I guess that makes winning Florida a big deal for Obama, so he can counter Michigan's delegates that Clinton won, effectively neutralizing her win there.

Hmmm.

What if the primary season ends and none of the candidates have enough votes for the nomination — unless you seated the delegates from Michigan and Florida?

If that happens, there's going to be rioting, man.

broadsword @ 3:

What happens? God willing, Gore will show up at the convention and be nominated by acclimation.

The climate will nominate Gore?

Al will win the War on Terroism

What's a war without Gore?

It is absolutly ridiculous that all the primaries dont happen at the same time. Ideally it wouldnt be in the height of winter, because many peope in northern climates cannot make it because of the weather. The idea of a caucus has some advantages but you could have those on a ballot. Here's a novel idea:

All the primaries are on the same day, and absentee ballots are also accepted. Voters can mark their tope three choices, weighting each candidate based on how much they support them. The system as it is now is far from a democracy!

I think it is boneheaded for the democrats to boycott or try to leave michigan out. Who decided that some states should get it earlier than others????

It should be fascinating to watch, considering that 40% of the Democratic vote was uncommitted. Just how will they allocate those delegates?

Interesting, maybe they (clinton or obama) can do rock paper sissors to decide who gets the nomination.

Maybe that's the point..Maybe the DNC already has someone in mind as the democratic presidential nominee, by doing this the Party will eventually decide who there going to announce as DPN....I'm just saying there's something very UNDEMOCRATIC about this policy the DNC is running.

Its a house of cards built on dry sand. And its going to collapse very soon.

Hey, can somebody answer this question then?

I live in FL. When I vote in the primaries on Jan 29, does that mean that regardless of who wins/loses, the Democratic candidates will not collect the delegate points, making my vote in vain?

There is already talk that Michigan will hold some sort of a caucus down the road to avoid a convention fight. The MDP really screwed up badly on this.

wisconsin @ 11:

Barack Obama's largest single source of campaign financing is from Exelon - a nuclear energy company. They have contaminate several communities water in Illinois with radioactive tritium. One difference is his voting record and Clinton's is on a version of the 2005 energy bill in which Obama voted for a bill that gave the nuclear industry an extension on its taxpayer financed insurance plan, as well as billions in nuclear industry subsidies.

Edwards is by far the most progressive choice, yet polls suggest he has the best chance of winning in november too!

O.T. a bit. The votes are in at msnbc for who won the debates last night. Clinton 20%. Obama 72%. Edwards 8.1%. Who are the bozos that voted in this poll. We know that the commentaters tried to focus away from John Edwards and the media this morning almost treated him like Kucinich, as if he wasn’t even there. I felt that Edwards was the most consistant with his message and his message is for change by taking our government back. I participated in the thread last night and there were a bunch of comments by people who wren’t even watching the debate. I have to wonder if the voters in msnbc’s poll watched it, also. I would like to see what the rest of you think.

Jason B @ 15:

This is why I refuse to support Hillary. Obama and Edwards withdrew their names from the primary race in Michigan, because that was the right thing to do. Hillary DID NOT.

So now, when it comes time for the delegates to vote, watch as Michigan gets in and sends their delegates to vote for her. And yet, no one calls her out on this.

Her election decided not to withdraw her name. They had plenty of time, they simply decided to leave her name on there.

If you want a FAIR primary, then she should have pulled her name off that ballot. She didn't, which shows you exactly how dirty she's willing to play. I can't believe she has ANY supporters when she pulls stuff like this. But there you go.

As a Michigan Democrat who voted "uncommitted" I predict that the whole debacle will hurt the Democratic candidate in November. Nearly everyone I have spoken with about it is pissed at the party and pissed at Edwards and Obama for pulling their names off, and pissed at Sen. Clinton for playing the angles and winning - and along with the general pissedness is an increase in cynicism and apathy. Generally, folks here think that Michigan's economy is not a "one-state recession" and is merely leading the way much of the rest of the country is going, but we've been abandoned by nearly everyone in Washington. Except for that best of all possible Senators, Carl Levin.

The whole darn thing is undemocratic and unDemocratic.

broadsword @ 3:

What happens? God willing, Gore will show up at the convention and be nominated by acclimation.

That would be too cool.

In the meantime, Hillary won! You go girl.

T from Michigan @ 26:

As a Michigan Democrat who voted "uncommitted" I predict that the whole debacle will hurt the Democratic candidate in November. Nearly everyone I have spoken with about it is pissed at the party and pissed at Edwards and Obama for pulling their names off, and pissed at Sen. Clinton for playing the angles and winning - and along with the general pissedness is an increase in cynicism and apathy. Generally, folks here think that Michigan's economy is not a "one-state recession" and is merely leading the way much of the rest of the country is going, but we've been abandoned by nearly everyone in Washington. Except for that best of all possible Senators, Carl Levin.

for God's sake, how did Hillary "play the angles?" She just left her name on the ballot. I've never seen a better job of demonizing people than the Obama Democrats are doing this year. At least with the Republicans, they Swift boated the opposition, not their own party.

The whole darn thing is undemocratic and unDemocratic.

balthus @ 29:

Jason B @ 15:

This is why I refuse to support Hillary. Obama and Edwards withdrew their names from the primary race in Michigan, because that was the right thing to do. Hillary DID NOT.

So now, when it comes time for the delegates to vote, watch as Michigan gets in and sends their delegates to vote for her. And yet, no one calls her out on this.

Her election decided not to withdraw her name. They had plenty of time, they simply decided to leave her name on there.

If you want a FAIR primary, then she should have pulled her name off that ballot. She didn't, which shows you exactly how dirty she's willing to play. I can't believe she has ANY supporters when she pulls stuff like this. But there you go.

Yeah, and if Al Gore and John Kerry had used every trick in the book to defeat Bush, they might have won. So, let's nominate candidates who don't understand that elections in the U.S. are won and lost by the rules of the jungle. After all, who cares if the Republicans win, as long as we play fair, right?

I bet if Obama had left his name on the ballot and won, the Obamanians would be out in the streets celebrating. What a bunch of hypocrites.

The above story makes it sound as if we have any say so in who is elected. Anyone who believes that the winner hasn't yet been decided raise your hand.

Steve @ 17:

All the major democratic candidates supported to withdraw their name from the Michigan ballot. Hillary Clinton did not because she is a slimy politician who craves power.

Nicole Belle, who wrote this, half of her articles are VERY pro Hillary and I think that slant gives a bad reputation for Crooks & Liars.

