Why should the rules be changed in midstream to seat Florida and Michigan delegates? Why didn’t Julian Bond, chairperson of the NAACP, speak out more vociferously before Hillary lost 8 in a row? Mr. Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan nor did he campaign in Florida. Can one imagine playing in the Super Bowl and the NFL officials unilaterally change the rules in the third quarter because one team is winning over another team? If Mr. Bond was so interested in protecting the minority voting rights in Florida and Michigan, why didn’t he take affirmative steps to remedy the perceived voter disenfranchisement in Florida and Michigan long before now? Furthermore, if Mr. Bond was truly concerned with minority disenfranchisement, the NACCP would be filing more lawsuits on behalf of Black voters and other minorities throughout the United States. The vast majority of Black voters and other Obama supporters did not vote in the Michigan primary because Mr. Obama’s name was not on the ballot. Are these the voters that Mr. Bond is saying have been disenfranchised?
Hillary and Bill Clinton are maneuvering and manipulating trying to have those delegates from Florida and Michigan seated on her behalf at the Democratic National Convention. Given the history of the Clintons, they obviously believe the rules and laws are made to be broken. Also, if the rules are changed now, how fair would that be to John Edwards who dropped out of the race without having the benefit of having run in the Florida and Michigan primaries?
Stick with the rules or we are headed right down the same path of the 1968 Democratic National convention.
1 comment:
Great post. You have echoed my sentiments exactly. I believe that if Julian Bond had really cared about the dilemma with the people of Michigand and Florida whose votes will not count, he should have spoken up once the DNC made its decision. He is trying to help Hillary Clinton to get those delegates seated.
http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com
Post a Comment