!!
If shiesty stuff goes on, I'm burning my DNC card and mailing the ashes to the DNC hq.
Just another case of the piggies (superdelegates) lining up at the trough - disgusting. So few of these Superdelegates have any principles (unlike Barbara Boxer who decided long ago she would follow the will of her state primary voters) - they just like having their egos stroked and feeling self-important, having favors owed to them, bargaining for this or that, or any number of other non-democratic motives. Blow this paternalistic, anti-democratic, corrupt practice up! I was impressed by Donna Brazile's statement that she would leave the Democratic party if the superdelegates decide the nomination (which is becoming increasingly likely). I encourage you to see if your elected officials followed the vote in your state with their superdelegate choices, and give them hell if not. At least their is some accountability with the elected superdelegates, but absolute lack of accountability with the other DNC hacks.
You are the ones who voted the superdelegates to power, you deal with them!
It's not like they just got a job out of nowhere.
Pleaseeee
Swisher should have sided with BHO since Iowa supported BHO. The same logic should apply to the 15 CA Superdelegates and 10 MA Superdelegates who district and state voted for HRC.
Swisher should use her own judgement as to whom she wants to support.
Last Time I looked this is a free country and this is the democratic party
"You are the ones who voted the superdelegates to power, you deal with them!
It's not like they just got a job out of nowhere."
------------
We did vote MOST of them into power, NOT ALL. Second, we did NOT vote them into power to UNDERMINE the voters in their States or their Congressional Districts. This is the problem.
I agree with what one poster stated about Barbara Boxer. Although I cannot stand her vote going for Hillary, at least she did the stand up thing and is going with Hillary because that is what the state did. On the other hand, Dianne Feinstein the DINO (Democrat in Name Only) endorsed Clinton MONTHS if not a YEAR ago.
As far as I'm concerned if the Congresswoman in my district throws her support behind Clinton although Obama received more votes in the popular vote within her district, I will do everything in my power to see to it that she does NOT retain her congressional seat, even if that means challenging her on the November ballot AS an OPPOSING Democrat.
Swisher is a hypocrite... Hillary's blatantly unfair play for delegates from two states in which there wasn't even a real campaign should tell people something. She doesn't care whether delegates are earned in a fair way, she just wants to win, at all costs. And I mean, at ALL costs, including $5 million of her own money "loaned" to her campaign, and secret attacks on Obama via e-mails circulated about him being a Muslim. You think those e-mails are just coming from the GOP side? Come on.
I have written this on another post, but I'll say it again. The only way the Democratic party can save itself from the elites subverting the will of rank-and-file Democrats is to have a Superdelegate Compact. Those who sign on to it will pledge themselves to vote for that candidate that wins the PLEDGED DELEGATE count. This way, there is no way the loser of the pledged delegates can win the nomination. All those DNC members and superdelegates who might be reading this, listen up: Do the right thing. Vote the public's will, not because you've known so-and-so for years, or whatever other personal reason.
To the Last Poster
It would help if you stand against
Kerry or Ted or ask your friends to stand against the 25 congressmen/women who are with BHO but their district voted for HRC
in CA and MA
The Whole thing is going to divide the Party
McCain08
How has the higher number of Votes in the Primary : HRC ( not counting
MI and FL).
Praising Reagon and asking Repubs to vote for him in Nevada is not going to get my vote.
I am from Iowa. I along with the majority of Iowans voted for Obama. This Swisher chick WAS for Edwards, who came in second ahead of Clinton who came in third, I might remind everyone.According to my calculations, she should now ( since she is getting a second chance) endorse Obama. But what does she do? One day she blasts Clinton, rightly for suggesting that it is okay for her to make up her own rules as she goes along concerning The Florida and Michigan delegates,and then the next day, what does she do? Endorses her!?!What gives? Did she get to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom TOO?
At least Ole Chet did the right thing yesterday!
You know, this is so familiar. I remember the excitement not too long ago when everyone,I mean everyone was asking whether Hillary was going to run for president. Barak said nothing about running for president. It wasn't until after she decided to run and the country was swinging in her direction, that he joined in. You are talking about dividing the party!? Though I have been torn about who I would vote for because perception is a hell of a thing and Obama gives a hell of a speech, I have to wonder about who is really in control of this election? Who will gain from our division? Who will when it comes down to the day when the election is called into question, would be willing and strong enough to stand up and go the distance to fight for our party. I do remember Gore and Kerry talked about change and had a lot of the same rhetoric that Barak has, but when it came down to the wire and the same constituents begged them to fight they backed down and claimed that it was for the good of the country. Now look at the country. You think 8 years of Bush was bad, just imagine 4 years of McCain or Huckabee.
Remember, we are trying to win the presidency and this is the first step. We have to win over all of the the country.
It looks to me that the republican party stands to gain more from our division than Hillary or Barak.
Let's get these reduplications out of the White House and get to work putting American back in order.
Hillary Clinton for President
Mirembe -- get your facts straight. Obama publicly started his campaign for president BEFORE Hillary. She had to play catch up and announce earlier than she intended, as I recall.
Oops, there goes your argument.
Andrew --- > you are way off
Clinton's announcement came on Jan20,2007
Obama declares he's running for president on May 1,2007
mirembe39 is Right on this.
People, does it really matter who declared first?
The goal is to select the best candidate.
Simple! Obama all the way!
Ms. Swisher is committing her vote in line with what many Iowans feel is best. It is a foregone conclusion with the media and the strategists that anyone who originally voted for John Edwards in the caucus will now support Barak Obama and that is simply NOT the case. Many who voted for Edwards were struggling between a vote for HRC or JE; NOT a vote for BA vs. JE. Obama is too far left for many Iowans. If the Iowa causus had been a contest between just the two remaining candidates and the caucus sites had not been loaded up with BA supporters who go to school in Iowa but do not live in Iowa, the results would have been much different.
Josh your trying to slam clinton for making up new rules concerning MI and Forida but at the same time you are asking super delegates to create new rules in the middle of the game. Super delegates shouldnt have to sign any pledge it wasnt decided before the competition. Obama did not put up an argument for this procedure before at the beginning people can see now that it will benefit them so now they want to put in this new standard.
Why are you angry that somebody is supporting clinton because she is a women, I dont hear anyone complaing that African Americans are supporting Obama because of his skin tone or race.
Maybe to correct or stop alot of crud and dissention among all voters and make the whole Presidential Election process fair is to eliminate the delegate fiasco, 2 candidates per party on general election ticket, NO endorsements from anyone (to stop vote swaying), No caucuses and all primaries should be voting on 2 candidates per party, All States must use the same type of voting machines. Absolutely NO more electoral college only popular vote. Since this is an age of instant information electoral college is archaic. Candidates are not allowed to accept contributions from big businesses, corporations or special interest groups or money is from a general fund of a set amount. This is just a short list of what could be changed. There probably could be much more.
Post a Comment