Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiClinton's Duplicity on Michigan, Florida Delegates
A spectre is haunting the Democratic Party, the spectre of an ugly, albeit unnecessary, floor-fight over Florida and Michigan delegates at the national convention in August.
When Susan Keeler, a registered voter from a small township in Michigan, opened her absentee ballot last January, she expected to vote for Obama. Suddenly she discovered that his name was not on the ballot. In an interview with the Flint Journal, she expressed her feelings: "There is something wrong with this. People don t even have a choice to vote for the person we want to vote for. The only name I even recognize here is Hillary Clinton. It appears people are trying to control how to vote."
Thousands of Michigan voters now feel disenfranchised.
Like Michigan, Florida held a beauty contest in January before the official primaries began, and thousands of voters were upset and confused. Florida is the same state that illegally purged thousands of African-American voters from its rolls in 2000.
How did the Florida-Michigan debacle come to pass? And by what means can the mishaps of the Democratic National Committee and state party officials be rectified before the Democratic party convention in August in Denver, Colorado?
185 delegates from Florida and 128 from Michigan are at stake.
The Michigan-Florida delegate controversy began to percolate in December 2007, when state party officials announced their intentions to hold early primaries in direct violation of Democratic National Committee agreements and rules. The DNC took a hard line, telling state officials that rebel primaries were ceremonial and would not be counted at the convention. Both states disregarded the DNC position and held maverick primaries in January. Eager to please the superdelegates on the DNC, both Clinton and Obama agreed with the rules, and both signed pledges not to campaign in either state. "You know," Senator Clinton remarked, "it's clear the election they're having isn't going to count for anything. Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan." (Obama was not allowed to withdraw his name in Florida.)
Clinton, however, hedged her bets. Though she vowed not to campaign, a vow that implies rejection of the election, she kept her name in the running in Michigan. She won the contest easily because Obama's name was kept off the ballot. (Jesse Jackson won the Michigan primary in 1984.) Then, coincidentally she arrived at the Miami airport for a fundraiser on the eve of the Florida vote.
As momentum for Obama's nomination swelled, Clinton reversed her position on the DNC rules and decisions. She now demands that the results of the ceremonial contests be made official. And she is pressuring the credentials committee to reverse itself. She is also encouraging superdelegates to overrule the voters. The Clintons have huge clout in Washington, where favors have been exchanged for many years.
Of course, it is hypocritical to oppose a half-election before it takes place, only to accept the results when they appear favorable.
What can be done to resolve a crisis that could destroy the chance for Democratic victory in November?
There are three approaches to the Party debacle, and two of them are faulty.
The first approach makes a big deal about the DNC rules. It goes like this: both states violated the rules, so to hell with them. No Florida or Michigan delegates at the convention. That's that. Here is a dangerous position. Left out, disgruntled voters in Michigan and Florida may well turn to McCain in November. Democrats have an obligation to end the insider fighting between DNC members and the states' Democratic party officials.
The second approach, a solution that Clinton is prepared to force on the Party regardless of the consequences, is also faulty. Clinton now claims she deserves the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Yes, Obama played by the rules. Tough on him.
She is dead wrong, and we should set the record straight. The DNC did not strip Michigan and Florida of its delegates. The Democratic party is quite willing to welcome all duly elected delegates from both states. However, Michigan and Florida have yet to produce any duly elected delegates delegates chosen by voters in a fair election. Only a genuine election, where the voters are able to hear both sides, where the names of all contenders appear on the ballot, can produce legitimate delegates at the convention. No real election took place in January. That is the crux of the issue. Clinton may claim that she is defending the voters, but she is actually manufacturing delegates out of a beauty contest that turned ugly. Her plan disenfranchises voters in both states. Thousands and thousands of voters, who would have voted for Obama in an official election, stayed home. If only one name appears on the ballot in a communist country, it's called a dictatorship.
Susan Parnes in Flint, Michigan, planned to vote for Obama. When she realized his name was missing from the ballot, she said: "It gives me a very nasty taste in my mouth. I've begged people to go vote in the primary, and then this crap comes up."
