Seeking unity on a contentious front, Barack Obama urged Democratic Party leaders on Sunday to give all delegates from Florida and Michigan full voting rights at this month’s nominating convention.
“I believe party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories,” Obama said in a letter to key Democratic convention officials.
Florida and Michigan, both expected battleground states in the November election, were stripped of their delegates for holding primary elections earlier than party rules allowed.
A compromise was reached in May to seat half the delegates, angering supporters of Obama’s chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, who wanted a full seating.
Convention leaders said in a response to Obama’s appeal the matter would be a top organizational priority when key officials meet Aug. 24.
Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.
Photo: Reuters - Scott Audette. Barack Obama delivers a speech during the 2008 National Urban League annual conference in Florida on Aug. 2
Trackback
19 comments so far
Obama is the polititian who, for his benefit, will call a same women his mother one day, wife the other day, whore/mistress the next day and daughter the day after…he is just an empty suit
- Posted by MaganWhat a stunning flip-floper this man is.
- Posted by RudyUNBELIEVABLE…now he cares about the voters. What a joke.
- Posted by suzyI have always been a democrat, but no more……Hillary, you still have my vote.
Party Unity? Long gone. I’d rather have another Bush.
- Posted by ritaSeriously? Obama supported the seating of delegates during the primaries. He was never opposed to it. He wanted to have to reach an agreement, but your special Hillary decided to attack him for not trying hard enough to get them seated. Either way, she still would have lost the primaries. She would have had to win 88% of the votes and 75% of the super delegates. Thanks for trying to delfate Obama though.
- Posted by JB“I want the Michigan delegation and the Florida delegation to be seated. And however the Democratic National Committee determines we can get that done, I’m happy to abide by those rules,” he told CNN in March.
From CNN.com, reporting on the same issue. Also, I believe the real “flip-floppers” here are the American people. If they are so adamant about not having a “flip-flopper” in office, why can’t they stay decided on who to vote for?
- Posted by JBHe is absolutely unbelievable.
I am one former democrat who will not be told how I must vote. I will write in Hillary…yes, just to prove a point.
- Posted by JenLooks like Obama just threw the DNC Rules Committee under the bus. Who’s next?
And, Obama DID NOT support the seating of the delegates during the primaries. Prove it. You can’t, because he didn’t. He vacillated on that issue.
Obama does not have a center. He has flipped on every single campaign promise. How does anyone trust this guy?
I’m a Democrat (40 years) and will definitely not vote for ohim, even if Hillary is VP.
The Democratic Party has no moral authority - not anymore. They’re counting on “low information voters” being fooled by Obama’s rhetoric.
This means that the GOP is going to come down hard on that rhetoric, and define Obama. It’s going to be fun to see this manipulator squirm.
- Posted by PhilOne more thing. Bush has been such a catastrophe that Obama’s soaring rhetoric has found an easy home. His popularity is a reaction to Bush absolute ignorance. But what we’re left with is a “smarter” Bush. I don’t see very much of a difference between the two.
- Posted by PhilTo JB:
Well, in May (!) Obama sounded a bit different. In “Obama says Clinton “stirring up” Florida controversy” (Reuters, May 24, 2008) he is quoted as saying:
“The Clinton campaign has been stirring this [i.e, the strippimg off Florida's and Michigan's delegates] up for fairly transparent reasons. … Let’s not … pretend that we don’t know what’s going on. I mean this is, from their perspective, their last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win, and I understand that…”
The article continues with:
“Neither Clinton nor Obama campaigned in either state before the primary elections, and the Illinois senator removed his name from the Michigan ballot. Obama spent three days campaigning in Florida this week.”
Obama is cited again:
“I want to make the Florida delegates seated. And once they’re seated, then I think this is going to be a story that nobody’s thinking about come August.”
So it seems im May Obama did not want the Michigan delegates to be seated (any more).
Combine this with a remark from David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, cited in “Democrats tackle Florida and Michigan dispute” (Reuters, May 29, 2008):
“We’re open to a result that will net her [Hillary Clinton's] delegates, which we think is a pretty major concession given how hard we have fought for delegates”
Of course it was a major concession, provided that one acknowledges the decision of the Democratic National Committee not to seat Florida’s and Michigan’s delegates in the first place. (And I think this was a very reasonable position.)
But to embrace an argument made essentially by the Clinton campaign in favor of the seating of all delegates from Florida and Michigan just in the moment, when it can not hurt you anymore but only serve you, is, well, astounding. Especially from a candidate flying high on morale.
