- ‹ previous
- 3103 of 8932
- next ›
At DNC Meeting, Obama Rules
The rule-breaking Florida and Michigan primaries will count, but not as much, and not how Hillary Clinton wanted them to, the Democrats' Rules and Bylaws Committee decided Saturday in D.C. The Clinton campaign had asked that both states' delegations be seated in full, with full votes, according to the results of the states' January primaries. Instead, the 30-member RBC, citing party rules and the possibility of setting bad precedent for next primary season, voted to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates with a half-vote each.
In addition to halving the votes of Florida and Michigan delegates, the rules committee endorsed the Michigan Democratic Party's compromise 69-59 split on Michigan delegates. It was a move that especially enraged Clinton supporters. The Clinton campaign had asked for the 73 delegates it says she won in January's disputed primary, with 0 delegates going to Obama, who was not on the ballot. In Clinton's plan, the 55 remaining delegates would have been seated as "uncommitted" delegates, and would function essentially as superdelegates.
Not even the Clinton campaign's best-case scenario would have netted her enough delegates to catch Barack Obama in the delegate race. Still, today's decision, which netted Clinton just 24 delegates, was clearly a disappointment to the New York Senator's camp. But the Clinton campaign still had a choice. They could calmly but strongly express their disagreement with the decision, as Clinton adviser and rules committee member Harold Ickes did after the vote on the Florida delegation didn't go his way. Or they could cast aspersions on the legitimacy of the decision and accuse the rules committee of "hijacking" the will of the voters. That's what Harold Ickes did after his side lost the vote on the allocation of the Michigan delegates:
"I am stunned that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters," Ickes said. "Hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path to party unity," he added. Then came the kicker: "Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee."
It could be a bluff. David Corn has speculated that Clinton may simply take a few days after the end of the primaries "to confirm that her argument to the superdelegates—choose me because I have the better chance of beating John McCain—is not carrying the day." Then, David says, she'll probably drop out. I'm sure that most of the Democratic party leaders hope that David's right. But on its face, Ickes' angry speech after Clinton's side lost the rules committee vote seems to be laying the groundwork for her to fight on in the name of fixing the "hijacking."
If Clinton does try to fight on in the name of the "fair allocation of Michigan's delegates" that Ickes and his fellow pro-Clinton rules committee member Tina Flournoy have already called for, she'll have a very hard row to hoe. Ickes rhetoric about the committee "hijacking" the result represents a direct assault by the Clinton campaign on the legitimacy of Obama's eventual, inevitable win. It is very unlikely that party leaders like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean will tolerate the continuation of the campaign if it seems to be undermining the eventual nominee's legitimacy or electoral prospects. All three have expressed a desire to bring the primary race to a close well before the convention in August. Every indication is that most of the other superdelegates want to avoid a contested convention, Clinton supporters' chants of "Denver! Denver! Denver!" at todays meeting notwithstanding.
I wrote earlier that the Clinton campaign's response to today's ruling, and not the ruling itself, would be the news. And despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Ickes and Co., the committee's decision has changed very little about the math of the primary race. The magic number for the nomination is now 2,118 instead of 2,026—a gain of 92—but according to Democratic Convention Watch, Obama is just 23 more delegate votes away from the new magic number than he was from the old one. At the beginning of the day, Obama needed 41 more delegates to clinch; now he needs 64.
Picking up those last 64 delegates shouldn't be a problem for Obama no matter what Clinton does. Obama is expected to pick up somewhere in the neighborhood of 41 delegates in the final three primaries, which will leave him just 23 superdelegate endorsements away from the nomination. As the New York Times has reported, that shouldn't be a problem "Democratic Party leaders like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been leaning in recent days on the superdelegates — about or more than 200 who are uncommitted — to make up their minds and announce their decisions in the coming week," the Times says. Obama would need just slightly more than 10 percent of those remaining superdelegates to endorse him to clinch the nomination.
So today's events haven't changed the math of the campaign that much. What about the tone? Surely the Clinton campaign's vocal displeasure with the results will do great damage to the party? Actually, it probably won't.
