A'ight. HERE IT IS. In case you missed it:

[Triana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

_ _ _ _ _

They're called Calendar Rules. And they BROKE them. Period.

And which is why Obama and Edwards (or anyone else -- except, of course, Clinton) did not bother putting their names on the ballot. Michigan and Florida broke the DNC rules. Everybody, including the Clinton camp AS INDICATED IN THE VIDEO OF THEIR STATEMENT ABOVE, and all Democratic campaigns, agreed to those rules - INCLUDING HILLARY.

There is no spinning it. MI and FL BROKE the rules, and HILLARY is AGAIN breaking PREVIOUSLY AGREED-UPON the rules of the DNC. Period.

How in the world does anyone think that it can be fair to divide up votes -- when the other candidate(s) weren't even on the ballot?! How would that be at all remotely fair or democratic?! IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM IT'S ABOUT DEMOCRACY -- if the candidates aren't even on a ballot, how do the people cast their vote for that candidate and expect it to be rightfully counted as correct in the democratic process?!

Eh? Spin and fling all the bullshit propaganda you WANT but the facts are FACTS. FL and MI BROKE the rules and HILLARY as well as all other Dems in the race AGREED UPON what the penalty would be for that.

SUDDENLY...

SUDDENLY....NOW THAT HILLARY HAS LOST - she's HELLBENT that she wants those states counted and wants the PREVIOUSLY AGREED UPON RULES CHANGED near the end of this process - just to suit HER - because she can't "win" on any other merits except FALSE ones.

WHAT a scumbag of a person. She's outdone even the Repigs with her dirty, slimy, sidewinding, diddling propaganda and shell-games. She's changed HER rules and moved the goddamned goalposts more often than George W. did when making up the various and ever-changing excuses that he needed to invade Iraq.

She is a blight upon her own gender and CERTAINLY upon the Democratic Party. She is an albatross upon the neck of a Democratic victory in November, and SHE and her bullshit WILL BE AT FAULT if the Democrats lose in 2008.

Yep. I will blame her and I will NOT be the only one. MARK MY WORDS.

[muntrv]

1. Hillary agreed to those rules thinking she would have the nomination

locked by then, not counting on Obama catching fire.

[Triana]

3. Well, her arrogance rose up and bit her in the pantsuit, didn't it?

Poor Hillary.

Pfft!

What rediculous-anus hairball-like twists of rules, law, and logic WILL she come up with next? Stay tuned...

[eowyn_of_rohan]

122. What's with the focus on her pantsuits?

That used to be found exclusively in Freeperville. Always seemed Sexist to me. and this is not just aimed at you - a number of "DU'ers" are oddly focused on her attire.

[Orsino]

157. Really? I think they're just her trademark...

...and the usage upthread seemed appropriate enough. This time, anyway, though I don't doubt that sexists find other uses for the word.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

158. Why is she picked on for wearing a suit jacket with pants when the male candidates are not? -nt

[MadMaddie]

106. That my friends was her fatal blunder for her campaign....

Her campaign totally ignored the possibility that they would not win it all the First Super Tuesday.

[LynneSin]

125. I once promised my kid brother I wouldn't steal $500 from the Monopoly bank but...

...when I realized I wasn't going to beat him, well I think it was ok that I did that since we should do everything feasible to win.

:crazy:

[swishyfeet]

2. Spot on.

[blonndee]

4. Well, it just depends on what the meaning of the word "democracy" is, doesn't it?

That's what it all comes down to with the Clintons, ironically enough.

[Kablooie]

8. REAL democracy means people voting for what *I* want.

[blonndee]

12. LOL! Now THAT is the Clinton way! By jove, you've got it!

[canucksawbones]

103. for the Clinton's...

it comes down to the definition of the word "is"

GK

[redstate_democrat]

5. I keep saying that if they are dumb enough to seat MI without giving Obama

those uncommitted votes, hell is going to break loose. She will do more damage to her reputation than any harm to Obama. It could work to his favor because regardless, he will still be ahead in the delegate math. As far as Florida goes, those people down there are raising so much hell, at this point, I don't give a darn what they do with FL. But Michigan, oh hell no, if they seat MI, then it will have to be a 50/50 split or at the very least, he will get the uncommitted delegates. Period.

[jespwrs]

6. From terry mCauliffe's book "What a Party!... From 2004

"I'm going outside the primary window," told me definitively.


"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

--Terry McCauliffe, Clinton campaign chairman
And Hillary herself regarding MI:
"It's clear," Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio in the fall, "this election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Yup McCauliffe would've done the exact same thing Dean is doing

He knows full well that if we let Michigan break the rules then we'll have anarchy and states will be having their primaries in August of the year before the election.

BTW, welcome to DU.

[qijackie]

7. What I like best about Senator Clinton is that she isn't afraid.

[GarbagemanLB]

11. Yes, she isn't afraid of flip-flopping and being a blatant hypocrite. How admirable!

[qijackie]

13. She isn't afraid of the venom of her enemies.

[pipi_k]

51. Oh stop it!

She's been doing things for months that virtually ensure that she'll MAKE "enemies".


Just like GWB

create enemies, then look like a "hero" for fighting them


good lord.... :eyes:

[ExPatLeftist]

54. You should check the source of that venom,

trying to remain neutral if possible, and see if at least tiny bit of it is not deserved.

My mom always told me that if a whole bunch of people all get mad at you at once, you should at least consider the possibility that they may have a reason, that you may have done something wrong, rather than just writing them all off as "nuts" or "assholes".

[Malidictus Maximus]

31. I am getting a strange admiration for Hillary.

This from someone who *WILL* vote the nominee. I liked Richardson and Edwards. I don't particularly go gaga over Senators Clinton or Obama, but either are orders of magnitude better than Senator McCain.

Just a neutral observation;
She has shown she will not quit. she will rewrite history and smash anything and anybody in her way. I hate to say it, but **IF* we had a need for a wartime president, someone absolutely single-minded, underhanded, ruthless (almost) to the point of being psychotic and completely unafraid of anybody, Hillary fits the bill. If we were going to get into a full tilt piss-up with Russia or China our odds of survival might be greater with her.

If we re-contextualize our criteria for the leader of a world power, from being honest, inspiring and charismatic to being Machiavellian and driven, Hillary would scare the crap out of any other leader far more than Obama or McCain.

The process is absolutely Darwinian. She is right, it is not over until it is official. She has life sinecure as a Senator but this is her shot and she ain't quitting. Forget the crap about 'tearing the party apart'; in the end there are those who will vote the nominee and then there are disruptors who would never have voted anything other than GOP but are playing agent provocateur.

[krispos42]

39. She certainly is a fighter for herself

Don't you kind of wish she had fought his hard on the floor of the Senate? A one-woman filibuster against the Patriot Act renewal or the occupation funding or the Military Commisions Act?

