RBC meeting over...
By John Amato Friday May 30, 2008 8:11pmAfter a nearly 10-hour marathon meeting of the Democratic party’s rules committee, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton came away with a total of 24 more pledged delegates, but today’s decisions on the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates fell far short of what her campaign had hoped. In a blow to Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, the committee voted to restore the delegations of both Florida and Michigan at the party’s nominating convention, but gave each delegate only half a vote...read on
Marc Ambinder has more...
Login or Register to post comments.
And then they took 4 delegate votes away from her and awarded them to a candidate whose name was not on the ballot. Very fair. It was like watching the politburo in action. Wonder why he is going to end up scrabbling for all us non believers come November? Not a chance.
What would have been the total with full votes?
the meeting may be finished, but it isnt over
did anyone else notice that Faux News didnt cover most of this meeting?? They shot back and forth some but didnt cover it gavel to gavel like the others did.
I guess Democratic history isnt news.
time to sit this one out hillary.
Biff Limbaugh @ 4:
Please explain to us how Obama wasnt on the ballot but he gets 55 delegates with 1/2 a vote.
With his lead as strong as it is the Obama campaign probably should have just given in on all of Clinton's demands with regard to Michigan and Florida, he's still be substantially ahead in the total delegate count. As is it wouldn't surprise me if Clinton took the race to the convention, she'd still lose the nomination but it would hurt Obama's chances in November, setting her up for a run at the nomination in 2012.
Pat J @ 1:
Oh. My. God. The Waaahmbulance pulls up all sirens wailing.
Or, are you actually an Operation Chaos plant? Give me a break. What kind of election is it where only ONE NAME is on the ballot? Pray tell how soviet does that sound?
Roger from Ohio @ 5:
It works like this, chuckles: http://ftp.youtube.com/watch?v=iB-5ot8pNX8
These are the rules the Clinton campaign agreed to back when it was expedient for them to do so. Crying about it now is childish.
Roger from Ohio @ 5:
He wasn't on the ballot because everyone agreed to not be on the ballot. Were you expecting Hillary to get EVERY delegate in Michigan? How does that even approach fairness?
Please explain to us how Obama wasnt on the ballot but he gets 55 delegates with 1/2 a vote.
Please explain to us why ANY of the delegates should be seated with any portion of their vote.
Donna Brazile said it best: "You Gotta Play By The Rules."
Hillary supporters have serious balls to insist the rules should change just so their candidate can have a better shot.
Is not taking your name off the ballet when you said you would cheating or just playing dirty?
slippy hussein toad @ 8:
Obviously there is a changed isnt there?...... Now Michigan counts...... Obviously someone voted, but Obama decided he didnt want any Michigan votes (since he decided to remove his name from the ballot) so why does Obama get delegates instead of Non Committed (which is a valid delegate)
See if u can respond without the scarsam Crusty
Roger from Ohio @ 5:
Maybe you can explain why Hillary should get all delegates because Obama wasn't on the ballot?
Thanks for keeping up to date with breaking news. Did you hear about Obama's withdrawal from his church? What is up with that? She doesn't stand a chance. He is the front-runner. Doesn't he realize that this will only help Hillary and the Republican machine? I'm afraid we are going to lose in November, and that the Repubs are going to exploit his resignation from the church to the fullest. So it may not matter how the Dems divide up the Michigan and Florida votes. Obama has given the McCain camp a huge Christmas present to be used against him among the Americans not smart enough to do their homework about the candidates and parties.
Please, let's get this primary season over, then Obama needs to hire some of Clinton's smartest spinners in order to make sure that he can win. His people have not been doing a good job recently.
Anyone catch any of this on the networks? Clinton supporters were very shrill and childish. Loud, obnoxious. Man, what a way to try and get support.
Barry O. should go say a prayer of Thanksgiving with Fr. Pfleger. I hear he's church shopping. I'm sure there's an opening at St. Sabina Parish.
He wasn't even on our ballot in MI, and yet he ends up with delegates? And what about my vote for Gravel?
This was more about Florida and Michigan than Obama or Hillary.
Congratulations to these states.
The rules are sexist. They were probably written by men. Waaa!
Roger from Ohio @ 12:
I think your overestimating the political intelligence of the Obamatrons Roger.
[ You're walking a thin line L.A. Site Monitor]
pretty much been stated, the states didn't play by the rules, Hillary didn't follow the rules either like everyone else.
now her supporters are pissed they can't cheat to win the nomination.
I mean did people honestly believe that Hillary was going to get all the votes in Michigan?
Transcendently hilarious!
Bill @ 18:
Ruthless People @ 13:
She shouldnt get all the delegates...... the 55 should be non committed. This means that they can vote for either candidate.......why not give the delegates to Edwards?? he wasnt on the ballot either
Roger from Ohio @ 22:
Did Edwards not suspend his candidacy? Hardly seems worth twiddling around getting votes if you aren't in the race.
ConcernedCanuck @ 15:
I agree. I was VERY dismayed when I heard them scream "Denver! Denver! Denver!" after they found out 100% of Florida and Michigan would not be counted. Just like Republicans think their party is bigger than the country. The Clintons' believe they are bigger than their party. Fortunately, the Democrats have spotted this fact and are uniting before she can do even more damage.
And Ickes act today was just disgusting and embarassing.