I think C&L has a Pro Obama slant. They seem to give Obama a pass just like the MSM. And then there's Kos which is an unapologetic "Hate-Hillary" site.

fiver @ 21:

How is it that all the candidates - except Hillary Clinton - had to withdraw their names and promise not to campaign? How did she get this special exemption, and why isn't she getting blasted for it? (I know, I know, I know... any attack on Hillary is right wing and misogynistic)

This just reeks of inside baseball.

Hey, you mean we might just have a candidate shrewd enough to exploit loopholes in the system, screw her opponents, and do whatever it takes to win? Fantastic! After all, if we'd only had someone like that the last two elections, we might have won... or maybe you've forgotten how much fun it was to watch our hapless teams get outsmarted, outhustled, outcheated, and defeated? Tell me you weren't longing for Gore and Kerry to play dirty if necessary...and tell me you won't feel the same way if it comes down to the wire again. Until then, save your piety and start trying to wrap your brain around which candidate knows...and does...what it takes to win.

KKKaT @ 32:

is that the best you got?

fiver @ 21:

How is it that all the candidates - except Hillary Clinton - had to withdraw their names and promise not to campaign? How did she get this special exemption, and why isn't she getting blasted for it? (I know, I know, I know... any attack on Hillary is right wing and misogynistic)

This just reeks of inside baseball.

...may be considered RW & anti-female, but it is the truth...smells like a DNC/Billary trick to me...watch & see come convention time...'Lil 'ol Barak asked to step aside, release his delegates for the "good of the party."

"What if the primary season ends and none of the candidates have enough votes for the nomination — unless you seated the delegates from Michigan and Florida?"

The Supreme Court will appoint the Republican.

balthus @ 38:

fiver @ 21:

How is it that all the candidates - except Hillary Clinton - had to withdraw their names and promise not to campaign? How did she get this special exemption, and why isn't she getting blasted for it? (I know, I know, I know... any attack on Hillary is right wing and misogynistic)

This just reeks of inside baseball.

Hey, you mean we might just have a candidate shrewd enough to exploit loopholes in the system, screw her opponents, and do whatever it takes to win? Fantastic! After all, if we'd only had someone like that the last two elections, we might have won... or maybe you've forgotten how much fun it was to watch our hapless teams get outsmarted, outhustled, outcheated, and defeated? Tell me you weren't longing for Gore and Kerry to play dirty if necessary...and tell me you won't feel the same way if it comes down to the wire again. Until then, save your piety and start trying to wrap your brain around which candidate knows...and does...what it takes to win.

Well said, balthus!

I'm tired of the party leadership's reindeer games

Travis @ 41:

balthus @ 38:

fiver @ 21:

How is it that all the candidates - except Hillary Clinton - had to withdraw their names and promise not to campaign? How did she get this special exemption, and why isn't she getting blasted for it? (I know, I know, I know... any attack on Hillary is right wing and misogynistic)

This just reeks of inside baseball.

Hey, you mean we might just have a candidate shrewd enough to exploit loopholes in the system, screw her opponents, and do whatever it takes to win? Fantastic! After all, if we'd only had someone like that the last two elections, we might have won... or maybe you've forgotten how much fun it was to watch our hapless teams get outsmarted, outhustled, outcheated, and defeated? Tell me you weren't longing for Gore and Kerry to play dirty if necessary...and tell me you won't feel the same way if it comes down to the wire again. Until then, save your piety and start trying to wrap your brain around which candidate knows...and does...what it takes to win.

so you're all for HC winning at all costs, even if her administration is basically going to be GWB 2: Electric Boogaloo?

I'd take any of the Democrats over any of the Republicans. Apparently, you've got a favorite on the other side...someone you would prefer over Clinton, if it came down to one or the other?

I do not care what anyone saids. The Democratic Party is in a very fractured state, and I do not believe it is going to change and all come together in November. I believe we lose in November to a Republican, if Hillary or Obama are chosen to lead our party.

Certainly the race on the GOP side is now officially a race to win delegates not states. Still it is beginning to look like a brokered convention for the GOP, their first since 1948 and the first go past a first ballot since 1952. My prediction is that in a brokered convention Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee. Tom Keane as VP.

On the Democratic side, there hasn't been a brokered convention since 1932 and it is too early to tell whether or not we headed that way. Edwards is quite clever by staying in. He realizes that he may not need to win states outright but rather just go on winning delegates and prevent the other two from claiming first prize. It is a race for delegates after all.

On Michigan and Florida, a compromise will likely have to be arrived at. Probably will involve re-holding the primaries at some later date. Whatever delegates were chosen yesterday should not be seated. The rules were clear and they broke them willfully. They should pay the price. The rules of the games are clear and until you change them, we must abide by them.

Sany @ 52:

I do not care what anyone saids. The Democratic Party is in a very fractured state, and I do not believe it is going to change and all come together in November. I believe we lose in November to a Republican, if Hillary or Obama are chosen to lead our party.

The Dems are always in a "fractured state" because they are a multi-representational party. Unlike the Repugs who put the party above everything else.

Samson- @ 55:

one thing is for certain: i consider myself less likely to become a registered democrat than i did 2 years, 4 years, 6, 8 years ago...

be it hillary or obama, i will have to hold my nose when i vote for a dem in the general election.

the democratic party learned nothing from 2000. a STRONG message was sent, but they are too caught up in corruption, power, graft and egocentrism to understand the message. case in point: hillary is the front runner.

the democratic party establishment is part of the problem. the ralph nader supporters, the kucinich supporters, the environmentalists, the anti-corporate crusaders, etc. vote for democratic candidates, generally, just because they are somewhat better than the GOP choice. but, what they need to understand, is that there is no allegiance, no loyalty and no pride in the mainstream democratic party. there is continual disappointment, discouragement and dread. the dem estab should realize that a certain percentage of people, they take for advantage, would bolt from the party in a second if, and when, a better option comes about. well, i guess that is why the only time the dems and the GOP get along is when they are protecting their neoliberal hegemony on america's political scene.

Hey, is that you Rush?

balthus @ 38:

fiver @ 21:

How is it that all the candidates - except Hillary Clinton - had to withdraw their names and promise not to campaign? How did she get this special exemption, and why isn't she getting blasted for it? (I know, I know, I know... any attack on Hillary is right wing and misogynistic)

This just reeks of inside baseball.