What was most remarkable about today's proceedings wasn't how contentious they were, but how contentious they weren't. Hundreds, not thousands, of Clinton supporters protested outside. There were dozens, not hundreds, of interruptions to the proceedings. And when it came down to a vote, the two most hardline Clinton supporters, Ickes and Flournoy, could only convince 6 of their colleagues to vote against the Michigan compromise. That means at least five of the committee members who had endorsed Clinton voted for the resolution that Ickes said "hijacked" the will of the voters. All 27 committee members who were present and voting at the meeting approved the Florida solution, which halved the delegation's votes—another disappointment for the Clinton campaign. And I heard word after the meeting that the committee had the votes to pass the 64-64 split that the Obama campaign preferred for the Michigan delegates.
Today's meeting might have seemed contentious, but it basically confirmed again what everyone already knew: Barack Obama will be the Democrats' nominee for the presidency. MSNBC's Chuck Todd told it like it is:
The Democratic National Committee is not somehow controlled by the Clintons. Not by the Clinton campaign any more. We may have started this campaign believing that the Clinton campaign controlled, but this is Barack Obama's party now. He's already been winning the outside game, he now won the inside game. Yes it's true that Harold Ickes can threaten this stuff about the credentials, but [Clinton supporter] Don Fowler really did signal today by being for the Michigan compromise that, "Guys, it's over."
DNC Chairman Howard Dean opened the rules meeting with a promise of unity. "It has been a very long tough difficult campaign, but it has made our candidates and our party much stronger," Dean said. "The cynics will look for the conflict.... We are strong enough to struggle and disagree and even be angry and disappointed and still come together at the end and be united."
It may not seem obvious at first, but the outcome of today's meeting showed how the Democrats are already beginning to make good on Dean's promise.
Photo by flickr user marcn used under a Creative Commons license.
After reading some of the blogs I am disappointed Clinton supporters are pressing a poit that is null and void. How can in good conscience allow the Clinton camp to demand MI be seated 73-0 in her favor? I find that hard to swallow her supporters think this is fair. They do not like compromises and would prefer to blame Sen Obama for Sen Clinton not winning. This is completely bonkers, false and lack logic. No reasonable person would think the RBC would reinstate the delegates without penalties. Sen Clinton lost the election after the NC primary, why can't they admit that? All I can say is GET A GRIP.
Don't vote if you are "bitter" because a black candidate won, but don't cry if McCain wins and the economy continues to plunge in the TOILET and more of our sons and daughters DIE by DIRTY BOMBs. I'm a democrat and this year is our year to make things RIGHT. GO OBAMA...........
Obama disenfranchised FL and Mi voters with 1/2 votes. The cut-and-dice-the-vote Obama gamed the system and won today with the DNC. Sen. Clinton should appeal to the Credentials Committee to get every vote counted in full and save the Democratic Party from defeat in November.
What I am about to say is strictly for African Americans: Don't be surprised if one day someone comes along and takes your right to vote away. See Black People, I know everyone is excited because Barack made it this far and is a winner in his own right, but my biggest fear is witnessing all of these Caucasian men backing Barack. For many of you who were not Poli Sci majors or even politically active, this means Barack will have to be beholding to these people first. What do you get when you have a brand new shell and old parts underneath; an old ass car. I am so sorry to prefice college because I have some emotional friends who are very educated and a part of politics and they don't have a clue. See this is the first time for most black folks to get into politics and see the process all the way through. Instead of Black people embracing learning and Senator Clinton's tenacity, again we parrot after the sick media and talk about the democratic party being divided. If anything, black should be talking to their children about this and watching it on TV with their children about a macro politics. I am a Hillary Supporter and if after all of this is over and Obama prevails, I will start campaigning for him the very next day. See I am no sore loser because I am grown and mature, and as my mother stated I have Class. Please people do some studying on your own ask plenty of well thought out questions and project intelligence always. Let us learn and work the process from within so we don't get our right to vote taken from "us"!!!!
crat3 on 05/31/08 at 7:59 PM wrote:
>Obama disenfranchised FL and
>Mi voters with 1/2 votes.
Clinton wants to disenfranchise the people who played by the rules and stayed home and did not vote.
Clinton and her followers are looking more like Daffy Duck or Yosemite Sam all the time. They are ruining Hillary's political future.
All that said, I think President Obama should appoint Hillary as the next Supreme Court Justice. She is as mean and hard headed, unwilling to compromise as Justice Scalia. She will be a pain in their butts while we watch the court slowly swing away from the far right. Hillary would be perfect!