Le Roi Est Mort @ 16:
They didn't give him the votes for Gravel, they gave him the uncommitted votes.
JScott @ 14:
Anyone else notice that this NEWS wasnt covered by MSNBC they had one of their prision reruns durring Obama's speech....... they are looking more and more like Faux News...... and that just isnt good
Le Roi Est Mort @ 16:
He wasn't on your ballot because your state didn't follow the rules, and everyone else but hillary followed those rules and left their name off the ballot
If you want fair, they shouldn't count any of your votes cause you didn't follow the damn rules.
L.A. Confidential @ 19:
Try taylormarsh.com for political intelligence LA. Almost EVERY poster on there is voting for McCain cuz Hillary is losing. How fitting for "supposed" Dem Party members to act so adult.
L.A. Confidential @ 19:
Or underestimating the blatant ambition, rule bending and Republican-like cheating and dirty tricks of the Hillaryzillas.
[ OK enough of the childish name calling. Don't make me work hard here tonight. Site Monitor]
Roger from Ohio @ 22:
Because this whole situation is only being brought up and disputed between the two remaining candidates.
To explain: Please explain to us how Obama wasnt on the ballot but he gets 55 delegates with 1/2 a vote.
Please explain how she was the ONLY one on the ballot that was not supposed to even happen and was demanding that she gets all...
Xsorus @ 27:
exactly. and its not the same as in Florida, where the republican'ts hijacked the system and forced the rule breakage. Michigan democratic party did this on their own.
Mister Anderson @ 24:
I have got to say, it was one of the saddest displays of immaturity and Republican impersonating that I have ever seen. Yet people claim Obama supporters are cult-like? Perhaps they need to use the "googles" and watch some of these people.
Either I voted in the MI primary or I didn't vote at all. I didn't have a choice. Mark Brewer, the closeted bastard he is, took it away from me!
Xsorus @ 27:
Roger from Ohio @ 5:
OK how bout this for fair. In terms of delgates we subtract the number of delgates for who want anyone but hillary (55) from the delegates who want hillary (73) which equal 18 and halve them. Would you have felt better about that?
Roger from Ohio @ 12:
You haven't approached this question with any more seriousness than displayed before, so I'm not sure why you think I should be any less consdescending to your intellectually indefensible position. ALL of the candidates except for Clinton and Dodd agreed to remove their names from the ballot. Hedging her bets? At any rate, since she essentially ran unopposed, it wasn't an election. She agreed at the time that these votes wouldn't count. So did her Mr. Ickes, who voted to penalize Michigan back when it was convenient to do so. So she's lucky to get anything at all. Screaming about disfranchisement is hysterical and clearly didn't get the Hillary campaign anywhere just now at the rules committe. So why are you trying to take Mr. Ickes' arguments to the blogs? Do you wish to tie yourself to his self-serving dishonesty?
Mister Anderson @ 23:
What is it about the 2000 and 2004 Dem Battle Cry every vote should count you don't like?
What happened?
Please do not place blame with the Michigan Democratic voters.
Instead, blame our closeted homosexual chairman, Mark Brewer and his friends in the Michigan Democratic Party establishment.
JScott @ 14:
Really? As he refrains from campaigning against Hillary, while simultaneously getting attacked by both Hillary and McCain, he has managed to increase his leads over both.
At the same time, he has cut Hillary's legs out from under her by letting her "win" the Florida and Michigan issue by compromising and removing the "let every vote count" argument. All the while making McCain look like a fool with his surge gaffe and silly invitation to join him on a PR photo op in Iraq.
Who would have thought such an inexperienced guy would be so successful in making seasoned politicians like Clinton and McCain look so angry, catty, and past their prime. The landslide is about to begin, despite what all the Hillbots and Chicken Littles think right now.
Xsorus @ 27:
At the time there were 8 candidates running for president....... 4 were on the ballot.....4 were not......... if u are gonna pretend to spew out facts...... make them correct........... on the Michigan ballot, there were 5 choices........ Clinton....Gravel.....Kucinich.....Dodd and UnCommitted........ also..... which VOTER didnt follow rules??
deezus @ 9:
Because it's her turn, dammit! Don't you understand????
L.A. Confidential @ 36:
They all had an agreement. Hillary ran basically unopposed and reneged on her agreement not to run. Afterwards she said it didn't count. Now she says it has to count. I don't follow this at all.
Thanks Roger. The one surprising rule for us voters was that we had to present picture ID! Of all things!
Roger from Ohio @ 40:
I can't believe this is all happening when there is virtually no difference between the polcies of these two candidates. Hell it's not like Kucinich is threatening them or anything. It's the absolute depth of partisan politics.
Let the egos soar!
L.A. Confidential @ 36:
Simple. Every vote did count in 2000, but THE RULES state that the electoral college is what picks the President and not the popular vote. Due to his own error in not having every vote in the state of Florida recounted, Gore lost the electoral college so he lost the election and properly conceded. Kerry didn't even bother to challenge Ohio, but he still followed the rules after he lost the electoral college and conceded the election to Bush.
In 2008, Obama has clinched the pledged delegate count and judging by the trend since Super Tuesday, he will capture 75% of the remaining Supers to hit whatever magic number that Hillary may set. The problem is that Hillary doesn't want to follow the rules that delegates what determines the Democratic nominee, instead, she wants to make up her own rules that the popular vote is the most important. Therefore, she wants the rules to be changed and altered until they reflect her version of the results.