Take this episode and all the recent changes in Obama’s positions, and one finds the term “flip-flopper” more or less appropriate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNe wsAndPR/idUSN2426696820080525
- Posted by Rudyhttp://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/i dUSN2833927720080529?sp=true
Prove it? I gave you a direct quote from a CNN article, stating what Obama said. Now, what he did may have been different from what he said. If he didn’t want the MI votes seated, it’s because he wasn’t on the ballot and would have been unfair to give Hillary all the delegates.
Remember, Hillary initially was in favor of MI and FL losing their delegates, before the primaries even started! Then she FLIP-FLOPPED on that stance. Enough of this BS, whether the delegates get seated or not, Obama is still the nominee. Write in Hillary all you want, but it’d be wiser to just not vote.
Obama is a smarter Bush? Please! Name 5 similarities between the two and I will name 100.
- Posted by JBI will name 100 differences.
- Posted by JBAny vote for Hillary is a wining vote for McBush meaning one more term of misery for all voters who are trying to “make a point”. Go ahead; make a point of shooting yourself once more. You did this with G.W. Bush twice, do it with McBush. I am sure most of the folks would love to see another ‘C’ student running US economy to the ground. Enjoy the show folks.
- Posted by ira waxmannEveryone here that is still complaining about wanting to write in Hillary is a disgrace. Why not realize that she lost, she bsed/cried her way into getting MI and FL somewhat seated… and now all of her supporters are still angry.
You know what, she ran a good campaign, but thought she had it locked way back when and didnt think MI and FL would matter because she is a political demigod.
Why women are so bitter over this is amazing, you would think some sense would come into play…. but I guess not.
This right here shows the twisted logic in some womens heads and scares me to think so many really cant just move on.
- Posted by mcfailA write in for Hillary is a vote for McBush… can our country afford to lose your vote? Well, ask yourself this question… Do you really want 4 more years like the last 8 years?
I understand that Hillary was and still is a lot of peoples choice but to waste your vote out of spite is only helping McBush and the republicans. Would Hillary do that?
- Posted by BushGuiltyAsSinImagine you just lost your house or your bank failed or you’re the family member of a soldier who was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and you come on here to find people claiming they’ll vote purely out of spite.
And all over a non-issue.
Seems like it would just break your heart that supposedly intelligent adults prefer to rant like spoiled brats and then act upon their petty bitterness rather than make a decision that might help people.
- Posted by TimI am not voting out of spite, but rather principle.
Why is it that a woman standing up for what she believes is “bitter” and “a whiner”?
A non-issue? I find that the most oppressed group of people being shoved out the door once again more than a non-issue. That’s right, I said it. Women are still considered inferior, as evidenced by the manipulations of so-called political leaders and the media. Don’t even try to claim otherwise!
Also, Barack Obama does not represent me, or my views. He is an absolute liar. He says whatever is politically expedient at the time(gasp! he said he would never do something like that. He’s a new breed of politician. puh-lease.) While I may have accepted his flopping around had he never claimed he would behave otherwise, I simply cannot accept his behavior now. His PAC bought the backing of numerous superdelegates. Oh, I could go on and on, but there’s no point.
- Posted by JenYou may succeed in guilting me into voting for the green party(seriously doubtful, however. If I come to that conclusion it will be after much soul searching), but I will NOT vote for Obama. I am not a lemming. Do not use the politics of fear to coerce me for you will not succeed.
Besides, as a lesbian, I don’t believe Obama supports me. I’ve gone to his church’s website. I saw the listing of a “support” group called “Same gender love”. I can only imagine the sort of “support” you receive at his church.
“non-issue” was in reference to the Florida and Michigan delegates so… what does that have to do with with the oppression of women?
Obama says what’s politically expedient? At times, yes he does. But so did virtually all the candidates (sniper fire, anyone?)
Why do you need their church’s to support your sexuality? (by the way, the United Methodist Church that Hillary belongs to “does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching”. The Green party, however, not only supports homosexuality but feminism as well. So why would you need to feel “guilty” in order to vote for them?)
And that’s my point.
In the end I don’t care who people vote for but rather, why they voted for a particular individual or party.
- Posted by TimJohn,
I much appreciated your article re Chrysler saying it may have to liquidate if their dealership reductions are reversed.
Could you please explain why that makes sense or if it doesn’t why so.
Sorry to post this on this blog but I could not figure out how to contact you.
Best regards, Ben
- Posted by Ben Simonton