home

Hillary Makes Argument for Counting MI and FL

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:45:45 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In Oregon today, Hillary Clinton explained why the FL and MI votes count:

"Some say their votes should be ignored and the popular vote in Michigan and Florida should be discounted. Well, I have a different view," Clinton said at a rally here. "The popular vote in Florida and Michigan has already been counted. It was determined by election results, it was certified by election officials in each state, it's been officially tallied by the secretary of state in each state, and the question is whether those 2.3 million Democrats will be honored and their delegates seated by the Democratic party."

...Both states saw record turnout in their primaries and the former first lady won both contests.

5,000 Oregonians came out to see her at one stop.

And Helen Thomas weighs in, arguing Hillary should hang in there: [More...]

Obama has captivated the enthusiastic support of America's youth and ignited their interest in presidential politics. His eloquent speeches are designed for the bully pulpit. But does a good speech make a good president?

Obama stresses he was against the invasion of Iraq, but he doesn't say he was not in the Senate when it was initiated. Since become a senator, he has twice voted to fund the war.

I am still trying to find the key that has made Obama a prime candidate for the presidency, and to understand what he has done for the country beyond his middle-of-the-road political moves to make his name known and to steer clear of hot-button issues.

The Rev. Martin Luther King had a dream, too. But he acted on it. He went to jail, he marched, he led.

< 27 FL Delegates Picked for Denver Convention | Hillary and Obama Speak at Montana Dems Dinner >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Makes Argument for Counting MI and FL | 166 comments (166 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I love Helen Thomas (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by lepidus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:53:14 PM EST
    I hope the rest of the blogosphere doesn't take this as a reason to abandon her.

    She said what I was thinking yesterday.... (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:04:49 PM EST
    ...as I watched the MLK observances. One of the academics interviewed on MSNBC, sorry can't remember which one, said that Obama could be a great civil rights leader if for some reason he didn't win the presidency. But I just couldn't see why he said that. Not saying that Obama isn't an advocate of civil rights, but he hasn't stood out in that area any more than he has in any other. He has just given a speech, one that he wouldn't even have given if he didn't have to address concerns about Wright. So yeah, I'm still waiting to see it.

    Parent
    OMG.. is there a diary at Daily Obama (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:54:45 PM EST
    on Helen Thomas's tax returns yet?

    Or worse, (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:05:39 PM EST
    ....or will they say the Bush admin was right to try to move her to the back of the pack.

    Parent
    OMG... (none / 0) (#8)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:18:51 PM EST
    I think you had better purchase the special internet connection to receive specal psychic updates from the OPRAHSPHERE, where the real news from OBAMEDIA is told. The connection also doubles as a water devining tool which is handy what with the global crisis and all...Clearly this is not about the returns but the alleged conspiracy..... I'm not judgin' Im just sayin'....

    Parent
    Helen Thomas is terrific.....Cannot believe (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by athyrio on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:56:46 PM EST
    she is still there, and not being a patsy to anyone...Good for her...She commands a great deal of respect not only from me, but from a large part of America....:-)

    Yep Helen she's my girl (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Saul on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:02:44 PM EST
    She was the first lady of news corp.  Question every president I believe from Kennedy to the current Bush.  She the one that said this  about George Bush
    at the very beginning of his administration.

    This is the worst President ever. He is the worst President in all of American history.
     

    Guess what she was right.

    Yep Helen she's my girl.... (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:12:24 PM EST
    Helen is great. She's been covering the white house since before God made dirt. She has always been an astute critic, old school journalist. Bush can't stand her cause she often uses words that have more than two syllables. She's fiesty and won't let anyone push her around. Thanks for posting the article.

    Parent
    Helen, (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:13:36 PM EST
    I emailed her once after one of her outstanding Bush press conference questionings, telling her how much I loved and appreciated her.  I got a personal email back from her.  Just a few words, very humble and appreciative of my email.  I was quite surprised (thrilled).

    Parent
    Thank you for the Helen Thomas article (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:20:29 PM EST
    The comments in response to her piece illustrate how heated and divisive this contest has become. People calling others and the candidate they support all kinds of names. Sigh.

    Senator Obama didn't show up in New Orleans. He wasn't there in Memphis. Not one of his supporters or the main-stream media is wondering why.

    If elected, his Presidency will epitomize the 'entitled generation' that so many of his young white supporters represent, and 'disappoint' his black supporters. I have been reading another Susan's book on education in the inner city and I can certainly see why African Americans vote in such large numbers for him. It's a pity because they seem to think he is one of their own. As Susan Anthony points out, he has carefully uhm.. avoided taking any detailed positions on important issues .. a strategy which will perhaps help elect him, but won't provide him a mandate to govern. And then his inexperience will truly begin to tell.


    Thanks for the Helen Thomas article (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by PennProgressive on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:43:34 PM EST
    I would not have seen it otherwise. As always Helen Thomas makes wonderful arguments. However, these are nothing new. Hillary and Bill Clinton along with others from the Clinton ccampaign made these arguments many times before. But it is nice to see that Helen Thomas has the courage  to point these out again. But I am afraid that either her column will go unnoticed or worse she would  be colored as someone who is in the  pocket of the  Clintons. Come to think about it there is another possibility--and this is the worst: she will  be  criticized as a "racist."  

    Parent
    What is particularly courageous about it? (none / 0) (#23)
    by CLancy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:08:18 PM EST
    The column seems rather bland, quite honestly. In it, she offers very little that can be deemed insightful. Also, she seems to cherry pick the supporting materials, i.e. the poll on media favorability that predates the Wright scandal. I find her characterization that Obama's comment on Clinton remaining in the race as patronizing to be fairly out of left field as it removes almost all context from the statement.

    Another observation Thomas makes, which is particularly bland, is that, "There is no question that the pundits and the news media have been harder on Clinton, perhaps because she has been longer in the public eye and there is more to pick on." Of course, this is partly true, but I suspect that the facts that she's a Clinton, a Democrat, and a woman, are much more likely reasons for the media to be so hard on her. That profession has shown no love for the first two of late, and has a misogynistic streak a mile wide (and I'm shocked Thomas didn't bring these up to explain this).

    I love Helen Thomas, but this is hardly one of her better pieces of work. It seems it could only be deemed otherwise by those who seem to relish in her denigration of Obama.

    Parent

    It's true then (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:23:08 PM EST
    It doesn't go far enough in her denigration of Obama.

    There's a lot of things she could have said, but I think she's trying to be nice.


    Parent

    She has class... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:27:15 PM EST
    No need for the nasty stuff of current journalism.  She makes the points, they may sound bland, but I guess they are fact based and not from some modern partisan hystrionics.  

    Parent
    No leader + media free pass = my concerns exactly (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:13:10 PM EST
    Senator Obama didn't show up in New Orleans. He wasn't there in Memphis. Not one of his supporters or the main-stream media is wondering why. [...] If elected, his Presidency will epitomize the 'entitled generation' that so many of his young white supporters represent, and 'disappoint' his black supporters.

    Damn, you're good for zoning on on it so well. I'm a block of stone to those arguing that "it's our turn".

    No, just ... no.

    There's a huge gap between the concept of "our turn to be corrupt" and when any disenfranchised group rightly object to people slamming a historical, milestone choice when s/he isn't the perfect ideal. Everyone has warts.

    Obama isn't the candidate of change, as he has promised, or even shown himself to have the merest fraction of  the ideals he promised to deliver (and hasn't despite every chance to do so.)

    He's just gaming the system and doing karaoke for people who have never seen real leaders for change.

    Obama "inspiring" speeches point out squares on cards and instruct people what about what precise phrases to spout at caucuses.

    Filling out forms isn't the kind of inspiration that led me to put human rights activism at the core of my actiism -- hell, at the center of my life -- when I learned about Gandhi, MLK, Mandela, Coretta Scott King, the Dalai Lama ...

    Parent

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#191)
    by blogtopus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:01:06 AM EST
    This is how the situation will be:

    1. Hillary will win the nomination and the presidency, and, like New York, she will earn our trust and admiration and will perform beyond what Obama supporters would have expected from her.

    2. Obama will win the nomination and the presidency, and, as with his Senatorial debut, will underperform and disappoint many of his supporters by not walking on water as expected, and the other percentage of his supporters will act as if he is walking on water with every tepid, half-assed measure he puts forward through his bully pulpit.