Now, we can have elections based on rules that everyone agree to in the beginning and agree to in the end. Or we can have elections that have rules everyone agree to in the beginning, but try to change and manipulate in the end to best position themselves to win.
Which one would you prefer?
Bottom line. Edwards cared enough for this country, party unity and to help insure we don't have another Republican in the White House to bow out when he knew he couldn't win. He didn't try to be for the DNC rules before he was against it. He didn't allow his ego and blind ambition drive a wedge between the Democrats. Hillary, in Karl Rovian fashion, has driven a wedge claiming anti-women to any Democrat who says she can't win and should step down. She has played the race card in West Virginia primary like a Republican. She has proven herself shameless in her ambition and her desire to put herself above our chances of taking back the White House in 2008, and I would say that if she had a set of gonads between her legs so I ain't being anti-woman. In fact, for the record I was for Edwards but when he bowed out I was for Hillary but as time went on Hillary turned me against her more so than Obama necessarily won me over. Now, I'm Obama all the way! I'm sick of Hillary and her loyalist.
Mister Anderson @ 45:
Why do you persist, Mister Andrson? Is it logic? Is it facts? Is it reason?
Alright...... Im gonna try and see if someone can ask this question that has been buggin me for a few weeks now.
Can someone explain to me what the National Convention is for? What I thought was the delegates showed up to vote for who they want to be the nomination. It doesnt seem like that is what it is all about. What it looks like is the Leaders of the Democratic party is trying to end everything BEFORE the Convention so the people there wouldnt have to bother voting.
So could someone actually tell me....... Why do they bother with a National Convention?
Bye, bye BILLARY Clinton.
‘Long Lunch’ by DNC Rules Committee Explained: Dispute Over Seating at Diner
Che's Lounge @ 44:
The difference between Obama and Hillary is, as Obama has shown, he has the natural talent to actually get the job done. He can lead effectively, not just leap in where opportunity beckons and self-aggrandize. We aren't just choosing the policy. We're choosing the person. It's the difference between Axl Rose and Luciano Pavarotti. One of those guys can really sing. The other is a vocalist.
Please explain to us how Obama wasnt on the ballot but he gets 55 delegates with 1/2 a vote.
I'll use small words so you can understand.
1) The DNC set the order of the Primaries. That's their job.
2) All candidates, including HRC, agreed to the order
3) Michigan, despite being told not to, and given several options short of a full primary, decided to jump the line.
4) All candidates, including HRC, said that MI would not count. (There's a video of her saying so.)
5) MI went ahead with their primaries, with HRC running against "None of the Above"
6) Since she "won", she now wants all the delegates, which never even an option.
7) The delegates have to go to someone -- HRC or BHO
Got it?
slippy hussein toad @ 47:
LOL - FOR FREEDOM!
But the voters are being punished, too. Would you prefer that we not vote at all? We were not happy with the situation, but we, the voters, had little recourse.
Have you any sympathy for OUR plight?
Jeff @ 52:
ConcernedCanuck @ 42:
"We landed under sniper fire in Bosnia," then it was "sniper fire was a possibility in the region", etc, etc,...
slippy hussein toad @ 51:
Actually Axlerod is Obama's brain. The new Rove only 1000 times slicker.
Everyone should really keep in mind is that the resolutions passed today were both by the STATE parties themselves, the elected state memberships. These weren't proposals by the DNC, these were the proposals of the Michigan and Florida parties, which Obama himself supported.
Not only is Hillary going against Obama on this issue, but she is now going against the state parties of Michigan and Florida. But this was and never will be about Florida and Michigan. As I said before, if Hillary was winning right now, she'd be arguing against any sort of delegate seating out of the other corner of her mouth.
This is about her own ego and megalomania, which burns through the veins of the Clinton family it seems. To hell with the DNC and its rules, to hell with Obama, and to hell even with the Michigan and Florida Democratic Parties themselves for pushing resolutions which only served to amend their own misfortunes in this campaign and not hers.
I hope Hillary's career in politics comes to an end after this mess, forcing her to stare at the marred and smoldering land she and her advisers set ablaze during the final moments of this scorched earth exit strategy from the sidelines of irrelevancy and shame.
And someone really 'ought to slap the smug smirk off of Harold Ickes' face.
KYJurisDoctor @ 49:
The best thing, is we get to say bye to two for the price of one!
Roger from Ohio @ 48:
Easy, to make it official for one thing. To give the nominee a prominent spotlight from which to solidify the the issues of his campaign. In other words, a BIG SHOW!
Ruthless People @ 46:
You know, I was for her about 3 years ago. Then This election came around and I had seen enough to push me away from her. I too was for Edwards. But after he dropped out, I just watched and let it play out. Trying to be impartial and unbiased. I think you nailed it for me. I personaly don't see much difference between the two as far as positions go. As a matter of fact, some of her positions are more liberal then Obamas. Better HC plan, quicker withdrawl from Iraq. But she is just getting so damn ugly now. By that I mean her tactics and her baggage. Nope, she has to go. But we have to let this play out.
Revolutionaire @ 57:
If Obama really had integrity he should have argued for full seating of both delegations based on the primary results.