[Bluenorthwest]

77. To be fair

Senator Obama also failed to filibuster the Patriot Act renewal, and in fact he voed yes on that Act. Why did HE not fillibuster, why should SHE have been a 'one woman' fillibuster? Why do you not take him to task, for doing exactly the same thing she did? He also voted a hearty yes, sir on Cheney's Energy Bill, which Clinton voted against.
So if it is wrong that Hillary did not fillibuster the Patriot Act all by herself, is it not also wrong that Barack did not do so, or join with others to do so, instead of voting yes?
Your agrument would be fantastic if Obama has at least voted no on the Patriot Act, but he supported it and voted for it. She should have filibustered it, but it is ok that he voted for it. That is inconsistant and very odd if you ask me. He voted for the Patriot Act extention, but she should have fillibustered, against even Obama's vote? He can vote yes, but she should have fillibustered?

[krispos42]

108. Except that he's been winning for a couple of months now.

He's winning, and fair and square to boot. She's statistically lost this race some time ago. She's denigrating her fellow Democrat to McCain's advantage. She's making this entire process bitter and divisive. She's twisting logic into a pretzelt to explain how she's the one that actually is winning the race.

If the positions were reversed, I be bitching about Obama dragging this out and the tactics that he's using to justify staying in the race. I do have a personal preference for Obama, but I'm not particularly fussy about wwhich one wins because either one will spank McCain in the GE.

At this point the only reason she's still in the race is because she sees this one chance that che's been working for for years, possibly decades, being taken away. She's seen her inevitable presidental contest turned into a no-go because of some outsider. And I understand that, and sympathize.

McCain is in a similar situation. He should have been the candidate in 2000, and lost to the Bush dynasty and some truly discusting campaign tactics. Amd now this is HIS has hurrah.

But the process is what it is, and with the direct fate of 300 million people at risk here, beging sentimental is not something we can really afford.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. I tire of people saying this. She is a fighter, but she is NOT a noble fighter!

It would be different if she were fighting for the good of the country or for the well-being of the Democratic party. But this isn't about the party and this isn't about the country. It is not about ensuring voter rights. (Where was the Clinton outrage when voters were being disenfranchised in FL in 2000?)

Bottom line: THIS IS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON AND HER EGO!!! THIS IS NOT ABOUT PRINCIPLE!!

Please stop buying into this "Hillary is a tenacious fighter" bullshit!!

[Skidmore]

75. Kicking for this post. Boy have you said it!

Hillary is not a fighter, but a sore loser. She's the kid who brought the ball to the playground game and demands to change the rules when she starts to lose or she will take the ball and go home, ruining the game for everyone else. There is nothing noble or admirable about this dirty fighting she does.

[debunkthelies]

115. Fighter?

Maybe, but there are rules even in fighting dirty, that you don't hit below the belt.
She not only hit's below the belt she goes for the jewels every time.:evilgrin:

[raebrek]

118. There are no rules in dirty fighting n/t

[hfojvt]

97. that's kinda stupid though, considering the President doesn't fight

that SHE won't back down is just a commitment to send others to fight and kill and die.

That she will go with her own agenda rather than listen to advice and complaints of others, sounds more like Bush/Rumsfeld. "Stay the course" "I am the decider".

Not to mention that all of this spunk has been AWOL for the last seven years in the battle against the BFEE. But she'll go all out in fighting another Democrat or group of Democrats (see Bill Clinton: Nafta, Welfare 'reform')

[canucksawbones]

105. defining...

how Clinton won't quit is exacly like Bush.

Bush never backs down either. Being stubborn and having a tantrum when things don't go your way or redefining the goal posts every time you turn around is not what a leader does. Leaders negotiate, leaders follow the rules, leaders use the tools they have to break impasses not build them higher.

GK

[arikara]

113. I have to respectfully disagree...

You already have a crazy, singleminded, lying "wartime" president in Bush and look where it got America, Iraq, Afghanistan and indeed the rest of the world. The last thing the US needs is another self-absorbed nut in power who must win at all costs. What the world needs now is an American president who will actually change things and NOT get into it with anyone else. At least Obama has shown that he can do things differently in the campaign. It'll be more of the same-old or worse with Hillary.

[nachoproblem]

121. I understand that argument

but I don't buy it. I think the "strength" that we see in Clinton is the same thing that would ultimately betray anything we hoped to get from her. Dubya was a completely singleminded, ruthless, and underhanded baboon, and he failed to scare the crap out of anybody, ever. He created the need for a wartime president when it didn't even exist, and he was still completely useless for it. If Hillary gets a free reign, the only thing she will fully succeed in doing with it is making us regret that we ever gave it to her.

I have said I will vote for her if I have to and I stand by that. But I hope more than anything that I don't have to.

[JDPriestly]

142. Hillary does not know when or how to negotiate a dignified retreat.

She is not going to win. She is ruining her chances to step in and win if something goes wrong in the Obama campaign.

She can't seem to pick her battles. I think she is wonderfully capable and more knowledgeable about the issues than Obama. I like her health care plan better than Obama's. But she has shown that she really does not have the temperament and judgment to be a president in these challenging times. She is too focused on achieving her personal goals. She cannot seem to step outside of herself and judge a situation objectively. She is vengeful on those she perceives to be opponents, on those who differ on the issues. She seems to feel she is owed the presidency. I hate to say this because I used to be a strong Hillary supporter.

Hillary has a lot to give to the U.S., but her place is in the Senate where she can use her expertise on issues and policy but her personality and inability to strategize are not so detrimental. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder whether Hillary is having a nervous breakdown of some sort. Some of her comments are really way out there. I used to view her as so sensible.

[nichomachus]

101. There are actually times when being afraid is a sign of sanity. n/t

[natrat]

148. oh she's not afraid--how fucking ridiculously trite and simplistic

[GarbagemanLB]

10. *EVERYONE REC THIS.* This clearly shows the bullshit flip-flopping of the Clintons.

[Triana]

15. It certainly brings into stark relief just what a sham her latest claims are...

...and what a sham they've all been. And what a sham SHE is.

To think I supported the Clintons all through and well after the 90s - and for WHAT?

THIS?


I am SO THROUGH with those disgusting people, and I will NOT forgive or forget how the goddamned "Hillary" BUS TIRE MARKS got on my back, the backs of the female gender, or the backs of the Democratic Party.

NEVAH!

I'm certain I'm not alone.

WHAT, pray tell, has this woman WON? What does she THINK she'll "win"?

The SAME thing my malignant narcissistic, abusive, self-centered EX partner WON: The total OBLITERATION of her relationships, the complete destruction of her own support and friendships and loyalty and respect of all those who gave it to her/them for YEARS.

FURTHER - the disfigurement of the collective face of her PARTY and her GENDER and an iron albatross about the neck of an historically favorable election that Democrats could/should win by all other logic (due to a historically unpopular Repub predecessor).

She could not BE more damaging, selfish, ignorant, careless, or destructive if she were GEORGE W. BU$H himself - in a pantsuit - OR my spoilt-brat narcissistic ex.

I recognize this disease well from having endured 8 years of it under bu$hit and four more with another narcissist / sociopath who was just as destructive, ignorant, and selfish.