Hey, you mean we might just have a candidate shrewd enough to exploit loopholes in the system, screw her opponents, and do whatever it takes to win? Fantastic! After all, if we'd only had someone like that the last two elections, we might have won... or maybe you've forgotten how much fun it was to watch our hapless teams get outsmarted, outhustled, outcheated, and defeated? Tell me you weren't longing for Gore and Kerry to play dirty if necessary...and tell me you won't feel the same way if it comes down to the wire again. Until then, save your piety and start trying to wrap your brain around which candidate knows...and does...what it takes to win.

SO you want the Dems to turn into the ReTHUGlican party. Um. OK. That'll win an election.

Found this on another site, thought I'd borrow it, cuz it sums up alot of people's feelings in my neck of the woods:

Watching all the crap going on as an outsider yet a political junkie a few things come to mind.

1) We in Canada could have had two elections during the space of these primaries so far..

2) A phrase that makes me shudder.. "He 'looks' Presidential." Now this is just scary.. What about character? Positions etc. Ever seen Jean Chretien twentieth Prime Minister of Canada?

3) You could have the best man for the job but if he is dirt farmer poor you'll never hear about him. A country run by rich guys.

4) It amazes me how ALL the media picks up on the same bullshit at once and it becomes Gospel.. It is now accepted that Hillary cried as in shed actual tears..All I saw/heard was her voice crack.

5) The last few days the media has been consumed with all this race card/woman bullshit. Again what about issues, policy and the like?

If this is how 'The Greatest Nation on Earth' picks it's leader then you get what you deserve. Just try not to fuck over the rest of the Continent thank you.

Cheers. :)

Ron @ 22:

wisconsin @ 11:

Barack Obama's largest single source of campaign financing is from Exelon - a nuclear energy company. They have contaminate several communities water in Illinois with radioactive tritium. One difference is his voting record and Clinton's is on a version of the 2005 energy bill in which Obama voted for a bill that gave the nuclear industry an extension on its taxpayer financed insurance plan, as well as billions in nuclear industry subsidies.

Edwards is by far the most progressive choice, yet polls suggest he has the best chance of winning in november too!

O.T. a bit. The votes are in at msnbc for who won the debates last night. Clinton 20%. Obama 72%. Edwards 8.1%. Who are the bozos that voted in this poll. We know that the commentaters tried to focus away from John Edwards and the media this morning almost treated him like Kucinich, as if he wasn’t even there. I felt that Edwards was the most consistant with his message and his message is for change by taking our government back. I participated in the thread last night and there were a bunch of comments by people who wren’t even watching the debate. I have to wonder if the voters in msnbc’s poll watched it, also. I would like to see what the rest of you think.

I saw it too and did participate a bit in the thread. My take:

Obama: Next to Clinton and Edwards, he looked like a straight out of college kid applying for a CEO position. Obama fell apart on the gun-control question, which should have been easy for him. Sorry Obamanites, but your man got outed as a nuclear energy whore. The way he sold nuclear energy was seeing George W. pander to the oil companies. I loved it when Clinton reminded him his largest campaign funder is a Nuclear Energy company - he couldn't say ANYTHING to deny it, then Edwards chimed in saying that Nuclear plants are expensive and too dangerous for the environment. He fell apart in the energy part "we have to teach Americans how to use less." So nuclear energy and teaching Americans how to conserve energy is your plan? Gotta admit, I even felt bad for him because he knew that he looked bad after his little speech on energy. His "hope" message didn't quite stick this time, his "plan" to resolve economy, energy, paled in comparison to Clinton's and Edwards'.

I did like that Obama would institute a pay raise for teachers. That was good. But nice pretty words and inspirational talks are not going to fix the country's problems. If he becomes president, he's going to be very Bush-like in the sense that he's going to have a team of advisors dicating to him what to do and have ZERO sense of what's happening around him, and that's what scares me about him. Maybe in 10 years from now.

Clinton: She was on fire, really the most out of the 3 that gave a concrete, realistic and detailed look at her plans to do if she becomes president. She broke it down to the nitty gritty and scaled back out to the big picture. You can't say a damn thing, Clinton knows her stuff. She handled her biggest weakness, the Iraq War well, withdrawal within 1 year, starting in first 60 days in office (but they all agreed on that), Bio-fuel, taking away tax subsidies from Big Oil to fund new energy, education, everything was spot on what the country needs and she gave the blueprint of how to do it.

What I wasn't too keen on her was the security/fear factor question, I believe she needs to expand on what she plans to do regarding "terror threats" (and I'm a believe that 9/11 was an inside job) and the FISA bill without breaking constitutional laws as Bush did. I think it was more a tactic of hers to show that she is as tough as any "male" candidate, but it could definitely bite her in the ass.

Edwards: I really liked Edwards too, he also articulated a solid plan regarding education, the economy and came across as Hilary did, with a solid blueprint to what this country needs to get it where it should be. He came across very sympathetically when speaking about education and middle class issues. Kudos to Edwards.

His negative? Hillary reminding him he voted for Yucca Mountain twice, it shook his energy platform off. Also, the " I'm sorry today I voted for that" schtick is getting tired. Yes, we are all remorseful for things we have done, but when your decision affects millions of people, you need to give your decision more thought.

fiver @ 57:

balthus @ 50:

....

I'd take any of the Democrats over any of the Republicans. Apparently, you've got a favorite on the other side...someone you would prefer over Clinton, if it came down to one or the other?

Gotta love the Clinton mind-readers. They never actually point to accomplishments, but turn around, put words in your mouth and attack someone else. We've been fighting against the likes of George W. Bush - you think we haven't seen this tactic before?

I know, on this thread you're advocating these tactics as a Clinton plus. I disagree.

BTW, which health plan of Clinton's do you find superior? The one she gave Walmart employees as Director, or the one she gave America as First Lady? I've been having difficulty determining the difference.

Before I answer your question, why don't you belly up to the bar and answer mine? Just which Republican candidate would you prefer as President than HRC?

Samson- @ 63:

buzz @ 58:

Samson- @ 55:

one thing is for certain: i consider myself less likely to become a registered democrat than i did 2 years, 4 years, 6, 8 years ago...

be it hillary or obama, i will have to hold my nose when i vote for a dem in the general election.

the democratic party learned nothing from 2000. a STRONG message was sent, but they are too caught up in corruption, power, graft and egocentrism to understand the message. case in point: hillary is the front runner.

the democratic party establishment is part of the problem. the ralph nader supporters, the kucinich supporters, the environmentalists, the anti-corporate crusaders, etc. vote for democratic candidates, generally, just because they are somewhat better than the GOP choice. but, what they need to understand, is that there is no allegiance, no loyalty and no pride in the mainstream democratic party. there is continual disappointment, discouragement and dread. the dem estab should realize that a certain percentage of people, they take for advantage, would bolt from the party in a second if, and when, a better option comes about. well, i guess that is why the only time the dems and the GOP get along is when they are protecting their neoliberal hegemony on america's political scene.

