"Were they possibly genuinely abstaining? Maybe a few hundred of them at most...."
Posted by OzarkAggie

There is no way you can say that with any certainty whatsoever.

Many people would love a "none of the above" choice on their ballots.

Clinton was against counting FL and MI before she was for counting FL and MI. Then again, she thought she was winning when she didn't want to count FL and MI. Now that she's losing, well, hell, let's bring in the talley from Zihuatanejo.

I'm tired of arguing about this, but it shouldn't matter who is for or against counting any votes.

It's the voters' right to be heard that matters.

"It's the voters' right to be heard that matters."

If done by the rules, yes, just like the people in Iowa and West Virginia and New York and California and Nevada and Oregon and . . . except Florida and Michigan. If those votes had gone for Obama (who wasn't even on the ballot in one state), you think the Clintonistas would be whirling on this? Of course not.

"It's the voters' right to be heard that matters."

So what is your solution then?

A case could be made to seat Florida as is since the playing field was relatively equal there. IMO they should have their vote cut in half, but seated in proportion to the vote outcome.

Michigan is another critter. How can they be seated according to a vote that did not include one of the candidates? I'm not sure the 50/50 concept is fair, but it seems to me the proposal floating that would give Clinton 69 and Obama 59 is about the best you can hope for.

Dem big shits dreaned up this system and now they have to try to figure it out. Apparently not one of these morons forsaw the consequences of proportional representation. It's fun to watch a group of people who know how to bullshit, spin, and lie, but not how to think mathematically. Is Dean ready to scream yet?

Remember, these are the same people who think that the ponzi scheme that is social security is fine.

"Remember, these are the same people who think that the ponzi scheme that is social security is fine."

Spoken like an idiot who doesn't know the first thing about actuarial math or statistics.

For once I want to defend the Dem Big shits. It was a system that everybody understood and worked with for a long time.

Even when Mi and Fl pulled a switcheroo, everybody still agreed on the path and the process, however cumbersome it was.

Now, since Her Royal Hillbilliness is upset, we have to re-examine all the rules. I don't think so. Let's talk about something interesting.

"If done by the rules, yes...."
Posted by Doc_Sarvis

thats a rules for rules sake argument without regard to the legitimacy of those rules in the first place.. i.e. they were designed to punish any state that DARED to interfere with the right of NH and IA to be heard first.

"So what is your solution then?"
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I don't know, It was a big mistake for Obama to not get his name on the ballot in MI. I'm not saying that its an easy problem to deal with, but to just discard them, telling them to go redacted themselves, that will have unintended consequences for whoever receives the nomination.

Sorry,

Even with Michigan and Florida hillary cannot win, the ratios show that to be true.

Their votes are counted then, and Obama is the winner. Stop making up could be what if numbers when it is clearly common sense.

hillary and the Democratic party are the problem. The DNC needs to make a decision and I don't think hillary is going to like it.

"I don't know, It was a big mistake for Obama to not get his name on the ballot in MI."

No, it was just that Hillary should have played by the rules and done the same thing. Hillary Clinton is losing more respect every day that she trots out these convoluted dishonest arguments.

"thats a rules for rules sake argument without regard to the legitimacy of those rules in the first place.. i.e. they were designed to punish any state that DARED to interfere with the right of NH and IA to be heard first."

There are very good reasons for having several small state primaries before big states like MI and FL have theirs. The rules are not just arbitrary if you think about the reasons they are the way they are.

"thats a rules for rules sake argument without regard to the legitimacy of those rules in the first place.."

Although I agree that some sort of compromise should be reached, that's a pretty weak argument for doing so. The rules were set out a long time ago and everyone agreed to them. If the majority of Democrats now think the rules are bad, then they should be changed for the next go 'round, not in the middle of the game.

What if you and your child agree on a curfew of 11:00 pm, and set the rule that if they come in late they are grounded. Then when they come in at 12:00 instead of grounding them you just change the curfew to 12:00 because they now say its not fair.

Danni,
How can we say that rules that disenfranchise the voters of two states should be abided by?

"There are very good reasons for having several small state primaries before big states like MI and FL have theirs."

I'd like to know what those reasons are. Seems from my perspective, its so we can listen to bullshit proposals about ethanol, etc. every four years.

I think the primaries should be randomized every four years at least, or done on a rotating basis so if you're first this year, you're last four years from now.

Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot in MI to try to embarrass Clinton into being beaten by "Undecided", after she, and those other two evil scoundrels Dennis the K and Chris Dodd, left their names on. Whatever happens to Obama in MI is his own fault.

Besides, Obama's people in the MI legislature are the ones that doomed the revote there on his say so.

In Fl, Obama again refused a DNC revote plan, thereby disenfranchising my vote and the votes of 1.7 million other people here, because he was afraid he would not win.

If anyone wonders why I have been pissed at him, this is it.

Any politician willing to win a nomination by disenfranchising voters because he is afraid he won't win in a fair contest, will never get my vote.

"Any politician willing to win a nomination by disenfranchising voters because he is afraid he won't win in a fair contest, will never get my vote."

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked...every time someone who was never going to vote for Obama in the first place pretends to discover a reason why he won't vote Obama.

Keep trying to blame your sorry State on Obama Corky. You're beginning to sound like Evita, or is that your candidate? Its hard to tell the two of you apart.

The only ones to blame for Florida and Michigan are....

FLORIDA and MICHIGAN because they broke the DNC rules!

Blaming Obama is a lot like trying to say that you're winning an election when the other person has more votes and more states won in all the contests held under the universally agreed upon rules, not ex post facto, tilted math that belabors common sense and fair play.

THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC.

This was the pledge they signed. The DNC rules committee was asked, and they interpreted "not participating" as removing your name if it was possible at the time (Florida ballots were already in print).

The 'count' is ridiculous on its face. My mother is in a Kansas town of 11,000. Their caucus site? 55 miles away in a Super Tuesday snowstorm! *SEVENTEEN* people from her town of 11,000 caucused. Dumb? Unfair? Yes. But, it also makes counting the "popular vote" ridiculous.

"...every time someone who was never going to vote for Obama in the first place pretends to discover a reason why he won't vote Obama."

Posted by Danforth

Sounds like it only took seven minutes for someone to ring the "racist" bell (or at least imply it), corky.

Neither did AlGore....Aren't you just supposed to count the ones that benefit you?

"ounds like it only took seven minutes for someone to ring the "racist" bell (or at least imply it), corky.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine"

And it appears that it was you.

"Sounds like it only took seven minutes for someone to ring the "racist" bell (or at least imply it)"

Implied? You're full of shit. Where's race implied, asshole? Corky was talking about disenfranchisement, and announced Obama "will never get my vote", as if that's supposed to be some huge revelation.

And then you pull the race card?!? Getting that desperate, are we?

How can we say that rules that disenfranchise the voters of two states should be abided by?

----

A political party can pick their nominee any way they choose. The super delegates can override the will of the voters. The pledged delegates can vote for whomever they want.

The whole system is set to disenfranchise voters.

-FLORIDA and MICHIGAN because they broke the DNC rules!


DNC rules allow for revotes and the DNC approved revotes if the candidates would agree. Clinton did, Obama did not.

Obama preferred disenfranchising the votes of 2.3 million Dems over running against Clinton in fair elections in these states because he thought he would lose.

Rather like not campaigning in WV and KY because he thought he would lose, when he could have gone a long way towards selling himself to the blue-collar base there.

Bush disenfranchised our vote here in FL in 2000, and Obama did the same in 2008.

He has about as much chance of winning this state today as has Marie Antoinette. Both of whom seem to have the same attitude.