There is a solution, a third approach that is practical and clear. Hold new elections or caucuses in both states. There's plenty of time left before the convention. The DNC, which bears some responsibility for the crisis, is prepared to pay the costs. Let the candidates campaign. Make sure all of the candidates' names are on the ballots. If a flood, a hurricane, or any natural disaster destroyed half the ballots in an election, the election would be held again.
Respect for principles of democracy is a precondition of Democratic victory in November.
Paul Rockwell is a national columnist who lives in Oakland. Reach him at rockyspad@hotmail.com
48 Comments so far
Show AllThe ultimate question for the DNC or any Democrat should be whether or not they truly believe that every vote should be counted. Rules are rules, yes, and that is the problem, but there is a higher principle. What would Thomas Jefferson do? I think he would side with the voters no matter what. Dean should take the fallout.
Specifically to Florida, both Hillary and Obama agreed not to campaign there, and did not. Hillary didn't break the rules with a fundraiser, so perhaps to the voters of Florida they saw at least to one candidate, they did matter. Obama didn't make the effort, and perhaps paid the price. It was a judgment call, and obviously with both names still on the ballot, Hillary won fair and square. All Florida delegates should be seated as is.
As to Michigan, they both agreed not to campaign, and they did not. Hillary's name remained on the ballot, and Obama's did not. Seems it was timing, and being so early to reject the Michigan voters, Obama's name was not on the ballot. Another judgment call, and when looked at in hindsight, was the wrong one for him. Seems Hillary was the smarter candidate in both cases, though if Michigan wants a do-over and is willing to pay for it, I would let them, but I think the delegates should be seated as is. The states should take the lumps of their decision, but ultimately the votes already cast should remain valid.
Hil and Bill lost me when they abandoned Surgeon General candidate Lani Guenier without a backward glance. This couple is all for themselves, with a microthin veneer of charitableness. If she's so smart, how was she fooled on the Iraq vote? I was in the streets of DC holding a poster of innocent Iraqi children just before we bombed that country. There is blood on that woman's hands and she will not be able to wipe it off.
Mary Lou, all those things you say you are for, good luck with Hillary. Bill made a ton of promises when he was running and kept none as in zero of them.
Infrastructure, single payer? Not in Hillary's lifetime. She won't even talk with our our enemies until they meet "certain criteria".
kathyodat
Mary Lou, if you're voting for a founder of the DLC, are you voting for someone whose policies you don't support? Bill Clinton didn't walk his talk and she won't either. Yes, she will nominate less conservative judges than McCain, but when it comes to doing business, she will always go where comfort is. And don't forget all the damage her husband did to the middle class, which thanks to our ever loving media, doesn't know what hit them. That pair back in the White House? Not for me.
We need to take down the DLC, not install it in the White House. Unless, of curse, we support it. I could only assume that you support the DLC or are unaware that the Clintons founded it.
I don't care what Joe Wilson says. Some Senators got it right. So did I and a lot of other people. Anyone with common sense could see Bush was drooling to go to war, so why give him permission? I could see it would be a disaster and I didn't know he didn't even know the difference between a Shiite and Sunni so I didn't realize just how bad it was going to get.
I have serious questions about Hillary's judgment, including how she's run her campaign. I don't consider her negative campaign in the last two weeks, with insinuations and lies at all ethical, but I don't expect ethics from Clintons.
kathyodat
here is something joe wilson, valerie plame's spouse, wrote on huffingtonpost:
"I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice."
i don't get how obama is considered the peace candidate while posters here blame clinton for what i call bush's war.
the real peace candidate was dennis kucinich, with bill richardson a strong second and john edwards maybe thirdish.
so i have become a dlc democrat? if dlc democrats believe in getting the americans out of iraq as soon as possible, i am a dlc democrat. if dlc democrats believe that diplomacy and shared intellectual capital is the best road to conflict resolution, i am a dlc democrat. if dlc democrats believe in federal enforcement of immigration rules against the employers of undocumented employees, i am a dlc democrat. if dlc democrats believe in the sanctity of life from delivery throughout life, i am a dlc democrat. if dlc democrats believe that we must have a new works progress administration to address the economy and the infrastructure, i am a dlc democrat. if dlc democrats believe that we need a single payer health care system for everybody, i am a dlc democrat. if dlc democrats think we need to quickly ramp up the production of electricity from solar, wind and waves, i am a dlc democrat. if dlc democrats think the federal budget needs a lot of repair, i am a dlc democrat. if dlc democrats believe this nation needs a good rail transportation infrastructure, i am a dlc democrat.
call me a liberal, call me a conservative, call me a kook, i believe that the best candidate for president to accomplish progress toward my goals is hillary clinton. and i will continue to post here.