Roger from Ohio @ 12:
Jeff @ 52:
nope....... u have some mistakes Ill only point to 3....... Ill use small words for you so pay attention
5)there were 5 choices not 2, Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson all decided that they didnt want ANY Michigan votes....... (decided = chose)
6)She "won"... she ONLY wants the 73 votes that the VOTERS decided..... the other 55 should go to who was voted for NON COMMITTED...... (just like a super delegate)
7) delegates that were won by other candidates are NON COMMITTED delegates.... they will decide at the convention
Hillary's not taking this well at all http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc
L.A. Confidential @ 56:
Maybe I'd believe you if Obama didn't write his own books.....
L.A. Confidential @ 60:
None of these delegates should have gotten seated. If Obama and Hillary both had any integrity, they'd both concede that point. Rules are rules. I live in Florida, and boy did it sure suck to learn that my vote was going to be worth as much as Bush's respectability. But these were the rules. Obama agreed to them. Hillary agreed to them.
If EITHER of them had a problem with Florida and Michigan, they should have brought the issue up beforehand.
Both of them were silent on it.
L.A. Confidential @ 61:
Oh please. If Clinton had any integrity, she would be abiding by the rules she initially supported all along. Ickes was part of the very same DNC committee that voted to disallow all of FL and MI's delegates. If you want someone to blame for this mess, there you go. ICKES!
L.A. Confidential @ 56:
I guess we'll see. Leadership is also picking the people you surround yourself with. Bush picked whatever crawled up out of the woodwork to adhere to his leg. I'm not sure how Axelrod has suddenly entered the realm of Karl Rove, who is looking more and more like one of the most repulsive criminals of the century. Rove outmanuvered Gore and Kerry by dividing the electorate against them with cheap wedge issues and filthy character attacks. If you can find a character attack done by the Obama campaign that rivals anything Rove has ever done I'll give you a cookie. If you can find an instance where Axelrod has somehow infiltrated the functioning of the government and abused it for political gain . . . a whole box of cookies.
But I'm sure you can find that Axelrod, and probably more Obama than him (since Obama is someone who tends to write his own material, I believe he probably is doing quite a bit of his own strategizing, too), has completely outmanuvered a campaign that was predicated on "it's her turn," and "she's inevitable," and plus "any Democrat but Bush could win this year, and I'm the most widely known one."
L.A. Confidential @ 61:
MSNBC is reporting that Obama had enough votes to get a 50/50 split in Michigan, but only by one or two votes. Instead he went with the 69/59 delegate compromise that more members supported.
That's how you get things done in Washington!
Roger from Ohio @ 5:
common sense in calculating the likely votes which would have been cast for obama, as supporters of obama and edwards were told to vote 'uncommitted'. why should obama be penalized for obeying the rules and clinton rewarded for defying them? and with that aside even, how is it a reflection of the will of the people to send all the delegates to clinton. wow a 100% landslide?
yeah thats fair. [/sarcasm]
mudshark @ 60:
Now that I think about it, I suggested she should go for the VP slot first.I said this over 3 years ago. So she could back door the Prez's office. And that would have given us 16 years in the WH.
That was then, this is now. Buh Bye.
Revolutionaire @ 66:
Actually, the DNC rules were 1/2 of the delegates should be seated. Hillary actually did agree that Michigan would not count, as she stated in the Youtube video I linked above.
And as you may have noticed, these were the decisions of the STATES to agree to this arrangement.
It's just that some people didn't want the result to be what it was.
Ruthless People @ 64:
If she was like Howard Dean she would have quit last year.
L.A. Confidential @ 73:
If only.
ConcernedCanuck @ 15:
Yes calling for Dems to vote McCain was very uplifting and mature of them. I'm tired of Hillary's whiners.
Ruthless People @ 74:
Yeah Dean is quite the fighter. Went down with a "scream". A real tough opponent.
Hey......Wexler gets a cold beer for showing Ickes who's who! Ickes was an embarrassment to our party today.
mudshark @ 71:
Hillary is the new Ralph Nader. There is no way she will win so that makes her a spoiler for John McCain. McCain couldn't be happier with Clinton's work on his behalf.
L.A. Confidential @ 61:
Obama should have advocated the full seating of both delegations to Clinton, just to show he could win decisively and not give the Clinton camp one reason to complain about throwing away votes.
Dhalgren @ 77:
All bow to the Obama Party.
slippy hussein toad @ 72:
I saw the video. Weren't the Florida and Michigan delegates not going to count at all? 0? That's been my understanding this entire time.
And yes, I did notice that the resolutions were the state parties' resolutions. I brought that exact point up nearly 20 replies ago.
EJG @ 62:
Hmm, the text I wrote didn't come through, sorry about that folks. I keep loosing my internet tonight due to storms moving through, perhaps that is what happened. My reply was that he followed the rules, she decided that she wasn't going to follow them because she is a sore looser. I am actually quite sick of her wailing "no fair" and crying that she is being targeted because she is a woman. I know of several women who are supporting her for no other reason then that! It is clear that she can not win without her underhanded tactics. She wants all the votes and those of us who don't support her don't count in her eyes. The longer she rants and raves the more people see her for what she is and it isn't pretty. She is a wicked witch and out to win the nomination at any cost to the Democratic party and this nation. She isn't worth the ink it takes to write her name. She and her supporters can stop the crying and the threats. If they want McSame if she doesn't get the nomination so what, she is the same as he is anyway. I really can't see that either would be any better. Can anyone see her returning our country to its proper state with rights returned? Not a chance, she is a power hungry wench. Get over it, she is a looser and lets move on already!