Stop your crying corky, the whining and excuses is pathetic.

hillary lost, you know it as the rest of the country.

Move on and support the winner like hillary should be doing. Wait, she needs to get her money back so she has fooled people like you to continue for no reason other than a carpet bagger.

A political party can pick their nominee any way they choose. The super delegates can override the will of the voters. The pledged delegates can vote for whomever they want.

The whole system is set to disenfranchise voters.

Thank you. Someone understands logic and reason even while many run around like chickens with their heads cut off bitching about results they were told WOULDN'T COUNT in the first place. I didn't make the rules, so bitch at those who did. There shouldn't be any do-overs because of the arrogance of those breaking the prescribed rules in the first place. The voters of Florida should take out their frustrations on the legislature, not the candidates who followed the rules.

The whole system is set to disenfranchise voters.

Posted by Pirate

Well, if that is the tack you want to take, then I'll agree with you 100%

But people would rather vote for someone they think has a chance of winning, rather than someone who truly campaigns on a set of shared ideals, enusring the continuation of the two-party monopoly.

We make a deal with the devil every time, and hope that it never catches up to us.

To the left we have rock, to the right, hard place.

- There shouldn't be any do-overs because of the arrogance of those breaking the prescribed rules in the first place.

Ah, but there ARE DNC rules that cover just that scenario.

But Obama chose not to endorse a revote under those DNC rules, thereby disenfranchising 2.3 voters.... and in a most cowardly way.

What if you and your child agree on a curfew of 11:00 pm, -- SA

The first problem with your analogy is that in this case, "the child" agreed to no such thing -- Dem leaders screwed up and the voters are being disenfranchised as a result.

and set the rule that if they come in late they are grounded. Then when they come in at 12:00 instead of grounding them you just change the curfew to 12:00 because they now say its not fair. --SA

Exactly what New Hampshire did -- in the rules that the states and the DNC agreed on, they were supposed to go 3rd.

Dump Dean.

Dem big shits dreaned up this system and now they have to try to figure it out. Apparently not one of these morons forsaw the consequences of proportional representation.

Yeah, it's a terrible thing that voters in all 50 states will have a say in the Democratic primary, turnout is at unprecedented levels in all of the states, and the party now has thousands and thousands of new donors and giant mailing lists of new voters.

What a nightmare!

Next week the DNC will meet to listen to the MIFL delegations ( yes, they already have selected delgates ), and candidate representatives proposals on MIFL.

If the DNC rules against MI and FL, those states will take their battle to the floor of the convention, where about half of the delegates will already be for them and some of the other half will have to decide whether they value voters or arbitrary DNC decisions most.

"MIFL "


So close ...
Yet so far ...

Yeppers, Rogers. Just think how many more voters, how much more money, and how much more campaign infrastructure could (have) be attained with revotes in Florida and Michigan.

If only one of the candidates had not been afraid of losing......

Yeah, it's a terrible thing that voters in all 50 states will have a say in the Democratic primary,

----

Actually, they won't. I wish all states held their primaries on the same day. SD voters will not be able to vote for Edwards like Iowa voters did.

If only one of the candidates had not been afraid of losing......

I think she's still afraid of losing.

Of course it might do the party some good if she were the nominee because the 527s would bring all her lies and shady deals to light. What do you think Tim Griffin was doing in Arkansas? Plumbing the swamps for her soul.

Kinda useless when you think about it, but her slimy past would make for some interesting tabloid journalism. They used to call it muckraking. In her case hip waders wouldn't stretch high enough.

Pirate - under a same day primary, right now we'd have Giuliani (getting a plurality of GOP delegates, but probably under 40% with McCain, Mittens, and Huck in the race) facing Clinton (she might have gotten a plurality on name recognition/funding/media inevitability). Giuliani would probably be up by about 20 points. Is this a success?

The real problem with a one day primary is that it becomes prohibitively expensive for any candidate to essentially run a national campaign. Especially the come from behind guys.

But if you ask me, I'd say that's the argument for publicly financed elections.

-but her slimy past would make for some interesting tabloid journalism

Someone who missed 15 years of the same while under the influence of moonshine.

its so funny to hear right wingers all of a sudden caring about voter disenfranchisement.

Yall remained quiet on voting "irregularities" in Florida in 2000 and yall certainly weren't concerned with counting all the voted when Diebold machines were jacking votes from the Ohio electorate

Its politics pure and simple. Right wingers want this to go on for as long as possible so that a fractured Dem party will lose the executive (again)

And then there's folks like Corky, who know that Hillary Clinton has lost. Changing the rules as we go along, desperate for any opening no matter how minuscule. Rather than admit that and support Obama FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY, these folks are HOPING for an Obama loss in the fall.

Obama taking his name off the ballot in Mi was very fortuitous. Had he not done so, it would have made it easier for the aforementioned hillbillary to hijack the process.

It's a dumb process to be sure, but that is the process that was agreed to. Michigan and Florida democratic parties are the ones that are disenfranchising voters, not Obama. Why is no one pointing fingers at them.

1)they wanted to move their primaries,
2)they knew they would pe punished for one 'cycle' for doing so,
3)they thought this year was a slam dunk for hillbillary and she wouldn't need their votes,
4)they did the move.

Now, let them suffer the consequences of their actions (that everyone agreed to).

it just shows that we need another political party.

Personally, when I look at the Democratic "base" in places like PA, Kentucky, and West Viginia, I see a need for a new vision that will allow those inbred hicks to self destruct while we craft a new party of reasonable individuals who can govern with common sense of unity regardless of skin colour.

Pundits are always talking about Obama's "problem" with low class white voters. He doesn't have a problem.

THEY have a problem with an educated "uppity" black man daring to challenge their misconceptions about white supremacy.

"If anyone wonders why I have been pissed at him, this is it."

Yawn

-Yawn

Amazing how you do that with your mouth full......

Truth be told McCain will win Florida because Charlie Crist will be out there stumping for him. Romney couldn't pull it off and if there was ever two candidates cut from the same cloth it's Milt and Hill. Same result with Kentucky and Tennessee and probably West Virginia.

She really ought to go back to the Republican Party.

Oh, Mr. Wolfson, I'm all greased up and ready to rock and roll . . .yes, again. . . *sight* . . . *smile* . . .
~Sitandbeg

PS Stop talking about my ass!
PPS What's today's Magic Number? Please, please, please tell me.
PPPS Tell me about the rabbits again, okay, Mr. Wolfson?

The whole disenfranchised voters argument is ridiculous especially coming out of the Clinton camp.

The Clinton camp has said pledged delegates can choose whomever they want which could lead to disenfranchised voters.

The Clinton camp has said the super delegates can choose whomever they want which lead to them overruling the voters.

Doc Stalksus still sniffing after my ass, eh?

You'd think he would just wipe the brown off his nose and moveon.org after a while.

*which could lead

Both of those are DNC rules for over 25 years, Pirate.

But when one candidate fails to endorse a DNC approved revote, THAT is disenfranchising voters.

Dear Mr. Wolfson:

Please get me a new set of kneepads for Xmas, ok?
Oh, and a box of Kleenex, Oval Office scent.
My, what nice dimples you have!
Thanks,
~Corky McBegandstrip

PS: I don't know if it was you or the Devil that made me write . . .

"Irrelevant, unless he has 2024
Posted by Corky at 2008-04-26 10:41 PM"

"It'll be over when someone reaches 2209.
Posted by Corky at 2008-05-07 11:07 AM "

Obama preferred disenfranchising the votes of 2.3 million Dems.....