Tascha:
If I get your point correctly, you are worried that my vote for Barack will obligate him to me, thereby compromising the rights and privileges of Black Americans.
Worry not, sister! As an old, White American Male, I will vote for Barack because it is RIGHT! Yes, you can hear me shout it out!
If Barack is half the man I think he is, he will do what is right for all of us Americans, Black, White, and all other shades, gender identities, political identities, ages and ... whatever.
To quote a former opponent, Mike Huckabee, "We are a better Country than that!"
as will rogers said he did not belong to any organized party he was a democrat.
it appears to still be true.
let the hillary voters vote for mc war and let him pack the supreme court with war mongers and worst
then they will whine for decades.
and then many can say I told you so.
let the process of being a repubic begin
if you happen to live in iran i would begin building bomb shelters because if mc war wins this election he will not be wasting any time on his singing promise.
he craves respect and in his mind bombing someone and winning a war gets him that respect. welcome to american politics.
and we call this man a war hero that is how screwed up this country has become.
You know, reading some of this makes me think that the original decision by the DNC was done in the middle of the night, in a back room that no one knew about - BUT IT WASN"T!!!
The states knew the rules and made their decisions based on those rules.
The candidates knew the rules and said nothing that they were unfair.
The candidates made their campaign decisions based on those rules.
SUCK IT UP.
Back in 2000 Democrats cried "Count every vote." Now party trumps principle: rules count, not votes. If African Americans had been as determined as Donna Brazil et al to follow established "rules," African Americans would still be riding in the back of the bus. Alas, only truth is colorblind. But where to find truth in a climte where selective perception and the herd instinct rule.
Count every vote? How do you count the votes of people who didn't vote because they knew their primary was going to be invalid? "Count every vote" is a nice sound bite that plays on people's emotions... but without a level playing ground, those votes are irrelevant and invalid. Throw them all out. Simple.
If I win a marathon and then it's discovered that I ran a different route than everyone else... that I skipped a section or something (accidently or not) should I still be the winner?
If I score a goal in hockey a split second after the period ends... should that goal still count? It still went in the net... right? Shouldn't it count? Shouldn't we "count every goal". What's all this crap about "rules"?
If a cop stops me for speeding and I say that the problem isn't me... it's that the speed limit is too low... should I still get a ticket? Maybe I could reason with the cop and convince him to give me half a ticket? Sounds reasonable?
Vera Beaudin wrote:
>Back in 2000 Democrats cried
">Count every vote." Now party
> trumps principle: rules
>count, not votes
Vera, why don't you want to count the votes of the people who played by the rules? Why do you think ONLY your side's votes should count?
Both States had the opportunity for a redo. But they decided not to do it, act like pouty children and expect to get their way.
When I was in Japan, we had the first Democrats abroad voting in the primaries. Because folks overseas that vote tend to be very liberal, both in Japan and the rest of the expat community, we voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Obama, D-Ill., won 65 percent of the vote, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., won 32 percent worldwide.
We could vote online, by mail or in person in the big cities. This kind of caucus could have been done easily for Michigan or Florida.
So, I applaud the DNC. They found a fair compromise, that takes in the NONPARTISAN rights of all people in Michigan and Florida, those that voted and those that accepted the rules and did not vote, or voted in the Republican primary like they did in Michigan for Romney.
Get a grip! You attitude is only destroying Hillary's political future.
I'm not an American but this farce that Hillary is trying to pull has got me interested in what's happening in America. I can only imagine how the world would view a president like Hillary, now that we've seen how she rolls. Just imagine what our take on America's supposed moral high ground would be were Hillary to be president.
Vera - Reading your comments would make one think that only blacks live in MI and FL.
If that's the race card, it is a 3 of clubs.
Cry wolf?
P Chen - This is same-old-same-old Clinton polotics. It's nothing new.
I say neither one should have received any votes. The DNC made their decision in 2007 not to give them any votes for breaking the rules. What has changed? Absolutely nothing. The rules should be the same whether you have a popular candidate or an unknown candidate running. Showing some integrity and stand by decision.
Just as a point...It is said on many blogs that because Senator Obama is Biracial, that he will be "beholding" to African-Americans first. So with that same logic, are you stating that because there has always been a White president, that they have been "beholding" to whites first and all other minority groups last? Is that REALLY the logic that you are standing on?