    3. Obama will win the nomination and the presidency, and he makes a 90 degree turn and becomes the president his supporters expect him to be, opens up a golden age of kindness and acceptance not before seen in the U.S., and shows the world that the U.S. is a bastion of honor and wisdom.

    4. Hillary will win the nomination and the presidency, and she brings the U.S. to a new low of corruption and war, dragging our name through the mud and once again showing the world that we just don't care.

    I don't put anything in there where McCain wins because, frankly, I can't think about that yet. :-(

    Parent
    i submit that ms. thomas (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:36:59 PM EST
    will very shortly be subject to the "ferraro" effect; vilified for having the temerity to voice in public what many, many, many of us have been thinking in private.

    i wish it weren't so, but there you have it. i must admit though, it would be quite entertaining watching her question "president obama".

    My first thought... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by michitucky on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:56:12 PM EST
    was of her grilling him!  Ah.....That thought makes me grin!

    Parent
    Wow, I have a great-aunt like that too (none / 0) (#180)
    by RTwilight on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:01:39 AM EST
    wonder if they're related :)

    Parent
    Helen summarized (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:56:37 PM EST
    the points we have been making here all these months.  What did he do?  

    Take back the government to do what?? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:00:56 PM EST
    Obama displays no passion for policy, and little interest in details, compared to Hillary.

    Nice take.. how does Hillary win? (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by TalkRight on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:02:38 PM EST
    How does Hillary win?


    It's that simple.
    Work.

    Obama's worries are such that the only scenario he has for a "victory" is to disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan. Any nomination that does not fully respect the voters and the votes of Florida and Michigan will not be legitimate.

    How does Hillary Clinton win? By winning - in Pennsylvania and some of the states that follow. Obama wants to distract from the issues and Big Media wants to talk about tax returns and other nonsense. Voters want to hear Hillary Clinton talk about issues that matter to their lives.

    How does Hillary Clinton win? By fighting for the voters of Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton wins by fighting against any back room deals that steal the election by disenfranchising, in George W. Bush manner, millions of voters. Obama wants to steal the election by proposing formulas that award him 50% of votes he did not get.

    How does Hillary Clinton win? By staying in the race until all voters vote in all the upcoming primaries and demonstrating in a real world manner that Obama wants to shut them out of the process while she fights for their right to be heard and to vote.

    How does Hillary Clinton win? By fighting for every vote at the Democratic National Convention.

    How does Hillary Clinton win? By winning the popular vote of Democrats. Let the Democratic Party disenfranchise its own voters with skewed formulas and Republican interference in our primary calendar and Obama's "Democrat for a Day" schemes.

    Hillary Clinton wins not by talking about defending the right to vote, but by defending the right to vote and counting every vote.

    How does Hillary Clinton win? By her supporters working. Make calls to Pennsylvania and travel to Pennsylvania and the upcoming primaries and win.

    Donate to help the campaign in Pennsylvania.

    That's the way to win.



    You got it (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:04:50 PM EST
    Change does not happen overnight, it's a struggle.  

    Parent
    Yes, you are absolutely right.. (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:37:08 PM EST
    And what I want someone to ask Obama is how someone who touts himself as a constitutional lawyer can stand by while millions of voters are disenfranchised. I don't want a President who wins by asking the opposition to quit, I want one that will fight to the bitter end for what they believe in. The problem with Obama is that it's hard to pin down what he believes in, other than hopes and dreams for everyone. I hope that person who sent him her grocery money doesn't get too hungry. Hope is nice, but not very filling.

    Parent
    Every time I hear Clinton speak (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Suma on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:08:34 PM EST
    she speaks of how proud she is that in this election we have a woman and an African American running for the presidency of this great country, for the first time. And that she will work hard to see that a democrat is in the White House after this election. How many times has anyone heard Obama say that he is proud that a woman is running for the presidency? "My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants" Oh pleeese..

    And of course, it is ok for Michelle Obama to say that she will have to think about supporting Clinton!
    I would really like to know who belongs to "we" category.

    Obama says 'we' and hides MLK said it and led (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:13:57 PM EST
    There's a difference. When Obama says "we" he could easily be referring to the mouse in his pocket. When there's the slightest whiff of controversy, he's nowhere to be seen. If he's pinned down, he'll tap dance his way out of it and let his wife or others say the harsh stuff.

    Helen Thomas pinned it down:

    I am still trying to find the key that has made Obama a prime candidate for the presidency, and to understand what he has done for the country beyond his middle-of-the-road political moves to make his name known and to steer clear of hot-button issues.

    The Rev. Martin Luther King had a dream, too. But he acted on it. He went to jail, he marched, he led.

    When Dr. King and other genuinely courageous leaders say it, they're at the head of the march, not hiding out fear in case some media type might pin him down on a quote.

    If a lightweight like BO gets you inspired, run with that. As someone who's more concerned about restoring our vanished constitutional rights, I'm sorry to hear you demand so little from leaders.

    I hope you remember your superficiality when Obama Unites with the One Party fools, as he has repeatedly promised is his main objective.

    This ridiculous and dangrous mindset is what has shredded our vanished rights and freedoms this century. I want to stuff the Bush Cheney era into the dustbin of history, not continue it with "our" version of a phony, self-important monarch who calls hiding being "above the fray."

    Oh thank goodness (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:26:22 PM EST
    for us boomers and beyond. The young up and coming will get their chance as we did and be just as annoyed at the young up and comers. I thought I knew it all in my 20's. Woe de me, was I ever wrong. Now I have experience and know where I screwed up. And if Helen Thomas has the experience to know a good President or not, and if she tells Hillary not to give up, I will respect that as a You Go Girl!

    As a member of the post boomer age group (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by RTwilight on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:52:07 PM EST
    I totally agree with you...long have I been ashamed at the arrogance, disrespect and general ignorance that have been so common amongst my contemporaries.

    I have always sought(sp) out mentors from previous generations, and will continue to do so until that is no longer possible...and it has really made me a bit of a freak amongst my peers...

    Parent

    "Expendable" (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:33:39 PM EST
    And since Hillary is slightly trailing Obama, she becomes expendable in this war against republican incompetence (is that redundant).

    Maybe you got it wrong.  You don't decide who is expendable.  Let the voters do it.  The Elites don't make the decision, the voters do.  Since when did it become scary to let people vote?  

    No, still people have to vote (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:49:30 PM EST
    the primary is not over.  G States still have to vote, MI and Fl have to be settled and SD's have to vote.  He is not ahead.  it's 50-50.  it's a tie.  Enjoy the ride.  No need to rush.  There is time.  Let McCain shadow box.  

    Parent
    You should have just say no.... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:36:57 PM EST
    ...I think Edgar got you on that one. LOL.

    Parent
    Boy this post really popped up in the wrong place. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:38:03 PM EST
    It was a response to a post that it is nowhere near.

    Parent
    There you go again..... (none / 0) (#97)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:42:07 PM EST
    'dislike Hillary.'  I need to point out that Obama may be ahead by your count in delegates and popular vote, but some of us think Obama will lose in November and hope the superdelegates step in and exercise their judgment and nominate Clinton.  Some of us think the superdelegates should support Clinton because she is the better leader.  Some of us think the superdelegates should support Clinton because she has the better policies.  Rules are rules, the superdelegates are independent.  Can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

    Parent
    Actually you missed an important calculus. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:32:27 PM EST
    The superdelegates at the end of the day, must decide between two candidates, one with more primary votes, and one with more delgate votes. Additionally they will decide which of the voting states will be the most important to count on in the GE. Their job is to weigh the variables in the case of a virtual tie.  They shouldn't and probably wont't award the nomination to someone who didn't win at least one of the two criteria.That is why the Obama people are so agitated.  They are trying to make their case for the one criteria they will win, the delegate count.  Of course, Hillary is making her case on the primary votes and after PA, IN, WVa, NC and KY we will have our answer.

    Parent
    Hillary can't win (none / 0) (#121)
    by Traven on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:07:23 PM EST
    And a lot of us think that Hillary can't win -- her negatives are way too high and I know too many Republicans (my traitorous brother among them) who are ready to vote for Obama over McCain, but would vote for the Devil himself before voting for Hillary.  