Posted by Corky

by signing the pledge not to activley campaign or participate in the elections in FL and MI, didn't Hillary also choose to disenfranchise those voters?

.......they are going to have to dig her fingernails out of the floor once they finally drag her out.......

Context, being a subject apparently too complex for our Friendly Neighborhood Ass-Sniffer, has befuddled Doc Stalksus yet again.

Not wholly surprising however, since he has nothing of substance to say himself, and can only follow others around as a poor quality Dennis Miller Wannabe. Yes, he'll even settle for being like the current DM.

But when one candidate fails to endorse a DNC approved revote, THAT is disenfranchising voters.

All this illustrates is that she is not a woman of her word and the sorest loser in Primary history.

She is ruining her chances of ever running again.

thank God!

disenfranchising 2.3 voters.... and in a most cowardly way.


Posted by Corky


Bullshit! They can vote (or not) in the general election where it counts

No Geezer.

They both agreed not to campaign, period. None of the candidates agreed to the DNC rulings.

Which rule, btw, states that HALF of the delegates should be forfeited, the excuse for ALL of them being lost I have never even heard.

Both of those are DNC rules for over 25 years, Pirate.

But when one candidate fails to endorse a DNC approved revote, THAT is disenfranchising voters.

----

Each candidate has to sign off, per the rules. Clinton denied a DNC approved plan to seat the MI delegates just a few weeks ago. They both are acting within the rules to reject a plan.

Correction...it was a MI Dem approved plan...not yet DNC approved.

You are confusing revotes with settlement plans, Geezer.

You got the memo about alzheimer's, right?

by signing the pledge not to activley campaign or participate in the elections in FL and MI, didn't Hillary also choose to disenfranchise those voters?

Posted by geezer1

of course it is. But the Clinton folks know this. They really dont care about "disenfranchised voters" or "couting every vote".

They are simply using any political tool/ catch phrase/ slogan/ they can think of in order to insure a third Bush term

Make no mistakes, that is where this is headed. 2012 is the ultimate goal. How truly sad for the Dems

Both Clinton and Obama will only accept a plan that benefits them when it comes to MI and FL.

You know that's true for Obama as well as Clinton, Corky.

Clinton is a

L

O

S

E

R


When you defend that Clinton roadkill does your eye pop out and get all buggy like hers Corkscrew?

I really love watching her lose like this, so damn entertaining to see her political future die a slow painful public death.

This is better than the Saddam hangings!

Well, Pirate, you are right there.

What benefits Clinton in this case is people voting, and what benefits Obama is people not voting.

Our country has most usually leaned towards people voting.

You got the memo about alzheimer's, right?


Posted by Corky


Fuck you, asshole. Blindly supporting a loosing cause is a clear sign of dementia, something which clearly affecs you. I hope that you hang your head and vote for McInsane in the general. You will not be missed, as your pathological liar friend will not be missed, in the Dem camp.

Corky,
You wrote/typed:
"Any politician willing to win a nomination by disenfranchising voters because he is afraid he won't win in a fair contest, will never get my vote."
If Obama is the nominee, will you vote for him?

My solution would be to cut the delegates to 1/2 and award Flordia to Clinton. So for every 12 delegates she gets 6. In Michigan its a different story as Obama took humself of the ballot but there were 234,000 uncommitted ballots cast. There I would award 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama as Michigan tried to do earlier but the Clinton camp objected. She is trying to lead a revolt in these two states and make every vote count, for her of course. She is going to ruin the party if they don't reign her in. She is ruined in politics and will not win another reelection in NY after all the shit she has pulled. People have her figured out now, wanting to go Nuclear and ruin everything for the nominee Barack Obama.

Ah, "situational ethics,".

Is that anything like signing a piece of paper that says you will accept public financing and then proving that your signature isn't worth the paper it is written on?

Or is that like claiming that you would NEVER, could never, disown your Pastor, and then disown him a couple of weeks later?

Is that what you mean by "situational ethics,"?

What benefits Clinton in this case is people voting, and what benefits Obama is people not voting.

Our country has most usually leaned towards people voting.

----

Why didn't she accept the MI delegate plan?

true Joe,

the clintons are attempting to destroy the democratic party

awesome!

"If Obama is the nominee, will you vote for him?"

Not really any of your business, is it?

But if he continues to disenfranchise 2.3 million voters, including my vote, I may well throw my next vote away on Ralph Nader.

still clinging to the Pastor Corky -

hah haaa you sad fucker you

"Make no mistakes, that is where this is headed. 2012 is the ultimate goal. How truly sad for the Dems"

Posted by gl0bal74

If she doesn't get it this time, she's through with any higher aspirations other than senator. Unless Obama gives her a cabinet post.

"What benefits Clinton in this case is people voting, and what benefits Obama is people not voting."

Posted by Corky

I think that's the beginning and end of the argument. If Obama hadn't gone along with it, I'd probably be endorsing him for a while now.... that would have been Obama taking the high road.

(smile) At least you haven't wandered over to the dark side...yet.

If it matter Corky I dont give a shit who you vote for

In fact I think all people like you would do the country a favor by staying home on election day.

Using, "I think", in a sentence destroys any credibility you might have ever had, Repug Thug.

awww good one cork

btw, I see that Doc now demonstrates that cut 'n pastes are his way of trying to be substantive instead of merely ass-sniffing.

We'll consider that progress, I suppose.

I may well throw my next vote away on Ralph Nader.

Posted by Corky

You can never throw your vote away if you vote for the person you think is best. That is what democracy is all about. If more people were willing to do that, rather than vote for who they think has the best shot at winning, parties would realize that they have to address the concerns of the people who didn't vote for them... but who wanted to.

How many elections do the dem's need to lose before they realize that playing to the center isn't going to work when the center keeps moving to the right?

Corky,

If by rule pledge delegates can vote for whomever, why didn't Clinton accept the MI delegate plan from a couple of weeks ago?

By not accepting the plan, she disenfranchised voters.

Back in 2004, Michigan Senator Carl Levin wanted to move up his state's primary he spoke with DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Clinton just bit off Holyfields EAR!

Its the beginning of the end.

time for her face tattoo!

Pirate,

That was an Obama camp delegate distribution plan put forward by Obama delegates in the MI legislature, the same ones who followed Obama's lead and refused to endorse a revote.

Plans like that mean that Hillary gets less votes than actually voted for her, and Obama gets votes when those voters did not vote for him.

Celine

I had to say it is throwing my vote away after having ragged on people here the last election about doing the same thing, lol.

I know that small parties never get anywhere without support, but in the recent Presidential elections, which we lost, I have been less than enthusiastic about voting for someone who cannot win.

Clinton just bit off Holyfields EAR!


OK, that was funny flagworthy!

No one shows up to vote for "uncommitted." The voters in Michigan had a choice between Hillary and "not Hillary." Obama is the last remaining "not Hillary."
As to Hillary's quest for the impossible dream, she knows that if this nomination goes to the convention, the Dems loose. No question about it. So she quotes Karl Rove, buddies up to Richard Mellon Scaiffe and takes money from Rupert Murdock. She is courting the less educated, racist voters and using the same win at all cost tactics as the Republicans. Her campaign manager Mark Penn was an active lobbyist with Republican ties. Connect the dots, people. She was supposed to be the Dem nominee designated to loose in November. She ang Bill got their $100 million; here is the quid pro quo. Make sure that the corporate DLC Dems hold onto the party and if they can't, destroy the party. Either way, the Clintons win even if they loose the election. We loose both ways.

Good one repug...

Doc is going for guilt by association with his "substantive" cut n' pastes.