I know you said your post was for Af.-Am's, but I'm euro-Am, and I read it anyway..I was originally an Edwards supporter, then I voted for Clinton. I am open to voting for Obama--when i hear HIM talk. When I hear some of his supporters--sometimes i sit and cry. I'm afraid of another Dubya. And we should've had this sewn up-I'm not sure if they really "did" any of this--(I wonder) but the neop-cons must be laughing their ass off.Pit Af.-Am's against poor whites--works every time.I am NOT your enemy...Just found your post interestiong and intelligent. I hope some people blogging wil listen. I TRY not to take it personally, but it gets difficult. I keep trying to think , "You're not voting for the supporters...and Obama, himself, seems OK" I encourage people to do that. Cause McCain will drive us to hell (Not that i even think HE is a particularly "bad" man! He just doesnt get it) WHY does it have to be so hateful? Thanks
DON'T BE DUPED AGAIN AMERICA !!!
IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!
Large numbers of BUSH_McCain Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on with the backing and help of the medical and insurance industry. Under the direction of the George Bush, and Karl Rove vote fraud, and vote manipulation machine. Because they feel Barack Obama would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And they want to stop Hillary Clinton from fixing the HUGE! American, and Global mess they have created. shocking!!! isn't it. Just gotta love those good old draft dodging, silver spoon Texas boys. Not! :-(
You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves off of you, and your children's suffering.
With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality affordable universal health care for everyone very soon. And you are also certain to see major improvements in the economy for everyone.
The American people face even worse catastrophes ahead than the ones you are living through now. It will take all of the skills, and experience of Hillary Clinton to pull the American people out of this mess we are in. Fortunately fixing up, and cleaning up others incompetence, immoral degeneracy, and mess is what the Clinton's do very well.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
Just look at Oregon for example. Obama won Oregon by about 70,000 votes. But approximately 79,000 Bush republicans switched party's back in January to vote for Obama in the democratic primary. They are not going to vote for, or support any Democrat in November. Are you DEMOCRATS going to put up with that. Are you that stupid, and weak. The Bush republicans think you are that stupid, and weak.
As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses, and open primaries where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Except North Carolina where 35% of the population is African American, and approximately 90% of them block voted for him. African Americans are only approximately 17% of the general population.
Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. This is even more phenomenal when you consider she has been also fighting against the George Bush, Karl Rove vote fraud machine in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Hillary Clinton is STUNNING!.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. That is crystal clear now. Because all of the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. And the demographics, and experience are completely against him. All of this vote fraud and Bush republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.
You will have another McGovern catastrophe where George McGovern lost 49 of 50 states. And was the reason the super-delegates were created to keep that from happening again. Don't let that happen to the party and America again super-delegates. You have the power to prevent it. The only important question now is who can best win in November. And the answer is HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. That fact is also now crystal clear.
And YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. As do African Americans. Support Hillary Clinton. She will do her best for all of you. And she will know how to best get it done on day one.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.
Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic, and heroic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. Probably the best there has ever been. :-)
"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)
Sincerely
jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I'm with ya baby. All the way. "Clinton Supporters Count Too."
Tascha: I sure hope you're wrong! Obama reminds me of Robert Kennedy. I think he'll do just fine, and sooner or later, everyone will see that and be proud of him.
And to jacksmith: it's about getting away from old politics. It's about getting away from the Bush/Clinton lock on the White House.
Tascha: I want you to follow-up on your comments because I don't think I understand what you are trying to say. Is your argument that because Barack has support from White males, he will be "beholden" to the interests of White males first, and therefore, Blacks might end up losing the right to vote? If that is your argument, where do I begin.
1) Contrary to what some of these pundits say, I think that Barack is, running to be the President of the United States, not the President of Black people. That being said, he needs support from everyone, Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, etc. If he wasn't getting that support, then he would have a problem, because you cannot get nominated and then elected into office without the support of White males.
2) You seem to be implying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that White males want to disenfranchise Black people (which is why you are wary of White males supporting Obama)? That is an extremely offensive generalization that has no basis in fact. If you have some articles, statistics, etc. to back that up, then fine. But to somehow come to the conclusion that Black people might lose their right to vote because of White male support for an Obama presidency is ridiculous.
