Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Why is Obama trying to disenfranchise the good folk of Michigan & Florida?

How can he ever be a legitimate candidate for the Presidency when he's trying to deny them the chance to vote.

Update:

Disengenious MrNiceGuy!

Update 2:

MrsG-unit, your syntax is appalling... Sweetheart!

Update 3:

Mrs.G-unit, I'll make allowances as English is obviously not your mother tongue.

18 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Mr. Obama isn't trying to disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida. With all due respect, Mr. Obama played no part in those states' plans to move up the dates of their primaries (contrary to the rules of the Democratic National Committee). It should also be pointed out that Mr. Obama did the bidding of the DNC, which asked all parties to remove their names from the Michigan primary ballot. Only Ms. Rodham-Clinton chose not to do the bidding of the party she wants to assist her in her ascent to the White House.

    If anyone is to be blamed for disenfranchisement, it is those responsible for scheduling the primaries outside of the timelines allowed by the DNC. Why anyone in either of those states would deliberately choose a course of action that would invalidate their say in the presidential decision is beyond me. The folks who decided to push the primaries forward are the ones who should be blamed for disenfranchisement.

    Why weren't the democratic voters of those states concerned about their possible disenfranchisement when it was announced that the primary would be held outside of the DNC's timeline guidelines and therefore wouldn't count?

    Is this an outrage? You bet! But I don't think it's the fault of either candidate, unless one of them was the true architect of the plan to move up the primaries. Mr. Obama simply stands to gain more by the status quo, while Ms. Rodham-Clinton stands to gain more if the results of the primary are allowed, or if a do-over is permitted.

    This whole mess is going to hand the victory in 2008 to the Republicans, which is amazing, since they're currently bidding adieu to the president with the lowest approval rating in recent history...it should have been a slam-dunk for the Democrats, but the infighting and the animosity of one camp vs. the other is going to split the party vote so badly that they're going to again hand it to the republicans, who, while only a small minority of them are actually HAPPY with John McCain, know how to rally around the candidate their party is going to put forward and create a unified front.

    You know, while the democratic party doesn't have to embrace the ideals of the republican party, perhaps they COULD learn a thing or two about how to organize and run the party, and making the rules apply.

    Florida and Michigan moved their primaries up so that they'd have a more weighted say in who gets the nomination. Ironically, its the states that waited til the end that will get that privilege.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • AILENE
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    What I find appalling is that Sen. Clinton has said many times that it's about the 'big' states and other states do not really matter. That's insulting to rest of the voters in the nation.

    It's significant to notice that in the 'big' states Sen. Obama, an insurgent candidate 'closed the gap' between Sen. Clinton and himself. Yet, Sen. Clinton had name recognition and other advantages.

    It reflects a short-sighted/lack of vision by focusing on just traditionally Democrat states, esp in this election cycle. The fact that this may be the year many 'red' states turn 'blue' because of a candidates ability to attract members of the opposing party is significant.

    For all their political acumen reputation, the Clintons have shown themselves as nothing more than opportunists this election cycle. The Clintons have made many fundamental errors in judgement and strategy in this primary season.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    How do you figure he is because he is following the rules? Hillary also agreed to follow these rules she could care less at the time and when she found out the only way to win was by going against what she had agreed to then she broke the rules she should have said something along with Florida and Michigan a year ago not wait tell after they hold the elections talk about changing horse's in a middle of a stream.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I don't remember Obama setting the rules. I do remember Hilary agreeing to the rules at the beginning and now wanting them changed. She did not care at all until she started losing. What about all the people who said gee since my vote won't count maybe I wont go to the polls for the primary those would be the truly disenfranchised people if the current vote was allowed to stand. You don't want to be a republican and follow the rules only when it suits you, do you?

    Source(s): I think but I am not sure I heard on CNN yeaterday that even if they allowed the current votes to stand mathmatically he still wins. I have not done the math though
    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I t is not Obama by himself it is the DNC mostly, yes Obama did say he would support a revote, but then he would not agree to any possible way to do a revote, so yes he is against it, every thing they offered to do to let these votes be counted he was against. And yes our votes will be counted in the general election and it may not be to good for him if he is the nominee, and for the person who said it doesn't matter their votes will be counted in the general election, how would you feel if your vote didn't count in the primaries, do you think your candidate would be where they are now.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    If you would pay attention to what he said, you'd know that he's willing to go along with whatever the DNC decides to do. The only ones saying he's disenfranchising them are the Clinton supporters. Why do you think it's O.K. to change the rules in the middle of the game, because thats what Hillary wants. She's just a POOR LOSER..

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    You basing your question on the Clinton campaigns contention that that is Obama's fault. Everyone agreed to the rules, Clinton included while she thought she would just waltz to the nomination. Now just like all the other rules and goalposts she wants to change the rules and move the goalpost mid-game. Sad, sad sad!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • ?
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Those states disenfranchised themselves by moving up their primary dates against DNC rules. And what is most important to remember is that Hillary agreed to it until she found herself behind.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The best way for Hillary to get back in the race is to get these votes counted so bet your last dollar Obama will never allow it. He has agreed to allow fla to seat delegates in Fla but only if he and Hillary split the delegates 50/50 instead of the 60/40 she won.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    He is not

    Yet another spin

    Rules were made for reason...should have followed them

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.