[Bette Noir]

94. The good part is that

Once this election is over, we'll never hear from her again.

[Samantha]

14. I agree and have thought this from the beginning.

Hillary's comparison of this situation to the 2000 situation was appalling.

[Skip Intro]

16. Biased Video. And you're wrong in the first paragraph, so I stopped reading your post.

How is the video biased? On the off chance someone missed it, Russert did what he does and put Schumer on the hot seat. How? He built up that case against Hillary, presented it to Schumer, and the video ended. Not supposed to notice that, I guess.

How is your first paragraph wrong? Well, names were removed from the ballot by the candidates in MI in supposed deference to the DNC and the pledge, not "not placed" on the ballot. The pledge didn't require any candidate to remove his or her name, of course.. The pledge only required the candidates not campaign in FL and MI, and none did, except for that "mishap" by Obama's campaign where their ads did run in parts of FL. The only real campaign run in either state was the one in MI on the behalf of the "uncommited" candidate.

I might be interested reading the rest of your post when you addres these issues.

[intaglio]

35. Address this

"It's clear," Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio in the fall, "this election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."

Did she or did she not say this?

[ladywnch]

95. actually I believe the language was they agreed to 'not to compete in' those states

which also meant haveing your name on the ballot so removing your name was the correct course of action. 'not to compete' is the language I saw called out from the document on TV....not compteting includes campaigning, having your name on the ballot.....I would think it would have included fundraising as well which Clinton did go to FL to do before the vote knowing full well that the press would be all over her every move and word.

So to sum up, her not taking any steps to remove her name from the ballot should have been our first clue that she had no itentions of abiding by the rules or her pledge.

[PassingFair]

123. The word was "participate".

How can you "win" something when
you never "participated"?

Answer: You can't.

[JDPriestly]

143. Not compete.

Hillary was the only candidate to allow her name to remain on the Michigan ballot. She was the only candidate who understood "not compete" allowed her to do so. She was wrong.

[Maraya1969]

17. If it gets enough votes at Youtube it will on the front page also. And save

it to your "favorites" if you have an account and make a comment. All though things determine which videos get to the front page. `

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

[Vattel]

18. really?

"There is no spinning it. MI and FL BROKE the rules, and HILLARY is AGAIN breaking PREVIOUSLY AGREED-UPON the rules of the DNC. Period."

What rule has she broken? She has argued (poorly) that MI and FL ought to be enfranchised. The DNC agreed to a revote in MI, but the MI legislature decided against it. Did the DNC break the rules?

[intaglio]

36. In her own words

"It's clear," Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio in the fall, "this election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. She lies and cheats at cards with a marked deck then changes

the rules of the game when she still can't win.

[Generator]

20. Rules shumles

The point is, dear, to get Hillary elected. That is all.

Also, from what I've seen of our Democratic leadership, maybe they will cave to her as they have to Bush. They seem to like tyrants and not be so fond of laws and constitutions and things like that. Mere technicalities really. I suspect Obama will play "hardball" as that dastardly thing on television calls it, and real hard ball sends tyrants like Hillary into the cry chair. So there is hope. Which since it is Obama's meme-he better deliver or there will be none.

[Shae]

21. And not only that . . .

but she's tried to frame it as if she's the champion, and to trash Obama as the bad guy who doesn't want the people's voices to be heard.

The truth of the matter is, Obama has said all along that he will abide by whatever the DNC decides, AND, further, Hillary wouldn't give a crap about the MI and FLA voters if it didn't advantage her.

It is this issue that has changed my opinion of Hillary Clinton more than anything else -- more than snipergate, more than the McCain is more qualified crap. To knowingly, wrongly make Obama look like the bad guy in this matter while purporting herself as a champion against disenfranchisement shows a deep and fundamental dishonesty and fatally flawed character.

[Triana]

23. If Obama had stuck his name on the ballot in FL and/or MI and won...

...do you think she's care then?

Did she care in 2000?

Pffft!

Obama is the one who has followed and agreed to abide by the rules. SHE is the one who didn't and doesn't want to - now that she's lost.

And all of a SUDDEN she's "concerned" about the "people's voices" eh?

Pretentious hypocrisy and projection of her own faults and guilts upon others - the Hallmark of - REPUBLICANS.

[Shae]

28. Obama was on the ballot in FL

You aren't allowed to remove your name from the ballot there unless you are dropping out of the race altogether.
But he wasn't well known there. I don't think anyone campaigned there (I have heard a nationally aired Obama ad was shown there at least once).
But if Obama was leading in FL -- no she wouldn't care.

It somewhat boggles my mind that she would be so proud of the result in Michigan. I believe only Kucinich and Dodd were on the ballot and she got 55%.
I don't recall any of Dodd's numbers in the primaries, but Dennis (bless him) usually would get about 1% of the vote.

[BlueCaliDem]

117. The funny thing is, she bends and breaks the rules wherever she can and is still losing..

...while Obama is abiding by the rules and WINNING.

Ain't that a bitch.

[Rene]

22. who told you politics is a tea party? Grow up....you fight with every option you have

if you truly have the spirit and hope to win.

[SeattleGirl]

26. Even if it means lying, cheating, and twisting things?

Thanks, but no thanks.

She's playing dirty against another Dem, and that makes it even worse.

[Triana]

34. "She's playing dirty against another Dem, and that makes it even worse"

YEP. That was the kicker right there for me. Not only that she used every nasty Republican trick in the book, but that she used it against a fellow DEM and she KEEPS doing it.

Talk about DIVISIVE. That is the epitome of it.

[Shae]

30. That was Bush's philosophy, for sure . . .

I guess it depends on whether you want to attract people with integrity into politics or just the bottom feeders.

[democracy1st]

43. Thats GOP BS 101 and she's totally gone GOP in this primary

[ExPatLeftist]

56. So "tea parties" are the only place where you expect people to follow the rules they agree to?

It's called cheating and sour grapes.

I suggest courses in sportsmanship and ethics.

[Maraya1969]

24. Why does this have only 27 recs? This should be #1 on the Greatest Page!

[Triana]

25. shameless boot 'cause everyone needs to see it..

...(wish we could boot the Albatross Hillary so easily)

[Maraya1969]

33. KICK! This video is IMPORTANT!!!

[bvar22]

27. Changing the rules and NOW counting the votes could be considered....

..Election Fraud.

ALL the voters in Florida and Michigan were told prior to the illegal primaries that their vote would not count toward nominating a Democratic Candidate.

*Many did not bother to vote in a useless election.

*Some might have voted differently if they thought they were casting more than a symbolic vote.

The parameters established and made public BEFORE the vote MUST be the same parameters used to evaluate the vote. There is no other way.

[me b zola]

29. For the past 7 years we have lived with an alternate reality

created by bush*co and the media. I'm beyond ill that someone who is supposed to be a Democrat--someone whose family we have all defended for years--is attempting create their own alternate reality vis a vis the same smoke and mirrors of the bush* regime.