3) You also seem to be implying, again correct me if I'm wrong, that Black people should have taken a closer look at HRC because then their right to vote wouldn't be at risk. Huh? HRC is getting support among many demographics, including White males, so wouldn't the same argument apply. Wouldn't Black people have to be just as weary that HRC has the support of White males and would be "beholden" to their interest first. Heck, shouldn't men be freaked out because HRC has strong White female support, and once she gets into office she will try to enslave the Male race. Again, this argument is ridiculous.
4) As a former Poli Sci major myself, I have to disagree with another argument you made. This is not the first time that Black folks have gotten involved in politics. In fact, during the Reconstruction era, the main reason that there were so many Black elected officials, is because of support from former slaves. That is why the whole backlash of Reconstruction era started. White southerners had to readjust to the fact that only years before, Blacks were in the field picking cotton, and in just a short time they were running their cities and States. Thus, they effectively used a campaign of violence and dirty political tactics to get back into office. This included lynching Black and White Republicans, stuffing ballot boxes and burning down people's homes and businesses. After that time Black political participation waned because of disenfranchisement, and after the passage of the Voting rights Act, has not been that significant because of voter apathy.
4) I find that a lot of people have been paying attention to this election. And in my mind, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that all of the candidates are deeply flawed. To me, that is to be expected because they don't walk on water. It just depends on which flaws you are willing to overlook. However, unlike some, while I am not a Hillary hater, I do question her tactics to get elected. What I have found deeply troubling is the fact that she signed up to the primary scheduling calendar last summer, but when it became clear that she would need the delegates from MI/FL then suddenly those voters were being "disenfranchised." I must admit, she has chutzpah, but please don't try to play me like I'm stupid, which is exactly what she is trying to do to those voters.
5) I think that one lesson that people have learned from this whole process is that Identity politics stink. It has for a long time, and maybe after this whole fiasco, people will take the political process and voting more seriously.
I am a Florida Democrat who supports Clinton. When we had our primary, it was legitimate and we did not believe that the party's decision not to count us, the four largest state in the union, would stand.
Even then, the party's decision was under appeal.
I want 100% of my vote to count.
There are party insiders that decided early on to support Obama and they have done every thing they can to force Clinton out. Where is all his money coming from and who are the power players behind him. They PLAN on CONTROLLING him, and they cannot control Clinton.
I am not going to vote for Obama if he is the nominee because I don't have confidence in him as a potential president. I don't know that I can vote for McCain, and if I don't may vote for an alternate or for the 1st time in my life obstain. Do his associations influence this? You better believe they do! They just reinforce my decision to not support him.
If Obama is the nominee, we will have another Republican president unfortunately. Clinton can beat McCain, but Obama cannot. This is a set-up.
I guess what most you bloggers have forgotten is that Barack is 1/2 black and 1/2 caucasian. My view is that the time has come for this country to evolve: we are not just white voters, we are not just blue collar workers, as Clinton tries to press, we are all one people and the sooner everyone accepts this the better we, as a country, will be able to compete/co-exist with the rest of the world. Come on up and join the reality that we live in now, even if you don't see it. It's there.
I had to join the Democratic Party to work as a precinct captain for Obama in Iowa. I left the party after 2004 and joined the Greens when it became apparent that the Dems are incompetent to win an election. I thought that Obama looked like a good candidate, progressive, courageous, and real. The events of the last 2 weeks have changed my mind.
Now it appears that they are too corrupt to win as well. The fact that there is even any discussion about seating delegates in uncontested elections proves that the Democrats are NOT WORTH CONSIDERING AS THE PARTY OF CHANGE.
Obama is a great candidate, but he's not going to be able to do anything to change Washington because his own party will stand in the way. Look at what they've done since 2006... rubber stamped Iraq funding, approved Supreme Court appointments that turn us hard right, taken impeachment off the table, and a score of other spineless, brainless, gutless acts that prove that they are not only corrupt, but they are also devoid of political sense and courage.
This is it. I'm leaving the party for the last time. I'll go to work for Nader now, as even working for a candidate who will surely lose is better than working for a candidate who will go to Washington and continue the mass screwing of America.
Nader 2008. If you want "change you can believe in", work for a candidate who would actually change something if given the chance.
-Wexler
Tascha,
I don't understand a thing you are saying. Beholding (beholden)? Lose the vote (like this)? Learn from Hillary's tenacity? Are you telling us black people that Barack Obama will sell us out to the white man, and our best bet is to vote for the the white woman instead? I am a black man, and something tells me you are not black or maybe even a woman. What are you trying to say?
