Hillary Clinton could have earned my vote and support with a single act of INTEGRITY.

[TahitiNut]

She COULD have requested a hand count of the New Hampshire ballots to validate the optiscan count. She COULD have taken the High Road as the 'Winner' and said that she placed her respect for the Voter and the principle that ALL VOTES COUNT AND BE COUNTED higher than her own individual benefit. She didn't. Indeed ... those KVETCHING and sneering that anyone would have the temerity to actually demand that MACHINE TALLIES be validated and verified seem to be 'supporters' of Hillary Clinton ... and not supporters of the voters.

Anyone who's read John Rawls (which SHOULD be every member of DemocraticUnderground) will recognize the "Veil Of Ignorance" ... the paradigm that we should design the rules without knowing whether we gain a personal advantage from them. After all, who really believes that Lobbyists want Fair and Just laws? Who doesn't understand that the first voices to be raised in complaint against unfair and unjust laws are those hurt the most? Where are the voices of those "ethical" people who don't stand to gain?

When the Nineteenth Amendment was promulgated and ratified, it wasn't WOMEN who voted for it. It was people who understood that Fairness and Justice meant giving up some Privilege ... an advantage from "the way things are."

When we fully understand that Right and Wrong are often the opposite of "Good for Me" and "Not Good For Me" then we MIGHT deserve self-governance again.

We obviously don't deserve self-governance ... and that's why we're abandoning it. Somewhere, deep within our atrophied psyches, we seem to realize that were cowards and/or criminals - spoiled brats - and that's why we DENY ourselves those representatives who personify WHAT WE SAY WE BELIEVE ... since we know our actions belie our words. We seem to know we're liars ... so we elect liars.

We're showing that we've gotten better than we've deserved ... and we're correcting that.

Nice work, America.

:patriot:



Flame on! :grr:

(Some folks start as many threads in a single day as I start in a month or more. Go ahead - call THIS a "vanity thread.")
:eyes:

[boricua79]

1. no flame..

APPLAUSE instead for your perceptive words!

:applause:

[meegbear]

2. If another candidate wins a primary under similar circumstances ...

will this showing of "integrity" be necessary for them as well?

[TahitiNut]

4. All should. None have.

Clinton, if she'd stood up, would have shown me a positive difference and allayed my concerns about her with a single act. Rarely would a single act sway me. (Crying isn't one of them - in either way.)

What wasn't clear about this?? Hmmm? :eyes:

[meegbear]

6. What was clear about his what?

[Windy]

3. Bravo!!! n/t

[Little Star]

5. Can I just ask......

why didn't Obama ask for the recount? He should have upped John Kerry and stood on principle. I'm sorry, but think about it. I only wish Hillary COULD have asked for a recount in Iowa. I am not being snarky. Just asking you to put on your thinking cap.

[TahitiNut]

22. When it's about gaininig 'advantage' instead of simple fairness and justice ...

... it's attacked as such ... even when it can be spun that way. After all, look at how Kucinich is being attacked even on DU. We've sunk so low that we've become INCAPABLE of acting outside an ADVERSARIAL context.

What's insanely ironic is that Obama (NOT in my top 2), who advocates "let's all get along" is DIVING RIGHT IN to the ADVERSARIAL paradigm. Hello? (Wow)


Believe it or not, I'm not setting any higher bar for ANY candidate. That should be clear. I happen to be opposed to Clinton for reasons of principle and issues - no other reason. It's a 'convenience' for my post that she 'won' the primary. It allows me to make the point by saying it'd FLIP my support. I place acts of conscience, fairness, and justice that high on my list.

If it were Iowa and they'd used e-voting with the polling descrepancies that suggest a problem ... I'd use Obama instead.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. No flames here, either

Good post. If we allow even the whisper of possible vote fraud to pass unchallenged, then sure as shootin' we'll get a repeat of 2000 and 2004.

[TahitiNut]

11. It's not even about vote fraud. It's about putting integrity ABOVE personal advantage.

(The recount is merely the context - NOT the issue. The issue is Doing The Right Thing. This thread should NOT have been moved from GD!)

It's about ethical behavior and standing up for what's right ... instead of choosing to do so only when one personally gains.

Clearly, we deserve the government we have when it's so overrun with those whose just wouldn't do that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. You are so right

Now it seems that no one understands what "honor" means, and why our heroes should be those who will stand up for what is right, no matter what the personal cost.

[TahitiNut]

25. What leaps to mind is the scene in "Legend of Bagger Vance"

... where 'our hero' inadvertantly moves the ball ... and calls a stroke penalty on himself.