Enough of this insanity.

FL & MI intentionally broke the rules after they were repeatedly were warned of the consequences. Those responsible for breaking those rules should be punished. IMO, they should be punished by criminal law for voter disenfranchisement.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. And Obama broke the pledge

by campaigning in Florida. So I guess all bets are off, then.

[AuntPatsy]

37. Not what they want to hear.....sad but true.

[intaglio]

38. MF, another lie - from Hillary

"It's clear," Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio in the fall, "this election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."


From you another untruth regarding Obama "campaigning in FL"

A nationally aired - and I repeat NATIONALLY - happened to be seen in FL. One - and I repeat ONE - previously scheduled private dinner appearance in FL. This is not "campaigning"

[AuntPatsy]

41. Honestly not trying to start an argument here but on a few other threads

supporters for Obama have said he is planning more visits in Florida, how is that not campaigning?

[democracy1st]

44. yes he's planning visits now for the GE

[stillcool]

65. I hope he camps out in Florida...

we have a General Election to win. He is not campaigning to win any Primary Election. He is campaigning as the presumptive nominee.

[LSK]

73. NOW = JANUARY?????????????

:wtf:

[ladywnch]

102. the pledge and the campaigning refered to the PRIMARY elections

not the GE. HE HAS TO CAMPAIGN in FL for the GE!

[MonkeyFunk]

47. You're wrong

It wasn't his private dinner that was a violation - it was the press conference he had.

And he ran ads in Florida - in direct violation of the pledge. All the other candidates managed to avoid running ads there. And Obama ran them - just days before the primary. He could've structured his ad buys differently, or he could've waited a couple days. Instead, he broke the pledge.

How is an untruth? He ran ads in Florida! If Clinton had done it, you guys would have a cow.

[ExPatLeftist]

61. What's your point?

Aside from the fact that you exaggerate and say "ads" when it was "ad" - a single national one that was accidentally run once (if you claim more I will need a link) - what is your point, and what does it have to do with the OP?

Are you trying to say that now they SHOULD change the rules altogether because one mistake was made?

Or that they should seat the delegates as-is to punish the Obama campaign for that mistake?

I am not following your argument, unless it is simply "Well, he did it too!" Which is an excuse my parents weaned me off of at age 5.


So how do you think this should be handled?

And how do you feel about Hillary (the subject of this OP, not Obama) trying to change the rules after it became obvious she would lose?

Perhaps it is moot, because regardless of how this is handled, seating MI or FL or not, Obama has won. Check the math.

[MonkeyFunk]

86. accidentally run once?

Yes, I would like to see a link for that.

If it was accidental, why did he try to get permission from a South Carolina party official? You guys can't even keep your lies straight anymore.

As to the rules, here's a good Q&A:

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/have-you-actually-read-the-rules/

[ExPatLeftist]

88. Not really interested in the biased questionairre.

But I really would love to see your evidence of multiple runnings of multiple ads, as you claim.

I am also interested to know what an SC official has to do with advertising in FL. Perhaps you would care to share the whole story, along with your sources, rather than just trying to deflect with one-liners and then change the subject?

[MonkeyFunk]

120. No, you claimed it was an ad

that was accidentally run once.

This is the first time I've heard that claim - I'd like to see your evidence. Here's mine:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/obama_airs_nati.html

Are you saying it accidentally ran on MSNBC and CNN?

He DID run national ads, two days before the Florida primary, that aired in Florida. The defense the Obama team gave is that he "got permission" from a South Carolina DNC official. But she was in no permission to release anyone from the pledge. But it was the defense of the Obama fans here - that he "got permission".

So I don't understand how he got permission to accidentally run an ad. As I said, you guys can't keep your lies straight.

[ExPatLeftist]

93. After reading your "quiz" I realize that you are being hypocritical as well

You keep harping on about Obama supposedly violating the rules by campaigning in Florida, and then link to a "quiz" (actually a collection of talking points, apparently written just as a journal entry in another discussion/bloggish site similar to DU. The "article" has opinions stated as fact and lists no sources for individual points, just a collection of links at the end which are in no way tied to the individual claims). It states:

"10) All the candidates signed a pledge to the DNC not to campaign in the states violating primary timing.

FALSE: The candidates signed no such pledge to the DNC.

11) Hillary violated the rules against campaigning in Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: Jurisdiction over determinations of whether a candidate shall be considered in violation of the relevant rule (Rule 20 C.1.b.) lies with the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Because the Committee has not ruled against either candidate, it is false to assert that either candidate is in violation."

I am not saying that the above quote is true, just that you seem to be trying to argue both sides. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. Or do different rules apply to the two candidates?


PS Linking to that "test" as evidence of anything is really funny. Similar to me writing in a blog "FACT: The Earth is flat" and then linking to that blog to "prove" that the Earth is flat.


ON EDIT: One of the blanket "sources" listed at the end of the blog "test" that you linked to does not seem to support the premise of the blog at all. In fact, it seems to run counter to it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/25/AR2007082500275.html?hpid=topnews

ON EDIT 2: The other article actually REFUTES one of the statements made in that blog link you gave. In the blog, it states, as quoted above, that no one signed a pledge not to campaign. The second (of TWO) linked sources in the blog which is your source states: "...the pledge <the candidates> signed prohibits news conferences." http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking Which is it? Regardless, it seems that your "source" holds no water at all, and if this is an example of the places you get your "news" then your skewed view of reality is definitely understood.

[stillcool]

64. It never ends...

lies, lies, and more lies. And to what end?

[LSK]

71. you can say both "campaigned" in FL

Did any of them throw any campaign events?

Did any of them send out canvassers?

Did any of them do phone banking?

Did any of them have rallies or make speeches?

You can point to a technicality of running NATIONAL TV ADS on a CABLE NETWORK or one fundraiser, but we all fucking know that THEY DID NOT CAMPAIGN IN FL OR MI.

I AM GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF DUERS LYING TO MY FACE HERE. ITS BAD ENOUGH TO SEE REPUBLICANS SIT ON THE TV AND LIE TO MY FACE ON CSPAN, I DONT FUCKING NEED IT HERE.

STOP IT.

[ladywnch]

99. Hillary was in FL ahead of the vote for "fundraiser" knowing

she would be followed by the press and her every word broadcast in FL so she broke the rules much earlier. And when did Obama campaign in FL....you mean recently?

[kid a]

114. LIE - YOU ARE A LIAR - YOU LIE _ YOU LIE LIKE THE DICKENS - FLAT OUT< BOLD FACE LIE

[george_maniakes]

116. Is that the new one? because obama ran national ads, hillary doesnt have to...

abide by her pledge?I thought it was she never pledged not to ask to change the rules.

[papapi]

40. I cannot think of a word negative enough to describe what HILLROT is trying to do...

...to this Party. Does she have rocks in her head? And for the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone with even a grain of human dignity can still support someone so base and disgusting as HILLROT. And to think I once admired the Clintons. What backstabbing cry babies.