No justice, no peace. Remember 68.
Like I said, there's a woman running by the name of McKinney. A massive female vote for her in November would "get the point across"... nicely!
Either way, neither candidate's win would be strong and out the question for the other's camp. Two things to keep in mind (and pro-Obama media conviniently did not dwell on either):
1) SD and NH moved their primaries too but DNC did not strip them from their primaries and votes. How's that for a double standard and fairness?
2) Florida, and especially Michigan, came up with a re-vote plan 2-3 motnhs ago and Clinton supporters pledge to raise money to pay for it and the state parties, the state officials, DNC and Clinton campaign were ready to go but OBAMA stolled it until it was too late. I wonder what he was affraid off if , indeed, those who did not vote and those uncommited were for him?
Wrong. Clinton only snuck by in Indiana because of the margin she earned among Republicans.
Do you remember "Operation Chaos". The Republicans have been hoping for a Clinton victory and trying to assist with it.
Before a single vote was ever cast 48% of all voters surveyed said that "under no circumstances" would they ever vote for Hillary Clinton. With those sort of high negatives, I'd prefer her for my opponent too.
Nobody would energize the Republican base more than another Clinton.
By the way, the country is looking for change and a new brand of politics. The divisiveness off the past has worn out its welcome with the majority of voters.
The lunatic fringe of Clinton supporters has reached the pinnacle of desperation and unreason. The embarassment of Hillary and her supporters' phony-unjustified-outrage demonstrates the degree to which people will go to concoct a delusional alternate reality to dispel of their burgeoning cognitive dissonance. Face reality people Obama ran a campaign and WON based on the rules of the game. The only thing Hillary supporters have left to sell is "fear" that many of us simply are not buying. Obama does not deserve this type of sophomoric vitriol. He ran the cleanest and most dignified campaign so why all the hate? Go ahead and take your temper tamtrum to Denver. If you selfish pieces of human garbage want a melee because you simply can't accept losing I'll be the first to welcome you
Correct me if I'm wrong, but SD and NH won the lottery to move their primary up, Fl and MI did not, but decided to move it up anyways knowing full well what the repercussions would be. Also, Florida voters knew their vote wouldn't count - I was in California and knew their vote wouldn't count, so how can any who voted there not know what was going to happen. Plus, how would any insider in FL know Hillary would win in the first place and then suddenly and then suddenly this plan was "devised" to keep Hillary from getting the Fl delegates?!
Both Obama and Clinton signed agreements not to accept the delegates long BEFORE the primaries.
ALso, the DNC never agreed to a recount of either FL or MI, it would have been too expensive and there was no time for either candidate to campaign - it would have been a waste of money. This whole idea that Obama is now somehow a Republican puppet makes me role with laughter. Conspiracy theorists continue....
i see no reason not to give mrs clinton these delegates 73...the cacuss system was pretty flawed and biased so why not...obama is backing in...why not more questions on that by the press...its always about her getting out..obviuosly the VOTERS dont want that
i see no reason not to give mrs clinton these delegates 73...the cacuss system was pretty flawed and biased so why not...obama is backing in...why not more questions on that by the press...its always about her getting out..obviuosly the VOTERS dont want that ....... whatever
To Researcher: I don't think there's a chance a single Hillary supporter will vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination, and I'm not sure where you found such an idea. I don't think any Democrat wants that.
Oh, and Nick, thanks for flaunting your vocabulary (I have one, too), but it doesn't make your point any more valid.
I'm an Obama supporter, but still think the DNC made a wrong, illogical decision, and I don't understand the name-calling and vitriol aimed at Sen. Clinton's supporters. I am becoming more and more a "one person one vote" believer with every weird election that passes. I'm tired of a committe, a Secretary of State, the Supreme Court, or anyone else deciding whether my vote means anything.
That being said, we are in the blessed position of having two eminently qualified Dems in this race, either of whom would serve very well as President. What we need to consider most is who can beat McCain in the general election and how we all pull together to accomplish that win.
A little P.S. to Guy Incognito: You might also ask, "If I don't sign up for the race or show up for the game, should I still get some of the points?"
Sure, vote for McKinney and get the point across nicely. Certainly John McCain will thank you for that vote. Or vote for Ralph Nader and have your "protest" vote heard like it was in 2000. Mc Cain will thank you for that too. Or simpoly stay at home and don't vote (like a dummy).