Hey, is that you Rush?

your partisan ignorance is amusing.

you keep suckling to the corporate whores, let me know how that goes. actually don't let me know, your near-sighted and ill-informed opinion means nothing to me.

The democratic party is part of the problem? No kidding. Are you part of the solution? Not a chance. If you were, you'd be out going door to door on behalf of whichever candidate you believe in, instead of whining away on blogs about your own victimhood.

balthus @ 65:

Before I answer your question, why don't you belly up to the bar and answer mine? Just which Republican candidate would you prefer as President than HRC?

At this point the answer is "none." The Republicans offer a libertarian whackjob, a couple religious whackjobs, and a bunch of corporate whores. What I don't understand is, with all corporate pawns available on the Republican side, why would anyone cross over to the Democratic side to vote for Hillary?

And yet, here’s the thing: Michigan Democrats went ahead and essentially elected those delegates last night anyway.

But these MI delegates don't count for anything...yet. Or am I wrong? Please don't confuse us!

People in Michigan are outraged with this bullshit. The Democratic Party shot itself in the foot and left us all high and dry. It's a cruel joke that only helps the Republicans.

Thanks Dems for bringing out the Romney vote in droves! Every other commercial has been singing Romney's praises for days and NOTHING from the Democrats.

MI is the eighth biggest state with the biggest financial woes in the country and now we don't matter.

Thank you Democrats for nothing.

What if the primary season ends and none of the candidates have enough votes for the nomination

facta non verba @ 54

You're right.

The delegates votes are just votes for the first round.
After the first round of votes are taken-
You try and make deals.
You have another round of votes.
Repeat that until someone wins and it doesn't matter how long or whom.

Anyone notice that this prez election cycle isn't as viral and obscene as the last one or the 2000?

I think Bush is either dealing with the devil or is very close to someone who is.

fiver @ 69:

balthus @ 65:

Before I answer your question, why don't you belly up to the bar and answer mine? Just which Republican candidate would you prefer as President than HRC?

At this point the answer is "none." The Republicans offer a libertarian whackjob, a couple religious whackjobs, and a bunch of corporate whores. What I don't understand is, with all corporate pawns available on the Republican side, why would anyone cross over to the Democratic side to vote for Hillary?

The Wal-mart plan was better, because it got put into practice and was better than what Wal-mart workers had previously. For sure, I'm no Hillary fan, but IMHO anyone who thinks she would be "Bush Lite" is being just a wee bit disingenuous. Take for example...

would Hillary support the use of torture by our military?
would Hillary have ignored the plight of New Orleans residents?
would Hillary trample the Constitution in order to spy on American citizens?
would Hillary ignore the need to confront global warming?

Perhaps her responses to such issues wouldn't be those you or I might prefer, but would they really be markedly similar to those we've seen from the Bush? A healthy debate is a good thing, but let's stop throwing around absurd claims that do damage to our candidates, when any one of them is better than any of the opposition.

There needs to be some kind of national organization that designates which states have primaries at what time of the election year. Let Iowa and NH go first. Then each state can go in a round-robin configuration which would be different every 4 years. That's the only fair thing. I don't know if the states would agree to give up the ability to set their primaries, but there should be some move to stop the madness. I don't mind having caucuses and primaries in January, but they shouldn't start before the beginning of the calendar year, which is what is going to happen unless someone shows some sanity.

ConcernedCanuck @ 60:

balthus @ 38:

fiver @ 21:

How is it that all the candidates - except Hillary Clinton - had to withdraw their names and promise not to campaign? How did she get this special exemption, and why isn't she getting blasted for it? (I know, I know, I know... any attack on Hillary is right wing and misogynistic)

This just reeks of inside baseball.

Hey, you mean we might just have a candidate shrewd enough to exploit loopholes in the system, screw her opponents, and do whatever it takes to win? Fantastic! After all, if we'd only had someone like that the last two elections, we might have won... or maybe you've forgotten how much fun it was to watch our hapless teams get outsmarted, outhustled, outcheated, and defeated? Tell me you weren't longing for Gore and Kerry to play dirty if necessary...and tell me you won't feel the same way if it comes down to the wire again. Until then, save your piety and start trying to wrap your brain around which candidate knows...and does...what it takes to win.

SO you want the Dems to turn into the ReTHUGlican party. Um. OK. That'll win an election.

As opposed to say, the success we've enjoyed recently? Perhaps you've missed who's been doing all the dirty work, and who's been winning. Because, much as we'd all love to live in fair-game utopia, back here in the real world Florida state Republican party officials oversaw the counting of votes to CHEAT their candidate into the White House, and Max Cleland, a war hero who gave LIMBS for his country in action, was DEFEATED when the repugs smeared him as unpatriotic. And that's just the tip of the ugly iceberg. So yes, much as I hope our party and our candidate is able to stick to the high ground, when the opposition shows up for battle with a cannon, I don't want to be backing someone who shows up with a pea shooter.

blogs are so dangerous! you learn so much shit you wouldn't learn watching tv or even reading the newspaper.

jackpine savage @ 87:

fiver asked said this: "My understanding was that every Michigan voter received a ballot with Clinton’s name on it - and no other."

That is not what happened. The ballot listed Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, and uncommitted. (There was also a spot for write in, but if you wrote in a name they threw tha ballot away...and apparently they weren't going to tell anyone about that fact until it leaked)

The Michigan Democratic Party deserves more angry emails, letters, and phone calls than they could count in a lifetime. But keep in mind that regular voters don't have much say in this. Besides, it was the state legislature that made the decision. Michigan lost half of its delegates to the Republican convention...which hollows Romney's win significantly.

The other thing is that while the national party was well within their right to revoke those delegates and well within their right to punish and well within their right to tell the candidates to take their names off of the ballot and not campaign. How come it is that when Michigan breaks the DNC rules, it gets punished; but when a Clinton breaks the DNC rules she does not get punished? (note: Kucinich tried to withdraw his name, but he was told it was too late)

Last i heard, and it could change, those uncommitted delegates would be assigned by the MDP (if they are, in fact, reseated). The biggest guns in the MDP are all staunch Clintonistas. So when i went into that booth, i assumed that i had the choice between Clinton, Clinton, and Clinton. Hurray for democracy!