He must be ready to bring Tony Rezko, Pastor Wright, and Bill Ayers into the argument.

Sorry Pirate, the MI legislature put forth a similar plan.

Both plans do what I mentioned, however, give votes to Obama that he did not win, and take away votes from Clinton that she did win.

"But if he continues to disenfranchise 2.3 million voters, including my vote, I may well throw my next vote away on Ralph Nader."

Thank you Hillary Clinton. We really do appreciate your destruction of the party. Nice going.
Signed
Republican Party

Hillary Clinton lost and she just can't accept defeat. She is setting back the women's movement by at least a decade with her irrational demand that the rules be ignored after she agreed to them.

"Doc is going for guilt by association . . ."

You mean the people who work and still work for Clinton? Those would be her very well-paid associates. Unless, of course, the debt-ridden campaign hasn't gotten around to paying them recently.

They've spun on a dime when it comes to Florida and Michigan, as has Hillary, moving from a fuck-'em stance (when they thought they didn't need those states) to a come-to-Jesus sensitivity to getting those votes counted (when that's all they've got left).

Funny, in a pathetic sort of way.

And in that, Corky, you mirror the failed campaign.

I know that small parties never get anywhere without support, but in the recent Presidential elections, which we lost, I have been less than enthusiastic about voting for someone who cannot win.

Posted by Corky

I think third party candidates should be really low on your list of reasons why dem's didn't win in 2000 or 2004.

Though I live in a strongly blue state, so I guess I have the luxury to vote my conscience without fear.

Yer history is lousy, ass-sniffer. Hil left her name on the ballot to support MI and came to FL the evening of the vote to support our rights to have our votes counted.

You may not think as much of the importance of your vote as we do ours, but that is your choice.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-05-22 12:18 PM

Doc, are you suggesting that principles are only useful and worthy to be held insofar as they work to your benefit?

HRC going one way then the other aside, that is definitely an example of situational ethics/flexible integrity.

Sorry Pirate, the MI legislature put forth a similar plan.

Both plans do what I mentioned, however, give votes to Obama that he did not win, and take away votes from Clinton that she did win.

----

But she rejected this plan as well. This is a comprise and gets the delegates seated.

She would rather have no MI delegates seated than have them seated with a compromise.

Like I said earlier, she will not accept any plan unless it benefits her the most.

-the rules be ignored after she agreed to them

They agreed to not campaign, period. No candidate was asked to agree to the DNC penalties.

Another Obamyth that is hard to kill.

"Yer history is lousy, ass-sniffer. Hil left her name on the ballot to support MI and came to FL the evening of the vote to support our rights to have our votes counted."

She didn't do either of those to "support" either state. It's called hedging your bets, Corky, and she did it because if nothing else, she's a shrewed politician who saw the move as win win.

-Like I said earlier, she will not accept any plan unless it benefits her the most.

Like I said earlier, the plan that benefits her the most involves counting people's votes, the plan that benefits Obama most is not counting votes.

Our country long ago came down on her side in that debate.

"They agreed to not campaign, period. No candidate was asked to agree to the DNC penalties."

Anyone with half a brain recognizes that signing the pledge not to participate or campaign is a tacit agreement with the rule and the penalty. There agreement resulted from the rules infraction.

If Hillary were truly concerned about voter's rights and disenfranchisement she should never have signed the agreement, or signed it under protest and stated she didn't agree with the rule and/or the penalty AT THE TIME.br />

"Doc, are you suggesting that principles are only useful and worthy to be held insofar as they work to your benefit?"

Don't know how you read that into what I wrote:

They've spun on a dime when it comes to Florida and Michigan, as has Hillary, moving from a fuck-'em stance (when they thought they didn't need those states) to a come-to-Jesus sensitivity to getting those votes counted (when that's all they've got left).

Like I said earlier, the plan that benefits her the most involves counting people's votes, the plan that benefits Obama most is not counting votes.

Our country long ago came down on her side in that debate.

----

Keep up the spin. Hillary can do no wrong in your eyes. You are worse than any Bushie I've met.

-tacit agreement

roflmfao!!!

What one cannot prove, one must assume, eh?

Particulary if that assumption favors Obama.

Ridiculous. I doubt any of the candidates would have even agreed not to campaign if they also had to agree with whatever else the DNC did.

"I doubt any of the candidates would have even agreed not to campaign if they also had to agree with whatever else the DNC did.

Posted by Corky"

"roflmfao!!!

What one cannot prove, one must assume, eh?"


Good self-retorter there Cork!

Show me where the candidates agreed with the DNC penalties, or kindly stfu.

Is anyone else looking forward to November simply because then Corky will finally shut the fuck up?

I'm hoping Hillary gets the VP slot because it will put the sore losers in a tough spot, will they vote for her or against her or stay home???

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-05-22 12:30 PM

See, I think that following your logic as stated, you should come down on the side of counting people's votes, regardless of who supports that or who is more likely to benefit from it.

The votes belong to the people, not the candidates. I would be making this same argument regardless of who was in the lead.

"Is anyone else looking forward to November simply because then Corky will finally shut the fuck up?"

We would be but don't count on it, Corky and Hillary will still be screaming that they was robbed.

I remarked the other day that 3% of the voters in the Kentucky Democratic primary voted Uncommitted. Yet in Michigan it was almost 40%. Considering the timing and the grassroots campaign on Obama's behalf, it is disingenuous to say that those votes should not be counted.

Latest polls in MI - admittedly two weeks old - show McCain beating Clinton and Obama holding even. Electability? Hahaha

Corky "show me where the candidates agreed to the penalties"

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 28, 2007
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, along with approval from the full body of the DNC, established the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar in 2005.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar increases diversity with the early participation of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and labor members.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar honors the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process.
WHEREAS, the nominating calendar provides geographical balance with contests in the Heartland, East, South and West.
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.
THEREFORE, I Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008). Campaigning shall include but is not limited to purchasing media or campaign advocacy of any kind, attending or hosting events of more than 200 people to promote one's candidacy for a preference primary and employing staff in the state in question. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

Notice this bit:

WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.

Ahh the google is a wonderful thing.

"See, I think that following your logic as stated, you should come down on the side of counting people's votes, regardless of who supports that or who is more likely to benefit from it."

Oh, and people like me who stayed home that day because we were told the votes would not count don't matter????
That's bull shit and it would not be fair.
We stayed home thinking the rules would be fairly enforced and to now give Hillary those votes is ridiculous.

Thank you LITLEBRITDIFRNT

"Show me where the candidates agreed with the DNC penalties, or kindly stfu.

Posted by Corky"

Show me where the candidates wouldn't have agreed not to campaign if they also had to agree with whatever else the DNC did, or kindly stufu.

You're welcome Danni actually got it from another blog where Hillary's supporters are arguing the same thing.

Corky and Hillary will still be screaming that they was robbed.

I know. And if Obama does win in the fall, then Corky will be here to point and scream every single time he makes a mistake.

There is no agreement with DNC penalties in that statement.

"honoring and accordance" is compliance, not agreement.

Where's Joe, lol?

The obvious thrust of the agreement is not to campaign in those states, an agreement which only Obama broke, btw, buying TV ads that ran in Florida.

"Show me where the candidates agreed with the DNC penalties, or kindly stfu."

They don't even have to have agreed. The DNC makes the rules for anyone who wants to be nominated by the Democratic Party. If you don't like the rules then you start your own party like Joe Lieberman did but good luck in getting elected president that way. Some even think Hillary might be crazy enough to try it, I sincerely hope not but there is nothing to stop her from making a total ass of herself if she so desires. I'll guarantee you though, Joe Lieberman got more votes running as the Dem nominee for VP than he would ever get as an independent.