Now ... I sure don't have any illusions that golfers are all honorable people. But they DO hae a chance. We all do.

[EFerrari]

8. I'm still looking for that roving band of disguntled Obama supporters

and all I seem to find are election reform activists being beat on by Hillary supporters.

:shrug:

I think, if anything could persuade me to vote for her, that could have. Agreed.

[truckin]

9. I don't think Hillary needs to do this. It would be great if she did

but it's unfair to criticize for not requesting a recount.

[TahitiNut]

12. I think you missed the point of the post.

Too bad. :shrug:

After all ... as long as the bar is continually lowered then NOBODY has to behave ethically. Right?

Can't criticize any of them. Right?

Wrong.

[truckin]

32. I think that the recount should take place but I don't believe that

Hillary has a moral obligation to request it. Her job (besides being an absentee Senator like other candidates, but that's another issue) is running for President. She is not responsible for the voting systems and she is not unethical for not requesting a recount. As I said before, it would be great if she did request one, but if she doesn't, so be it.

You should criticize her all you want, I do, but not on this issue, IMO.

[TahitiNut]

38. (Jesus!) Here, I'll try to spell it out for the terminally dense.

It really doesn't matter that much WHO asks for it. It chose to make the EXAMPLE of Hillary solely because she apparently "WON" the primary and, therefore, has (assumedly) the LEAST to personally GAIN from a recount ... and THEREFORE her request for a recount would then be LEAST likely to be attacked as SEEKING PERSONAL GAIN. It would be, therefore, the most obvious demonstration (not without dissent, of course) of someone STANDING UP FOR THE VOTER ... ensure the every VOTER COUNTS by making sure EVERY VOTE IS COUNTED.

Should I break that down for you?

Hillary, as the 'winner,' assumedly has the LEAST to gain from a recount.
That's called an "opportunity."
She could have taken advantage of the "opportunity."
It would be seen (by most people) as STANDING UP for "democracy."
It would demand that every VOTER COUNTS and every VOTE IS COUNTED.
She didn't.
She loses.
Fuck her and the whores she rode in on.


The guy that gets smeared as "woo-woo" - and who WILL NOT GAIN by a recount - is SPENDING the money and DOING THE RIGHT THING.
The guy that attracts the ire of the feces flinging flying monkeys and has the least money is showing the most class.

It's about the VOTER. It's about DEMANDING that the people who ASK for VOTES actually show they DESERVE the votes.

[Dhalgren]

10. I agree with you that verification of count should be mandatory. It

should be automatic. The machine count must be verified by whatever means is tamper-proof and acceptable to all sides. But when has this issue been raised in primaries before? I think that most people have not considered that the vote would be hacked by a Democrat - or by someone favoring a Democrat. This, I think, is one reason why so many people on this board have say, "What are you talking about?" Because they could not bring themselves to accuse other Democrats of fraud, like this. But I agree, there should be mandatory, automatic, verification of all election results, period. And asking for this is not accusing anyone of fraud, it is just asking for complete transparency and everyone should want that...

[TahitiNut]

14. If, in the Roman Coliseum, the game is rigged in favor of the lion ...

... I don't have to think it was the lion conspiring to do so. When elections are rigged, I DON'T have to think the candidate did it ... just that SOME 'interests' in a position to do so have done so.

[Dhalgren]

17. Correct. That's why I said that it wasn't an accusation of fraud

aimed at any particular candidate, but an accusation of the system that allows this manipulation and a call for transparent tallies.

[TahitiNut]

19. Prezactly. I cannot be framed as advantage/disadvantage. It must be about justice.

Rawls' "A Theory Of Justice" is quite excellent in this regard. I regard his work as seminal to being a "liberal."

[Enrique]

13. if she did that, it would be criticized

it's Hillary, after all.

[TahitiNut]

15. Life is so unfair! Even in your fictional Land of ShouldaWouldaCoulda.

Wahhh!

[EFerrari]

18. Nice hair.

lol

[TahitiNut]

20. Only my hairdresser knows for sure.

:evilgrin:

[burythehatchet]

16. What's even more sad is the heght of the bar we've set for ourselves n/t

[TahitiNut]

23. Well... we wouldn't want to be attacked as "purists" now, would we??

After all ... unless we embrace just a little corruption, we're just not part of the 'smart' in-crowd, are we?

[MethuenProgressive]

24. The pre-vote polls said OB would get mid 30%. He got 36%. The polls were spot on.

It's really convoluted logic to call that "suspicious" -
and to then link Clinton to your fantasy? Ludicrous.