    Parent
    I used to believe that too. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:13:37 PM EST
    But now I know of 1 acquaintance who would vote for McCain first before she'd ever vote for HRC.   And about 10 or  12 who say the same about Obama.    The later folks are the ones who don't read blogs or get very active in politics.

    If Hillary is so disliked, why has she been winning all the big states? The states that if we were counting Electoral College votes would put her ahead of Obama.  

    Nope, they are virtually identical on the popular vote, even with all the nasty press against her.

    "Voters hate Hillary" ---  That dog won't hunt any more.

    Parent

    Again, evidence -- please. Polls show (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:10:29 PM EST
    favorables not far apart at all between Clinton and Obama (see quite a few at RealClearPolitics, for example) -- and his support is starting to go "soft," according to the new CBS/NYT poll.

    Parent
    Polls (none / 0) (#147)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:28:45 PM EST
    Your immediate info indicates one thing.  (I have three democratic family members that are going to vote for McCain).... Exit polls, and subsequent polls show that the number of people unwilling to vote for Obama is higher than the number of people who won't vote for Clinton.  I don't understand how people can be unaware of this info.  It's been on the news networks, the cable news networks and written up in articles.  Only one poll showed that 22% of each wouldn't vote for the either.  The one that was very telling was that 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain and another 13% would stay home.  That's 41% of Clinton supporters that aren't supportive of Obama.  Also, polls have had Obama's negatives within the margin of error of Clinton's.

    Whether a large number of Repubs vote for either candidate is not going to have as big an impact as whether the supporters of one candidate votes for the other.

    Parent

    Tit for tat (none / 0) (#195)
    by magisterludi on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:47:59 AM EST
    My mother hated HRC and now will only vote for her. She's a lifelong republican. Her red hat friends are the same.

    Another anecdote- my husband is in the music business and we are around a certain demographic a lot. When politics come up and I find some are Obama supporters, i query them as to what they know about the "One". You would be surprised how many don't know that he voted for war funding once elected to national office.
    Some seem quite crestfallen and have decided to rethink their position.

    Just sayin'.

    Parent

    actually, he isn't. (none / 0) (#171)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:12:28 PM EST
    The voters so far have made their views known and Obama is in the lead in both delegates and the popular vote.

    you (and many others) conveniently overlook the fact that in several caucus states, there is no formal "popular vote" count, because of the way caucuses are conducted (rube goldberg would approve!). we don't really know, for certain, which one is ahead in the popular vote.

    to say that sen. obama is in the lead assumes facts not provable.

    Parent

    Are you sure you're not (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:33:52 PM EST
    52% for Obama and 48% for Clinton?

    One of the best Clinton bashing prototype diaries on an Obama blog goes like this:  "She's a great person and I could be convinced to vote for her if she wasn't a lying selfish corrupt sell out!"

    It's laughable.

    It's sometimes really annoying.

    Let's give this a try (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:00:43 PM EST
    More than a year ago, an Obama surrogate, David Geffen called the Clinons liars.

    Do you agree with Geffen's statement?

    Parent

    I was considering voting for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:54:01 PM EST
    Before you posted a comment here.

    Parent
    Ha! Ha! (none / 0) (#99)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:43:47 PM EST
    You just can't help yourself.

    Parent
    well that clinches it... (none / 0) (#70)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:12:35 PM EST
    she won't have the delegate lead after PA, NC and IN unless you count FL and even then it's doubtful.

    But thanks for the pretense that you are open minded.

    Parent

    Because we want a winner in Nov---not (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    another McGovern.
    To lose THIS year because of a tomato can candidate like Obama would be unbearable.

    Parent
    Never (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:53:12 PM EST
    It never becomes a battle not worth continuing.  The fight will continue.  That's what people do who think winning in November is important.  I will continue to donate to Clinton, campaign for Clinton, discuss Clinton's policies and experience.  I really believe she will be the best leader.  I think her policies are important to creating the legislative change that will benefit this country.  I want to win in November.  I want someone in the White House that is actually going to accomplish some real policy changes in this country.  There is no 'hope', no 'believe' no 'unity'.  None of that.  Just issues... schools, energy, war, health care, infrastructure.....  Real issues, real people, real problems and supporting the person who I think can actually get some of it done.

    Never give up, never give in.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton said she had to do well in (none / 0) (#92)
    by athyrio on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
    Pennsylvania not North Carolina....

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#199)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:27:45 AM EST
    Don't you understand that's a signal to motivate people in NC to get out and help her win.  That's why he said she had to win in Texas and not Rhode Island - she was ahead there.

    People always love to support an underdog and if the supporters in NC think she's an underdog, they'll work their butts off for her.

    Parent

    What about the popular vote? (none / 0) (#153)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:37:11 PM EST


    Parent
    I haven't voted yet (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    April 21st. Yep, I get to vote. Finally. So remember, this is a 50 state primary. Er, 48 state primary. I am not getting tired of the fight. If she was not fighting on, if she was giving up, I would be wondering why do I even bother supporting a candidate. But he has not closed the deal. Why, because the people without blinders on want her to keep fighting for them and their votes.

    seeeteee- you rip Hillary for being so evil as (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by kenosharick on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:46:25 PM EST
    to dare criticize Barck but you have no problem with his constant attacks on her? That he STARTED the negativity? That his campaign played the race card? And continues to do so? It is in reality the constant name-calling and viciousness of many of his supporters that have repelled many of us.

    It's a ploy (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:51:16 PM EST
    I have seen this many a time here.  This alleged Hillary voter or ex Hillary voter who is now so over to the Obama side, who bashes Hillary day and night.  The voices are all so familiar.  

    Parent
    You make no sense here- (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by kenosharick on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:59:56 PM EST
    "kitchen sink" is an invention of the media. And Obama went negative before Iowa.

    Parent
    Do you... (none / 0) (#65)
    by michitucky on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:05:55 PM EST
    Measure your preferred candidate by the same standard?  Hmmmmm.......

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by michitucky on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:16:56 PM EST
    That's where I disagree with you...I blame him for starting it.  I guess we'll agree to disagree, as I find your reasoning quite disengenuous.  Go figure...

    Parent
    Actually... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by michitucky on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:37:28 PM EST
    I wouldn't give your finding me disengenuous a second thought...I'm a military wife, so I have rather personal issues when choosing my candidate. I prefer someone who knows the difference between an F-16 and an F-18.

    Senator Obama started taking potshots before Iowa...Then he and Senator Edwards double-teamed her right before the NH Primary.  As for race being injected into this race, for me, it was Oprah who did so at the SC Rally.  

    The ironic thing is, if you were to pigeon-hole me into a demographic, on the surface, I'd be a pegged an Obama supporter...I drive a Volvo, I have a MSW, and a nice chunk of disposable income......Big difference......I actually WORK in the inner-city.

    Parent

    seriously (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:29:18 PM EST
    Daily howler.  Look it up and search "jeff gerth" and "obama".  The kindergarten stuff was a direct response to obama advancing the discredited 20 year plan line.  

    Are you sure you're not more 75-25?

    (Btw - you can also goggle marc ambinder to see how the obama people were trying to get reporters to write about b clinton's "post presidential se life" - last fall.)

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:03:33 PM EST
    Clinton actually didn't start this.  Obama was attacking her last year (d-punjap ring a bell?)

    There's another thread on the fantastic media critic bob somerby.  I would suggest you check out www.dailyhowler.com.  Start with last fall and you'll be able to see the constant attacks on clinton and how the media ran with them.

    Parent

    And if rev wright said it- (none / 0) (#198)
    by kenosharick on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:46:10 AM EST
    Obama must agree, as he sat there listening to it w/o a peep for 20 years.

    Parent
    What Obama does (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:50:27 PM EST
    I think when some ask that,  they are referring to his accomplishments and policy goals.  Raising money is part of getting elected, not an accomplishment. The govt actually does quite well with fundraising already.  What tax policies and structure (govt fundraising) is Obama supporting?  All candidates, including Obama, get money from the right places and the wrong places, it's part of politics.  What policy is Obama promoting regarding campaign finance?