"The obvious thrust of the agreement is not to campaign in those states, an agreement which only Obama broke, btw, buying TV ads that ran in Florida."

Which is irrelevant since he doesn't even think the primary should count.

Whereas is reason, Therefore is agreement.

All they agreed to was not to campaign.

"Whereas is reason, Therefore is agreement.

All they agreed to was not to campaign.

Posted by Corky"

R O T F L M A O !

Since Tadowe is no longer amongst us, I think you are the most worthy successor to the Monty Python Black Knight legacy.

The obvious thrust of the agreement is not to campaign in those states

----

Reread it.

THEREFORE, I Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).

Yeppers, Rogers. Just think how many more voters, how much more money, and how much more campaign infrastructure could (have) be attained with revotes in Florida and Michigan. If only one of the candidates had not been afraid of losing...

I would vote in a revote if one was called, but I think the idea's idiotic.

Has there ever been a time in the history of this country that a state got to vote twice in a presidential primary?

Hillary Clinton supported Florida and Michigan being penalized for moving the primaries up. She agreed not to campaign in the states, then broke the spirit of the agreement by keeping her name on the Michigan ballot.

Her reliance on these states is pathetic. It's like begging for a touchdown to count for 12 points instead of 6 because you're way behind in the fourth quarter.

Danni

We already know from his signing a pledge to take public financing that anything he signs is irrelevant, including an agreement not to campaign and then doing just that.

How you could support a candidate who disenfranchised your own vote here in FL by not agreeing to a revote,btw, is beyond me.

Are you really that dense? Any pledge, ordinance, law or whatever is written in such terms "whereas" is simply the preamble to explain the "therefore" are you trying to say that the only laws that exist are the bits after "therefore?" because if that is the case this country is in a lot of trouble.

this country is in a lot of trouble.

Well, that goes without saying...

-I think the idea's idiotic.

Just because you think it idiotic, doesn't mean it isn't perfectly legitimate as part of some already existing idiotic rules, such as proportionality and caucuses deciding a primary that will be nominating a candidate to run in a primary only, winner take all general election.

- broke the spirit of the agreement

Did they call you "Stretch" in high school?

Those terrible, evil gnomes Dennis the K and Chris Dodd must be punished, too!!

-Her reliance on these states is pathetic.

No, what is pathetic is supporting a candidate who disenfranchised your own vote by not supporting a perfectly legitimate, DNC approved revote.

He told you to go fuck yourself, and you said, "Yes, Sir!, how hard?".

It's like begging for a touchdown to count for 12 points instead of 6 because you're way behind in the fourth quarter.

Posted by rcade


Sweet merciful fuck I miss football...

Not that there was any way you could have supported those disgusting Rethugs and their witch hunt of Bill and Hillary and not that there is any way that any wrongdoing on their part even approaches that of Bush and Cheney but Ken Starr was probably on to something if their current sleazy behavior is anything to go by.

If the caucus states don't count their own votes, why should anyone else?

"THEREFORE, I Hillary Clinton, Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge..."

Not really that much of a "stretch", actually.

Hillary should if she's so concerned about all votes counting.

Rob,
We finally agree on something...and that's taking into account we still have Grossman.

"All they agreed to was not to campaign.

Posted by Corky at 2008-05-22 12:53 PM"

Did they call you "Stretch" in High School? (I mean, other than the entore football team.) You really think that they were agreeing not to campaign, but that the votes cast would still count? That makes no sense - how is that punishing the states for breaking the rules, if their delegates still count? Clinton is either being dishonest now, or slimey back when she was pretending to follow the party's wishes. Either way, she doesn't deserve the nomination.

But then again, the DNC primary goes by delegates and not the popular vote.

Can somebody remind Hillary of that?

"Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-05-22 12:40 PM"

These are Democratic and Republican primaries, caucuses, whatever. The parties get to make the rules. The DNC issued its ruling---with Clintonistas backing the ruling---so that's the way it goes. Now, they may change those rules again. That's something they're able to do. I don't have to agree with it. That's why I'm not a lockstepping loyalist to any party. I think the two major ones both suck. We, the voters, are lucky if every once in a while a candidate comes along who's actually worth voting for. That such a person can make it through the process is, I think, fairly amazing.

"All they agreed to was not to campaign.

Posted by Corky at 2008-05-22 12:53 PM"

Did they call you "Stretch" in High School? (I mean, other than the entore football team.) You really think that they were agreeing not to campaign, but that the votes cast would still count? That makes no sense - how is that punishing the states for breaking the rules, if their delegates still count? Clinton is either being dishonest now, or slimey back when she was pretending to follow the party's wishes. Either way, she doesn't deserve the nomination.

----

Not mention the pledge said "campaign or participate".

"The DNC issued its ruling---with Clintonistas backing the ruling..."

Even beyond that, Doc, they controlled the freaking committee that issued the ruling.

Rob,
We finally agree on something...and that's taking into account we still have Grossman.

Posted by evilpolock


Ew you're a bears fan? What the fuck is wrong with you guys... get rid of Grossman!

I've never booed philly more then when Brian motherfucking Griese lead a game winning under 2 minute drive last year against us... still pisses me off.

Corky do you honestly believe a revote would change the outcome of the nomination process???

I would bet that Obama would end up with just about as many delegates from Florida as Hillary so we would still be right where we are now.
That said, it would have been better to have had a revote but it is getting a little late to plan one now. We need to get into the election campaign full speed ahead.

all these pro hillary sheep are gonna need months to accept the fact that she lost. D A B D A (denial, anger , bargaining, depression, acceptance)

Posted by gl0bal74

you don't think that calling your fellow democrats sheep is going to have anything to do with them being willing to vote for Obama in November?

"If the caucus states don't count their own votes, why should anyone else?"

Oh, it is important to count vote after agreeing not to count votes in Florida and Michigan because of "fairness" but then we can just tell the caucus states they don't matter. That is really speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

What in the hell is "a primary only, winner take all general election"?

Danni - that was Hillary's biggest tactical blunder in this entire campaign - thinking that the caucus states don't matter.

"you don't think that calling your fellow democrats sheep is going to have anything to do with them being willing to vote for Obama in November?"

Probably no more so than those who call fellow democrats Obamaide drinkers and cultists impacted potential support for Hillary.

Rob,
Yeah, Grossman...oh yeah, and Orton! Woo hoo. We haven't had a GM in 20 years and Angelo sure ain't one. His talent evaluation skills are non existent.
I remember that game last year. Griese actually looked like he could play a little. He was certainly better than Rexy.

If my words/opinions or anyone elses on this blog can cause you to change your vote, you should not be able to vote.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-05-22 01:17 PM |

Thanks, Doc. Agreed.

Hillary's task now is to show that she can somehow demonstrate graciousness in defeat.

Probably no more so than those who call fellow democrats Obamaide drinkers and cultists impacted potential support for Hillary.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Except that Obama will prolly be the nominee in November, silly.

If you guys want him to win, you have to tone down the rhetoric.

Hillary's task now is to show that she can somehow demonstrate graciousness in defeat.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I don't think there is going to be any problem with that. Obama is going to be sure that she gets back her $20M and is going to throw her a bone in the way of a cabinet position.

It's the regular people, supporters of all the candidates, who have looked at this nomination process as if the name of the team was the Hammer Party rather than the Democratic Party. What do people do in a Hammer Pary? Bash one another's heads in. They are going to be harder to turn in the end. Especially with Obama playing to the center, and alot of the folks in the center could've just as easily gone to the right.