BTW, kivals, you don't have to tell me what a piece of work Hillary is, I've seen it for years. I don't understand how so many can be so blind to her and I hear she does well in Ohio with working class whites with limited education. The educated like Obama. Unfortunately only 24% of Ohioans have gone to college, due to severe economic conditions there. I can't understand any well informed person supporting Hillary unless they are in an income class that benefits from her policies (the upper quintile) and don't really care about anyone else.
When I talk with people, I am astounded at how ill-informed they are
politically, and how little interest they show as well. As Ralph has said, "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you".
kathyodat
kivals, I apologize, you didn't tell Mary Lou to shut up, but you did say pro-Hillary people shouldn't be posting here. I don't agree with that, I think they are blind to what she really is, but I realize they think the same about me. How they can ignore what 8 years of Clintonism and their fascist behavior has done to us is beyond me. Both of them talk left and lean right. But I guess for some people that's OK. Still, they have a right to post. I can't say I'm thrilled to see DLC Democrats such as Mary Lou posting here, I think the DLC has destroyed the middle class, but I want this to be a free country, including this website.
We're seeing assaults on our freedoms all over, and of particular concern, the right to assemble. If we aren't submissive, we're being menaced with tasers, and I read about a new crowd control weapon, a "microwave" mounted on a truck that burns the hell out of the skin of everyone in a crowd. Even if there are children and babies in the crowd. This country is getting insane.
kathyodat
I call Her the Welfare Reform Queen.
hillary WALMART Clinton is bad news for america. America no longer has a semblance of democracy left. White House goes to the highest bidder. Do i hear 50 million? going once, going twice...
BeForKids,
I did not tell mary lou to "shut up," but merely suggested she was wasting her time. Other than that, I whole-heartedly agree with your comment.
I would add that Hillary, unlike Obama and Edwards, has said nary a word about the goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons worldwide. She of course supports the continued use of cluster bombs, threatening and maybe even bombing Iran and Venezuela, neoliberal economic policies around the world, even if they must be implemented through military force, and the rights of lobbyists to influence legislation because "they are citizens too."
She is a piece of work, that Wal-Mart Clinton. It would probably be better if Madman McCain beat her in a general election (which he almost certainly would do), because then at least the coming economic collapse will not be blamed on a Democrat (though as a DLC Democrat she is center-right and not much of a Democrat), which Republicans could use in the propaganda wars in the future to push the country even further to the right.
Dems = Bush-enablers
Dems = Complicit
That's why vote
NEITHER OF THE TWO EVILS
Why didn't Robin Williams run for real?
Regarding the mess the democratic party, run by the DLC has made of this primary season, my oldest son said, only the Democrats could lose a slam dunk election. And they could. Not for the first time either.
kathyodat
kivals, you have a point. I don't agree with telling people who don't agree to shut up but I agree with your analysis. Hillary and Bill founded the DLC which is destroying the Democratic party. Bill accelerated the wealth to the top faster than Ronnie and George, his policies have been dismantling the middle class, he handed our country to the corporations on a plate, and low income Ohioans with lower levels of education support him, and by extension, Hillary. Go figure. An uninformed electorate is a scary thing. No informed progressive could support Hillary, who has been wedded to the corporatocracy her entire career. And she and Bill have been amply rewarded. She refuses to release her financial statements, unlike Obama, but I hear the Clintons are now worth about $60 million since leaving the White House impoverished by legal bills. Not too shabby. But look who their friends are.