    Exactly what kind of school system (do you agree with Obama's support of school vouchers which run the risk of decimating the public school system are a good idea), health care (do you believe, like Obama, that UHC is not possible), energy policy (do you support nuclear energy), foreign policy (do you agree with Obama that private security forces which have no accountability should remain in Iraq) etc. are what you envision for your country?  What policies is Obama committed to implementing that match up with your goals for your country?

    exactly! (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:53:52 PM EST
    What is his signature issue?  What will he use his vaunted skills to achieve?  What will he put to congress first?  I have no idea.

    I know clinton will fight for health care.  I knew edwards would fight for anti-poverty.  What will obama fight for?  I mean besides "unity" and "washington is broken so I'll work with republicans to fix it.".

    Well.

    Sorry, I'm not interested in "unity" with people I disagree with or compromise for the sake of compromise.  So what else you got?

    Parent

    Quite frankly (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by standingup on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:35:52 PM EST
    I have never understood the unity ploy.  Who decided that the biggest problem our nation faces is that we are too polarized?  Electing a person that will unify the country does not interest me in the least bit.  

    Parent
    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:45:24 PM EST
    I'm always reminded of a 2007 story by dan balz in the washington post when the immigration reform bill died.  It was an "analysis" piece and he was outraged that the bill was killed.  Not because it was a good bill on merits but because it was a compromise that would have "settled the issue".  No mind that reasonable people (on both sides) might have has serious issues with the solution.  Balz just wanted a bill to pass.  Blech.  Lame.

    Obama"s supporters always point to how "passionate" people are for him.  that's great.  But it's a means, not an end.  What's the end?  Still no answer.

    Parent

    unity in a nation this diverse (none / 0) (#160)
    by RTwilight on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:48:49 PM EST
    is an impossibility anyways...like marxism or pure capitalism, it's looks great in a book but falls to reality

    Parent
    What are we supposed to do . . . (none / 0) (#164)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:53:27 PM EST
    after we "unify"? perhaps we can sing like this:

    http://tinyurl.com/yu6dd3

    Parent

    Bother.... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:01:05 PM EST
    he could not unify the Democratic party how is he going to unify the nation?  

    Parent
    I thought I would (none / 0) (#168)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:09:31 PM EST
    laugh, but I didn't. :(    It was scary. :0

    Parent
    sorry! didn't mean to scare ya! (none / 0) (#186)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:40:17 AM EST
    That darn commercial pops in my head often these days. I may just have to make my own video with the audio  {evil grin}

    Parent
    when Obama says 'we' will do this and that (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:25:08 PM EST
    he reminds me of GWB, the great delegator. Everything Bush takes credit for is somebody else's doing. This what I think Obama will do.

    I understand that is what a president does, but when Bill Clinton was pres. and the price of oil  rose back in the 90's, he led by dipping into the reserves. It had a temporary effect on oil prices, but it was SOMETHING that I'll never forget, thats leadership. But what does Bush do? NOTHING NADA zilch. Lets the 'free' market dictate oil prices whatever that means.

    I get the idea this is what an "Obama presidency" will be like . Long on delegating and less hands on. While in the Senate, he  voted present when it was a politically expedient; too often for my taste.   Hillary does it too, but she's stood in the well of the senate and criticized the president saying the  US screwed up the Iraq war.
                                                   Obama comes across as too calculating and we don't get to see what he's made of which leads me to believe he's the empty vessel without any experience except when he was in the IL state legislature. For 6 years he was a bench warmer, until the 7th year when the Dems got the majority and all the bills were sent to him so he could look like he did SOMETHING and was this great legislator. Except he wasn't and the ones who did the heavy lifting for 6 years weren't very happy  he got the credit.  

    A nice speech here and kind word there. Nice guy, but not ready for prime time.

    Parent

    Helen poin (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:56:46 PM EST
    I am still trying to find the key that has made Obama a prime candidate for the presidency, and to understand what he has done for the country beyond his middle-of-the-road political moves to make his name known and to steer clear of hot-button issues.

    Example from today, he refuses to talk to gay press, he did not show up in Memphis, he did not show up in New Orleans for Tavis Smiley Black State of Union.  Hillary did.

    Where is Obama on Democratic hot button issues?  Hiding under the aura of post partisanship.  

    oh, and did you notice Feb. (none / 0) (#181)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:16:12 AM EST
    was Black history month and a couple weeks ago it was Maya Angelou's birthday? Never saw Obama come out to pay homage to his roots, did anyone?

    Angelou was on Ophrah getting her due, but Obama?

    Maybe he sent a card but you'd think he's a media hound, this would play nicely.

    Parent

    His pastor was there. (none / 0) (#184)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:33:59 AM EST


    Parent
    It is worth going all the way. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:57:33 PM EST
    Who knew that a Presidential candidate's mentor was going to cause a problem. Well, Obama did right from the beginning. If you think that the chances are nil that there will not be some other revelation before June, then you are a very optimistic person. BHO wants the primary over with before we find out who he really is. We know who Hillary is. We even knew who Bill was and we liked what we saw.

    And (none / 0) (#144)
    by ROK on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:27:32 PM EST
    I'm glad you seem to know that we're not going to like him.

    Parent
    Obama as opportunist. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:57:46 PM EST
    This is what I don't understand about Obama mocking Hillary when she held him accountable for his "just words" rhetoric.

    In his Philadelphia speech on race, Obama said Reverend Wright's ranting was "just words."

    It seems "just words" becomes a get-out-of-controversy-free card when Obama applies it. But he's highly offended and indignant when anyone suggests it of him.

    Also, Obama said African-Americans wear a mask for the white world, that they take off when in barbershops and churches and the company of their own.

    So how are we to know he isn't wearing a mask when courting the presidency?

    I now look at all my African-American friends and wonder if they're wearing a mask with me. If, behind my back in the company of their own, they're damning me.

    He may have instilled hope in you.

    But he's troubled and saddened me. Deeply.

    I'm 51% for Obama, 49% for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:14:22 PM EST
    uhhhhh..

    You just wrote she is self-righteous, a martyr, she's tedious, she's expendable, you don't like her 'attitude', she's excoriating your candidate,

    You'd be happy to vote for her? I don't know.  Look at some of your past comments...

    .....Hillary basically called Obama a coward.... If Hillary can't legitimately win the delegate count, she should drop out....how Hillary voted on the war or how Hillary compared lobbyists for a nurses' group to corporate lobbyists?

    Hillary needs to bow out with what little grace is left in her campaign. (That comment, BTW, is the first one you ever made here)

    I understand you're talking 'unity' but your bias is showing.  I think you want people to unify around your candidate.  It may happen if he gets the nomination, it may not.

    why would any sentient being (3.00 / 2) (#94)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:37:38 PM EST
    care how you feel?  duh.

    Parent
    just a little ego massage (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:59:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I was at the HRC event (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by ruthinor on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:26:32 PM EST
    in Hillsoro OR today and whoever said that it was mostly women is totally full of it.  The crowd consisted of mainly young families, men and women plus their kids.  There were also many teens of both sexes as well as  middle aged and older folks.  It was quite a mixture of age groups, and there were LOTS of men.  I was in the overflow crowd that viewed the speech on a large TV screen.  The people I was with listened intently to the entire speech.  There was no talking, fidgeting etc.  Whoever said that Hillary was not a good speaker has not heard her lately.  She was extremely knowledgeable  on all topics.  Very impressive !

    Obama says "I" an awful lot.... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:30:09 PM EST
    ..I'm surprised people don't hear it more. He always saying...as I said before, as I said in a speech, etc, etc. Many, many "Is" especially when it come to taking credit. Yes he does say "we" when it comes to doing the hard work.

    "We " is used for inclusion (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:30:57 PM EST
    and to imply "identical" or one in the same.
    Orators use it to pull in an audience as do religions.

    Self help organizations use "we" to denote togetherness, sameness, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).

    MLK used it to identify with African Americans and their civil rights and set goals to meet with his leadership.

    However, when a politician uses it one might be a little cautious.

    Obama and I are not the same except via party label and even that is suspect.  

    I'm pretty unique, not into "sameness". <snark>

    Michigan vote (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by sister of ye on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:40:20 PM EST
    I live in Michigaan, too, and I went to the polls despite being in physical therapy and snow that made it a challenge to walk with my cane. I went because I had the hope that in the end my voice would be heard. I knew that Obama planned for the vote to count from the fact that here in SE MI his supporters ran ads pushing "uncommitted" as a vote for him. They wouldn't spend that money without expectation of a return.