All of those options will get us Bush's third term. Is that what you really want?
As for the DNC, I think the decision was done fairly and openly. Michigan voters that didn't vote can't be heard can they? And even if you gave all the votes to Hillary, she still would be behind Obama wouldn't she?
The bottom line is we need a Democrat in the White House. Anybody gonna disagree with that??? Vote for whoever gets the nomination - that's what I'm going to do.
rick, please explain how the caucus was flawed and somehow Clinton should receive the full 73 delegates?
No one seems to think it's a flaw that Clinton is receiving more of the MI delegates even though neither him or Edwards name even appeared on the ballot, yet she still comes out ahead.
Quite frankly, if you REALLY PAY ATTENTION to the Obama camp, he is not asking her to quit, he has been saying all along she should stay in until all the primaries are done tomorrow. The writing is on the wall, it is time to Mrs. Clinton to bow out gracefully and pull the party together after Tuesday; I'm sure if the roles were switched everyone would be asking the same of Senator Obama and rightfully so,.
This is not a black or white issue, a man or woman issue, it is an issue of a party that has got to unify or this country is doomed.
Where is Obama getting all his money? What group of donors will he be beholden to? . . . . . The simple truth, detailed in all Obama's filings, is that Obama is getting "all that money" from about 1.5 million Americans, with an AVERAGE DONATION OF $91! . . . . . That's who Obama is totally beholden to. Ordinary Americans like me (and you!).
Tascha,
I'm very sorry that you take such a view of the process that has been played out in this effort to select the Democratic candidate for President. You should actually DO some serious research in African-American History, (NO Google, READ PLENTY of books, both pro and con)and get many FACTS to assist you in making decisions in matters of such importance.
As a 67 year old Black man, that has constantly read History, Humanities, Politics, World Affairs, etc with very many detours into other disciplines, brought about by the challenge to "Seek the answer," I've realized that the more you research, the more your inate curiousity challenges you to keep looking for more!!
I'm also speaking from the advantage of having been a scared, but determined college kid, that "Took it to the streets in North Carolina, (Johnson C Smith University, Charlotte,NC) in the Spring of 1960, and have fought racisim from even BEFORE that time.
Your thoughts about Black people needing to be "educated" in the art of politics, flies in the face, and denigrates, ALL WHO HAVE GONE BEFORE, from the first slave that stood up in rebellion against being dehumanized, to the present day!!
Consider this one point, as you live your life in this country we call home; given all of the inequities AGAINST our slave foreparents, JUST HOW did we gain the freedoms we have at present? As Barbara Jordan once famously said, " If you want to play the game, you MUST know the rules!!" And my addendum to that sage advice, is to KNOW ALL THE RULES!!
i didnt mention race or gender ,you did..i resent the , REALLY PAY ATTENTION,pretty common knowledge that these caucuses are not a good way to go ,and are flawed, and we could argue that all day but they are ,the arragance of the obama people is gonna cost him, and thats not just me,down to earth folks just dont care for that uppidy stuff...and he s been losing ,no matter how many states you guys want to ignore,they ll make thier voices hear in nov, whether you guys want them to or not
Very well said.
We are not going to vote for that racist Obama. Senator Clinton was thrown under the bus by Dean and his henchmen. We will not forget.
Somehow, Dean and the rest try to make it seem like they're taking the high road and the rest of us who support HRC are taking the low road if we continue to support our candidate. It is apparently Obama's candidacy to lose now, and he probably will, because no amount of hot air from the DNC will change the reality that the Democratic base voted for HRC. The DNC better hope that Obama can carry the swing states, cuz that may be all he'll get.
Ruining her political future? She's already done that. Personally, I will *never* vote for another Clinton (I voted for Bill, but now see him for what he is, a Republicrat in sheep's clothing). HRC is planning on paying off the insurance companies by delivering to them a requirement that even people who CAN'T afford health isurance be required to buy it, and if they can't they will be finede. Yet another instance of the poor being robbed to pay the rich. She has her hands so deep in the corporate pockets that I think she's tugging on their socks.
Now that she has been shown to be a sore loser also. It is time that we elect a president who has extensive experience with world affairs from the time he/she was a child. That someone must know intuitively that we are no better or worse than other nations and people. We are already in deep do-do internationally, the "chicken's coming home to roost" is an accurate statement (Rev. Wright may be an annoyance, but he's actually a wise man). Its time to curb the corporate powers that have gotten us into this mess AND to acknowledge and pay amends to people who were wronged.