Maybe that's part of Mary Lou's problem or maybe she's nuts over the idea of a woman for president - I have no idea. It's hard for her to be uninformed about Hillary if she reads the comments or goes to the links, but I have no idea what she does. And then there are people who are fearful, who swallow the "experience over judgment" line, even though Hillary has shown severely flawed judgment. I laughed my head off when I read what a disaster her campaign turned into when she didn't win on Super Tuesday. Like Bush in Iraq, no Plan B. Or how she and her team belatedly discovered 10 days before the Texas primary about how their primary/caucus system works ("We have grown men crying here" - probably because she's having a tantrum). What are those people doing? Certainly not paying attention. Makes me think of Bush and Katrina.
kathyodat
one final note: the media could just as easily be saying it is obama who has to put up or shut up now. does the headline of this article seem fair to you? especially when you know how michigan, following new hampshire's lead after the rules were signed, was punished but not new hampshire?
kivals, if i believed she stood where you portray her, i wouldn't support her, either. i'm not sure how you got such a picture of her, but if it makes you feel better, i will not write any more comments on this thread tonight.
to me, she's not perfect, but she's the best one left standing.
mary lou,
For progressives, the choices are Nader, the Green Party, the Socialist Party, and possibly Obama (or not voting at all). HRC is as far out of the realm of possible consideration as McCain. Wal-Mart Clinton and Madman McCain are both war hawks who never pass up an opportunity to show how "tough" they are. And HRC, the defender of K Street lobbyists and lobbying, may be more of a corporatist and a toady of the Business Roundtable than McCain, if that is possible. Actually, HRC may be all-around worse than Madman, as she advances her "noble" cause of "breaking the ultimate glass ceiling" to inspire rich Anglo American women by treating the bodies, lives, and dreams of poor third world women and children as so much flotsam.
do you wish everybody who hasn't already thought what you've already thought to shut up? that's what it sounds as if you're saying. or, to paraphrase you: "my mind is closed."
Hellary Wal-Mart Clinton, the darling of Wall Street, the MIC, AIPAC, and Rupert Murdoch, the warmonger and supporter of cluster bombs, is light years away from ever being considered as a progressive candidate. Maybe Obama has a chance to evolve into a progressive president, if pressured enough by his supporters, and maybe not. But Wal-Mart Clinton, like her major advisors, is a war-loving fascist and almost certainly always will be. Clinton supporters should not be wasting their time and our time by posting comments on a progressive website.
NOW i agree with you. not on who gets us closer but on what the world could look like.
Well said, magikpowerwoman.
Wouldn't it be great if the Empire was humbled enough that it just became equal with all the other countries in the world, no better, no worse? Wherein a UN could really work? Our overbearing hand is everywhere, why can't we just back off and become human, not monsters who main and kill so many other people, so many children! on this earth in our high quest for the toys we can't seem to live without and the oil that makes them go?
And as far as her experience....uh....what exactly is that? She was a governor's wife who knew her husband was a scamp, a first lady who was ruthless and only stayed with him because of her desire to be the prez, and she's been a senator for only two more years than Obama. She didn't read the damn NIE and she voted for a war so she could look tough on defense and she votes against the ban of cluster bombs that kill and maim many of the children that the world's villages are raising. Her experience as first lady took her to countries where she hobnobbed with heads of state and I don't think got out amongst the people much. Obama's background is truly diverse and he has the distinct possibility of bringing the world together. He listens and he's a constitutional lawyer who was the first African-American to edit the Harvard Law Review. He knows how to run a damn fine campaign, whereas she does not. He does grass-roots, bottom up organizing whereas she was planning on having it all be over by Feb 4. Plan B? Forget it. She's Bush. Caucus state? Denigrate its citizens who came out eight-fold and more to vote. I was a caucus captain for Obama in a progressive New England town and Hillary had not one organizer there. What organization! Obama has more 'feminine' in his little finger than she's got in her whole body. Maybe she sadly feels that in this society she has to prove herself to be tougher than any guy. Maybe it is sexist. I don't know. But I know I'm a 56 year old white woman who has longed to have a woman as prez but she ain't the one I want representing my gender. I supported her and Bill once upon a time. That fairy tale is over. I hope she can be a bridge to the future where a truly anti-war woman can lead consensually without all these political falsehoods and acting like she has a penis between her legs when she doesn't. It's sad but I really want her to go, go, go away and let's get on with defeating Mr. One Hundred Years War.