[democracy1st]

42. Schumer what a sorry politician

[AzDar]

45. K & R...

:kick:

[FatDave]

46. Remember the early criticisms of Clinton?

That she triangulated? That she changed her positions for political expediency?

See anything about her shifting views on FL and MI? Remember her post-bittergate makeover into the gun-totin', whiskey swillin' blue-collar girl? Is it possible that she's losing in part because she has managed to live up to every one of her pre-primary negatives, even several that I didn't mention here?

[ExPatLeftist]

62. I think you're right.

She has become (or revealed) the caricature that the RW tried to paint her.

And it is agonizing to watch.

[beezlebum]

48. kick and rec

[Time for change]

49. Well said -- and another point is this:

Another argument that I have often heard by the Clinton campaign is that people could have written in Obama's name on the ballot. That is a specious argument because not having one's name on the ballot is a tremendous handicap in any election, notwithstanding the fact that it is possible to cast write-in ballots.

But if one were to give that argument any credence, it is important to point out that it would be necessary to hand count all the ballots in order to identify the correct vote count. It is entirely possible that Obama may have won 10-20% of the vote in Michigan, but nobody would ever know it without a hand recount. Of course, a recount will never be done on those ballots because the election was not legal anyhow.

[Marrah_G]

50. Bleh

Another one who needs to be banished from civilized conversation.

[ExPatLeftist]

63. Irony. Nice response from someone with a claimed interest in conversation, civil or no... N/T

[Marrah_G]

66. How else to respond the the flaming sack of dogpoop that is the original post

There is no way to converse with that. The post was just one big irrational emotion-based flame.

[ExPatLeftist]

67. Did you watch the linked video? That was pure logic

almost no emotion at all. And it was true. Perhaps you define dogpoop as anything with which you disagree, but that does not make it any less of a fact.

In fact, it seems to me that you had the content-free and emotional post here, not the OP.


But then, since you claim to be interested in civil discourse, perhaps you could explain to me why the rules should be changed in the middle of a contest after all participants (including Clinton) agreed to those rules in writing? Why is it OK with you that she was against seating MI and FL before she was for it. Also, why it is OK to leave out some other states' popular votes while fighting to include the popular votes from MI and FL in order to make the claim that she won the popular vote.


I am honestly trying to understand the "other side" of the argument on this issue, and I have yet to find a logical explanation. I would really appreciate your view, and I promise to remain civil.

[Marrah_G]

72. Here goes.

I should first explain that Hillary is my 4th choice, Obama will be my 5th. The reason I tell you that is so you can understand that I do not always agree with the candidate I am supporting.

Now onto Fl and MI. My thoughts. The DNC fucked this up from the beginning. They NEVER should have blocked out the votes of 2 very large states that we really need in November. I don't think any candidate should have gone along with those rules. I think were the roles reversed Obama would be doing exactly what she is doing. Why? because they are politicians.

Both states should have had new elections. Period. They deserve to be heard. They have a right to their say. This may well come back to bite us in the ass.

That is probably not the view you expected, but it is my view on this topic.

[ExPatLeftist]

80. Thanks! IMO They should have followed the rules, it was very clear...

...what FL and MI were risking by moving their primaries. That being said, that decision had nothing to do with the people in those states that would then not have a voice as it was not decide by the people themselves. I could agree that a "re-do" election may have been a decent solution in those states, but it was not done.

So that leaves us here, with Clinton apparently forgetting that she signed on to the rules, and seemingly trying to blame it on Obama. But what do we do now? It seems that another election is out of the question at this late stage, so how should we seat those delegates?

Also, I would like to point out that saying "Obama would do the same" is really a non-excuse and a fallacious argument, IMO. It is impossible to predict what he would have done, so making an argument based on the assumption that he would do something because one has assumed it is illogical. I also do not believe in relative ethics, so I would never excuse my own acts because I thought that others would do the same. IMO Obama has shown to a certain degree that he genuinely wants to change the tone, and has not shown the rampant use of political "trickery" like Clinton has in this election. Based on that, I think your assumption that he would do the same is unlikely. But again, that is irrelevant as Obama did not do anything like this and speculation does not change that.

I think that trying to change the agreed rules in the middle of a contest is despicable, personally. Hillary Clinton is attempting just that, after agreeing to the rules, which makes me see her as a hypocrite and a poor sport. Obama has done nothing of the sort, I will not judge him based on pure speculation, and have not seen anything approaching the level of hypocrisy from his camp as I have seen from Clinton's. His change in tone for campaigning is enough to make this jaded ol' Democrat almost hopeful that we can change the tone and that we have an example here of the "real deal" that we have not seen for decades.

Regardless, I am pretty sure that we will be voting the same in November.

Again, thanks for answering civilly. :)

[smiley_glad_hands]

83. NO the state parties fucked up from the begining.

FOLLOW THE FUCKING RULES ALREADY.

[ExPatLeftist]

96. That's what I said as well.

But why the yelling?

[smiley_glad_hands]

98. My bad, just tired of Hill dragging this thing out, sorry. eom

[ExPatLeftist]

100. I understand completely.

:)

[ladywnch]

104. so great, we'll just let everyone have their primary whenever they want

and we'll start having primaries 18 months or more in advance of the GE cause everyone wants to be first. Rules are in place for a reason. You may not like the reason but that's life. Let's just get rid of ALL the rules we don't like and live in anarchy. We've had 8 years of not living by the rules and I don't really think we're better off for it.

[knitter4democracy]

150. New election, yes. Not going to happen, though.

The MI GOP blocked the bill. It's DOA, so we can't have a new vote of any kind.

[MJJP21]

52. DEAN

When is Dean going to finally explain to McCauliffe what the rules are and more importantly when is Dean going to repeat the quotes that McCauliffe said in 04? Dean can and needs to shut Hillary down and do it soon. He should do it behind closed doors and allow Hillary to gracefully back out or he needs to go public and call Hillary and her staff on the carpet.

[ExPatLeftist]

53. Unfortunately, many are buying into the bullshit

about "disenfranchisement", because so many people do not know what happened.

What needs to happen is that the document that Clinton signed agreeing to the rules needs to be displayed across the MSM, and it should be mentioned every time she mentions disenfranchisement.

But the MSM is not playing and most people seem to not even be aware that Clinton agreed to the rules, let alone that she signed on for them.


The hypocrisy of this issue is mind-numbing, and has cost both Clintons a lot of respect in my eyes, and I had a lot of respect for them to begin with. This is politicking at its worst.

[Maineman]

55. Just as Bush breaks any law that suits him,

Hillary seeks to do the same with the rules for the Dem Primary. These two people are amazingly similar.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

57. Randomly CAPITALIZED SQUIRREL award

[ExPatLeftist]

58. Hillary is rearranging the deck chairs on her Titanic.

Let 'em seat MI and FL, Obama still wins.

Makes me wonder what she is REALLY up to...