"as if the name of the team was the Hammer Party rather than the Democratic Party"

Well put.

"If you guys want him to win, you have to tone down the rhetoric."

Its a 2-way street Hagbard.

Besides, I don't think the "sheep" comment was intended as a blanket condemnation of all Clinton supporters, just a few zealots.

That is really speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

In Clinton's case she's speaking out of both sides of her ass.

So Obama is getting the nomination without a full vote from the states? ie--MIFL??

Is that a 3/5's thing??

Corky--

If Obama gets the nomination--you can vote your conscious.

You can vote for anyone else you like--including McCain.

When McCain wins--Hillary will be set to take the Dem in 2012. That is her best chance of getting to POTUS in the near future.

Murphy

Yeppers, Rogers. Just think how many more voters, how much more money, and how much more campaign infrastructure could (have) be attained with revotes in Florida and Michigan.

If only one of the candidates had not been afraid of losing......

Why don't all states just try to leap frog each other on the calendar and then when they decide to "revote" they can place it the primary where it will have the most impact? Then they can destroy what the DNC is trying to do which is spread out who has influence from year to year.

As the GOP has shown, when you strip 1/2 of the delegates the state just holds the primary anyway to increase their influence.

Corky, you have been more and more mean spirited as this goes along. You argue some point (less and less often) and toss an insult on the end.

Your increasing racism has shown the true reason for your hatred of Obama.

I've enjoyed getting under your skin and teasing you. However, at this point I just hope you get some help. This level of hatred is not healthy.

No corky, Rev. Wright's level of hatred isn't healthy either, nor have all my posts been mature or kind, but I grow tired of this and I sure hope you can find time to get some help.

Peace

Leon

Its a 2-way street Hagbard.
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

At the onset, I agree. But now we're almost certainly (quantum theory aside) looking at an Obama nomination. You want to win, you need to tolerate all the remaining BS coming from Clinton camp and take the high road so as to not jeopardize that win. The same goes for your dealings with those who may be leaning toward Nader.

What will we say when we're looking at a president McCain? I'm sure you know what the right will say. And we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.

OK, all the Democrats sing along with me....Kumbaya Lord Kumbuya.......just kidding...Hagbard has a good point we need to remember who our real opponent is.

BTW I am going to try to get to the Obama rally tomorrow in Fort Lauderdale.....Atlantic Banking Center....2:00 p.m....

In Florida the problem was money, though I don't think it needed to be redone. Just strip the Super Dilettantes of their votes and move on.

Clinton's proposal in Michigan was a Firehouse primary that would have been open for only 6 hours during the working day. If it had been a Saturday, or the polls were open in the evening when people could participate that would have been fair.

But fair and Clinton should never be used in the same sentence.

My bad...

Kumbaya....

LOL.

I don't think we have to love one another so much (though that is a noble goal) just so long as we don't forget to keep our eye on the ball.

Overall, when conducted civily, I think most of the arguments here have made Obama a stronger candidate, and his supporters more skilled in their advocacy.

that's the only reason I've ever been critical of Obama.... and Corky knows this.

"BTW I am going to try to get to the Obama rally tomorrow in Fort Lauderdale..."

Its worth the effort if you can Danni. Hearing him speak in person is a great experience.

Latest Quinnipiac poll shows that between 26 and 36 percent of Clinton supporters in primaries in the three swing states would switch to McCain if Obama, vying to become the first black US president, becomes the Democratic nominee.

Only 10 to 18 percent of Obama supporters would shun Clinton for McCain, the data suggested.

I guess you're right, Hagbard. We have to be extra nice to those good Democrats so they won't knock over the game board and stomp out if they don't win.

A very interesting take on this whole thing from someone far more eloquent than I:

This gambit by Clinton is simply an attempt to steal the nomination. It's obviously not going to work, because Democratic superdelegates don't want to commit suicide. But this episode is very revealing about Clinton's character. I try not to make moralistic characterological judgments about politicians, because all politicians compromise their ideals in the pursuit of power. There are no angels in this business. Clinton's gambit, however, truly is breathtaking.

If she's consciously lying, it's a shockingly cynical move. I don't think she's lying. I think she's so convinced of her own morality and historical importance that she can whip herself into a moralistic fervor to support nearly any position that might benefit her, however crass and sleazy. It's not just that she's convinced herself it's okay to try to steal the nomination, she has also appropriated the most sacred legacies of liberalism for her effort to do so. She is proving herself temperamentally unfit for the presidency.

--Jonathan Chait

"...those good Democrats..."
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I'd say you'd do better to call them good Americans with the right to vote for whomever they please. Unless an Obama presidency doesn't mean that much to you.

All that study shows is that the clinton camp is generally closer to the center of the spectrum than Obama supporters.

"All that study shows is that the clinton camp is generally closer to the center of the spectrum than Obama supporters."

Really????

Wow.

Dude, your "wow"'s are getting... eh forget it.

Tell me how you don't htink the study shows that is the case.

Unless you're arguing that people should hold a greater loyalty to the DNC than they should to the USA?

Remember, I don't think McCain should be president.

"Tell me how you don't htink the study shows that is the case."

I think it is much more reflective of Clinton's consistent message throughout the campaign that Obama isn't qualified or ready to be President. Even to the point of publicly saying that McCain was more qualified than Obama with her "Johh McCain brings a lifetime of experience while Obama only has a speech."

*John* McCain

I don't think she's lying.

Then you're not thinking Jonathan.

"Dude, your "wow"'s are getting... eh forget it."

PS: Sorry. I had hoped you weren't in as deep denial as Corky. You left me speechless there for a second.

I think it is much more reflective of...
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

That theory doesn't conform to occam's razor, and the implications of your theory are still just as condescending to the people you hope will help you elect president Obama as calling them sheep or idiots or whatever.

You left me speechless there for a second.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

How many times do I have to say it? I'm not a Clinton supporter. I just support her right to continue on with the campaign.

I don't think its bad for the party and I don't htink its bad for democracy. I think the worst thing about it is what their supporters have resorted to in pursuit of their goal. And in that respect, there is plenty of guilt to go around.

"I just support her right to continue on with the campaign."

I agree. She has every right. But there are consequences for doing so. And at some point those consequences outweigh the advantages. IMO that point has already been reached and continuing to disparage the presumptive nominee is not beneficial to the party and its chances in November.

IMO that point has already been reached ...
Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Today, maybe I agree with you. I didn't think that was the case only a couple of weeks ago when the discussion here was getting way heated.

That said, if Obama can't handle the disparaging comments from Clinton, whether justified or not, how is he going to handle the sh*tstorm that's going to rain down on him post-convention?

I think that the best thing that can be said at this point is that the Obama campaign has a big head start on being able to deal with it all, and that there won't be much new left to throw at him.

Her continuing the campaign, even though she has the right to do so, is causing Obama to spend millions of dollars in the primary season that would better serve the entire Democratic Party were it conserved for the general election.

She is in a very deep state of denial and her trumped up championing of the MIFL vote is not only disingenuos, it is making those states harder and harder to secure in the general election.

She made a fatal strategic campaign blunder, a la Rudy G., and she cannot come to terms with that fact.

"That said, if Obama can't handle the disparaging comments from Clinton,"

I don't think its really a question of Obama handling it. Its a question of the negative messages about him continuing to be sent out to the country by someone who should be on his side at this point.

S.A. Rogue,
I don't know if that's as critical a problem as you are afraid it is....
If your opinion can be swayed at this stage by a negative comment by clinton, then your opinion can just as easily be swayed back to Obama by the time the general election comes around.

It's been a good day talking to y'all... peace.