    It was only when Clinton took a solid majority that the yelling started about the election being illegimate. Clinton consented to a revote, even if it wasn't her first choice, knowing she could lose.

    As I heard the revote plan described, only those who cast a Republican vote wouldn't be allowed to vote again. I don't care if some were following Kos' suggestion, but you don't get to vote twice because you made a dumb decision.

    Sorry you had better things to do that day, but you need to live with your choice, just as Obama needs to live with his choice to take his name off the MI ballot.

    Why has there been no attention (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by RTwilight on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    on the fact that Obama's entire political career started with tactics that disenfranchised voters in the dem primaries in chicago?

    Using b.s. legal challenges to eliminate all the competition, including the very popular incumbant, seems a bit inexcusable for a candidate running on the 'holier than thou' platform.

    What tactics? What primaries? (none / 0) (#129)
    by fiver5 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:12:33 PM EST


    Parent
    In the primaries for the state legislature (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by RTwilight on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:20:56 PM EST
    for the district he ran for, Obama's campaign used lawyers to tie up the other dem candidates, including the incumbant, in challenges to the signitures on their petitions to run, until the primaries were over...he ran unopposed in the primaries when he should have gone up against a candidate that would have smeared him

    Parent
    Google Alice Palmer and Obama (none / 0) (#136)
    by ding7777 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:18:50 PM EST
    Here's one article about it

    Parent
    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#154)
    by fiver5 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:37:35 PM EST
    But I'm still not understanding what was unfair.  He challenged his opponents nominating signatures and was found to be right.

    BTW, watch out for the Chicago Tribune.  As a kid with a Tribune paper rout, I remember wrapping each paper in a "Vote Republican" plastic bag on election day.  The McCormick Family (former sole owners of the Trib) were wildly conservative, and neither the Tribune Corp. or present ownership have varied from the theme.

    Parent

    The information I had (none / 0) (#174)
    by RTwilight on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:33:18 PM EST
    available pointed to the challenges being rather more tactical in origin than ethical...I will recheck my sources for bias...thank you for local veiwpoint

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#177)
    by fiver5 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:40:07 PM EST
    Paper "route" not "rout."  I hate when I do that.

    Parent
    Polls don't mean squat, it's the votes that (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:59:43 PM EST
    count. And I live in FL. so I am not going to get counted either. And if Obama really cared about your opinion, or your vote, he would have left his name on the ballot. And then demanded that all the states be seated. But he didn't, he felt he needed to suck up to a couple of other states instead. So, let him take half the undecideds. He hasn't earned any more.  

    What polls? I've checked all for Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:07:54 PM EST
    -- a couple of dozen -- at RealClearPolitics, and none showed Obama doing well in Michigan at all. All showed Clinton ahead by huge margins. So what polls are you talking about? Link? At least a name or two of such polls in your state? Without some evidence of at least something you say here, I can't put credence in it -- since I'm next door to Michigan, talk with folks there, and haven't heard them suggest anything like what you say here.

    Speaking of Michigan, on Press the Meat just now (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ellie on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:33:19 AM EST
    ... Russert tried a fake "gotcha" on HRC and Rendell, blurring MI & FL as shifting the goalposts. Rendell smacked him down handily.

    Now Russert's mawing the phony "naked under their clothes" AHA! about the money (from speaking and book fees) and how that's gonna play "in Altoona". I guess Altoona was in Little Russ's thoughts when he swung through the state flogging his crap book, which, apparently, he offered gratis rather than take any money for such a labor of love.

    Rendell's stooge slapping's pretty good on Russert's knee jerk charge, appropos of nothing, that the Clinton foundation must be dirty because, um, his research squad hates them I guess. (Little Russ offered no tangible reason for the insinuation; he's just on malevolent cruise control.)

    Russert is at the vanguard of the Obama rules and formula for holding him up as the candidate "of destiny" and HRC going home with her statistical tie right now is based on the  But If If If If and IF ... all this goes against HRC, which is possible since we hate her, will she THEN drop this silly bid for office that bugs us so?

    (DISCLAIMER: Why am I even watching? I plead a combination of trans-pond work, fax barf and my inability to refrain from rubbernecking atrocious media.)

    Upside: next instalment is about Dr. MLK Jr.

    Parent

    'Both' do it unfair; BO said he wouldn't AT ALL (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:33:22 PM EST
    What will it take for this phony to be held to his own promises and standards even once? He's the only one who set that ridiculous bar FOR HIMSELF.

    So stop this BS right now.

    BO gets cred for saying he'll bring a NEW post partisan era of One Party unity. He collects kudos for that from the fawning koolaid kidz in media and in his camp, and hasn't once delivered on this high ground (unless he meant that's where he'll hide out cause it's a good place to sling sh*t. at others.)

    When he's exposed as being as cynical and opportunistically negative as every politician since the dawn of time, the typical TeamO response is, so? [/Cheney]

    Like, HRC did it too. But she only promised that she knows full well how the game is played. She beat it yesterday. She's beating it today. She'll keep beating it tomorrow. And she'll stay standing at the end.

    She didn't promise nor sign onto Cumbaya -- then hide out while surrogates accuse people of egregious racism, corruption or 'secret thoughts' that only media and TeamO telepaths can detect and are 100%, like, accurate and stuff.

    She gets hit with the multiple whammy of being thought guilty of even imagined crap related to her campaign, and whupped when Obama is revealed yet again to be a fraud.

    Hillary did not (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by dem08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:26:50 PM EST
    speak out against the Florida and Michigan Primaries being examples "of disenfranchising" because she thought she would win.

    I hate when Obama fans cannot see her principal-ed leadership:

    She voted to give the Idiot his War because she thought we would win;

    she didn't protest the Florida Michigan "disenfranchisement" because she thought SHE would win the clear nomination by Super Tuesday.

    That is The Clinton's at their finest, and that is why we pay Bill so much money for advice and speeches.

    Hillary will bring The Clinton's back to The White House. We all know what that brings with it, so it is no wonder everyone loves her so much.

    It's nice to hear (none / 0) (#13)
    by lepidus on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    the positive side of why someone supports Obama. Thank you.

    Okay... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:29:25 PM EST
    You spent half your grocery money on Barack Obama?  I don't know you and you are your own person, but I'm impressed that there we have a presidential candidate that has inspired so many to think outside of themselves and push for change through someone else.

    push for change (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:36:45 PM EST
    I keep waiting for them to define exactly what that "change" is. so far all I hear are things like:

    work w/repubs?
    keep mercenaries in Iraq?
    no universal health care?
    continue coal, nuclear
    foreign policy like the 1st bush and like reagan.

    sounds like "Meet the New Change, same as the old status quo."

    Parent

    Well, all I can say is that I find myself (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:10:34 PM EST
    changing the channel when I see him looking down his nose and bestowing pearls of wisdom upon the people, and I change the radio station when I hear his voice, and I've changed some of the things I used to say - "the notion that..." is an Obama-ism I just can't speak without gagging a little.

    And I give whatever change I can afford to Hillary.

    Yes, I am a changed person.

    Parent

    Brava! (none / 0) (#201)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    Rated this comment.  Excellent - I may steal it an use it myself.

    Parent
    They knew the rules-early primaries shouldnt count (none / 0) (#35)
    by MSS on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:37:05 PM EST
    They knew the rules from the day they planned those primaries -- and they knew what the penalties would be!

    Every stated wanted "the earliest" primary, the Democratic Central Committee set up a date and said "no earlier or there will be penalties, your votes won't be counted." Every state but FLA and MICH complied.

    In FLA the Democratic leadership LAUGHED when they debated holding off the primary to meet the rules.

    Just think, if they had WAITED, they would have had a far bigger impact with FLA & MICH.

    It's so not fair to try to count those votes now!

    Donna Brazile is laughing at YOU right now (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:41:59 PM EST
    for believing that fairy tale.

    Parent
    No No No No No-Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:48:32 PM EST
    We keep having to repeat this and I will until it is understood.