Ruthless People @ 78:
Hillary may be a 'nadir,' but there's no comparison with Nader. For starters, Nader was never a spoiler.
miss_kitty @ 83:
True.
L.A. Confidential @ 61:
Hillary might have had an "integrity" argument had she not chosen to remain on the Michigan ballot. She might have had an "integrity" argument had she not said Michigan wouldn't count, before she decided that it did. But that wasn't even the argument that was offered. I don't know why you're crying about this now. It is over.
EJG @ 82:
Oh yeah let's nothing to see here just move along now.
Bye
L.A. Confidential @ 76:
Who's for Howard Dean? Is he running this year? That LA weed must me mighty good!
You can't drag Hillary out that's for sure. She's like herpes, just when you think she's gone she comes back as irritating as ever.
Dhalgren @ 79:
Why? Why should any of these delegates should have been seated at all?
Yes, it was stupid for the DNC to strip them. Yes, it wasn't Florida's fault that the Republican-controlled legislature tacked on an amendment to a paper-trail bill to move up the date and outvoted them on it.
But they both agreed to it. It should have been brought up by them before these primaries even happened.
No delegates should be stripped away for any reason. This is really all on the heads of the DNC. But as absurd as the rules are, they both agreed on them.
So please, explain to me why those rules should be changed at the end?
fastfeat @ 55:
and BHO's gonna take all 58 states, you just watch...
L.A. Confidential @ 87:
Oh, Jesus. GBCW!!!!!
Here is the bottom line about all of this.
This isnt the first time that this has happened, but in the past, the races werent even close, so the nominee decided to change the rules and seat all the delegates because it didnt matter in the final decision.
This year is different..... it does matter because the race is close.
Everyone agreed before the election because it was assumed that there would be a clear winner....... well that was the mistake and with every mistake there needs to be a solution.
I understand what the Obama people want..... they want Hillary to drop out so he can have all of Michigan and Florida seated so they can vote for him......... but that isnt what those people wanted obviously
Le Roi Est Mort @ 38:
What the hell is that supposed to mean? What if he were homosexual? Should he be burned at the stake? Is he un-American? Are you Matt Drudge? If you have a beef with him, please refrain from the hate-mongering. It makes you look cheap and nasty.
scruzman @ 90:
There are 57 electoral contests in the primary.
http://digg.com/politics/Obama_s_57_State_Slip_of_the_Tongue
1-49: The 49 states besides Texas
50: Texas primary
51: Texas caucus
52: Washington, DC
53: American Samoa
54: U.S. Virgin Islands
55: Democrats Abroad
56: Guam
57: Puerto Rico
Proving that Obama HAS THE MATH, BITCHES!
I've got a girlfriend in Ireland who was born in E. Lansing when her dad was teaching there. She doesn't mention her American citizenship much, but she came over last Sept. to register and order the absentee ballot. She wrote in Obama, she wasn't listening to Michigan tv every night and, like 30,000 other write ins, her ballot was thrown out. Other friends across the lake didn't vote because they were assured the election was meaningless.
I'd like every vote to count as well but, practically, how do you figure out what Michigan voters want from that thing in January? Irish girl wanted her vote to count too. Everyone in Michigan was badly screwed and I suggest complaints be forwarded to Carl Levin.
Roger from Ohio @ 92:
It's like deja vu all over again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB-5ot8pNX8
Hillary agreed that this election wouldn't count, because SHE THOUGHT she would inevitably be the winner. Then, when she didn't win Super Tuesday, and lost contest after contest after contest, she suddenly wanted to change the rules. Obviously, the person winning the contests had a differing opinion.
slippy hussein toad @ 94:
[ OK L.A. Knock it OFF! Deleted, Site Monitor.]
Ickes performance was juvenile at best. But considering he has a conflict of interest in supporting the HIldebeast, I guess it isn't surprising.
ConcernedCanuck @ 33:
At this stage of the game the kettles are indistinguishable from the pots as far as maturity goes.
I never said that I wasn't "cheap and nasty." You've never had to deal with the man!
ke,ke,ke! ^-^
Edwin Hussein @ 93:
No matter what would have happened today, it's all an excuse for Hillary NOT to "work her heart out" for the Democratic nominee. I truly believe this is all about her manufacturing an excuse for not endorsing the man who she believes took what she felt was owed her.
a)If she'd gotten all the delegates she wanted, she would have come out ahead (an easy task being the only one on the ballot in those states) hence-she shouldn't endorse.
b) If she didn't get all she wanted (which she didn't) she can now justify in her mind not working to get Obama elected, and not encouraging her hard core Clintonistas to vote for Obama-because it's so gosh darn unfair that she didn't get EVERY delegate from two states that didn't have legitimate elections.
I sooooo hope I'm wrong about her.
L.A. Confidential @ 97:
I knew that was coming....like Hillary's inevitable defeat.
Here is the bottom line from my view outside the box. It's the primaries. There is no real voter disenfranchisement, because, hey if you are a party loyalist, you WILL VOTE for your party in the general election. That is what party members are supposed to do. That is why a person would belong to a party. Stating that "if my candidate doesn't win the candidacy, I'm voting for McCain" is the most shallow, immature thing any supposed party member could spout. This is supposed to be the Democratic Party's Primary selection of a candidate. NOT a general election. It is the choosing of a person to run for your party in the general election. Partisan politics in the US is beyond ludicrous when party "faithfull" won't vote for their own party if their candidate does not win.