[TahitiNut]

26. It's tough to discuss harmony with the tone-deaf.

:shrug:

[MethuenProgressive]

27. You have seen the numbers, right? All polls BO = mid 30s. End result BO 36%?

And you're attacking Clinton because she didn't call for a recount in an election she won?
That's crazy talk.

[TahitiNut]

29. I guess you don't read well.

Too bad.

[MethuenProgressive]

31. IM me, I'll help you with the math.

It isn't really all that hard.

[TahitiNut]

34. Are you really so clueless as to think it's about that?

Listen up. I don't give a shit whether there's "evidence" (beforehand) that the machine tally was wrong. I want PROOF, every single fucking time, that the tally is CORRECT. I really don't give a shit, for the issue I'm presenting, who was the 'winner.' It's about advocating for an accurate, complete, and valid tally of the VOTE - in a manner that is ABOVE REPROACH.

But it's not even about that. It's about those who'd be President STANDING UP for the voter. It's about ethics and setting the bar higher.

So, get off the arguments of the lowest possible standard. I'm arguing for those who aspire to HIGHER STANDARDS of ethics, fairness, and justice.

The New Hampshire primary, the 'results,' and the players ... offers a CONTEXT for what I've posted. The ISSUE has to do with acting in support of higher standards EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT ADVERSARIAL.

Damn! It apparently takes a better writer than I could possible be to get through to some people!


Oh ... and FWIW ... my undergraduate degree is in Math and I taught high school math. On top of that, I spent a career in EDP, systems, and internal auditing. So, take your condescending crap and stuff it. I have decades of designing verifiable and reliable organizational systems and comprehend audit, sampling, verification and validation far more than 99.99% of the arrogant, pretentious, condescending assholes on DU.

[tomp]

37. and it was that fine upstanding candidate, dennis kucinich,

who ultimately did the right thing. so much more fucking presidential than any of the other pretenders.

thanks for a great post.

[Captain Hilts]

28. "Undecided" voters comprised a large %. I don't see what's so difficult to understand. nt

[MethuenProgressive]

30. Undecideds were as high 40% - and that was ignored by the pundits. (And now by the ReCount!ers.)

They're very poor losers.

[Captain Hilts]

33. 9% "undecided." 28% lean Obama - not committed. I think HRC's leaners were 21%. nt

[Bonn1997]

35. Great post!

I honestly couldn't have said it better myself. And this holds true for every candidate. (That should go without even being said but apparently some posters here need to hear us say it anyway.) I'd be very disappointed in Obama (whom I supported) if he didn't request a recount under these circumstances.

[TahitiNut]

36. Thank you. Yes, it does. It's a "higher standard" ... which is sorely needed.

Its disappointing that even this post got used by some as grist for the same ol' grindstones. It seems to show how deeply and completely immmersed in such sewage we've gotten that we can't free our vision to see better and go for it.

[dailykoff]

39. She'd do it if she knew she'd win.

She'll probably keep her win just like Junior kept his, but there's no way in hell she got it without dirty tricks galore, legal and felonious.

[TahitiNut]

40. Just the idea of "What's In It For ME?" is what's wrong.

When the SOLE motive for action is PERSONAL BENEFIT ... and WE KNOW IT AND ACCEPT IT (even celebrate it!) ... then how can we POSSIBLY get angry if they take bribes and SELL OUT??? After all, IT'S THE SAME ETHICAL SEWAGE - it's "I'm Getting Mine So Fuck You!"

I guess I'm losing it. This seems so clear to me. Yet folks have 'interpreted' my post as an attack on Hillary alone or as claiming that it's clear that votes were miscounted. NEITHER is the case.

It's like we're "Stuck On 'Stupid'." The Selfish Gene has taken us over so much that we claim we can't even 'expect' better of the people we elect. That's sad.

It's about being sure ... NOT about having proof, without any audit or validity check, that somehow justifies a recount.

There should NEVER be a doubt. Any time hackable computers do tallies OUT IF SIGHT then a hand count should be automatic and required. It's about being sure. Voters count. Votes must be counted. All of them. Correctly.

When it's "OK" ... as long as "my candidate" wins ... then we're deeply and truly undeserving of democracy.

[David Zephyr]

41. K&R.

I held back until today. If there is not a recount now, it will be the demise of the Democrats this year.

If Hillary won, she should (as you say TahitiNut) welcome a recount.

I didn't see it this way until really today.

Now there are too many glaring questions and there is a cloud hanging over the results. It's to her advantage to endorse the recount. She hasn't. That's makes here look worse.

This story began as a whisper. It's not longer a whisper.