[bulloney]

60. I think Bill hanging around GHW Bush has changed him and the Bush/neocon philosophy has rubbed off.

[1_cali_dem]

68. SO, tell us

How you really feel:shrug: :sarcasm:

[Arugula Latte]

69. Exactly!

There is no rational argument to be made for her position.

She makes me sick.

[LSK]

70. K&R

[liberalhistorian]

74. Exactly, you nailed it perfectly!

Thank you. Hillary somehow thinks she's above the rules. 'Course, that goes with her considering herself automatically entitled to the presidency as well, I guess.

[suston96]

76. Yeah, rules are rules, even if they violate the Democratic Party Charter which says.....

....that all members of the party will be guaranteed full and equal participation in the nominating process.

The Democratic Party Charter which cannot be changed by the DNC "rules".

And anyway, 48 states out of 50? That's not bad. 2.3 million Democrats screwed out of the nominating process out of over 30 million? That's a pretty good percentage.

The democratic nominee won't need them in the general election anyway and can win without Florida and Michigan.

[ladywnch]

107. there have been primaries in the past where all 50 states DID NOT

vote and no one wailed and wrung their hands about it. Life went on. So 2 states who violated the rules not getting heard, okay life goes on. It's the GE that really matters and we HAVE a nominee. Let's move on.

[Hamlette]

78. I'm not sure you're correct about the names on the ballot. In fact, its worse

when everyone was campaigning in NH, the NH dem party asked them all to remove their names from the ballot. Everyone did except Hillary. (That's why all the names were on the ballot in FL, apparently they were not asked to remove their names from the FL ballot. I don't know why.)

Hillary said, when asked, that it didn't matter if her name was on the ballot or not since MI didn't count. I've seen a video of her saying MI didn't count.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859

Wonder how NY would have voted had they known what Hillary would turn around and do?

[knitter4democracy]

149. Not true.

Michigan allowed the few who did to remove their names from the ballot. Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich were on our ballot, as well as Undecided. Florida did not allow anyone to remove his/her name from the ballot, so that's why they were all on that one.

[Dystopian]

79. k&r n/t

peace~

[Evergreen Emerald]

81. of course you will blame "'HER" for Obama's loss

The world has been the Clintons' fault for decades. The right-wing mind set is amazing to me.

Vitrol and hate.

[Skidmore]

82. ....

:eyes:

[smiley_glad_hands]

84. Oh BS, the clintons reap what they sow. eom

[Indenturedebtor]

87. You're right Emerald - We're all crazy

It's a good thing we have at least one person in the room who can explain things in the one possible way in which the Clintons might not be at fault. Thanks for that :crazy:

[Evergreen Emerald]

90. Well, if you are not

you sure mimic it well.

[Indenturedebtor]

92. Refute the OP's points then

If a reasoned argument can be made (supported with facts) to refute what he's saying then please do so.

[Heathen57]

127. When a candidate deliberately

sabotages the other candidate with every deceitful and low trick they can come up with and using every hurtful lie that can turn the voters against him.

I want a candidate that you can be proud of, that plays by the rules, and is forthright. I really cannot understand why you would want the opposite.

[Evergreen Emerald]

136. Obama is not the opposite

you are fooling yourself.

[Heathen57]

155. I fear it is you being fooled.

You are believing everything that Hillary and the boys at Fox Noise tell you.

Barack has run a campaign with very few gaffs caused by someone saying something bad about Hillary. Check for apologies that have been made. Even most of what Hillary and her goons have done was ignored by the Obama group, but was caught by others.

Dirty tricks are normal for a campaign but usually only for the other side. Hillary, in her deluded visions of self-importance, unleashed a series of dirty tricks and lies unheard of even by the GOP. Obama has run a campaign that has been above board almost all the way through.

It is easy for me to figure out just who is the better candidate of the two.

[breakaleg]

85. Being a fighter is admirable. Fighting dirty is not. She's willing to lie, cheat and do whatever

she can to get what she wants.

[Cathryn]

89. Can I get an AMEN!

Well said and oh, so true!

[Bette Noir]

91. What?

You expect Hillary to keep her word? What have you been smoking?

[OwnedByFerrets]

109. K & R

[grassfed]

110. Hillary wiped her ass with fight to End Slavery and Womens Suffrage to push this dirty trick

If her supporters are not revolted by Hillary's callous and vulgar exploitation of two sacred pillars of enlightened Liberalism then there is nothing to talk about. But as has been noted before, her "base" is Appalachia not Mensa.

[crickets]

111. This is spot on. THANK YOU. -nt

:dem:

[PATRICK]

112. As has been noted

she is not the only flailing candidate to abuse both support and the rules and concoct some illegitimate horror scheme to "win". If my failing memory serves me correctly though, this could be the most base and baseless tactic yet employed in our party at least. I doubt examples of worse things will cast any rosy fireside glow on the current ploy.

The reaction of bases however is always the same. If you believe in the cause, screw the rules. If you righteously decry that think of cheating Bush or Nixon or Reagan out of the disastrous reigns we have already endured. Is it better to nobly lose to the destroyers of SCOTUS and Habeas Corpus than set a dangerous precedent? how many disasters, how many flunked tests of terrible systems before we reach that terrible choice? So have compassion on the supporters and trash the candidate putting us to such a test for no conceivable good to anyone, including herself, her causes and her supporters. Why the dangerous game? To what end or even justification? Why the ugly spin to turn logic and justice on its head to serve a defeated goal? When will she break the news to her investors that their money is blown and there will be nothing to show for it at all?

If the party withstands this attack- by one its strongest- in a year when we certainly didn't need more trouble is it not a victory for law itself and reason and party? To engage the crisis on the petty terms dictated by desperate truculence only spreads the ill effects. If we believe in the triumph of November and the policies that follow we must keep our own house in order. After this test it would be wonderful if the party did not further divide the hapless victimized citizenry against accomplishing anything remotely necessary and good.

While this goes on, Schumer already is making timid noises about not expecting too much for what every American wants, health care coverage. Already, despite the agendas favored by Hillary and Obama.

[JDwho]

119. Well....my information says...

My understanding, is that even if Mich. and Fla. were counted (according to Todd on MSNBC), that Hillary would still have zero chance of being the nominee. Perhaps, she hasn't done the math. Personally, I believe everyone's vote should be counted - but the results will be the same if they are. Obama is the future president, and Hillary has spent her money (lots of it) foolishly. I wouldn't want her handling the budget, considering this.
JDH

[eowyn_of_rohan]

124. Whatever rules Hillary broke, they arent as bad as NEGATING the voice of the People

Denying Florida or any state representation is anti-democratic. The popular vote should be the only vote that counts, and it is not being reflected in this situation.

[Heathen57]

131. In the GE, yes they all should count.

This is a primary, and the rules of the party are the ones that count now.

Why would a state (especially FL) consider themselves above the rules? Are they so arrogant in their self-importance that they don't have to obey the same rules that everyone else has to follow. What makes them better than the other 48 states?

As it stands, the vote counts in both states are skewed. Many didn't vote, more voted different than they would have done if it had been a real primary. Obama's name wasn't even on the MI ballot.