Good news is, she STILL only beat "Uncommitted" by 15%. If I was a Hillary supporter, I'd be DAMN WORRIED about that little statistic.

balthus @ 89:

buzz @ 73:

Hey, balthus, I enjoy reading your posts. There's a lot of angry and confused Dems (or Repug trolls) here and they need a good slap in the face to wake up. Thanx.

You're welcome. I don't post often, as the trolls are very tiresome, and do appreciate a pat on the back!

Why is it that on most Blogs, anyone that isn't in agreement 100% of the time is labelled a troll? Is that like Faux News labelling everyone a "Liberal" like it's an eevile virus ready to destroy ya? The only people I've ever seen on here labelled trolls, are the realistic people that don't play trumpets and do backflips for certain candidates, which depends on the post. Some days it's Hillary, some Obama, some Edwards. And usually the ones doing the labelling, are names that are unfamiliar.

ConcernedCanuck @ 90:

balthus @ 89:

buzz @ 73:

Hey, balthus, I enjoy reading your posts. There's a lot of angry and confused Dems (or Repug trolls) here and they need a good slap in the face to wake up. Thanx.

You're welcome. I don't post often, as the trolls are very tiresome, and do appreciate a pat on the back!

Why is it that on most Blogs, anyone that isn't in agreement 100% of the time is labelled a troll? Is that like Faux News labelling everyone a "Liberal" like it's an eevile virus ready to destroy ya? The only people I've ever seen on here labelled trolls, are the realistic people that don't play trumpets and do backflips for certain candidates, which depends on the post. Some days it's Hillary, some Obama, some Edwards. And usually the ones doing the labelling, are names that are unfamiliar.

Your don't think there are repug think tanks staffed with people who do nothing but post to liberal blogs? Disagreement is one thing - hatred is a good sign of a repug or a lost dem drunk on GOP Kool-aid.

liberalNmoderation @ 83:

Dear gawd....I'm sufferin' from primary fatigue...is it November yet?

I hope not, I'm still working on that damn turkey!

Sany @ 52:

I do not care what anyone saids. The Democratic Party is in a very fractured state, and I do not believe it is going to change and all come together in November. I believe we lose in November to a Republican, if Hillary or Obama are chosen to lead our party.

I saids: vote in the primary against the corporatists. end your misery on your own.

btw, NJ passed a law for Vote verification through audit today. It should be completely enforceable by the november election, but probably not the primary.

appnzllr @ 82:

There needs to be some kind of national organization that designates which states have primaries at what time of the election year. Let Iowa and NH go first. Then each state can go in a round-robin configuration which would be different every 4 years. That's the only fair thing. I don't know if the states would agree to give up the ability to set their primaries, but there should be some move to stop the madness. I don't mind having caucuses and primaries in January, but they shouldn't start before the beginning of the calendar year, which is what is going to happen unless someone shows some sanity.

Why should Iowa and NH go first? Isn't that unfair to the majority of the population? Wouldn't it be fairer if we have a state from the west coast, east coast, northeast, midwest, and the south having their election on the same day? That would have been a better representation for this nation and would be a far better compromise even though i prefer the whole nation to have it on the same day. By preserving the few small states first, you are just giving extra power to the party heads of those states.

And you all do know that Florida and Michigan got their primaries shifted early because of the Repugs passing those laws rather than the democrats themselves? They just go along as to not alienating their own constituents. For Clinton to be willing to put her name up in those 2 states, she got my support. For Obama and Edwards to back out, this also made them the 'establishment' as they choose to bow to those party heads of the early states. Why do you think they have the super delegates of those early states supporting them? You think they really believe in change? It's all about power and backdoor deals. And if the democrats intend to shut off Michigan and Florida, whoever becomes the nominee will be a 51% president too regardless of whether it is Clinton or not. Michigan's primary problem is the economy and that's an opportunity for the democrats but we dump them away.

Hillary Clinton is not Bush. I realized that many bloggers especially those siding with Obama are really ungrateful of the good times we have in the 90s. If you all have stick up and fight alongside Hillary with her healthcare in 1994, we would already have universal healthcare. And now you are all blaming her for her lack of healthcare plan? She has fought the Repugs for 35 years and she has brought many progressive agendas to this nation. All the progressive policies we have now is partly due to her hard work combating the Repubs and getting smeared almost everyday throughout her political career and you are all smearing her as well?

And i wonder if you all realized that clinton's supporters hardly smear edwards, we only smear Obama. And do you know why? That's because Obama is more similar to Bush than Clinton and you are all blinded by his charisma. His voting record shows it all. He only talks and provide visions and nothing more. He is a conservative democrat in the state of illinois. He picked his votes well, which is why he has no record to show on controversial issues. That itself is a judgement of honesty and politicking. At least Edwards has the guts to show us where he stands and we can make a sound judgement out of him. And finally Obama himself has an antigay policy by having an ultrahomophobic gays representing him on gay issues. That is Barack Obama. If you have problems with equal rights for all. Obama is your guy.

Steven @ 98:

appnzllr @ 82:

There needs to be some kind of national organization that designates which states have primaries at what time of the election year. Let Iowa and NH go first. Then each state can go in a round-robin configuration which would be different every 4 years. That's the only fair thing. I don't know if the states would agree to give up the ability to set their primaries, but there should be some move to stop the madness. I don't mind having caucuses and primaries in January, but they shouldn't start before the beginning of the calendar year, which is what is going to happen unless someone shows some sanity.

Why should Iowa and NH go first? Isn't that unfair to the majority of the population? Wouldn't it be fairer if we have a state from the west coast, east coast, northeast, midwest, and the south having their election on the same day? That would have been a better representation for this nation and would be a far better compromise even though i prefer the whole nation to have it on the same day. By preserving the few small states first, you are just giving extra power to the party heads of those states.

And you all do know that Florida and Michigan got their primaries shifted early because of the Repugs passing those laws rather than the democrats themselves? They just go along as to not alienating their own constituents. For Clinton to be willing to put her name up in those 2 states, she got my support. For Obama and Edwards to back out, this also made them the 'establishment' as they choose to bow to those party heads of the early states. Why do you think they have the super delegates of those early states supporting them? You think they really believe in change? It's all about power and backdoor deals. And if the democrats intend to shut off Michigan and Florida, whoever becomes the nominee will be a 51% president too regardless of whether it is Clinton or not. Michigan's primary problem is the economy and that's an opportunity for the democrats but we dump them away.

