How Was Hillary "Wronged" By the DNC?
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
June 6, 2008 4:56pm CST
This is a serious and sincere question and it's not in any way meant to be an attack towards Hillary or any other candidate. I know it's been a very tough battle for the Democratic nomination and it seems there are a lot of hurt feelings left behind, more among supporters than Hillary herself, so it would seem. I keep reading posts and hearing about Hillary supporters who claim the DNC has forced her out, she won the popular vote but it didn't count, millions of her supporters were disenfranchised - it goes on and on. Some people are claiming they'll now vote for McCain instead of Obama because they're angry at either the Democratic party leaders, Obama or both. This is NOT what Hillary wants, I can fully guarantee you that, not if she's meant a single thing that she's stood for throughout all her years of public service!
I'm one of the seemingly few people who doesn't think if you support or prefer one candidate that means you have to hate and attack the other(s). Throughout this entire 17 month campaign, which I've watched very closely, I think if it weren't for the media and a few surrogates on either team there really wouldn't have been much negativity at all. I think both candidates handled themselves very well and while there were a few clashes on policy disagreements their differences are actually very small. What I'm asking for here is an honest and objective explanation of what the Hillary supporters are so upset about, how they figure she's been cheated or how she was pushed out by the party officials. The voters chose Obama and roughly half the voters are happy about that and the other half, not so much, but where is the duplicity in this? Please don't get angry at me over this, I'm just asking and I really want to know. Thanks in advance for keeping this a civil discussion.
Annie
2 people like this
6 responses
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
7 Jun 08
I am not a liberal. I will not say I'm not a democrat nor will I say I'm a republican although the republican ticket is usually where my vote is placed simply because they share more of my values than the democrats!
That said, here is what I see wrong with the entire process this year in the democratic primary.
1. The whole mess was predicated on the most convoluted system of counting delegates I have ever seen!
2. Hillary has some real sticking points when she says she got the popular vote, because she did and not only that she won in many swing and high electoral college states.
3. And this one has to be the one that sticks in my craw worse than any of the others because I have to say it in defense of someone I detest. Hillary Clinton should have been backed totally by her party strictly on experience, "dues" paid and just plain common sense!
Barring Obama selecting Hillary as the veep I don't believe the man is electable and yes those are some Clinton words too!
I will remain stedfast in my prediction and Hillary has solidified it with her decision to "hold on to her delegates for now". Some kind of power play is coming in the weeks before the democratic national convention. I don't presume to know exactly what it may be but it will happen!
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Jun 08
I'm not sure what you mean by your #1, but if it's that the Democrats don't use the winner-take-all system of delegate allocation I must respectfully disagree as I don't consider that anymore fair than I do the Elector College, something else I know we disagree on. Regarding #2, Hillary having won the popular vote is arguable and certainly depends on what votes are counted and as far as the states won by either candidate, many of the states Obama won will actually be in play for the Democrats for the first time in years and many of the "key" states Hillary won are going to go to the Democrat anyway. Finally, your #3 assumes the Democrats would want to use the GOP's habit of going by seniority, meaning the nomination usually goes to the old white guy whose "turn" it is and we don't do that.
Annie
@rodney850 (2145)
• United States
8 Jun 08
Annie,
Why shouldn't the winner take all? You say you don't like the electoral college and that we don't agree on that but actually we do. I believe the electoral college subverts the one person one vote philosophy and says by it's vey existence that we as Americans don't know what we are doing so someone has to be there to regulate us! I believe the popular vote is what should decide the presidency and I know that if that were true GWB would have lost in 2000 but so be it! I don't believe a persons vote in California should count anymore than a persons vote in Rhode Island but as it stands now it most assuredly does!
@skinnychick (6905)
• United States
7 Jun 08
There is always this type of angst about the presidential race and the nomination race. Plain and simple, they are mad because she didn't get it. They wanted (as everyone else does) the candidate that they like to win. This whole popular vote versus electoral college thing is always a topic of debate. I'm not really sure what the popular vote is even for (other than it's a "right" we have been given) since the electoral college has the upper hand at who gets the presidency or even a nomination. They will get over it. I can't see hard core Democrats voting for McCain- if they do they are hypocrites in my opinion.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
7 Jun 08
My thoughts exactly, and I mean no disrespect at all to the Hillary supporters. You're so right, they wanted their candidate to win but when you think about it how many of us in recent years have had any voice at all in who our party's nominee ended up being? It's been decided by March or April for the most part for as far back as I can remember which means this year is the first for decades that my state mattered at all. Many times through the years, and I've been voting since 1972 when the voting age was lowered to 18 when I was 20, my first choice for the Democratic nomination hasn't made it but I still supported the one that was chosen, not out of party loyalty but because of the issues. I believe that's what will happen for more of Hillary's supporters this year because anyone who supported her because of the issues and not just because she was the first serious and viable female candidate couldn't possibly vote for McCain. If they do they're either unconcerned with the issues or they're willing to "bite off their nose to spite their face".
Annie
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
9 Jun 08
In the last months of the primaries when things could have very well still gone either way, Howard Dean jumped in there every time and continually demanded that the thing get wrapped up immediately and that superdelegates hurry up and declare. EVERY single time he did that it was an ideal time to give momentum to Obama. Momentum is vitally important to a candidate Hilary Clinton's momentum was sabotaged over and over again by the DNC. It's as if they jumped on the bandwagon of the candidate who could help them get rid of the woman.
As far as Florida and Michigan are concerned, those votes should have been counted and given to Hillary. Those were not the only two states that moved up their primaries. Iowa broke the same exact ruling and the vote there was counted in full - the vote that went to Obama. Hillary did NOT get a fair break from the DNC and it amazes me that there are Democrats claiming they can't understand how Hillary was wronged. Even Newt Gingrich could see it but I guess people just see what they want to.
The bottom line is that Hillary was a stronger candidate in every must win Democratic state and this whole thing now hinges on whether or not her voters feel angry enough about her treatment to sit this one out or vote for the other guy.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
7 Jun 08
I don't know if I'd use the word "wronged", but I feel she was treated poorly, especially later in the primaries. I think it was wrong for democrats to criticize her for staying in the race when she was closely behind Obama. I think it was wrong for them to push her to concede victory before the votes were all in. I don't like Hillary, but I think a good presidential candidate should fight until the end. Giving up when the race is close and there are many votes to be counted is foolish, and insulting to the supporters of that candidate. You know, with all that wrong stuff, I guess I do feel she was wronged. I don't feel bad for her though, as she was totally for disenfranchising voters in Florida and Michigan until she won those states.
1 person likes this
@snowy22315 (180841)
• United States
6 Jun 08
I dont think Hillary was wronged by the DNC at all. In fact, she was able to obtain some delegates from Michigan and Florida that probably should have been excluded. It is very questionable whether she won the popular vote or not. That is counting delegates from those states that were excluded
(Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan) I think the candidates did a reasonable job of being civil in the campaign.
@shivkumara27 (31)
• India
8 Jun 08
Thats quite right!! but i feel thet Mc Cain would be no competition to obama's fiercy speech... though he has good experience would prefer hillary over obama!!!
the point is that obama has lttle experience!!! i also fear that some of clinton's words against obama might be stollen by repuglicans and attackes..