It is really gonna be interesting when all of u Obama supporters and Clinton haters have to try and figure out what to do when Obama chooses Hillary as his VEEP
Im a realist, Im pretty sure that Obama will get the nomination, and Ill vote and campaign for the 2nd best. Im also pretty sure that Obama will choose Hillary as his running mate.
he isnt gonna toss aside 17 million voters.
there is gonna be a lot of puking coming out of the Obama camp when they make their Obama/Clinton signs
I wonder how many will vote for McBush
LunaStick @ 104:
Ryoko @ 98:
Calling her " Hildabeast" is a repug term sport. I've never seen a Dem call her that.
Va
Tomorrow's going to be a beautiful day. The sun will shine a little brighter. The flowers will smell a little nicer. Soon we will have the nominee who played by the book, followed the rules and won fair and square.
Roger from Ohio @ 104:
None will vote for McBush. As long as Obama heads the ticket, who cares who the vp is. It's never made a difference before. I do doubt she'll be the choice though. In part because she is acting like she doesn't want it. You have to suck up to the nominee in order to be offered that spot and Hillary is doing anything but.
Roger from Ohio @ 104:
You really are a dreamer!
Ruthless People @ 106:
Considering all the dirt (both real and manufactured) that is out there from the Clinton political machine, I have got to say the Obama campaign has earned respect. His opponents have thrown everything including the kitchen sink at him, and he has not flung back the dirt that he really could have.
Ruthless People @ 107:
But we won't seal the deal until Bill makes peace and embraces Obama. Then it will be a beautiful day!
Ruthless People @ 107:
But didnt Obama REMOVE his name by choice to cause this problem?
Didnt Obama run campaign ads in Florida (which was against the rules)
Isnt he NOW getting 55 delegates from Michigan when OBAMA WASNT ON THE BALLOT BY CHOICE
so how do u define FAIR and SQUARE?? kinda like faux defines fair and balanced?
Edwin Hussein @ 75:
They are only proving what they are and what she is. McClinton
ConcernedCanuck @ 103:
100% correct. Thanks for saying it.
Roger from Ohio @ 104:
I'd be really surprised if this happened. What kind of leader would he be if he let himself be bullied into a particular veep choice? A long time ago, before she stumped for McCain and accidentally publicly daydreamed about assassination, I would have been all in favor of Obama/Clinton. Not anymore.
And yet that sleazy Ickes character still left the meeting with a threat to appeal.
Roger from Ohio @ 3:
Given some of the uglier moments, I'm glad they didn't.
But you know they've got a whole crew working OT editing up the more salacious shots for Wallace, Bloody, and the Humester for tomorrow's FNS.
Roger from Ohio @ 111:
Someone 's ignorant. The problem was casued by a chance in the scheduleing of the Florida and Michigan primaries. Obama made an error it taking hisname off the ballot. But so did Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Edwards (I think). Obama cannot be punished by following the recommendation of the DNC.
I agree that 55 delegates from Michigan should be classified as Uncommitted. But that's not Obama's call. The assumption is that they would become his anyway.
Obama followed the rules. His opponent's camp tried to change them late in the game. No harm done. We can move on.
shaw @ 115:
How is her talking about staying in the race equate "daydreaming about assassination"??
Why werent u upset when Obama "supporters" when talking about making Clinton the VP said, "If Obama makes her VP, he should hire a food taster" Does this mean that the Obama Campaign thinks that Hillary is a murderer?
sounds pretty outrageous doesnt it?? Then again, u r an Obama supporter so u probably agree.
Roger from Ohio @ 112:
Okay, let's not slip into sillyland here. The Obama ad you mention was a national one that should have been blocked in FL but didn't. Hillary btw, did make "appearances" there so where's your "outrage"?
Obama was following along with the agreement regarding MI to take names off the ballot. You can call it a choice if you want but that doesn't matter. If MI had been allowed to vote for the full ballot (and let's be fair, MI did bring this on themselves) do you really believe Obama would have gotten a zero? Of course you don't, but since the DNC decided to break it's OWN rules they have to be fair to BOTH candidates or as fair as possible and guess what? That's exactly what they did.
Rules are Rules, if you break them then there is penalty.
Glad it's over, hope Hillary gets behind the party now. She can try it in 2012.
So ... Hurray??
I have a suggestion. Take it to Denver, then throw 'em all a curveball and elect Jon Stewart or Lewis Black as the Dem nominee, and throw this whole fiasco out before McCain squeaks out a victory in November while the Dems have a ten round boxing match.
Roger from Ohio @ 63:
#5 Okay, first of all. Like we have all said, ad nauseum, is that these candidates removed their names off the ballot because of what every candidate, including HRC, agreed on...to punish the state for moving up their primary by having it not count. They didn't choose to remove their name because they didn't want to receive the vote...that's an absurd argument with no merit.
#6 I'm glad you put "won" in quotes because I wouldn't consider a contest where you don't run against anyone a valid contest. Especially when said contest knowingly disqualifies itself by willingly disregards the rules its "referees" set up. HRC didn't receive the full delegates she "won" and instead got half because any other awarding would cancel out the punishment the DNC was inacting for moving up the primary.