Hillary Clinton is not Bush. I realized that many bloggers especially those siding with Obama are really ungrateful of the good times we have in the 90s. If you all have stick up and fight alongside Hillary with her healthcare in 1994, we would already have universal healthcare. And now you are all blaming her for her lack of healthcare plan? She has fought the Repugs for 35 years and she has brought many progressive agendas to this nation. All the progressive policies we have now is partly due to her hard work combating the Repubs and getting smeared almost everyday throughout her political career and you are all smearing her as well?

And i wonder if you all realized that clinton's supporters hardly smear edwards, we only smear Obama. And do you know why? That's because Obama is more similar to Bush than Clinton and you are all blinded by his charisma. His voting record shows it all. He only talks and provide visions and nothing more. He is a conservative democrat in the state of illinois. He picked his votes well, which is why he has no record to show on controversial issues. That itself is a judgement of honesty and politicking. At least Edwards has the guts to show us where he stands and we can make a sound judgement out of him. And finally Obama himself has an antigay policy by having an ultrahomophobic gays representing him on gay issues. That is Barack Obama. If you have problems with equal rights for all. Obama is your guy.

SPOT ON & thank you.

Clinton and Edwards are both VERY QUALIFIED to become President. With the exception of a few issues, I generally do like both of their plans for the country if elected.

You are right, Obama is very Bush-like, he doesn't know what it takes to govern a nation. Had he been governor of Illinois, MAYBE he'd have more experience to bring to the table but he doesn't. He will be very much a Manchurian candidate, with a staff full of people pulling his strings while he just smiles and makes nice speeches. Who will be Obama's "Dick Cheney?" "Condoleeza Rice," "Karl Rove?

If Obama would have waited 10 more years, maybe I'd think differently since he'd have the knowledge and experience to back him up. One thing is him writing books, passionately giving a speech - the other is standing side by side to your colleagues that are more qualified and experienced than you, and are more prepared to lead the country as soon as they are elected. His answers were so blah, generic and zero substance - he looked like a neophyte next to both Clinton and Edwards. Democrats, particularly the Obamanites really need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and deeply analyze each candidate issue by issue.

With all that said, I'll vote for Obama ONLY if he wins the nomination, because I vote Democrat straight down the line, not because I believe in his "hope" message.

My first choice is Clinton. Does that mean that I agree blindly with everything she said last night? No. I think I proved that in my lengthy post above. Second choice by a slight margin is Edwards, who I voted for VP on the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I also think he'd make a wise, progressive president.

SM @ 100:

SPOT ON & thank you.

Clinton and Edwards are both VERY QUALIFIED to become President. With the exception of a few issues, I generally do like both of their plans for the country if elected.

You are right, Obama is very Bush-like, he doesn't know what it takes to govern a nation. Had he been governor of Illinois, MAYBE he'd have more experience to bring to the table but he doesn't. He will be very much a Manchurian candidate, with a staff full of people pulling his strings while he just smiles and makes nice speeches. Who will be Obama's "Dick Cheney?" "Condoleeza Rice," "Karl Rove?

If Obama would have waited 10 more years, maybe I'd think differently since he'd have the knowledge and experience to back him up. One thing is him writing books, passionately giving a speech - the other is standing side by side to your colleagues that are more qualified and experienced than you, and are more prepared to lead the country as soon as they are elected. His answers were so blah, generic and zero substance - he looked like a neophyte next to both Clinton and Edwards. Democrats, particularly the Obamanites really need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and deeply analyze each candidate issue by issue.

With all that said, I'll vote for Obama ONLY if he wins the nomination, because I vote Democrat straight down the line, not because I believe in his "hope" message.

My first choice is Clinton. Does that mean that I agree blindly with everything she said last night? No. I think I proved that in my lengthy post above. Second choice by a slight margin is Edwards, who I voted for VP on the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I also think he'd make a wise, progressive president.

The first thing that gave you away as a paid Clinton campaign supporter is when you claimed that Clinton, who has been a Senator for 7 years and held no other elected office, and Edwards, who was Senator for one term and held nothing else, are both more qualified to be President than Barack Obama, a Constitutional Law professor, who has been elected to office 3 times, has been a Senator for 10 years, and has a long history of public involvement, voter registration and community service.

Look, if you want to like Clinton, that's fine. But don't be disingenuous. You can't claim either Edwards or Clinton as having more experience than Obama; he's been in elected office longer than both. I also like that Edwards and Obama have been working very well together against Clinton, and that you would support her OR Edwards but not Obama. Why not? Is it perhaps that Edwards is so far behind that he's a safe bet, whereas Obama is nipping a little too close to Hillary's heels?

I can read you like a book, SM. You hate Obama like it's your job - that's probably because it IS your job.

Bit of background just out, media stocks are tanking especially Newscorp.

The BIG NEWS was that in a virtually uncontested primary, sHillary couldn't even get 60% of the vote.

The Nation: John Nichols -Michigan's Ominous Message for Hillary Clinton

DETROIT -- The question in Tuesday's Michigan Democratic primary was not whether Hillary Clinton could beat anybody.

The question was whether Clinton could beat nobody.

As the only leading Democratic contender to keep her name on the ballot after Michigan officials moved their primary ahead of the opening date scheduled by the Democratic National Committee, Clinton was perfectly positioned. She had no serious opposition. She also had the strong support of top Michigan Democrats such as Governor Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow.

Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. That's how it went for George Bush when he was running without serious opposition in Republican primaries in 2004, and for Bill Clinton when he was essentially unopposed in the Democratic primaries in 1996.

But Hillary Clinton got nowhere near 90 percent of the vote in Tuesday's Michigan primary.

With most of the ballots counted, the New York senator was winning uninspiring 55 percent of the Democratic primary vote.

A remarkable 40 percent of Michiganders who participated in the primary voted for nobody, marking the "Uncommitted" option on their ballots. Another 4 percent backed Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich ..

Jason B @ 101:

Steven @ 98:
<blockquoteI'm not "ungrateful" about the "good times" of the 90s. You're right that Hillary is not Bush - she's also not Bill. And thanks for blaming us for her terrible health care project from the 90's. It failed not because of us, but because she was inexperienced and tried to take advantage of an office she was not elected to, to take on the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the country. She might have had the right goal in mind, but part of the Art of War is knowing which battles to fight - she picked the wrong battle and was not ready.

Since that Hillarycare debacle, BTW, she's now been bought by those same health care companies. You won't see Universal healthcare from her, she knows which side her bread is buttered on. That's why she's so open about taing money from lobbyists.

My Dear Jason B:

I don't know what you where doing in the 90s, but I had already voted in 2 presidential elections during that time.

