Hillary and fairness

From NYTimes.com: Clinton and Obama Split Over Florida and Michigan

“The results of those primaries were fair and should be honored,” she told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce here.

Mrs. Clinton said last October that the Michigan primary was meaningless, but she left her name on the ballot. Mr. Obama and the other major Democratic candidates removed their names from the ballot in a gesture of good faith to early-voting states whose primaries were officially allowed by the Democratic Party. Neither candidate campaigned in Michigan; Mrs. Clinton won with 55 percent of the vote over 40 percent for “uncommitted”.

So this Hillary’s idea of “fair”.  How are the results of Michigan anywhere close to being fair?  How can you count an election where the only two choices are “Hillary” and “Uncommitted”?  If you were an Obama supporter, would you even bother going to vote in an election where you’d have to vote “uncommitted”?

Hillary’s sense of “fairness” is whatever gets her into the White House.   If you took this to any non-partisan arbiter, there’s no way they would say that these elections should be counted as is.

A re-vote would probably be the best solution, but then the punishment against Michigan and Florida for moving up their primary would turn into a reward for those states as their votes would become the last two states to vote in the primary.

CNN.com has a good commentary about this: Florida, Michigan don’t deserve revote

Previous Post Next Post

You Might Also Like

1 Comment

  • Reply CityKin March 13, 2008 at 11:48 am

    Then they dish out whoppers like this:
    “Tim, you run against uncommitted, that’s the toughest election to win. I’d rather run against an opponent anytime than against uncommitted, and Hillary Clinton got 55 percent of the vote against uncommitted.” -Ed Rendell, Clinton supporter

  • Leave a Reply