#7 Faulty logic, Roger. The delegates are not super delegates or they would be called super delegates. They're awarded based on primary results and nothing else. They were not up for grabs for Hillary because they voted against Hillary in the primary. They are for Obama because there is no one else still in primary against her. If Edwards was still in the game, the delegates would more than likely have been split among the two of them.
Le Roi Est Mort @ 100:
No, I haven't. I see you put yourself above others, literally.
I'm not fuming mad, just think about it. M'Kay.
Roger from Ohio @ 26:
As I stated on another thread is regard to your identical comment there, MSNBC covered this about an hour and a half before you posted this. So sorry you missed it.
L.A. Confidential @ 19:
"I think 'you're' underestimating the intelligence of the Obamatrons, Roger." There...fixed it for you. (If you're having trouble staying awake during English as a Second Language night classes, try drinking more coffee.
LunaStick @ 120:
You can't reason with a Hillzilla. Their nuclear breathing scorched earth strategy is how they play, even if it means putting a Republican in the White House it's fine by them.
woodguy @ 125:
Anyone else notice that this NEWS wasnt covered by MSNBC they had one of their prision reruns durring Obama's speech....... they are looking more and more like Faux News...... and that just isnt good
As I stated on another thread is regard to your identical comment there, MSNBC covered this about an hour and a half before you posted this. So sorry you missed it.
They reported a sound bite, they did NOT cover the speech.
MSNBC covered this "news" the same way Faux News covered the Rules Committee
sorry u missed my point.
Roger from Ohio @ 112:
Isnt he NOW getting 55 delegates from Michigan when OBAMA WASNT ON THE BALLOT BY CHOICE
so how do u define FAIR and SQUARE?? kinda like faux defines fair and balanced?
People who voted for Undeclared obviously didn't want to vote for Hillary. If they did, they wouldn't have done so. So what's wrong with giving those delegates to Obama? Seems like the fair thing to do to me.
my quoting showed up wrong. First two lines were what Roger said.
Roger from Ohio @ 128:
As I stated on another thread is regard to your identical comment there, MSNBC covered this about an hour and a half before you posted this. So sorry you missed it.
They reported a sound bite, they did NOT cover the speech.
MSNBC covered this "news" the same way Faux News covered the Rules Committee
sorry u missed my point.
MSNBC usually doesn't cover the news on Saturdays. Electing instead to do their inside prison crap all day. They broke from that today and covered the church story as they could before going back to their regular Saturday routine. So you did miss the point.
Roger from Ohio @ 112:
Well, I guess they could have counted the thousands of write in votes that didn't get counted. Was it 'fair and balanced' that those votes didn't count? Are you weeping for your fellow statesmen's votes that weren't counted because they chose to write in their candidate's name rather than check 'uncommited'? Somehow, I doubt you are because those write in votes didn't say Hillary Clinton on them.
♠Bangkok-Bob♠ @ 121:
Not in Hillaryland, if you break the rules there's a bonus. You win!
Zac @ 130:
The quoting feature seems to have a slight bug. Mine messed up too at 131.
An honest question for Clinton supporters
Could the Clinton supporters please explain what it is that is so off-putting about Obama? I mean that seriously — I am absolutely, 100% bewildered at why it’s so hard for some of you to get behind the candidate who will almost certainly be our party’s nominee.
As many admit, the platforms between these two Democrats are virtually indistinguishable, and yet many of the Clinton diehards are saying they’ll vote for McCain (directly by pulling the lever, or indirectly by sitting the race out) when his platform is across the board diametrically opposed to the Democrats’ platforms. How does it honor the Clinton campaign to vote for a man who stands for everything she opposes?
I’ve heard some say they’re disgusted at how Obama has “played the race card,” but I can’t think of a single instance in which he — not his more rabid online supporters, not the media, but the man himself and his campaign — have done this. If anything, his speeches and comments on race have been efforts to downplay the idea that he’s “the black candidate.” If you think that’s it, please point me to some specific examples, because I’m just not seeing it. If it’s not that, then what?
Seriously, help me out. Because these Clinton people saying they’ll vote for McCain — they sound like a vegan at a restaurant saying, “Oh, you’re out of the tofu and sprouts? Then just give me a bloody steak and a side of veal cheeks.”
I eagerly await any thoughts you might have. This is quite puzzling and I hope to get your honest perspectives.
Thank you!
ConcernedCanuck @ 103:
Paraphrasing Randi Rhodes (not sure if the line is hers or not):
"In the primaries, you fall in love. In the general (election), you fall in line."
Cries from the (chiefly) Clinton camp about voting for McBush over Obama are ludicrous. And if all the uncommitted super-delegates and remaining primary voters somehow do decide to give the nod to HRC, OK. But please get it done soon. We want a chance to kick McBush around (figuratively, of course...) for a few months before he tips over on his own accord. Now wouldn't that be FUN?!
Interesting. Obama, as well as Edwards and every candidate but Hillary agrees to play fair by taking their names off of the ballot in Michigan.
So some of the Hillary supporters rub this in Obama's face by saying he deserves to lose Michigan because he took his name off of the ballot. Everybody was out of step but Hillary.
I won't go into some of the pamphlets distributed by Hillary supporters at the RBC meeting, indicating that Obama was a murderer and an adulterer (makes one wonder why "murderer" wasn't enough in their minds).