THIS is the history behind Hillary's Universal Helathcare:

Congress did not pass it because Bill Clinton was a Democratic President with a Republican majority in congress, in both houses. Republicans will eat their children before they pass a law that will ultimately protect them, unless it has to do with war and cutting taxes.

Especially a bill that was written and endorsed by a "First Lady" with more experience and know how than any of them.

Look it up.

Beauty Pageants

If we don't have a candidate with a fairly certain lock on a first ballot victory by the end of February, what will almost certainly happen is that FL and MI will be allowed to treat their January primaries as "beauty pageants". They will be allowed to schedule caucuses, or conventions, or perhaps even primaries (I'm not familiar with the relevant state law in these two states, so I can't say if this is an option in either), at a later date in order to choose their voting delegates.

This will happen because it will meet everyone's interests. Dems in FL and MI will be eager to have a say on who our nominee will be by sending voting delegates to the convention. The candidates will be eager to win these delegates. Even party officials will be glad to give the candidates one last trove of delegates to fight over, in the hope that one of them would thereby get his or her total over the number needed for a first ballot win. The party really, really does not want a contested convention, and its officials will abandon even strongly stated prior positions on the supposed perfidy of FL and MI, if doing so lessens even slightly the chance of a contested convention, or even just promises to shorten the floor fight by significantly strengthening any of the candidates.

Steven @ 105:

A respond to Jason B. at 101.

So it seems that you prefer to preserver the status quo of Iowa and NH first. Haven't no money to campaign is just an excuse. Those top 3 candidates already have tens of millions of dollars to campaign, not to say the 421 groups (i forgotten the no) who indirectly paid for most of Edward's advertisement. So money is just an excuse for representation. Instead of Iowa and NH first, why not rotate between each of the west coast, east coast, northeast, midwest, and the south states? That way, you will not give those party chiefs so much power and influence. With internet being such a cheap way to raise money and communicate as well as the wonders of youtube, the expensive to campaign excuse is just made for by those party chiefs who do not want to lose their power.

So it seems that you prefer to have a 48 state strategy to win the White House? Clinton didn't jump ship, it was those state chiefs and the DNC who brokered the deal to omit Florida and Michigan. Mind you those 2 states has more seats than many of the early states combine. And you are calling this democracy??@@!! It's the Repugs who played politics and shift the primaries early, and if you value those 2 states you better follow their game or risk alienating the voters. Why should the democrat voters be punished for something the Repugs did? And why didn't the other presidential candidates other than Clinton, Gravel and Kucinich stood up to the DNC? And you dare to call Clinton undemocratic? This is an opportunity of 'change' and you have decided to remain in the 'status quo'.

So now you are talking about Hillary being inexperience to take on the pharmaceutical industries in the 1990s. What makes you think Obama could do better? Put that aside, it's the people who doesn't want universal healthcare in the 1990s. If they had wanted it they would have supported universal healthcare. But apparently the people did not. And you say Clinton has been bought by the healthcare industry? Give me one candidate who has not been bought by any industry who are still in the race? What's the difference? Now is the chance for Clinton to make those industries payback and yet the base has abandon her.

I have seen all their records. Obama only differs from Clinton in 4 minor votes. He even avoided to vote for the Iran resolution. He voted for the 2005 energy bill. Crooksandliars many weeks ago has a post on the ultrahomophobic speaker representing Obama. You are just picking whichever vote that is convenient for you to show how progressive Obama is in Illinois. Go do your research and browse through his whole record. People in Illinois couldn't have called him one of the conservatives democrats for no reason.

Clinton might not have been in office for that long, but she has been advocating policies for 35 years. During Clinton years, she was the most powerful first lady in the history of this nation as she has from time to time advocate policies. That is experience. You all say Hillary is not Bill but in fact bringing Hillary back will bring Bill back. Remember during their White House years that Bill always refer to 'we' governing instead of 'I'. Furthurmore it is known quite publicly that Bill's policies which lead us to many progressive agendas are partially Hillary's concepts that she had been advocating. Look through Hillary's 35 years of public service and you will know what experience is. Obama has state experience. That is different from the federal government experience. He hasn't even finished 1 term of his senate and he is not doing his job as a senator right now. Maybe 10 more years and he would be perfectly viable if he can really show his capability.

Talking about democracy, i'll let the viewers judge - omitting the voters from 2 big states or budgeting to campaign in multiple states is more democratic. I wonder how you would feel if your vote does not count. That reminds me of the Boston Tea Party - no taxes without representation.

Kudos for that commentary!

Regarding the FL & MI primary, unfortunately, I do live in FL and I am going to vote as I always do despite the fact that my vote may or may not be counted.

It's funny because "the polls" say that Clinton is expected to win FL. So that does take away delegates from her if they aren't counted, and YES, taxation without representation!

I received the information newsletter that the Board of Elections sends out a few days ago and EVERY CANDIDATE IS POSTED. Even Richardson, who already dropped out of the race - not that "Uncommited" category as in MI.

So we'll see.

Jason B @ 111:

SM @ 108:

My Dear Jason B:

I don't know what you where doing in the 90s, but I had already voted in 2 presidential elections during that time.

THIS is the history behind Hillary's Universal Helathcare:

Congress did not pass it because Bill Clinton was a Democratic President with a Republican majority in congress, in both houses. Republicans will eat their children before they pass a law that will ultimately protect them, unless it has to do with war and cutting taxes.

Especially a bill that was written and endorsed by a "First Lady" with more experience and know how than any of them.

Look it up.

You can call it what you want, but like I said: She picked the wrong battle. Maybe it's the fault of the Republicans for being child-eaters but you know what? It doesn't change the fact that she failed.

She went for UHC. She went public, it was a big fight, and she lost. And Republicans are like elephants - they have LOOONG memories. They won''t forget her first loss, and any time she brings up health care, they will just shout HILLARYCARE over and over again until they win.

Like I said, "The Art of War:" the winning General picks his or her battles well. You don't need to have the biggest army or the most well-trained, you just have to know how to pick fights you can win. Hillary didn't, and that's why she lost.

So just because Hillary Clinton decided to push for Universal Health Care. waaaay back in the 90s in a Republican dominated congress makes her stupid and weak?

Jason, please. At least give her the respect that she deserves.

Yes she tried, and her healthcare plan IS the same plan that Gore and Kerry have campaigned. She is the author and brain behind it. Whoever of the 3 Democratic candidates win the presidential election, Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan is the model to follow.