What I'm hearing is that even if she loses tomorrow she's still in. She has to win (HAS TO)win both Texas and Ohio by 20 percent to get enough delegates to stay in the race. Even Bill has said she has to win. So, after she loses she should cut her losses, walk away and live to see another day. But we, the people sick of such awful political tricks as she has thrown at a person she thought she could beat with her hands tied behind her back, need to win the white house. It might not make any difference. Obama may turn out to be another lying politician, it's possible. But he is steady, she is not, she has shown that in the last two weeks. He is extremely intelligent, as is she, but his integrity is much stronger than hers and it shows. So I am praying that tomorrow, after she knows she cannot win without tearing the party apart, she walks away with the grace that she has sporadically shown.
EVERYONE MUST GO TO THIS LINK!:
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/91105
Yahoo has been tracking searches in Ohio and Texas almost all the ones about Obama are about whether or not he's a Muslim. Clinton may win but she should be ashamed.
when the voters definitely choose someone other than clinton, she will probably leave. why should she leave when she's approximately tied with someone you don't know yet?
Not-to-worry, SuperDelegates will nominate Hilly just as they did Mondale-over-Jackson (and for much the same-reasons).
Did you think they 'wouldn't'? [Did anyone catch Huckabee on SNL?]
Obama is just for Show/Insurance (and groomed by the Rockefellers) -- don't worry about 'outcomes' -- the 90's are 'coming-back', in more[Gore] ways than One...!
[Let the 3rd-World 'worry' -- really-Worry!]
Please, Hillary, just leave. We don't want any more fighting. The world doesn't want it. It's Obama's time, you're not entitled, you're not the queen. You're Rove in a pantsuit. Call it quits for the sake of the country and your daughter.
just because paul rockwell calls her behavior duplicity doesn't mean i do. if paul rockwell wants to write an article about the florida and michigan delegations, he needs to go back to the part where new hampshire violated the rules WITHOUT SANCTION. i blame obama and edwards for taking their names off the michigan ballot. they disenfranchised those poor voters from near flint that rockwell quotes. and THE DLC DISENFRANCHISES MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA VOTERS by not seating their delegates.
so no, i am not a dupe. i sincerely believe, along with millions of other democratic voters, that hillary clinton would make a fine president. and i believe she would be better than obama. if you want to let his votes to fund the soldiers in iraq slide, fine. just don't come complaining to me when he behaves different from dennis kucinich or bill richardson.
i am not a part of clinton's campaign. i just don't want another four years like the last seven.
try reading some of the stuff on obama. here is one:
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html
i hope this link shows up. just because he is new doesn't mean he is as good as she is. i am not defending the indefensible: i am trying to get you to look at what she actually proposes. she is a far better candidate than he is.
MaryLou: Pay attention to what Clinton is trying to do. Doesn't it show she cheats? Doesn't it show a person of a character that believes in winning above what is right? Do you really find this kind of person is attractive? I don't think this makes her look very good. You are defending the indefensible.
We must have a president with a name other than Clinton or Bush. This is getting out of hand.
you have obviously not listened to her. before judging her, try reading opinions she has written or listen to what she has to say. you would be amazed to learn that the big job is to clean up the mess the last seven years have left.
why do you think so many people have voted for her in the primaries if she is so bad? i'm not saying obama is that bad; i'm saying she is better.
As some have written, I find it telling that Clinton rarely, and even then meekly, attacks Bush and other Republicans and yet can be so conniving, dishonest, determined, energetic, vicious, and mean-spirited when attacking someone who is, on balance, to the left of her.
She is doing her best to doom us to Republican corporate fascist rule. What does she care? She and Bill have tens of millions. If she cannot win the presidency in 2008 or 2012, they can move to civilization and leave this rotting fascist sink-hole far behind.
Is Hillary going to be the Nader of 2012? Are people going to be saying "You cost us the election
in 2008"? I say that if Obama is going to be the democratic candidate, then let's get the nomination
out of the way and start campaigning to make sure there is a large majority in both the senate and
house so something can get done.
The Clinton's don't want a redo because Obama has steadily gained votes since the time when those primary's were held. He would get more votes now. (Especially if his name APPEARED on the BALLOT!).