Now Hillary got FL State Sen. Geller to file a law suit. The woman has no shame. I like her less by the day. LITTLEBRITDIFRNT already started a thread on Backpage about it.

"If your opinion can be swayed at this stage by a negative comment by clinton, then your opinion can just as easily be swayed back to Obama by the time the general election comes around."

Maybe so, but I think we are talking more about John & Jane Q. Public who are not quite so immersed in politics as some of us here.

"Hillary lobbies Geller, the unattached super-delegate

Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller, who swears he's an unattached super-delegate, dashed to a must-attend meeting this afternoon with Hillary Clinton, apparently to listen to her pitch on why he should commit to him in the delegate count and not frontrunner Barack Obama...

...But wait a minute: What's the point? Florida's delegates have been rendered powerless, remember?

Not for long, Geller says. He's scheduled a press conference in his Fort Lauderdale law office tomorrow to announce a 'significant development expected to have national impact.''"

Sorry - the above was from the Miami Herald

And that Obama backer Percy Johnson who is a pledged Obama delegate and one of two co-plaintiffs in the suit?

shhhhh!! not really a black guy!!

Just because you think it idiotic, doesn't mean it isn't perfectly legitimate as part of some already existing idiotic rules, such as proportionality and caucuses deciding a primary that will be nominating a candidate to run in a primary only, winner take all general election.

Perfectly legitimate = rules under which Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination

Idiotic = rules under which Hillary loses

She's Kim Jong Hil. Remember when he had North Korea's press announce that the first time he went golfing he hit 12 consecutive holes in one?

Remember when he had North Korea's press announce that the first time he went golfing he hit 12 consecutive holes in one?

Do you think he did that inspite of the sniper fire, or because of it?

No, Precious,

Perfectly legitimate, in this case = DNC rules that allow a revote.

You know, like the one your candidate refused to endorse, thereby disenfranchising your vote.

But, apparently, giving up your right to vote, and everyone else's, is OK if it benefits the Big 0.

You just can't get through to some people.

Hillary was for not counting MIFL before she was against it. She flipped her position when it became obvious she needed those votes.

You can spin as much as you want Corky, but the only one who is going to end up dizzy and puking is you.

like the one your candidate refused to endorse

The Firehouse Primary in Michigan in which the polls would open from 10am to 4pm?

I'm sure everyone would just take off from work and vote right? Wrong.

Why don't we just do the right thing and give Florida and Puerto Rico back to Spain, Texas back to Mexico, and banish breathing south of the Mason Dixon?

No, like FL where we both live. Rcade apparently doesn't mind his vote not counting, as it was likely for Obama anyway. Many of the other 1.7 million who voted here do care.

-banish breathing south of the Mason Dixon?

It's already mouth-breathing only down here in Crackerville. What else do you want?

"But, apparently, giving up your right to vote, and everyone else's, is OK if it benefits the Big 0.

Posted by Corky at 2008-05-22 05:12 PM"

So, who's claiming it "is OK if it benefits the Big 0."? Maybe you intended to say that it appears that is their motivation.

If we are discussing appearances, why is it that Senator Clinton is RECENTLY pushing the MI/FL disenfranchisement issue? The situation has existed for MONTHS (you know, way back when it would have been to her benefit to NOT push for seating the MI/FL delegates)? Her actions do not appear altruistic, but maybe you can enlighten us otherwise.

No, like FL where we both live. Rcade apparently doesn't mind his vote not counting ...

I'd prefer that it count. I'd also prefer that Florida had followed the damn rules. Since we didn't, and one candidate has both the pledged delegate and superdelegate lead, I can settle for that candidate being the winner.

Messy Nessy, she was here the evening of the vote supporting Floridians, and left her name on the ballot with Chris Dodd and Dennis the K in MI for the same reason.

(In future, please note that although you bold print something that has been said 1.7 million times before, that doesn't make it any more true.)

But, apparently, giving up your right to vote, and everyone else's, is OK if it benefits the Big 0.

----

But, apparently, saying you want to count all votes and then not counting caucus states is OK if it benefits the Big C.

-Since we didn't,

We could have voted again under the same rules, but noooooooooooo........ Obama wouldn't endorse that because he would have lost.

-the pledged delegate and superdelegate lead

So, are you one of those that prefers what I think you have called "the party insiders" to go ahead and pledge now in place of voters in other states to put him over the top?

Unless that happens, neither candidate will have the magic number on June 3rd after the primaries are over.

IT would then be totally legitimate and within the rules and responsibilities of SDs to vote for whoever they wished at that time based on who had the most pledged delegates, or on whoever had the most popular vote, or who could win, or who they think would be the best President, or who had given them the most money , or who was likely to raise the most money..... or they could flip a coin.

And, as it seems that SDs are more interested in some of those things than others, others like every electoral map projection I've seen favoring Clinton as Obama drowns in ClingerBitterGate world, he is still by far the favorite to win.

So Rogers, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you say that if a year ago someone had told us that the winner of the Dem primary would be the candidate who lost PA, Ohio, and FL, not to mention CA, NY, and NH...... and who couldn't connect with blue-collar workers to save his life..... wouldn't that person have been laughed out of the room?

wouldn't that person have been laughed out of the room?


You keep saying that as if it was still a year ago. It's not. It's now. And Obama is STILL winning.

New York Gov. David Patterson, a supporter of Hillary Clinton's White House bid, said Friday the New York senator is showing signs of "desperation" in her continued push to get the full delegations of Michigan and Florida seated.

Getting the full delegation seated is just telling every state to go ahead and try to cut in line in 2012

So Rogers, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you say that if a year ago someone had told us that the winner of the Dem primary would be the candidate who lost PA, Ohio, and FL, not to mention CA, NY, and NH...... and who couldn't connect with blue-collar workers to save his life..... wouldn't that person have been laughed out of the room?


Those six states aren't the only ones that matter, the Appalachian states aren't the only ones with blue collar voters, and it isn't a year ago. Other than that, though, great question.

The Hillary Clinton campaign is really taking a unique position here -- elect me over the guy who beat me because I'm more electable. Normally, you'd expect that the person who wins is considered more electable.

BB,

LOL, she has no point, she lost and the popular vote has spoken.

BB,

If we chose our elected leaders because of what polls say then there would be no need for primaries.

How unamerican and idiotic can these clinton supporters be.

Except that she has a point. Current polls show her beating Mcain in November, and Obama losing to McCain in November.

So what? It's not November, polls aren't votes, and pollsters have never chosen a party's presidential nominee in the history of this country.

Besides, voting for the most electable-seeming person was a crappy strategy in 2004, and there's no compelling reason to think that has changed.

How unamerican and idiotic can these clinton supporters be.

Posted by moneywar at 2008-05-22 08:13 PM | Reply


I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm simply stating facts. I'll vote for Clinton or Obama. It makes no difference to me. It seems like you are a little whacko for Obama though.

So what? It's not November, polls aren't votes, and pollsters have never chosen a party's presidential nominee in the history of this country.


Besides, voting for the most electable-seeming person was a crappy strategy in 2004, and there's no compelling reason to think that has changed.

Posted by rcade at 2008-05-22 08:38 PM | Reply |


So those are the facts. Sure things could change between now and November--and I hope they do. However I have the feeling that while the vast majority of democrats have no problems with a black Prsident, I would say that there is a significant minority of democrats that do have a problem with race. Maybe enough to swing the election.

I don't think the polls should be discounted simply because you don't like what they say. In fact, the polls show Clinton gaining strength, and Obama losing strength, even as he gains the nomination.

In addition, the fact still remains that the states that gave Obama the nomination are red states--states he won't carry in November.