If you think that is a fair primary, then you have become deluded by the win-at-all-costs Clinton strategy.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

133. bla blab bla

Since the primaries have an impact on the outcome of the GE, the people's votes count here too. Whats the point of HAVING a primary otherwise? and it is not i who is deluded here.

[Heathen57]

154. There is a real difference between the primaries

and the GE, the biggest is that the primaries are not required by law. They are held by the rules of the political party for their candidates.

MI and FL didn't want to play by the rules. For that their states are being penalized.And since they knew it in advance, the voters knew that the results wouldn't count. Many stayed home, others were drawn to vote to mess with the Repub election. If you want to count the votes as they stand, you would be disenfranchising those folks.

If you don't care about the rules, that is your problem. We could just as easily forget the rules (laws) on many other things. Of course that would lead to anarchy and remove any reason to have a primary at all.

[crickets]

135. There is no "popular vote" in a primary.

You are not voting in a primary to elect a nominee; you are voting to choose/allocate delegates whose votes will elect the nominee.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june08/pelosi_05-21.html


JUDY WOODRUFF: And, in fact, Senator Clinton said she's very much still in the fight. She's emphasizing the fact that she -- if you count those disputed votes in Michigan and Florida, she says she's ahead in the popular vote.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: How delegates are selected is by a process, and the person who has the most delegates becomes the nominee of the party. It's not been about the popular vote.

So we can have an elementary discussion, if you wish, but at the end of the day, someone will have the winning number of delegates. The delegate vote is the currency of the realm at the Democratic National Convention.

JUDY WOODRUFF: One more question on that. The Democratic Party Rules Committee is meeting at the end of May, just 10 days from now, and there's reporting already that they're going to agree on a 50-50 formula to seat those delegates from Florida and from Michigan. Does that sound right to you?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I do think that Florida and Michigan should be seated, and I believe that they will be at the convention. It will be done in a way that I think is signed off on by both of the candidates, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, by each of the states, Michigan and Florida, and also by the Democratic National Committee, of course, which is, until the convention, makes the determination.

The convention will seat who it wishes to seat, but I believe it will be that Florida and Michigan will be seated.
(Emphasis added.)

Hillary Clinton knows all of this. She knows the "popular vote" is a crock. Now you do, too. Look, I'm sorry you're not likely to get the nominee you wanted. Really, I am, but this is nonsense that is subverting primary process. That means it is NOT just about the rights of voters in FL and MI, it's about the rights of the entire membership of the Democratic party. The state election commissioners screwed FL and MI by breaking the rules both parties in all of the states agreed to, and in the process willfully screwed everybody. Their actions have caused this bickering, as they knew it would. Clinton (and her supporters who parrot this faulty meme) is just making it WORSE. It's not going to change "the math," especially given the differences between states who use a voting booth as opposed states who caucus, and given THE FACT that *points up* there IS NO POPULAR VOTE in a primary. So please, please stop. Again, I'm sorry it looks like you won't get the nominee you wanted. Truly. FWIW, I didn't get my first choice either. But it's time to let this erroneous "popular vote" thing go.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

137. "time to let this erroneous "popular vote" thing go"??

Nevah! It is what makes a democracy. The delegates are supposed to represent their constituents in the primary. We vote to let them know who we want. all the BS authority and media play given to delegates and superdelegates just serves to confuse and discombobulate our democratic rights in this country. BTW I am not "for" anyone in this race... I will vote for whatever dem wins.

[crickets]

138. Fine. Here you go:

1. Even if you count the "popular vote" - Obama wins, Clinton loses.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Popular Vote Total
Obama: 16,682,022 49.1%
Clinton: 16,225,142 47.7%

Obama's delegate lead matches his lead in votes, perhaps not in direct correlation, but the outcome is the same. It looks like "the will of the people" is being represented.


2. Because voters in MI and FL were told beforehand that their primaries had been disqualified, there is a case for voter suppression in attempting to count the ballots given many voters either stayed home or left the nominee spot blank. In MI, there was only one name on the ballot. Neither of these elections can be called "free and fair" as a result. STILL, the party will likely compromise by throwing out SDs and seating the MI and FL delegates with half votes so that these states are not completely in the cold.

It isn't perfect, but it looks as fair as it possibly can to me. In fact, it's a little too fair, given the MI and FL situation should be punished. If the breaking the rules does not bring consequences, what is to say other states won't pull this stunt next time? What makes it tough is that it punishes the voters rather than the people who are actually responsible. That's the rub, and if that's part of your complaint, I agree with you. BUT, rules are rules, and rules were broken. This compromise looks about as fair as things can get under the circumstances.

So, what would you prefer? Given point 1. above, is there really a beef here?

all the BS authority and media play given to delegates and superdelegates just serves to confuse and discombobulate our democratic rights

The nation uses a presidential primary to choose delegates, not nominees. It's understandable if you don't like that system. I'm not so sure I care for it either, but it's what we're stuck with for now. If you want to try to get it changed for future elections, have at it. I'm interested in your ideas for that, and might end up being very supportive of them. It's way too late to change it for this particular election, though. Given it's what was agreed upon beforehand by both parties, and the process is already underway, there's no chance to change it midstream. Ain't gonna happen.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

140. You're right -I don't like the system...

The disenfranchisement and/or punishment of voters is a large part of what I am angry about. How long can we afford to be stuck with the results of a sick, corrupted election system? The will of the people has not prevailed in the last 8 years... Many have put their hearts and souls into trying to wake people up and change the system during this period, and to what end? We still have corrupted and/or corruptible e-voting systems, and voters are still disenfranchised /ignored/punished in every imaginable way, and the media barely acknowledges any of it... So to hear them instead bleat about "superdelegates" as if they were the new Diva du jour is like salt in a wound.... If the delegates represent the will of their Florida constituents in the primary, that is a good thing , no matter which candidate comes out on top.

[crickets]

144. You've made some good points. I'm glad we had this discussion,

because it turns out we agree more than we disagree on this issue. Cool. Well met. :hi:

[eowyn_of_rohan]

145. I am glad, too

Thanks for not yelling at me. You made me realize I have not been doing my homework on the Florida delegate situation. cheers. :)

[knitter4democracy]

151. And how do I get disenfranchised voters to go Dem?

Hubby and I are precinct captains. The Dem running for our House rep was in the batch of party higher-ups who helped engineer this mess in Michigan. If Obama's our guy (and it looks like he will be), how do I get people to turn their backs on "straight-talking, moderate" McSame? The Michigan GOP has been running ads, doing fundraisers, and has everything all set for a big battle, and we still have pretty much nothing. McCain's actually campaigned here and been bluntly honest about the economy. While he's not campaigning well at all (*huge*, huge blunders so far), most people here really don't know that much about Obama. I've got Dems telling me that they're sick of supporting a party that doesn't give a crap about them, too.

If you take away someone's vote because of what someone else did, how do you get them to vote for that someone who took away their vote? Especially when the GOP helped engineer it behind the scenes and has been doing a full-court press on how it's all the Democrats' fault.