SM @ 100:

Steven @ 98:

appnzllr @ 82:

There needs to be some kind of national organization that designates which states have primaries at what time of the election year. Let Iowa and NH go first. Then each state can go in a round-robin configuration which would be different every 4 years. That's the only fair thing. I don't know if the states would agree to give up the ability to set their primaries, but there should be some move to stop the madness. I don't mind having caucuses and primaries in January, but they shouldn't start before the beginning of the calendar year, which is what is going to happen unless someone shows some sanity.

Why should Iowa and NH go first? Isn't that unfair to the majority of the population? Wouldn't it be fairer if we have a state from the west coast, east coast, northeast, midwest, and the south having their election on the same day? That would have been a better representation for this nation and would be a far better compromise even though i prefer the whole nation to have it on the same day. By preserving the few small states first, you are just giving extra power to the party heads of those states.

And you all do know that Florida and Michigan got their primaries shifted early because of the Repugs passing those laws rather than the democrats themselves? They just go along as to not alienating their own constituents. For Clinton to be willing to put her name up in those 2 states, she got my support. For Obama and Edwards to back out, this also made them the 'establishment' as they choose to bow to those party heads of the early states. Why do you think they have the super delegates of those early states supporting them? You think they really believe in change? It's all about power and backdoor deals. And if the democrats intend to shut off Michigan and Florida, whoever becomes the nominee will be a 51% president too regardless of whether it is Clinton or not. Michigan's primary problem is the economy and that's an opportunity for the democrats but we dump them away.

Hillary Clinton is not Bush. I realized that many bloggers especially those siding with Obama are really ungrateful of the good times we have in the 90s. If you all have stick up and fight alongside Hillary with her healthcare in 1994, we would already have universal healthcare. And now you are all blaming her for her lack of healthcare plan? She has fought the Repugs for 35 years and she has brought many progressive agendas to this nation. All the progressive policies we have now is partly due to her hard work combating the Repubs and getting smeared almost everyday throughout her political career and you are all smearing her as well?

And i wonder if you all realized that clinton's supporters hardly smear edwards, we only smear Obama. And do you know why? That's because Obama is more similar to Bush than Clinton and you are all blinded by his charisma. His voting record shows it all. He only talks and provide visions and nothing more. He is a conservative democrat in the state of illinois. He picked his votes well, which is why he has no record to show on controversial issues. That itself is a judgement of honesty and politicking. At least Edwards has the guts to show us where he stands and we can make a sound judgement out of him. And finally Obama himself has an antigay policy by having an ultrahomophobic gays representing him on gay issues. That is Barack Obama. If you have problems with equal rights for all. Obama is your guy.

SPOT ON & thank you.

Clinton and Edwards are both VERY QUALIFIED to become President. With the exception of a few issues, I generally do like both of their plans for the country if elected.

You are right, Obama is very Bush-like, he doesn't know what it takes to govern a nation. Had he been governor of Illinois, MAYBE he'd have more experience to bring to the table but he doesn't. He will be very much a Manchurian candidate, with a staff full of people pulling his strings while he just smiles and makes nice speeches. Who will be Obama's "Dick Cheney?" "Condoleeza Rice," "Karl Rove?

If Obama would have waited 10 more years, maybe I'd think differently since he'd have the knowledge and experience to back him up. One thing is him writing books, passionately giving a speech - the other is standing side by side to your colleagues that are more qualified and experienced than you, and are more prepared to lead the country as soon as they are elected. His answers were so blah, generic and zero substance - he looked like a neophyte next to both Clinton and Edwards. Democrats, particularly the Obamanites really need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and deeply analyze each candidate issue by issue.

With all that said, I'll vote for Obama ONLY if he wins the nomination, because I vote Democrat straight down the line, not because I believe in his "hope" message.

My first choice is Clinton. Does that mean that I agree blindly with everything she said last night? No. I think I proved that in my lengthy post above. Second choice by a slight margin is Edwards, who I voted for VP on the Kerry/Edwards ticket. I also think he'd make a wise, progressive president.

Does anyone here understand the concept of a unitary executive. Does anyone here actually understand what a president can and cannot do? A president is not like a CEO, a president is not suppose to have anymore power than the congress, or the courts. Therefore, a president can not really get anything done (if they actually follow the constitution) unless they have a majority of the people/the congress/or are able to work w/people. From the language that some use, I am very concerned that at least on of the Dem candidates would act as a unitary executive. This candidate seems to give a false impression of what a president should actually be able to do. This candidate tells America what they want to hear, and not the truth.

I am so sorry that so many Americans do not really understand the constitution. I am confident that two of the dem candidates would reject the unitary executive model. I am not so confident about the other. No one on this board should have a false impression of the presidency.

fiver @ 45:

kaT @ 37:

fiver @ 21:

How is it that all the candidates - except Hillary Clinton - had to withdraw their names and promise not to campaign? How did she get this special exemption, and why isn't she getting blasted for it? (I know, I know, I know... any attack on Hillary is right wing and misogynistic)

This just reeks of inside baseball.

She DID NOT campaign in Michigan, she won anyway.

My understanding was that every Michigan voter received a ballot with Clinton's name on it - and no other. I also understand she had difficulty beating "uncommitted" nonetheless. But hey, it must have been hard for her to battle such a qualified opponent. She could hardly whine about "unfair" attacks.

balthus @ 38:

fiver @ 21:

How is it that all the candidates - except Hillary Clinton - had to withdraw their names and promise not to campaign? How did she get this special exemption, and why isn't she getting blasted for it? (I know, I know, I know... any attack on Hillary is right wing and misogynistic)

This just reeks of inside baseball.

Hey, you mean we might just have a candidate shrewd enough to exploit loopholes in the system, screw her opponents, and do whatever it takes to win? Fantastic! After all, if we'd only had someone like that the last two elections, we might have won... or maybe you've forgotten how much fun it was to watch our hapless teams get outsmarted, outhustled, outcheated, and defeated? Tell me you weren't longing for Gore and Kerry to play dirty if necessary...and tell me you won't feel the same way if it comes down to the wire again. Until then, save your piety and start trying to wrap your brain around which candidate knows...and does...what it takes to win.

Another eloquent argument describing Hillary's Republican nature. Playing dirty doesn't make you tough, it just makes you dirty.

You need to read more. Hillary was not the only name on the ballot. Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel were on there too.
Just because Obama and Edwards caved in and acting like idiots you blame Hillary. Let the two idiots split that 40% she still beat them. Your assessment is also a slam to Kucinich and others who stayed and told Michigan they were with them.