I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm simply stating facts. I'll vote for Clinton or Obama. It makes no difference to me. It seems like you are a little whacko for Obama though.

I'm wacko for the notion that we actually select a nominee in the Democratic Party and support that nominee.

I'm wacko for the notion that we actually select a nominee in the Democratic Party and support that nominee.

Posted by rcade at 2008-05-22 10:00 PM | Reply


The whacko remark was directed to Moneywar. I agree that dems should support the nominee, and that is what I intend to do. What I'm saying is that the polls don't seem to show other dems having the same attitude.

If nNader gets bored & starts singing 911 tunes ~ hey, I'm all for opening that can of worms:>)

What I'm saying is that the polls don't seem to show other dems having the same attitude.

I don't know how other people approach elections, but after Kerry I decided to hell with caring about electability. It's a sucker's game. If Dems are forever trying to put up the most centrist and safe candidate, they've given up half the battle before they even get started. I just vote for who I think is best and hope the rest works itself out.

Well BB,

I think if you look at my prior post it would suggest that I'm wacko for notion we select a nominee in the Democratic party and SUPPORT that nominee.

Polls don't mean crap, the process of votes do otherwise it is all worthless.

Premier/Diebold will insure we get the most electabull candidate bossible:>)

-The Hillary Clinton campaign is really taking a unique position here -- elect me over the guy who beat me because I'm more electable. Normally, you'd expect that the person who wins is considered more electable.

It is a position that is well considered in the procedure of the nominating process...... it is the very reason there is a "Magic Number" instead of the winner being whoever is ahead at the end of voting..... it is the whole idea behind having superdelegates....

that winning a proportional primary or caucuses of Dems, mostly activist left-leaning Dems, does not guarantee that the winner would be electable in a general election of all Americans in an Electoral College based election with winner take all primaries.

So, to review something you should already know, sans Obamaide, being electable in a Dem primary is nowhere near the same thing as being electable in a general election, which is why SDs exist.

Now you can argue that in this case that you think Obama is just as electable as Clinton, though every electoral map demographic being projected now would disagree with you, but the history of multiple Dem Pres candidates winning Dem primaries only lose the general should answer question about why one would be electable in the primary but lose the election, as it happens more often than not to Dems.

-I just vote for who I think is best and hope the rest works itself out.

Brilliant!!

Who you think is best is going to be about 10 degrees left of center and never win an election.

The idea that a half a loaf is not worth having is what loses Presidential elections for Dems time after time.

"only to lose the general should answer any question"

missing word syndrome

I looked at your prior post and saw little SUPPORT should Clinton be the nominee:

What's so unusual about that? It is possible to prefer one candidate of a party, and not the other when put against the other party.

Only stupid sheeple who are led around by their nose vote how the party tells them. The rest of us -- the thinking people of America -- consider the candidate individually and vote accordingly.

What's so unusual about that? It is possible to prefer one candidate of a party, and not the other when put against the other party.

Nothing is unusal about that--except that Moneywar made a big deal out of SUPPORT for the dem candidate and then showed little support if the dem candidate wasn't the one he weanted. Can you see the problem there? Probably not or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.



"Only stupid sheeple who are led around by their nose vote how the party tells them. The rest of us -- the thinking people of America -- consider the candidate individually and vote accordingly."

Sheeple like you. At least you know something about the subject.

Sheeple like you. At least you know something about the subject.

Sorry, bOoB. I forget that you use your own definitions of English language words. I used sheeple in the context of one not being able to vote outside of a single party. I never vote by party. I vote for the person. Who knows what wild definition you use.

In the future, assume that I use the commonly accepted definition of a word (although I understand you will think it to be incorrect) and not the one that you and only you use.

Pirate

Obama doesn't win in all the scenarios in your survey. However, I hope your poll is more accurate than the polls shown by electoral-vote. How's Obama doing in Florida and WVa?

the demoncrats are self destructing in the most hilarious fashion, the republicant's have a geriatric fool who wouldn't know a conservative if his walker fell on one. Is this the best we have?

Who you think is best is going to be about 10 degrees left of center and never win an election.

I love the condescension dripping from your comment. Only Clinton can save us! Only Clinton can save us! Only a Clinton can win a national election as a Democrat! Only triangulation and capitulation on core Democratic values can make our party attractive to the public!

Maybe it's possible that this isn't the '90s anymore and the political terrain has shifted. Perhaps a candidate who has not experienced two decades of revulsion and hatred from Republicans has a chance to pull more of them into the Democratic side come November.

Crazy talk, eh?

"As it turns, out new polls in CA today will show McCain beating Obama there,"

I'm sure you meant to say 1 new poll under 1 scenario, right? Because all the others have Obama winning by an average of 13 points.

I know you would want to correct that false impression you left, since you are soooo considered about things like the difference between "may well" and "going to" in an off the cuff remark.

*considered* = concerned

somebody post a thread on her recent comment regarding not quitting due to the possibility of Obama's assasination -- she was commenting on Bobby Kennedy's assasination in June already! I can't wait to talk about that. she's finito, history, done, gone, bye-bye!

somebody post a thread on her recent comment regarding not quitting due to the possibility of Obama's assasination -- she was commenting on Bobby Kennedy's assasination in June already! I can't wait to talk about that. she's finito, history, done, gone, bye-bye! I'd do it but have no clue how or don't have special powers from RCADE

And btw, Clinton has pledged to sponsor and sign legislation for public financing of elections, has the only universal health care plan of the remaining candidates, has pledged to cut corporate welfare, will implement the same McGovernite policies that are Party staples..... wait......

you aren't one of those people who think that Hil went from Socialist to corporatist because she spend 7 years in the Senate boning up on military matters, something Obama knows about as much about as does Paris Hilton, and working across the aisle with Republicans, something both she and McCain have actually done successfully on the national stage, something Obama only talks about......

one of those who defended her in the 90's but turned on her like a rabid dog in this election, buying and using every vile lie the Rethugs ever told back then, like some of your fellow Obamites here.... are you?

"McCain beating Obama there, as he does in Ohio and FL."

Oh, and actually RCP average has him beating McCain in Ohio.

I knew you'd want to know because you admire accuracy so.

I heard Florida and Michigan are moving their Presidential Elections to December 31st. This way, the whole nation will have voted for President, but these two States are going to hang back.

Their electoral votes will have to wait until they have their election.


So, what do you think will happen to the votes of Michigan and Florida if they pull this stunt in the National Election.

By law, can the State be forced to open the polls? I'd love to see that tried. Would their votes count on December 31st? Or, would their votes be lost because they weren't timely?

Support the law or not. Support the rules or not.

Clinton beats Obama by over 8 in Ohio, Obama at 1.3 over McCain is well within the margin of error.

McCain beats Obama by over 8 in FL, Clinton beats McCain.

realclear

"Clinton beats Obama by over 8 in Ohio, Obama at 1.3 over McCain is well within the margin of error."

Ah but "Sweetie", that's not what you said, is it. You said McCain was beating Obama in Ohio.

That isn't accurate, is it? Were you intentionally misleading us?

Consistency my dear, consistency.

Fear not, Johnny. By the powers invested in me by RCADE you'll find the thread "Assassination" on the back page. I sense this one will have some legs.

Posted by OohRah


it does & by another name now:>)

He'll get your vote, Bob? I thought you were Canadian?

He'll get your vote, Bob? I thought you were Canadian?

Posted by mOntecOre at 2008-05-23 06:46 PM


Put another check mark in your "I was mistaken" category.

Any chance maybe you could move there? It's, well, you know, a little embarassing having you around.