    Florida Republican legislators, in control of the Florida legislators did a fast one. THEY moved the date of the primary up. There was no Dem laugh in the face. The minority Democatic legislators voted for it because it was going to pass anyway but not just for the Primary change. On the same bill was a part that the Dems wanted. To make the machines have a paper trail in the future. That is very important too. The DNC punished the Dems by taking away Florida's votes. BUT, the Dems encouraged people to go out and vote anyway. So there are enough votes.

    BTW, is your vote counting? Would you like it taken away? Well Florida and Michigan do not like it either. So it is important to know the rules and the facts.

    Parent

    Thank You...... (none / 0) (#42)
    by michitucky on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    for pointing out, as a register voter in The Mitten State, I'm a nonentity!  Brillant!

    Parent
    Opps... (none / 0) (#44)
    by michitucky on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:46:51 PM EST
    REGISTERED

    Parent
    Uh, you need some more information... (none / 0) (#51)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM EST
    In FLA the Democratic leadership LAUGHED when they debated holding off the primary to meet the rules.

    In FL, it is the legislature that determines the primary dates, not the party leadership. The legislature is controlled by Republicans. The Democratic leadership knew when they were debating that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that the legislature would agree to a new primary or anything else that would seat FL Democratic delegation. Why would the Republicans give up the chance to pick the Dem nominee by controlling one of the key states' primary? They won't. They really want to run against Obama. He will be shredded and permanently composted by November. Clinton is a problem, she can beat them and they know it. So, of course, they won't vote to let the Dems change their primary date. It's to their advantage not to.

    Parent

    Did Obama have time to campaign (none / 0) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:08:33 PM EST
    In New York, California, and Ohio?

    Parent
    Okay, enough of your verb choices, newbie (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:19:43 PM EST
    Tone it down. You have Clinton "yelling," "screaming," etc. -- typical and stereotypical at the same time. Really, lurk and read this blog for a while, as that's not how it's done here.

    Parent
    What?? (none / 0) (#170)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:11:07 PM EST
    Where? I did not...did not..did not. Wrong post, Cream City. :D

    Parent
    Whoa, that was for Karela, now gone (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:38:28 PM EST
    with all her posts (see downthread from Jeralyn) -- so this one landed under yours now. Not at all for you FlaDemFem; I appreciate your input here.

    Parent
    Thanks, I figured it was (none / 0) (#200)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:30:06 AM EST
    something like that..LOL You usually agree with me. Heh.

    Parent
    got a link to back this up? (none / 0) (#38)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:39:19 PM EST
    "Hillary is too busy excoriating Obama."
    Anything recent? (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:17:45 PM EST
    I keep hearing how she's attacking him, tearing the party apart and all that crap, yet no one who says that can supply an recent links on it. They always go back to old info, and much of it has been twisted to fit their story line. Good example would be the CIC test. She didn't leave him out, she asked him to lay his credentials on the table. Obama himself has praised McCain's CIC creds, so I think we can lower the outrage when she says it, eh? Now, if you can show me something in the past couple weeks that is REALLY an attack on Obama, I'd really appreciate it. Otherwise, you may want to let it go, we have a long ways to go until this is over.

    Me howling again? Please show me where I was "howling" the first time, because asking for a link sure doesn't sound like howling to me (or my dog!). And what's up with the cannibalism and outrage comments? You may want to layoff the coffee?

    Parent

    What she said to Richardson (or didn't say) (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:58:00 PM EST
    is NOT an attack. She and he are BOTH pleading their cases to the SDs. That should have never been out in public and I don't think there is a solid source, right?

    She did NOT bring up the Wright stuff. She had been deflecting that question from the beginning. She finally answered what she would do since the question was put that way, but then continued to deflect after that. I believe they have now quit asking her. Or if they haven't, she's not giving them anything to run with. Now what Wolfson said is something totally different. They were discussing whether it comes up with the SDs, which is a perfectly valid question when it comes to electibility. And he has no problem bringing up her bagage when it comes to electibility either. Really, try and step back and really listen to what they say. His campaign says all kinds of crap about her. I think there was even something in the link you provided.

    You're not doing either candidate any favors buy putting out over the top outrage when all she's doing is concentrating on Policy, stumping and trying to win the Nom. Unnamed staffers, aides and supporters supplying info shouldn't be 'truth' at this point. imo, anyway  ;)

    Parent

    your dishonesty is repulsive (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:02:18 PM EST
    Obama supporters who genuinely represent themselves and the issues are of course welcome but it didn't take but reading through one diary's worth of comments to see where you're coming from.

    Parent
    Um, what are you getting at? (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:15:04 PM EST
    I think the why of Clinton's argument against Obama is pretty straightforward: he's not experienced, and he's wobbly in several must-win and swing states.
    Obama's electability rests on an entirely different, unproven pattern of electoral votes. It's only natural to be skeptical.

    Parent
    New to political campaigns, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:15:13 PM EST
    It's called politics. It's called a contest. Do you remember swiftboating in 2004? That was a real attack. Please tell us if you remember that, were involved in politics then . . . as frankly, you sound really naive in your first comments here.

    Parent
    Your writing style (none / 0) (#157)
    by standingup on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:45:45 PM EST
    and demeanor are becoming almost familiar as you make more comments.  I am reminded of a person that was banned several times here in the last week.  I hope what I suspect is wrong.  

    Parent
    Blah...blah...blah... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:57:29 PM EST


    Parent
    It's off topic (none / 0) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:00:03 PM EST
    and all you do is hijack this thread.  So enough.  

    Parent
    This argument againtst disenfranchisement... (none / 0) (#41)
    by fiver5 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:42:19 PM EST
    would have been much more effective before the MI/FL votes.  But no one made even a peep then.  Now, there's more than a faint scent of self-interest in the air.

    My preference:  re-vote both states with all participants agreeing that Iowa's and New Hampshire's preeminence is little more than an effective right wing tool to eliminate any candidate considered too far to the left (as well as to make sure the ethanol subsidy keeps flowing to Exxon).

    Oh, and Helen Thomas rocks.

    It's funny the reference to The Comlumbian (none / 0) (#50)
    by voterin2008 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:50:43 PM EST
    took quotas from six people in their article, two are to young to vote and four lived in Vancouver which is Washington.  Hopefully the others where registered to vote in Oregon.  And it also mentioned 5,000 compared to 30,000 for Obama in similar rallies.  

    I agree the problem is for this to be a legit argument someone else then Clinton needs to lead the crusade.  The counter argument is way to strong that his is blatant self serving politics.  Especially when your own words and actions support that claim.  If a revote does happen it has to be Gore, Edwards, Dean or someone else who is seen as a nuetral party leading the charge.  

    Good for Helen Thomas (none / 0) (#63)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:03:10 PM EST
    I want to see her stalk Barack like she did Colbert in his video for the White House Press Correspondents dinner.

    Someone help me. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:10:41 PM EST
    Hillary is asking for delegates already pledged to Obama to switch to her. People voted for Obama and these delegates were chosen because they supported Obama. For them to now switch to Clinton would be to disenfranchise those Obama voters. These were voters in sanctioned primaries.

    So Clinton wants to disenfranchise voters in sanctioned Democratic primaries and wants voters in unsanctioned primaries to count. What's the commonality here?

    Not Necessarily True (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Richjo on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:31:12 PM EST
    People voted for Obama and these delegates were chosen because they supported Obama.
    More people in Texas and Nevada voted for Hillary, yet Obama got more delegates in those states. So your claim really isn't true. Technically people vote for delegates, not for the candidate. The whole process is a joke to be honest, but I would say that every state should still be entitled to participate in it, no matter how dumb it is. Neither candidate can achieve a legitimate victory because the process is such a joke. We need to accept that and work to come up with a compromise that works for this year, and a plan that completely overhauls the system for future years. But everyone needs to get down off their high horse and accept the only uncontestable truth- the process sucks.

    Parent
    And... (none / 0) (#202)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:43:43 AM EST
    "pledged" delegates really aren't.  They are just as free to change their vote at the convention as "super" delegates are.  They usually don't, because they are party activists / candidate activists, but they can.

    Parent
    Do you mean Superdelegates? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by ding7777 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:16:31 PM EST
    Tell me about John Lewis.

    I guess Obama's threats of running a primary challenger to Lewis, worked, huh?