I would think that whoever would appear on a redo would be decided the same as if the redos were the only elections held. However they decide who goes on the ballot in current time line.
I do know that Edwards etc. are getting some percentage points in these primaries. Are they write in or appearing the ballot?
Ahh sweet ambition. Let the strongest wolf take what it can. Winner take all. Empire is US. God Bless America!!
"Like Michigan, Florida held a beauty contest in January before the official primaries began," this article goes. he should at least get his facts right before opining that the michigan and florida elections aren't elections.
roughly speaking, the dlc decided nobody should hold a primary before a certain day in january. new hampshire moved up their primary. nobody did anything. michigan moved up our primary. suddenly the shit hit the fan. obama and edwards fell all over themselves rushing to get their names off our ballots. they succeeded. we could vote for clinton, dodd, gravel, kucinich, or uncommitted. obama and edwards had a statewide campaign to vote uncommitted. clinton won 55% of the vote, and uncommitted got 40% of the vote. kucinich got 4%. everybody treated michigan like a pariah.
florida wouldn't allow the candidates to remove their names from that ballot. clinton also won that state.
somehow the popular votes and delegates from michigan and florida don't count because the dlc had a hissy fit back in the summer. let the dlc fix it.
if the popular votes (1.7 million in florida, over 600,000 in michigan) and delegates counted in the statistics we keep being shown, clinton would be ahead today.
you can disenfranchise us, but you can't make us vote your way in the fall.
The Clintonistas seem to be using the same playbook Putin and Medvedev use -- "odious" only begins to describe it.
Here's a question: if we have new primaries in Florida and Michigan, who will be on the ballot? I voted in Florida for Dennis Kucinich (by mail-in ballot right before he dropped out), and I would have voted for him even after he had dropped out, if his name had still been on the ballot. I want to be able to vote for him again, even though he's dropped out. And I'm sure there are many Edwards supporters who would want to vote for Edwards, even though he has dropped out as well. Do we hit rewind and go back to the status as it was in January? Or do we limit the candidates to the remaining candidates (Obama, Clinton and Gravel)? Seems there's no real way to un-do the disenfranchisement of the voters in Fla. and Michigan.
That she would've only thrown the "kitchen sink" at Bush.
Telling, isn't it, that she would sabotage any potential of progress for her own ambition after enabling--or never holding Bush accountable all these years that she chalks up to her "experience".
Although Senator Clinton "won" in my state of Michigan, Obama was off the ballot and "Undecided" (=None Of The Above") won 45% of the vote. I hardly call Clinton's vote a "victory."
Trying to claim Michigan's delegates now after so flawed a process indicates a grave ethical lapse on Senator Clinton's part, which all voters need to take to heart.
PS I was/am for John Edwards
As a Michigan resident, the only thing acceptable to me at this point (and it is barely acceptable) is a new election in Michigan and Florida. I blame the Michigan state democrats entirely for the debacle in Michigan and know that much of the party heirarchy, who took my voice away this last election to begin with, now wants the delegates to be counted and go to Hillary. As I suspected, the push to vote "uncommitted" was a hollow one and one I did not fall for that. I chose instead to not vote in the primary for the first time in over 20 years.
And what did this push to get Michigan to go first with a primary get us? Nothing but a whole lot of disenfrancised democratic voters like me who feel left out of one of the most exciting election cycles in a loooong time. As it turns out, if the state had waited its turn, Michigan would've potentially had much more influence than the states who went first.
It's high time we changed the primary process so that all states have a fairer say as to who will be their party's nominee for president, rather than letting the first two states decide the entire contest. Let's have one national primary day, or, several multi-state contests and be done with this.
The Clintonistas will do whatever it takes to win. It doesn't suprise me that she wants the delegates from MI & FL counted. They will do anything to win, including driving a wedge within the party and destroying it.
This is only one among a myriad of reasons why a choice for "none of the above" actually increases the odds for Clinton. How can anyone find these tactics acceptible? How can anyone NOT vote against it?
I didn't know the DNC is prepared to pay the costs. I know Governor Crist of Florida has offered to help with a new primary. So what's the problem with new primaries? Why aren't they doing it? Because Hillary wants her ill-gotten gain?
kathyodat