From my knothole, there is only one choice for the presidency. I worry, though, that the money required to gain the presidency will corrupt Obama irreparably.
Someone with a user id "white pride worldwide" won't vote for Obama because Obama is a racist?
Look in the mirror, friend.
"Projection makes perception," for sure.
I truely have had enough of this about Clinton and Obama supporters this or that. Except for a few select gaffs and whoppers, this is not about the candidates or their supporters. We have a system within the Democratic Party to select presidential nominees that is broken. Pointing fingers only pulls at an existing tear. It would be more useful to see what can be done to fix our process both now, if possible, and in the future. The rest of this is just salt in someone's wound that we need for our collective futures. Let the broken process find it's logical conclusion and let's stop kicking our brothers and sisters for not being created in our own image.
I really don't need your invitation to stop supporting the damn Democrat party, but thanks anyway. If you want more of the same, just close your mind and vote A or B. It doesn't matter, you'll get more of the same with either of them.
Look at their RECORDS. Past behavior is a predictor of future behavior. You cannot seriously tell me that you believe the Democrats will make any substantive change in the fascist state we live in. If you believe that, you're delusional. We will never get single payer health care. We will never do anything meaningful to stop climate change until it's too late. We will never tip the balance of power back to labor. We will never have economic justice. If Katrina had happened during a Democrat presidency, the outcome would be the same.
Don't YOU GET IT?
-Wexler
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a caucus is flawed, and quite frankly asking for an explanation shouldn't make me, or anybody, "uppity". Understanding how the political process works just makes everyone an informed participant in the voting process, including you, rick.
Quite frankly, you are being a bit presumptive that I'm an "arrogant Obama person" just because I point out obvious observations that can and should apply to either candidate.
Well, since you're not American (wish I wasnt), you dont know what its like to be bankrupt over health care bills here--with no social safety net. Obama (as well as HIllary) took lots of $$ from Wall St. and his wife is a lawyer for a hopital--20,000 in US will die from a lack of health care each year. What is MORAL about that?
What happen to ALL the people who use to scream: 'Don't let the Super-D's, 'steal' the Primary, it should be determined by the Voters??
How do you think Obama's winning?? I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with Super-D's.
I have no 'horse' in this race, I joined the Green Party, after Edwards suspended. I don't like the Centrist/Corporate positions of either of these two Democratic Candidates, so maybe I see things differently, then those with a side to take.
I don't beleive ANY super-d's should have committed until after one person WON the nomination (via pledged delegates) or until the Primary Voting was over.
i think your name there, explains it pretty well...complete mayhem.....lot of people[ordinary folks] dont have the time or the interest to attend a caucas,even though they have a person they would vote for...these things are a stacked deck and dont refleck the general population...now i think your probably a fine person and all...but i hope we dont have a national caucas to elect people... that would be a zoo...but im sure the people at msnbc or the other slanted press of this country would agree with you...but for mrs clinton its has been get out get out...befor he loses..and he s been losing BIG...very little press on that ...now its dont bother to vote because its over...i say vote,make your opion known...mrs clinton has a maternal instinct, she s has served the people since she was a young lady [very involved] and the american people have been her cubs who she cares about deeply and she s not going to give them up easily....i think the press and the dnc has done a real hatchet job on her...see ya at the caucas,..... oops cant gotta work...enjoy
As a single mother who works 40+ hours, I'm just like you "ordinary" people, but that does not give me the excuse not to be informed and participate in the electoral process whether it's a caucus or a primary, that's just laziness and complacency.
Yes, I have a "mothering instinct" part of which includes teaching my daughter to make intelligent decisions based on fact, not hyperbole from the left AND right leaning press. I suggest you go to www.factcheck.com, an excellent website from the Annenburg University in PA that looks at ALL the candidates histories, policies, etc. and gives an excellent non-partisan, well researched fact check, and then make the decision who to vote for, being well informed on everyone's warts.
And what does my name, complete mayhem, reveal to you, besides what you want to read into it - it's all subjective, isn't it?
What are you smoking when you come up with these stats. Your claims are absurd and your math is totally flawed. I'll bet you got some of your information from Carl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.