    Parent

    Bob (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by standingup on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:27:50 PM EST
    Please don't insult our intelligence or your own with this misrepresentation of the facts.  We all know that the delegates are not committed until they go through additional votes at the county/district and state level.  Both candidates are working to keep their delegates with them at each level and each will accept any that flips along the way.  

    Parent
    Obama is doing the (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:58:49 PM EST
    same thing.  Obama even made some of the loyal dems in Alabama mad because he switched them out for some he felt couldn't be flipped.  Obama knows the game.

    Parent
    commonality (none / 0) (#84)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:29:39 PM EST
    is that Obama is doing the same thing.  including here in TX before the county conventions.  oh the drama and irony of it all.  can you stand it any longer?  so much concern.

    Parent
    Didn't Obama's Iowa campaign (none / 0) (#107)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:52:55 PM EST
    get some Edwards delegates to switch over? People voted for Edwards and delegates were chosen because they supported Edwards. For them to switch over to Obama disenfranchises those Edwards voters. Those were voters in a sanctioned primary caucus.

    Clinton's idea is that counting the popular vote in a legal primary run according to state election rules and laws is what democracy is all about.

    Is it really true that in the caucus states a count of how many voters voted for each candidate cannot be properly established? No ballots to recount, no hard numbers? I'm pretty upset at this idea.

    Parent

    I can only speak for my legislative district (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:07:26 PM EST
    But yes I'm sure that's the case!

    My story .... I was elected a delegate at my precinct caucus back in Feb. I was an Edwards supporter. We didn't have enough to get a delegate -- under 15% you are voiceless. So on 2nd round of voting I went with the Clinton supporters if they would elect me a delegate.

    But after a week or two I was wholeheartedly a Hillary supporter, in part because of being turned off by Obama fans attacks. More by increasing examples of Obama's lack of good judgment and his thinly veiled Republicanism.

    So today, April 5, I went to my legislative district caucus. Interestingly they did not have me down as a delegate, nor my husband who was the alternate, both of us for Clinton. But they had all 3 Obama delegates and alternates on their list.

    Digging thru the original handwritten papers from the caucus showed I'd signed in, and at 2nd round voted Clinton. And that 1 Clinton delegate was picked to 3 Obama's. But nothing to show I and my husband were the Clinton del & alternate. My husband had his handwritten slip of paper saying "alternate."  I'd lost my "delegate" slip, probably when moving. Apparently they do not keep copies of these slips from the caucus.  The officials let us in, after saying they would run it thru the credentials committee later on to see if it would count.  

    I took pictures of the original handwritten caucus paperwork just in case.  But if the original paperwork was tossed out after it was all transferred to computer documents -- I would have been up the proverbial creek.  What an arcane system. It could be scammed so easily.

    Parent

    This sounds just like stories form other states (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:41:26 PM EST
    of problems for Clinton delegates in this second round -- see recent diaries re Texas, even a Youtube about it -- and so we have to wonder just why it is so often the Obama delegates who are correctly recorded but not the Clinton delegates. I have my theories.

    Parent
    Wow, that's amazing and a bit scary. (none / 0) (#140)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:22:04 PM EST
    I'm so glad you and your husband stuck with it! I've never lived in a caucus state, always primaries, and I'm really surprised that the DNC is comfortable with a system that doesn't keep track of caucus ballots and hard counts of votes. This primary season has been really good for learning how everything works. The delegate thing is much more fragile and time intensive than I ever realized.

    Parent
    Delegates are indeed free to change their pledges (none / 0) (#112)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:54:44 PM EST
    That's been one of the rules for a long long time. Usually you vote your pledge the 1st  round out of courtesy and then change for the 2nd round of voting.  (Having been a delegate in a caucus --d*mn them -- state).

    Nobody screamed about this very much prior to 2008.

    But it does allow delegates to use their judgement in case something comes up in the weeks or months between they were first elected, and when the delegates cast their final vote.

    Oh yeah, delegates are elected. Caucuses elect delegates. Primary reults are used to select the # of delegates The actual percentage votes are in a way meaningless -- it's all about picking someone you think will vote the right way up at the next level.  "Democracy" it is not.

    Parent

    What went on in Washington State today (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:22:32 PM EST
    Can you tell us, our intrepid correspondent in Seattle?  You had recaucusing again at the legislative district level, and I've been looking for reports to see if the counts shifted but have had no luck looking at online media, the state Dem Party site, the state Secretary of State site, etc.

    Parent
    Please... (none / 0) (#102)
    by michitucky on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:44:57 PM EST
    Provide a link for your comments.  I'm a Michigander and I can find nothing to support your statments.

    I looked up karela (none / 0) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:05:17 PM EST
    Just started posting today.  5 items.  It started out with 'WE' hearts and minds, fabulous amounts of money, Obama's words are a gift and then.....

    it went to 'YOU' ignorant, self-serving Clinton supporters, get cute... and it's all Clinton's fault.  Go figure.

    BTW I lurked here for weeks and read the old items.  :)

    she's being banned and (none / 0) (#159)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:48:28 PM EST
    her comments are being deleted.

    Parent
    "counting votes" (none / 0) (#131)
    by diogenes on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:13:55 PM EST
    So tell me again why popular votes from Puerto Rico count for anything when the Commonwealth doesn't get electoral votes for president?  

    Because the Dem Party is better on this (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:25:25 PM EST
    than the country at large. Puerto Rico ought to have statehood, but that takes an act of Congress. The primary roolz are up to the Dem Party, and good for Dems for giving Puerto Ricans some voice in who will be their president, too. Btw, are you asking this question about the territories that went for Obama and also cannot vote in the general election? If not, why not? What have you got against, say, Samoans?

    Parent
    Obama's sweetie problem (none / 0) (#135)
    by athyrio on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:17:16 PM EST
    If the media truly are not more gender than race biased, then Barack Obama's remarks on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania this week should get as much coverage as Hillary Clinton's remark about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson.

    While flirting with female factory workers in Allentown, he called one "sweetie," a paternalistic way to address a woman if there ever was one. It might have worked had he been trying to do his best imitation of Lily Tomlin's Ernestine, the telephone operator, but this was no spoof. This was Obama trying to relate to working-class women in a way that went directly south.

    this is the link

    Wow! (none / 0) (#149)
    by Lil on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:30:58 PM EST
    I remember male bosses in the 70's using those terms with us, but a presidential candidate in 2008. Boggles the mind and shocks me to no end that it is not all over the news.

    Parent
    Yep, it took me back decades, too (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:44:22 PM EST
    to bosses, coworkers, etc., in the unenlightened days.  But today, even salesmen know not to try that stuff (and it's not just because I'm older now; my daughter and her friends in their 20s are stunned to hear the stories of how we were treated then).

    Parent
    double standards alive and well (none / 0) (#187)
    by twotimes on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:08:14 AM EST
    Thanks, Jeralyn, for deleting my opinion related to Helen Thomas' throwback comments to the past (MLK and race).  Apparently it's ok for readers to opine on some issues and not others.  There are also lots of Clinton shills on this site who also seem to go unnoticed and undeleted.  

    Parent
    They don't call (none / 0) (#188)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:19:14 AM EST
    others insane and they don't end their posts telling people how to vote.

    Parent
    Sometimes (none / 0) (#146)
    by Lil on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:28:24 PM EST
    I think I'm missing something with Obama, like maybe I should take a look at why he is so popular. Maybe there is more substance to him. Then women like Maya Angelou and Helen Thomas jerk me back to reality and remind me, I'm not crazy to think Hillary's the right choice.

    He's got Bush's frat boy charm, without the (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:46:03 PM EST
    frat. He draws those that are with him tighter in by putting down those who are not.
    I find him more and more unpleasant.


    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#163)
    by Lil on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:53:01 PM EST
    Even though he'd be a million times better than Bush, I am concerned about us electing the most popular guy instead of the geeky smart one, which in this case would be a woman. Obama has given me goosebumps but for sure, she's the most qualified.

    Parent
    I think I've got it: Obama, rather than (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:50:50 PM EST
    bringing people together, brings people to HIM.
    There is a difference. You're only part of the "magic" if you're one of his supporters. Otherwise, you're sleeping with the fishes.