[knitter4democracy]

152. Stripping us of our superdelegates punishes those who did this.

Well, at least the Dems who were involved. It doesn't do anything to the MI GOP, but we can't really get to them other than to beat them in November.

Gov. Granholm, Sen. Levin, and all the top party leadership would be punished if they weren't allowed to go to the convention. I like that answer.

Oh, and Hillary wasn't the only one on our ballot. Clinton, Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich were, as well as Undecided (which Conyers told all the Obama, Biden, and Edwards supports to check).

[crickets]

153. Hi there, fellow knitter!

Stripping superdelegates - good point.

Gov. Granholm, Sen. Levin, and all the top party leadership would be punished if they weren't allowed to go to the convention. I like that answer.

Oo, there's a good idea. Thanks for correcting me on the MI ballot. I'd read that somewhere and taken it as fact; I shouldn't have.

At this point, the conversation is probably moot regarding Clinton's continuing candidacy, so... Yikes.

[knitter4democracy]

156. Well, not really.

Even if Obama's got it all set, there's still the question of what to do with Michigan and Florida. *sigh* I think the most fair thing is to strip us of our superdelegates, since we're obviously not going to have another vote (which would've been the best answer, but the MI GOP liked seeing us messed up and wouldn't pass the bills).

Ugh. It's all a mess. I hope Dean can come up with a better answer soon.

[noiretextatique]

126. you poor babies are really going to have a problem

once obama gets the nomination. if you think clinton is playing hardball, you haven't seen anything yet.

[sellitman]

128. What would be left?

The ability to sink her own party?

[noiretextatique]

129. ?

i was referring to what the likely nominee will be facing in the GE. what in the hell are you talking about?

[shagsak]

130. keep this at the top

Even though she will probably win anyway somehow. We're screwed, another 4 years of bush, everybody brace yourself.

I used to have a t-shirt that commemorates this moment perfectly considering most of her support is from uneducated people (DU members excluded).

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

[eowyn_of_rohan]

132. "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

You said it...

[ForeignSpectator]

134. Who cares about FL and MI now, really? She wants him dead... n/t

[AZ Criminal JD]

139. More made-up lies by this OP

The OP says no one "bothered" to put their names on the ballot in Michigan except Hillary. False. All did. Four left their names on the ballot - Clinton, Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich. The agreement was not to campaign there. Kucinich broke the agreement and campaigned in MI. No one else did. That was the only agreement. Obama had his name on the Florida ballot. Why was that?

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

141. Worse than rule-breaking, she broke her own word

Sometimes people can claim they didn't understand the rules. It is an excuse, but sometimes it is an excuse which can be accepted even though "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

The official Camp Clinton excuse for poor caucus performance in Texas was that they didn't learn there was a two-step system there until three weeks before the primary. If that was true (doubtful for an national campaign), then it might be an acceptable excuse. It shows stupidity but not dishonesty.

In the cases of FL and MI however, one of her chief spokesmen voted for the rules. She and her senior leadership team knew the rules, approved of the rules, and issued an official statement supporting the rules.

Florida law did not allow candidates to remove their names. Michigan law did. Hillary pledged her word as did candidates Edwards, Obama, and Richardson. Three of the candidates kept their word. One didn't. For that reason alone she can never be POTUS.

[rucky]

146. She won't get her way on this.

So we may as well let her make a complete ass out of herself if she wants.

[knitter4democracy]

147. As a Michigander, I'm sick and tired of the distortions and lies.

1. Michigan tried to move up in the primaries last time. That's where there was an agreement not to have any primary early and all. When it looked like NH and IA were going to violate that agreement, the MI GOP sponsored the bills to get it passed to move ours up.

Look at who sponsored the bills--Republicans. Yes, Levin and other MI Democratic party higher-ups were also behind it, but it was the Republican party that made it all happen. They had looked at the rules and obviously realized that they would get the better deal in the long run, and we got screwed.

2. The DNC gave the state legislature 30 days to change the law--right in the middle of a massive budget battle, a mess that took that entire month and then some just to prevent a state government shut-down. Not the best time to give us an ultimatum. The MI GOP and Democrats were at each others' throats day in, day out over the budget and couldn't get anything else done at the time. Anyone in the state could've told the DNC that one. Heck, just reading any Michigan paper or political blog could've told them that one. Sure, rules are rules, but if you give an unrealistic deadline just to say that you did, it looks awfully disingenuous.

3. Everyone was on the ballot in Michigan originally. We gave them the option to remove their names (Florida did not), and Hillary, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich all chose not to remove their names. Kucinich did campaign in Michigan, btw, a couple of days before the vote, so saying everyone else took their names off and no one campaigned is a lie.

4. Congressman Conyers and his wife started a campaign in Michigan to get all the Obama and Edwards supporters to vote for Undecided. This started after some party higher-ups started a campaign to get Dems to cross over and vote for Romney to keep him in the race longer and keep the Republicans spending down their warchests (I got the e-mail, but I didn't save it--other Michiganders here confirmed they got the e-mail to vote for Romney, too, at the time). Considering everyone who voted Undecided was voting for Biden, Edwards, or Obama, it makes sense to give him those votes, I suppose, since he's picked up their endorsements.

5. Gov. Granholm (a Dem) has long been a Clinton supporter, as have most other Michigan party higher-ups. Let's just say we weren't surprised that they endorsed her. Many here think the whole thing was engineered to get Hillary to win the state but that it backfired massively.

6. The people who got royally screwed in this whole thing are the people of Michigan. Our state led this damn recession, and we're dying up here. Pulling crappy rules on us, having our state party leaders totally ignore our screaming at them to keep them from doing this in the first place (those who were at the county party meetings when Brewer tried to sell the idea of moving up the primary can tell you how heated and ugly it got), and being disenfranchised suck. Punishing the hurting people of this great state sends the freakin' wrong message. How the hell am I supposed to work for a guy who didn't fight for us when it counted? How am I supposed to counteract the GOP spin from the debate they held here back before the primary, all of the fundraisers they've had, all of the ads, all of the yard signs up since winter, and all of the press that the GOP has had? I know solid Dems who are furious at being treated like this, and they don't know enough about McCain to know how evil he is. All they hear is how he's a straight-talking moderate, and at least he's come here and campaigned. Sure, Obama and Edwards had a great event and all, and thank goodness Obama apologized for the primary mess (not that it made any of the news here), but he still didn't talk enough about the economy while he was here, which is really the only issue that matters here.

Look, I'm for Obama more than Hillary, but as much as I like Dean, it's time for a decent compromise. Michigan is not anywhere near as blue a state as most people here seem to think, and a Dem win here is not a lock. Kerry only won four counties in the state (and it's a huge state)--two of which were in Detroit. With the loss of population recently, winning Detroit is no longer a guarantee of winning the state, so Obama would need to win several other counties as well. Just how are those of us on the ground supposed to do that with all this mess?!