The irony is, if one fraction of the vitriol dispensed by some of the Hillary supporters had been used by Hillary against McCain and the GOP party, Hillary might have won. Instead, nearly everyone and his/her dog is getting more and more disgusted with Hillary's campaign by the hour.
Roger from Ohio @ 5:
I'll tell you what I think is bull-butter; Hitlary doesn't want any voters disenfranchised and yet can give two poops about the voters who did not cast ballots in FL & MI because of the understanding that they wouldn't count.
The right thing to do would've been to stick to the original gameplan: all delegates are stripped from FL & MI.
The proper thing to do would've been to let the votes that were cast for any of the candidates on either ballot to remain and have a revote for the people who did not vote the first time or voted uncommitted AND did not vote in the Republican primary AND were registered to vote at the time. Impossible, I realize, but proper.
The logical thing to do would've been to suspend all delegates from FL & MI and then have them seated at the convention after the nominee has been declared.
MsJoanne @ 135:
I've tried to be impartial to both candidates. I agree with what you said.
As for the HRC supporters, The real Dems have been pretty quiet about alot of this. The ones that yell and scream the most I suspect aren't Dems at all. Just transplants here to divide the Party and maybe disgust enough people to not vote. Of Course there are some genuine HRC folks that have tried to defend her . But I find them to be not very offensive. I have found in the past that the Obama supporters( or people claiming to be ) were the ones who really started throwing the crap around first.
I cpould be wrong about this, but this is just my observations.I'm not saying all Obama folks took part in this, but it did seem to get a bit much there for awhile.
And so you know, I'm supporting Obama.
Roger from Ohio @ 119:
I didn't say he'd never pick her, I said I'd be surprised.
I never said she wanted to kill him, I'm just saying she wouldn't be too broken up, if god forbid, something should happen--and that's why she felt comfortable bringing it up so many times.
Also, there may be 17 million hard core Clinton supporters, but I'm afraid there might be OVER 17 million Republicans who might've stayed home that day, getting off their asses to go vote against her, even as veep.
I'd vote for Hillary if I had to. But do it holding my nose after her scorched earth Republican tactics we've been subjected to.
The lesson out of all of this is: if you are a candidate running for the Dem nomination, agree to and sign the rules, but disobey them. This gives you an ace in the hole if you are losing. The Dem party will reward you as a cheater if you throw a large enough tantrum.
MsJoanne @ 135:
I know this: a lotta people running around threatening to cut off their noses right now. Either that, or they were never really going to vote Dem in the first place. Any Hillary fan who hasn't known the chips were down since February has been living in a bubble, frankly.
Roger, I would ask, what is your ideal solution here? Should an improperly held state election that was essentially boycott by all of the leading candidates but one really affect the overall results? If so, to what extent? If Obama were on the ballot, what % of the vote do you think he would have received? Would it have been fair to seat that many delegates for Obama? Does even her winning all of the Michigan delegates put her in contention?
Mudshark @139
When "it" really started hitting the fan, I found it was the Hillary supporters who started with the mudslinging. I was primarily hanging out at another blog so I don't know how things went down here. I used to be polite in my arguments for Obama but got tired of all my comments being answered with being called a Kool-Aide drinking cult zombie. So I let my ascerbic inner nature come out after that.
MsJoanne @ 135:
Ill see if I can answer you Joanne.
I do like Obama, Im gonna campaign for him if he wins.
I just think that Hillary is more qualified. She has long standing ties to Congress as well as the other players that are needed to get things done in Washington. Obama says he wants to change Washington, which is great if he can. Change takes time, he will have to deal with all of these people.... the people that he is fighting against. How will he get things done if he doesnt want to work with those people? Obama isnt anti lobbyist but he is trying to say he is.
Obama hasnt played the race card, but his campaign has many times. too many times actually. When Bill Clinton said it was a fairy tale that Obama was against the war because the entire time he was actually in the Senate, he voted for the war each and every time...... Obama's campaign said that was race baiting. There are many others, but none of them came from Obama, but his campaign.
I dont understand the "vote for McCain" people. Id never vote repuke..... but I will be honest with you and hope u see it too........ I have heard a LOT more Clinton supporters say they will back Obama then Obama supporters saying that they will vote for Clinton.
One last thing..... I had this same convo with 2 white 65+ yr old Obama supporters.......the one said that I was a racist because I was supporting Obama...... the other one said that I didnt even realize that I was a racist.
I was never so offended in my life......and Im sure that will be played up on here.
mudshark @ 106:
I'm actually a repug, or was until I got fed up with the corruption in the GOP.
Hillary's campaign is poison for the Dems in November at this point. Her demands that the rules be bent to salvage her campaign is worthy of a GOP stunt. Her remarks about staying in the race because Obama might get assassinated before the convention are reprehensible. Karl Rove must be laughing his ass off at her antics at this point. I think the name Hildebeast is appropriate and I wouldn't be surprised if she loses her seat in NY as well as the presidential nomination.
Le Roi Est Mort @ 38:
Excuse me, where is the site moderator on this one?
MrM @ 147:
What does the dude's alleged gayness even warrant a mention. Homosexuality made him break the rules?
Thanks, Roger!! I eagerly await more responses!
deezus @ 148:
It was teh gay?
Login or Register to post comments.