    Parent
    remember his canvassing (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:17:11 PM EST
    training?   stay away from policy and just tell the people a personal story about how you came to Obama.  maybe it really is a cult   :-)


    Parent
    Just a reminder (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:50:41 PM EST
    all points of view are welcome here but no one can insult other commenters or chatter.

    Tedious (none / 0) (#166)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:59:56 PM EST
    Vandals and visigoths the lot of them.  Why come and hijack threads with the same old arguments, the same old frontal attacks.  What is the point?  Vandalism.  

    And (none / 0) (#183)
    by nell on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:30:31 AM EST
    what you don't realize is that comments like these that take cheap shots at Clinton and paint Obama as the messiah of the 21st century are what turn many Clinton supporters off. If you get your wish and he is the nominee, then you will need people like me to vote for him in the general election. Perhaps being kind and arguing for your candidate and not taking cheap shots at the only Dem president we have had in a long time and a first lady who revolutionized the role by all accounts would be a good start. Your attitude is nothing new among Obama supporters and it is a HUGE turn off.

    I supported the Clinton's from Day 1! (none / 0) (#185)
    by twotimes on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:37:40 AM EST
    I am a Barack supporter who voted for Bill Clinton in the Democratic primary in '92.  I campaigned for and supported the Clinton's from Day 1 to their last in the White House.  I voted against the Bushes in every election (2 gubernatorial and 4 presidential).

    I started out a Hillary supporter.  Unfortunately, since New Hampshire, the negative Clinton campaign has hurt the Democratic Party.  In the process, the Clinton's have damaged their stellar legacy in the eyes of many Democrats.  I hope that, whatever the outcome of this election, the Clinton's will emerge as the unifying Democratic leaders they were before.

    The fact remains that Barack's name was not on the Michigan primary ballot.  Therefore, his supporters did not have an opportunity to vote for him. It is undemocratic for the Clinton's or anyone else to ask that election to count.  This is basic.

    As for messianic talk, Helen Thomas -not I- compared Barack to MLK, who holds vaunted status as a civil rights martyr.  I was merely asking why Helen would not set a similarly high standard for Hillary, by comparing her to someone I consider to have been a great First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt.

    Do not make the mistake of condescendingly discounting Barack and his supporters as inexperienced and irrational.  A lot of us have paid our Democratic dues.  We've also been around long enough to welcome newcomers into the Democratic fold, rather than condescend to them. '08 ain't the last fight against Republicans.  

    Parent

    Well, I can only think you argue (none / 0) (#189)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:33:18 AM EST
    irrationally in, for only one example, decrying that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan when it was his choice. He put his name on the ballot first, then took it off -- as a political calculation to appease Iowa and New Hampshire, and for no other purpose. I am looking for Obamans who can convince me on the facts. You are another who does not know the facts so has not done so.

    Parent
    It's irrational to argure his name wasn't on (none / 0) (#192)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:18:21 AM EST
    the ballot?  I believe that is a fact.  Did he take it off the ballot?  Yes that's a fact.  Is it because all of the candidates, every single one, including your candidate said it would not count and signed a document supporting that statement. Yep that's a fact.  Has one candidate been true to his word an supported his position from the beginning. Yes that's a fact.  Has another candidate gone back on her word and written oath in the face of political adversity.  Very much a fact.

    Making an argument when it's not popular and making one when your political interests and future are tied to it.  Are for lack of better terms "politics as usual"

    Parent

    awesome respose (none / 0) (#193)
    by onemanrules on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:25:10 AM EST
    Truth, they can't handle the truth.

    Parent
    Nope, untruths (none / 0) (#204)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    so that just tells us about you and your candidate.

    Parent
    No, you still cite untruths (none / 0) (#203)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:42:39 PM EST
    as there was no such document that candidates signed.  You probably are thinking of the pledge, but it had nothing in it about being on or not on ballots.  Also, Obama has switched his positions, as he is on video telling Floridians that he would fight for their votes to be counted.  

    Every single thing you cite is just wrong, so you would be happier going back to blogs that peddle lies.  You just can't get away with those here, where we have had many diaries and comments with links to the actual pledge signed by candidates, to videos of Obama breaking the pledge the next day with a press conference in Florida, to Obama promising to fight for Florida voters, etc.

    Parent

    Here is proof they "signed " a pledge (none / 0) (#207)
    by onemanrules on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:13:48 AM EST
    They didn't just orally pledge to not campaigning there and that the delegates wouldn't count. They signed a pledge. I pulled a piece of an AP article to state that you are the one who needs to get your facts straight.

    Both the Michigan and Florida primaries were essentially nullified after they were moved into January in violation of national Democratic party rules. The party voted to strip both states of their delegates and all the candidates, including Clinton and rival Barack Obama, signed a pledge not to campaign in either state.

    Obama and several other Democratic candidates also removed their names from the Michigan primary ballot.

    Both states saw record turnout in their primaries and the former first lady won both contests. Her campaign has pressed hard for the results to be recognized, even as the Obama campaign has argued Clinton is trying to circumvent rules she agreed to long ago.

    What is your point about being on the ballot, why does that matter if everybody agreed that it wouldn't count anyway. Ms. Sniperfire shouldn't have signed the pledge if she was so interested in having the votes count. A full re-vote would be the only way to have a re-vote with time to campaign. If not, then rules are rules - stupid or not. Fact is, she willingly agreed to the rules and now for her own political gain wants to change them. I'll post the link to the AP article also so you don't think I just made that quote up.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hygD7Dp-_Im5spyCmFXdiGO_oNpQD8VS51OG2

    Parent

    Florida and Michigan vote (none / 0) (#190)
    by onemanrules on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:54:23 AM EST
    You probably aren't interested in the facts or you would already know that Florida and Michigan shouldn't count as previously voted.

    Fact -  The Clintons were fine with Florida and Michigan not having their delegates count when they thought it would be a cake walk to the nomination.
    Fact - They agreed to not having these delegates not count when they could have spoken up at the time.
    Fact - Nobody had an opportunity to campaign in these states which gave HRC an advantage due to her name recognition. We all know what happens in states that Obama gets a chance to campaign in. He either wins or makes it very close.
    Fact - Even though alot of people voted in these states, alot more did not due to the fact that they knew the votes wouldn't count.
    Fact - HRC and her supporters want to play by the rules when it comes to superdelegates by having them vote for whomever they feel best fit to win in November, however are trying to have votes count that they agreed wouldn't count before.
    Fact -  The only fair way for these states to count would be to have a full election in these states giving both candidates time to campaign.
    Fact -  The above isn't going to happen.
    Fact -  If the shoe were on the other foot, you wouldn't be saying this.
    Fact -  You should be more upset that they thought it would be so easy that they didn't plan past super tuesday.
    Fact -  She can stay in the race as long as she wants to.
    Have a nice day!

    Your facts would hold more weight (none / 0) (#194)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:58:02 AM EST
    if you supplied a supported link for each one. Otherwise, it just comes down to your opinion ;)

    And quite frankly, we are screwed without these 2 states in Nov, IMO.

    Parent

    these are not facts but your interpretation (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:17:02 PM EST
    of what you have read.

    You are new and have posted four comments on this topic today. Please don't chatter, see the comment rules.

    You are limited to 6 comments per 24 hour period. All in excess will be deleted. Thank you.

    Parent

    sorry you have posted (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 03:18:06 PM EST
    three not four comments on this today.

    Parent
    And it is a fact (none / 0) (#196)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:55:51 AM EST
    That many of us don't give a rat's backside about who benefits if FL and MI get a re-vote. We are concerned about the voters of two states having the chance to make their voices heard. Thus far the only voice that's being heard is the DNC and "their" roolz. In my mind any roolz that disenfranchise voters is bad for the country, bad for the party, and bad for a candidate that appears to be acting like a Republican in not counting the votes.

    I also, and this just me, could care less whether Obama or Senator Clinton are for or against having these two states re-vote. It is about the voters! If it appears to benefit one candidate, and it appears to benefit Senator Clinton, then too bad.

    Obama took his name off the ballot in MI to pander to Iowa. It backfired and now he is in the position of either disenfranchising voters of 2 states or giving Senator Clinton a leg up. It's called politics. And they will each do what is politically expedient for themselves. Problem is, only one candidate is suggesting doing the right thing.

    Hillary Makes Argument for Counting MI and FL | 166 comments (166 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment