NationStates Jolt Archive

In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.

The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834.
Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the night’s big winner, but Obama’s campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts — the delegates who will choose the party’s nominee at this summer’s Democratic convention.

With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday’s contests, while Clinton earned about 830 — “give or take a few,” Tim Russert, the network’s Washington bureau chief, said on the “Today” show.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:

Dammit, super thread, SUPER THREAD!!!

But that's what I was thinking all night until I gave up and watched reruns of supercross races instead.

oooo thanks for posting that.

i havent been watching the news this morning but they had indeed given me the impression that clinton had won more than obama.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:
Ditto with the BBC.

Ditto with the BBC.

Hehe, you clicked the 'lastest news' button on Firefox, didn't you? Cause I totally did...

Hehe, you clicked the 'lastest news' button on Firefox, didn't you? Cause I totally did...
The wikipedia button's right next to it, but I'd have to put in effort to pull up the results and understand the tables of gobbledegook they have there.

Hehe, you clicked the 'lastest news' button on Firefox, didn't you? Cause I totally did...

Oddly (and everybody's gonna yell at me for this):
http://drudgereport.com/ was my source...

hooray! Ahhh some glimmer of hope still.

Ditto with the BBC.

Damn....how dare the media have an opinion contrary to your own!!

Just read the Guardian. It may as well simply entitle it's Internation Affairs columns "We Love Barack; you should too" for all the objectivity it musters when considering American politics. And yes, there is a basis for this; my poor, misguided girlfriend reads the bloody thing.

Meh I don't know if I really blame the media. Just think of the juicy news stories that would undoubtedly come about over the next 4-8 years with another Clinton in the White House! It would be like a dream come true, especially for the Sensationalism Channel (AKA Fox News)

Damn....how dare the media have an opinion contrary to your own!!

Just read the Guardian. It may as well simply entitle it's Internation Affairs columns "We Love Barack; you should too" for all the objectivity it musters when considering American politics. And yes, there is a basis for this; my poor, misguided girlfriend reads the bloody thing.
I don't see how stating that the BBC gave the impression that Hilary did better in the primary is in any way related to this tirade.

Is... this... true?

Or have made this whole thing up because I want it to be true...

MSNBC is reporting Obama is ahead of Hillary by 4 delegate total.

Hillary thought she had won, then it went into surprise overtime and Obama showed off some mad poll handling skills and dunked on Clinton for the winning score.

MSNBC is reporting Obama is ahead of Hillary by 4 delegate total.

Hillary thought she had won, then it went into surprise overtime and Obama showed off some mad poll handling skills and dunked on Clinton for the winning score.

Our Savior!

Just read the Guardian. It may as well simply entitle it's Internation Affairs columns "We Love Barack; you should too" for all the objectivity it musters when considering American politics. And yes, there is a basis for this; my poor, misguided girlfriend reads the bloody thing.

Cos all other newspapers are completely objective *rolls eyes*

Cos all other newspapers are completely objective *rolls eyes*

Watches eyes keep on rolling down a hill. huh?
Yeah go Obama!

MSNBC is reporting Obama is ahead of Hillary by 4 delegate total.

Hillary thought she had won, then it went into surprise overtime and Obama showed off some mad poll handling skills and dunked on Clinton for the winning score.

I was going to link a Salon.com article, but they just site MSNBC, so that would be redundant.

The superdelgate thing is starting to piss me off.

The superdelgate thing is starting to piss me off.
And considering the introduction of proportional representation for primaries and caucuses, I'd say it would have been pretty obvious that they would have had a huge effect on determining who walks out of the convention. Either the DNC is pretty cunning or lacking foresight.

In b4
"CLINTON DEFEATS OBAMA!"

The superdelgate thing is starting to piss me off.

well, i understand wanting to have some sort of party continuity and internal power system, but it's fucking huge and all out of proportion. but at least the non-superdelegates are divided up along at least somewhat more democratic lines than ye olde winner-take-all per state system.

Latest figures I could find (these will change in the next few hours, so I'm not bothering to find an on-line source) is that Obama won 13 more delegates than Clinton on Tuesday (since he won by large margins in his states; she had smaller margins in hers), but is still behind by 80 or so.

what I'm far more concerned with is why all the news companies mention Clinton's middle name :confused:

I mean Rodham can't be that bad

Cos all other newspapers are completely objective *rolls eyes*

Not in the slightest; only the Independant and Times could even be considered to lie in the political centre. However, the Guardian is unashamedly pro-Obama, and reasonably unique in assuming quite such a partisan stance upon the US primaries.

I don't see how stating that the BBC gave the impression that Hilary did better in the primary is in any way related to this tirade.

You agreed not that the BBC gave the impression of a Hillary victory, rather that the BBC sought a Hillary victory.

I may have mis-construed your post in judging its ambiguity to suggest full agreement with whoever you originally quoted, however. If so, I apologise.

Yesssssssss!!!!!!!! Obama won (kind of, technically, maybe, not really) Lets hope the next states vote for the right person (namely Obama)

what I'm far more concerned with is why all the news companies mention Clinton's middle name :confused:

I mean Rodham can't be that bad
I believe it was a conscious effort on her part to be identified that way, because I seem to remember when her campaign 'dropped' that identifier. So I think it's an effect of branding and not just reveling in an odd sounding middle name.

I mean, if they were going to go after middle names, Obama's is far richer territory.

This may just be another rumor, but there is a certain amount of evidence that Hillary's base in New Hampshire called known Obama supporters, literally asking them "Are you voting for Barack Hussein Obama?" intentionally stressing his controversial middle name.

This may just be another rumor, but there is a certain amount of evidence that Hillary's base in New Hampshire called known Obama supporters, literally asking them "Are you voting for Barack Hussein Obama?" intentionally stressing his controversial middle name.

Surely doesn't a rumour require that it has only hearsay, not evidence, to substantiate it?

The above is something of an oxymoron, and a despicable use of the race card.

Yesssssssss!!!!!!!! Obama won (kind of, technically, maybe, not really) Lets hope the next states vote for the right person (namely Obama)

Please do try and introduce a little immaturity into your posts. Really, I'm simply aghast at the academic tone and maturity the above conveys. The elongation of words, repitition of punctuation for crude emphasis and poorly executed stream of consciousness style are simply too mature and erudite for expression.

Latest figures I could find (these will change in the next few hours, so I'm not bothering to find an on-line source) is that Obama won 13 more delegates than Clinton on Tuesday (since he won by large margins in his states; she had smaller margins in hers), but is still behind by 80 or so.

provided that the superdelegates don't change their minds - all of her endorsements there were from ages ago, when she was a shoo-in.

btw,
states obama won with more than 60% of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)
Kansas (74%)
Minnesota (67%)
North Dakota (61%)

states Clinton won with more than 60% of the vote:
Arkansas (70%)

"a certain amount of evidence" can equate to hearsay in todays climate, especially since he didn't actually cite that evidence.

"Today's Climate"; I rather think the conscious (actually, given the quality of previous posts, it may simply be stupidity) ambiguity in that provides all the insight required.

You do, in any case, realise you are castigating your own political idol? Surely if Obama makes such an allegation without citing evidence, he is either negligent, or duplicitious; neither are qualities one ought to seek in a President. Equally, any politician prepared to so expediantly, oppurtunistically and despicably play the "race card" clearly lacks the means to convince voters of his merits as a politician rather than an example of tokenism and socially engineered "progress"?

Surely doesn't a rumour require that it has only hearsay, not evidence, to substantiate it?

The above is something of an oxymoron, and a despicable use of the race card.

"a certain amount of evidence" can equate to hearsay in todays climate, especially since he didn't actually cite that evidence.

I believe it was a conscious effort on her part to be identified that way, because I seem to remember when her campaign 'dropped' that identifier. So I think it's an effect of branding and not just reveling in an odd sounding middle name.

I mean, if they were going to go after middle names, Obama's is far richer territory.

Hussein is a rather normal name and it's far more common than Rodham.

Hussein is a rather normal name and it's far more common than Rodham.

Kind of ignoring the obvious, aren't you?

Kind of ignoring the obvious, aren't you?

That it's "foreign sounding"?

Not in the slightest; only the Independant and Times could even be considered to lie in the political centre.
The Times, yes, but I would have thought the Independent to be more to the left than that? Mind you, that could just be how I interpret it's anti-establishment overtones; it's not like you need to be a socialist to dislike New Labour.

The Times, yes, but I would have thought the Independent to be more to the left than that? Mind you, that could just be how I interpret it's anti-establishment overtones; it's not like you need to be a socialist to dislike New Labour.

No. You need to have a soul and a brain. Something much of Britain, apparently, lacks.

I've never really considered the Independant particularly left wing anyway; leftfield in its choice of story, and the stance it takes, but hardly left wing.

How things change when you stay away from the country for a decade or so. When I left the UK, The Times was a bastion of right wing conservative thinking, now, apparently, it is in the political centre.

What changed? The position of The Times or the overall tone of politics? (Given New Labour's "a long way away from socialist' politics, I would guess the latter.)

Both in all likelihood. New Labour certainly has moved the political centre to the right, whilst I imagine the Times has also shifted a little to meet the demand for a quality, and I use the term loosely, centrist paper.

I personally find it a bit stupid how they try to say Obama's a bad guy, telling people things like he's a Muslim when it's been clearly proven he's not, and just went to an all faith school, not that being Muslim or not is a problem.

It just feels like people want an excuse to try to cover up Clinton's actual mistakes, like her health care problem, which our country isn't in the condition to go through again

This may just be another rumor, but there is a certain amount of evidence that Hillary's base in New Hampshire called known Obama supporters, literally asking them "Are you voting for Barack Hussein Obama?" intentionally stressing his controversial middle name.

"Today's Climate"; I rather think the conscious (actually, given the quality of previous posts, it may simply be stupidity) ambiguity in that provides all the insight required.

You do, in any case, realise you are castigating your own political idol? Surely if Obama makes such an allegation without citing evidence, he is either negligent, or duplicitious; neither are qualities one ought to seek in a President. Equally, any politician prepared to so expediantly, oppurtunistically and despicably play the "race card" clearly lacks the means to convince voters of his merits as a politician rather than an example of tokenism and socially engineered "progress"?

Um. How does a N00b's posting of a rumor equate to an allegation made by Obama himself? Do you have reason to believe Cestercin is Barack Obama?

For someone complaining about the "race card," you were pretty quick to wave it around yourself.

Um. How does a N00b's posting of a rumor equate to an allegation made by Obama himself? Do you have reason to believe Cestercin is Barack Obama?

For someone complaining about the "race card," you were pretty quick to wave it around yourself.

Not at all. However, Cestercin stated that "he didn't actually cite evidence". Note the use of "he"; this can only be construed as referring to Barack Obama in the context of the discussion.

Where the "race card" is concerned, I am merely reiterating my belief, with inferred evidence, that Barack Obama is a limited politician who makes good use of his race.

Not in the slightest; only the Independant and Times could even be considered to lie in the political centre. However, the Guardian is unashamedly pro-Obama, and reasonably unique in assuming quite such a partisan stance upon the US primaries.

How things change when you stay away from the country for a decade or so. When I left the UK, The Times was a bastion of right wing conservative thinking, now, apparently, it is in the political centre.

What changed? The position of The Times or the overall tone of politics? (Given New Labour's "a long way away from socialist' politics, I would guess the latter.)

"Today's Climate"; I rather think the conscious (actually, given the quality of previous posts, it may simply be stupidity) ambiguity in that provides all the insight required.

You do, in any case, realise you are castigating your own political idol? Surely if Obama makes such an allegation without citing evidence, he is either negligent, or duplicitious; neither are qualities one ought to seek in a President. Equally, any politician prepared to so expediantly, oppurtunistically and despicably play the "race card" clearly lacks the means to convince voters of his merits as a politician rather than an example of tokenism and socially engineered "progress"?

There are so many things wrong with this it's impossible to pick where to start.

Not at all. However, Cestercin stated that "he didn't actually cite evidence". Note the use of "he"; this can only be construed as referring to Barack Obama in the context of the discussion.

Oh, now I understand. You have no reading comprehension. Cestercin didn't say that, I did. About Cestercin. So no, you silly little goose, the 'he' was referring to the person who made the claim, the poster-Cestercin.

Now, go slap all of your English teachers. They have let you down.

Not at all. However, Cestercin stated that "he didn't actually cite evidence". Note the use of "he"; this can only be construed as referring to Barack Obama in the context of the discussion.

Nice try, but you appear to have confused yourself. Cestercin didn't say anything about "he." That was Cannot think of a name and was referring to Cestercin as the "he" who cited no evidence.

Where the "race card" is concerned, I am merely reiterating my belief, with inferred evidence, that Barack Obama is a limited politician who makes good use of his race.

Really? I thought you specifically labeled Cestercin's rumor as "a despicable use of the race card" -- even though it had nothing to do with race and didn't come from Obama. Oh. You did.

I think you are the one with the race issue, here.

Neither won. The only credible news agency: CNN definitely showed the truth that it was a draw. They declared neither the winner and were much more restrained in making projections. CNN is the least biased, if at all, and doesn't worry about ratings and such. It's the other channels that want a winner. CNN just wants the politics.

In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:

Um. How are the NETWORK TALLIES showing Obama won more delegates part of a media conspiracy against Obama? :confused:

Also, do you really need to rely on the juvenile taunt of "Billary"? :(

EDIT: BTW, linked on the same page as the OP article: Media restrained in Super Tuesday coverage (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8357.html)

Neither won.

a tie is a loss for a candidate that had huge commanding leads for months and months until the very eve of the vote.

oh, and apparently obama has raised 3 million dollar since the polls closed yesterday.

How things change when you stay away from the country for a decade or so. When I left the UK, The Times was a bastion of right wing conservative thinking, now, apparently, it is in the political centre.

What changed? The position of The Times or the overall tone of politics? (Given New Labour's "a long way away from socialist' politics, I would guess the latter.)
Basically, New Labour has fused the worst aspects of Labour collectivism with the worst aspects of Thatcher's corporatism into a mess of unrestricted capitalism and invasive social legislation. The Times and its readers are generally libertarian, which leaves it to what we would call "the Right", but still to the left of the Government (and probably slightly to the left of the Conservative party, which is a rather shocking realisation).

It's still better than most papers though. It's worth oscillating between it and the Guardian, since they're both well written and it pays to play the two off against each other.

The only credible news agency: CNN definitely showed the truth that it was a draw. They declared neither the winner and were much more restrained in making projections. CNN is the least biased, if at all, and doesn't worry about ratings and such. It's the other channels that want a winner. CNN just wants the politics.
Yes, thank you, Mr CNN Public Relations Officer. :p

With Clinton currently holding 193 superdelegates to Obama's 106, she's still well in the lead. Additionally, I'm just the teensiest bit leery of anything the "Obama camp" or even the news is speculating right now. Everyone's been so far off on their predictions, I'll wait until the actual numbers show up.

Hillary is the media darling. Obama is the more dynamic, exciting candidate for the majority of people, yet the media just loves anything Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:
Well according to Fox News, Hillary is ahead:

Candidate Delegates (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/06/national-delegate-count-tally/)
Hillary Clinton 1,024
John Edwards 26
Mike Gravel 0
Barack Obama 933
Total 1,983

Well according to Fox News, Hillary is ahead:

Candidate Delegates (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/06/national-delegate-count-tally/)
Hillary Clinton 1,024
John Edwards 26
Mike Gravel 0
Barack Obama 933
Total 1,983
It's a matter of whether they count 'super delegates' or not. Without them, Obama is ahead, with them Clinton is ahead.

Counting them is kind of like polling except direct, since they've said they'll vote one way, but they haven't yet. Then there's a bunch that haven't said one way or the other.

Well according to Fox News, Hillary is ahead:

Candidate Delegates (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/06/national-delegate-count-tally/)
Hillary Clinton 1,024
John Edwards 26
Mike Gravel 0
Barack Obama 933
Total 1,983

You do realize that the "people" Fox News backs stand to gain from Hillary's nomination?

Neither won. The only credible news agency: CNN definitely showed the truth that it was a draw. They declared neither the winner and were much more restrained in making projections. CNN is the least biased, if at all, and doesn't worry about ratings and such. It's the other channels that want a winner. CNN just wants the politics.
Actually, Hillary won technically - Obama had a lead going in, but it doesn't look like she came out far ahead enough to matter, and behind depending whose numbers you believe. Not that it makes sense for everyone to have different numbers.

Wait wait wait...


Someone said CNN was the only credible news agency?


:headbang:

Counting them is kind of like polling except direct, since they've said they'll vote one way, but they haven't yet.

and even worse than regular polling, because they actually can and will get together later and decide how they will vote, if it comes down to them to decide the thing. like if voters had actually been going out of their way to trick pollsters.

'Party like Barack does...'Party like Barack does...'Party like Barack does...'Party like Barack does........! :cool:

Technically, Clinton is miles ahead. She already won Michigan and Florida with no delegates disbursed. If and when those delegates receive status, then Hillary is quite ahead.

Technically, Clinton is miles ahead. She already won Michigan and Florida with no delegates disbursed. If and when those delegates receive status, then Hillary is quite ahead.
In no way, shape, or form should Michigan's delegates be counted - only Hillary was on the ticket. A fight may be in store to get Florida's admitted though.

Technically, Clinton is miles ahead.

only in stupidland. come on, we all get that you loves you some clinton, but can you at least try to stick to reality?

In no way, shape, or form should Michigan's delegates be counted - only Hillary was on the ticket. A fight may be in store to get Florida's admitted though.
If you are a Democrat and you believe in Democracy, you will want those delegates to be seated.

only in stupidland. come on, we all get that you loves you some clinton, but can you at least try to stick to reality?
Reality is that Clinton won both Florida and Michigan. Reality dictates that something will have to be done about those delegates.

In your "stupidland" there is no democracy.

Another thing that I find confusing is the delegate report from California. According to CNN, it shows Clinton with 42 delegates and Obama with 23 delegates.

Where is the bulk of the delegates (370) that are tied to February 5 primary?

Surely when those are added in, Clinton clearly won Super Tuesday?

California (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#CA)

Updated 8:30 p.m. EST, Feb 6, 2008

Clinton 2,132,166 52% 42
Obama 1,735,105 42% 23
Edwards 170,013 4% 0

Reality is that Clinton won both Florida and Michigan. Reality dictates that something will have to be done about those delegates.

In your "stupidland" there is no democracy.

You mean Michigan, the state in which SHE WAS THE ONLY CHOICE?

Get real.

Another thing that I find confusing is the delegate report from California. According to CNN, it shows Clinton with 42 delegates and Obama with 23 delegates.

Where is the bulk of the delegates (370) that are tied to February 5 primary?

still being sorted out. delegates are awarded according to proportional representation on top of a ridiculous and arcane mystical process that divides them out in clumps across states and awards the proportions in not-quite-proportional form after that.

If you are a Democrat and you believe in Democracy, you will want those delegates to be seated.

Which is exactly why Michigan shouldn't be admitted.

Which is exactly why Michigan shouldn't be admitted.
And when those disenfranchised voters vote for Mc Cain in November, you will all say we shoulda done the right thing?

Seriously, I believe that Dems are self destructing here.

oh, and apparently obama has raised 3 million dollar since the polls closed yesterday.

update - it's at 5.29 million now.

fuck man, that's insane fundraising.

Seriously, I believe that Dems are self destructing here.

again, stupidland seems like an interesting place, but it ain't much like here.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:

It seems the people are ignoring the media and going with who they want. GO OBAMA!!!

And when those disenfranchised voters vote for Mc Cain in November, you will all say we shoulda done the right thing?

Seriously, I believe that Dems are self destructing here.
Disenfranchised voters? This is the damn primaries. Hillary was the only name on the ballot. You support fascism?

MSNBC is reporting Obama is ahead of Hillary by 4 delegate total.

Hillary thought she had won, then it went into surprise overtime and Obama showed off some mad poll handling skills and dunked on Clinton for the winning score.

Good. Hopefully Obama defeats Clinton the rest of the way. The last thing we want is 4 more years of the same exact shit.

Disenfranchised voters? This is the damn primaries.
It may be the "damn primaries", but if Obama wins the nomination by default and/or goes on to lose the election, all you can do is second guess yourselves. Yes disenfranchisement is the correct word, especially when deciding such a high profile position.

Hillary was the only name on the ballot. You support fascism?
Of course I don't. From what I understand, Obama voters voted for "uncommitted", since Obama's name was not on the ballot. Perhaps they will have to figure something out.

Well according to Fox News, Hillary is ahead:

Candidate Delegates (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/06/national-delegate-count-tally/)
Hillary Clinton 1,024
John Edwards 26
Mike Gravel 0
Barack Obama 933
Total 1,983

HAHA!! God I love superdelegates.

Oh and should I mention that Hillary's staff has not been paid?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23037431/

Apparently Hillary is hurting for money.

Seriously, I believe that Dems are self destructing here.

Yep they will if Clinton gets the nomination.

Yep they will if Clinton gets the nomination.
Would I expect a true Bushevik to say anything complimentary? Towards the Clintons that is. :p

Would I expect a true Bushevik to say anything complimentary? Towards the Clintons that is. :p

Considering there are many dems who also have nothing complimentary to say about Ms. Clinton...

You are just making shit up now.



Then how are we going to distribute those votes? Oh yeah, we can't. Allowing the Michigan votes to count is unfair to, oh I don't know, everyone.

YOu're talking to a clintonite. There's no debating with them just like you cannot debate the paulbots.

Considering there are many dems who also have nothing complimentary to say about Ms. Clinton...



Like me.

It may be the "damn primaries", but if Obama wins the nomination by default and/or goes on to lose the election, all you can do is second guess yourselves. Yes disenfranchisement is the correct word, especially when deciding such a high profile position.
You are just making shit up now.


Of course I don't. From what I understand, Obama voters voted for "uncommitted", since Obama's name was not on the ballot.
Then how are we going to distribute those votes? Oh yeah, we can't. Allowing the Michigan votes to count is unfair to, oh I don't know, everyone.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:

actually dipshit, if you knew anything about the current primaries, you wouldn't be pontificating your idiocy before an international forum like this one

what the news was reporting is that Clinton (wow, you have such clever little names for the politicians you disagree with, seriously grow up you infant) won the delegates that were promised to her, IE the superdelegates who count ten times more than the regular delgates

she also won in states that were not projected to her, but were in fact projected enormously for obama. she upstaged him in Mass. and Cali. even though he spent more money on campaigns in those two states, and had more endoresements from people associated with those states

thats why she is seen as the ultimate winner, but really all the news networks keep reporting that the dems are still neck in neck


seriously, grow the fuck up, research your shit before you go posting a forum and displaying your truly idiotic ignorance

CLINTON '08!!!!!!!

actually dipshit,

WOW! Nice flame.

OH and do a bit a research yourself. If you want Clinton then you want 4 more fucking years of the exact same shit we are dealing with now.

actually dipshit, if you knew anything about the current primaries, you wouldn't be pontificating your idiocy before an international forum like this one

what the news was reporting is that Clinton (wow, you have such clever little names for the politicians you disagree with, seriously grow up you infant) won the delegates that were promised to her, IE the superdelegates who count ten times more than the regular delgates

she also won in states that were not projected to her, but were in fact projected enormously for obama. she upstaged him in Mass. and Cali. even though he spent more money on campaigns in those two states, and had more endoresements from people associated with those states

thats why she is seen as the ultimate winner, but really all the news networks keep reporting that the dems are still neck in neck


seriously, grow the fuck up, research your shit before you go posting a forum and displaying your truly idiotic ignorance

CLINTON '08!!!!!!!

clever parody or utter seriousness?

You are just making shit up now.
Am I? Eliminating the delegates from States totalling 29 million people is a big deal? Partial democracy is good enough for you as long as it allows your candidate to benefit?

Then how are we going to distribute those votes? Oh yeah, we can't. Allowing the Michigan votes to count is unfair to, oh I don't know, everyone.
Well, yes, there is a problem. For every problem there is a solution. Find a fair solution, and then democracy will be served.

You know what I would do if I were the DNC?

I'd give Florida and Michigan this offer, take it or leave it:

You guys can have your delegates back, if you schedule caucuses that will take place after the current last primary. You tried to cut in line; you get sent to the back.

I think it'd be a fair compromise because it'd punish the state's party for breaking the rules-- in a punishment that's consistent with the rule broken-- while still giving Michigan and Florida democrats a say in their presidential candidate.

Are there any problems with this I've not considered?

seriously, grow the fuck up
Says s/he, flaming outrageously.

Am I? Eliminating the delegates from States totalling 29 million people is a big deal? Partial democracy is good enough for you as long as it allows your candidate to benefit?

Look, you might have had an argument for keeping them in. Before the primaries.

Now, reinstating their delegates is just a stupid--and undemocratic--giveaway.

You know what I would do if I were the DNC?

I'd give Florida and Michigan this offer, take it or leave it:

You guys can have your delegates back, if you schedule caucuses that will take place after the current last primary. You tried to cut in line; you get sent to the back.

I think it'd be a fair compromise because it'd punish the state's party for breaking the rules-- in a punishment that's consistent with the rule broken-- while still giving Michigan and Florida democrats a say in their presidential candidate.

Are there any problems with this I've not considered?

seems perfectly reasonable to me. i assume there is some party rule against do-overs, but they can probably work around that.

Am I? Eliminating the delegates from States totalling 29 million people is a big deal? Partial democracy is good enough for you as long as it allows your candidate to benefit?

Since only one name was on the ballot in Michigan...

Look, you might have had an argument for keeping them in. Before the primaries.

Now, reinstating their delegates is just a stupid--and undemocratic--giveaway.

There is that.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:

Hell yeah!!!

Since only one name was on the ballot in Michigan...
Do some research and get back to me with the "facts". :p

WOW! Nice flame.

OH and do a bit a research yourself. If you want Clinton then you want 4 more fucking years of the exact same shit we are dealing with now.

wow, what are you an idiot?

oh wait, i guess the fact that her husband presided over the largest economic development in America's history must mean absolutely nothing, and that she's just going to repeat the Bush administration's policies


and also, it's not just the past four years, but eight years, Bush has been in office for, let's count them together, shall we? One, two, three, four, (keep counting, you're doing great!) five, six, seven, eight, EIGHT years! Very good!

honestly, you seriously need to read up on what her economic positions are


i'm not bashing obama, he's a great guy, i love him to death, but i prefer clinton because of her economic policies and other issues that she stands for.

but that's the major difference that i've seen so far, between the clinton supporters and the obama supporters, is that the obama supporters are trying to villify clinton. I mean, come on dude, we're all on the same fucking side, since when did you let karl rove run your campaigning strategies? talk about a repeat of the past administration, take a look in the fucking mirror

wow, what are you an idiot?

oh wait, i guess the fact that her husband presided over the largest economic development in America's history must mean absolutely



Corn is right. Hilary would be the same damn thing. Clinthullu is a pro war authoritarian moralist.


Oh, and by the way, she isnt her fucking husband. I liked Bill as a president. I dislike Hillary. Obama has most of Clintons aides working with him. If you want a legit Bill Clinton Mark II Obama's your man.


Obama hasnt villified anyone. I do recall Clinthullu was the one bringing up his admitted drug use. In fact, all the negetivity from a candidate towards another candidate is coming from Clinton. Edwards and Obama didnt do the whole negative campaigning thing.


Finally, when Ann Coulter supports you, there is something wrong with you.


@Canuk- The reason Florida and Mich arent counting is because only she was on the ballot (well, the only one with a real chance) and because the Democratic party leadership is punishing those states for changing the dates of their primaries, something ALL the candidates agreed upon, until Clinthullu started to sweat, need those states and then won them. Now taht she won in them and isnt the clear winner in the primaries, shes singing a totally different tune. Shes a hypocritical double talking bitch. Hows that different from 95% of other politicians? Shes not even good at it.

Says s/he, flaming outrageously.

if all else fails, and you can't attack the content of a post, i guess you can just revert to attacking the spirit in which it's given. How republican of you to distract people from the actual issue and direct them towards the "tone"

Snip.

1- If you assume that, by living with a leader, one automatically becomes a leader, you're favoring monarchy.

2- Clinton has the highest rejection rate of ANY candidate, which means she shouldn't get the nomination EVEN IF she were a better candidate than Obama.

3- She is not a better candidate than Obama; She is more warlike, she is more conservative, she is, overall, a worse pick than Obama is.

PLEASE tell me you understand it now.

Look, you might have had an argument for keeping them in. Before the primaries.

Now, reinstating their delegates is just a stupid--and undemocratic--giveaway.
What was stupid was disenfranchising them in the first place? Keeping them from having a say as to who will represent them on a national level is utter stupidity.

It appears that if the Republicans don't "swift boat" the Dems, they will do it to themselves. And when they get saddled with yet another Republican President, they will whine and complain for another 4 years.

Clinthullu

:rolleyes:

is a pro war

She's not particularly more hawkish than Obama. When it has suited them, both have been belligerent-sounding with respect to Iran.

authoritarian moralist.

What, because she wants to restrict the access of minors to video games?

Yes, it's stupid pandering to the "values" crowd, but it's hardly a major issue.

What part of "HILLARY CLINTON WAS THE ONLY NAME ON THE BALLOT" don't you understand?
She was? Not according to this:

Michigan (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI)

Updated 12:09 p.m. EST, Jan 17, 2008

100% reporting

Clinton 328,151 55% 0
Uncommitted 237,762 40% 0
Kucinich 21,708 4% 0
Dodd 3,853 1% 0
Gravel 2,363 0% 0

Fair solution - hold a new caucus later or their delegates arn't counted. The end.
well something should be done or the consequences will be grave.

At least the Republicans came up with a 50% rule. That is certainly more progressive than the Democrats choice.

What was stupid was disenfranchising them in the first place?

yes, that was a stupid move on the part of the florida and michigan state democratic parties. if only there had been some way of avoiding it. but alas, there was no possible way that they could have held their primaries when they were allowed to hold their primaries. it was just impossible.

Am I? Eliminating the delegates from States totalling 29 million people is a big deal? Partial democracy is good enough for you as long as it allows your candidate to benefit?
What part of "HILLARY CLINTON WAS THE ONLY NAME ON THE BALLOT" don't you understand?


Well, yes, there is a problem. For every problem there is a solution. Find a fair solution, and then democracy will be served.
Fair solution - hold a new caucus later or their delegates arn't counted. The end.

I will say this for Clinton - the neocons can only attack her on her health plan, all her other stances are the same as theirs.

What was stupid was disenfranchising them in the first place?

No, what was stupid was them breaking the rules in the first place.

The primary system is already a mess. Keeping it from becoming an even greater mess is a worthy objective.

if all else fails, and you can't attack the content of a post, i guess you can just revert to attacking the spirit in which it's given. How republican of you to distract people from the actual issue and direct them towards the "tone"

so you would prefer that they instead focused on the total and utterly laughable cluelessness in your post?

:rolleyes:



She's not particularly more hawkish than Obama. When it has suited them, both have been belligerent-sounding with respect to Iran.




I havent heard Obama be "Lets go in and kick ass" about Iran.

Also, in Clinthullu's (suck it;)) past, she has been very pro military and hawkish. Shes one of the most war like democrats, that was common knowledge until she ran for president, and now her supporters have convienently forgotten it.

Ill vote for her before I vote Republican. But I wont be happy about it.

wow, what are you an idiot?

Love to flame I see.

and also, it's not just the past four years, but eight years, Bush has been in office for, let's count them together, shall we? One, two, three, four, (keep counting, you're doing great!) five, six, seven, eight, EIGHT years! Very good!

Wow! Way to miss the obvious. I see that you cannot see that I said FOUR MORE YEARS OF THE SAME SHIT WE ARE DEALING WITH NOW!!!

honestly, you seriously need to read up on what her economic positions are

Its not just economics I disagree with her on.

wow, what are you an idiot?
*SNIP*
talk about a repeat of the past administration, take a look in the fucking mirror

actually dipshit, *SNIP*

Calling people names isn't helping your position.

And about the Primaries/Caucuses. I personally would have Obama, who actually stands by his positions on issues (wants more rights for Natives, amoung several other things), rather than Clinton, who several times has flip flopped her positions (has stated she is anti-Disabled rights).

@Canuk- The reason Florida and Mich arent counting is because only she was on the ballot (well, the only one with a real chance) and because the Democratic party leadership is punishing those states for changing the dates of their primaries, something ALL the candidates agreed upon, until Clinthullu started to sweat, need those states and then won them. Now taht she won in them and isnt the clear winner in the primaries, shes singing a totally different tune. Shes a hypocritical double talking bitch. Hows that different from 95% of other politicians? Shes not even good at it.
You are wrong on so many points here, I can't be bothered pointing them out. Do some reading and some research and you will realize what I am saying. Don't let your blind hatred for Hillary block you from the truth.

Do some research and get back to me with the "facts". :p
the facts (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html)
Five Democratic presidential candidates Tuesday sought to officially withdraw from Michigan's January 15 primary, rendering the event virtually insignificant.
art.biden.gi.jpg

Sen. Joe Biden's campaign calls the Michigan primary a "beauty contest."

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio all announced the move Tuesday, the deadline for filing such paperwork.
So you're hold out is that Chris Dodd was on the ballot, too?

The reality is that she was the only 'real' candidate to be on the ballot. To re-instate Michigan at this point would be ridiculous since it essentially didn't have a primary. Michigan knew ahead of time that they had lost their delegates and the voters knew that, too.

The time to restore Michigan and Florida's delegates was before their primaries. To do so afterwards because your candidate needs the boost is dishonest. Nakedly so.

I havent heard Obama be "Lets go in and kick ass" about Iran.

I'm sorry--I can't account for what you've heard.

Also, in Clinthullu's (suck it;)) past, she has been very pro military and hawkish.

How?

"Common knowledge" won't do it, sorry. "Common knowledge" about Clinton, depending on who you ask, also states that she's a crazed extremist liberal.

You are wrong on so many points here, I can't be bothered pointing them out. Do some reading and some research and you will realize what I am saying. Don't let your blind hatred for Hillary block you from the truth.




Prove it. I live here. I watch the news and read the paper. Thats what Ive gathered. Show me otherwise.

Dont let your crazy arousal for Billary blind you from the blatantly obvious truth.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html
Read it. It will confirm what I said.

Considering there are many dems who also have nothing complimentary to say about Ms. Clinton...

While both liberals and conservatives often loathe Clinton, they do so for opposite reasons.

Both are evil scallywags!

I'm sorry--I can't account for what you've heard.



How?

"Common knowledge" won't do it, sorry. "Common knowledge" about Clinton, depending on who you ask, also states that she's a crazed extremist liberal.

Wait, did you just call someone out for not having 'common knowledge' and then, in the same post, say 'common knowledge' won't do?

Seriously?

Of course I don't.

Yet, you support Hillary...

(Sorry, couldn't resist. :p)

Wait, did you just call someone out for not having 'common knowledge'

Um, no, I didn't. What are you talking about?

Here, if you want a source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

One of plenty of examples.

Um, no, I didn't. What are you talking about?
You called someone out for not 'hearing' something you hadn't sourced and then in the same post called someone out for doing essentially that. Pretty naked. Don't make me draw a chart.

Here, if you want a source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

One of plenty of examples.
That's what you demanded of the other guy, don't act all wounded that you have to live up to the same standard.

You called someone out for not 'hearing' something you hadn't sourced and then in the same post called someone out for doing essentially that.

Doesn't work, sorry.

The issue of contention was whether or not Hillary Clinton is substantially more pro-war than Obama. In support of my position, I referenced a specific fact--when it comes to Iran, both of them have made belligerent statements. In support of his position, he simply offered "common knowledge."

Neither of our claims were sourced. My problem with his claim was not that it was unsourced--indeed, I didn't contest that Clinton is generally regarded as hawkish. My problem was that referencing a common perception didn't prove anything.

update - it's at 5.29 million now.

fuck man, that's insane fundraising.

update the second - it'll be rolling over 6 million dollars raised since polls closed yesterday any minute now.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

update the second - it'll be rolling over 6 million dollars raised since polls closed yesterday any minute now.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

Wasn't everyone all excited when Paul got like 4 million?

Wasn't everyone all excited when Paul got like 4 million?

yes. and that was a planned event. this is an essentially spontaneous outpouring of support in the wake of super-duper-tuesday.

Doesn't work, sorry.

The issue of contention was whether or not Hillary Clinton is substantially more pro-war than Obama. In support of my position, I referenced a specific fact--when it comes to Iran, both of them have made belligerent statements. In support of his position, he simply offered "common knowledge."

Neither of our claims were sourced. My problem with his claim was not that it was unsourced--indeed, I didn't contest that Clinton is generally regarded as hawkish. My problem was that referencing a common perception didn't prove anything.

If it helps you sleep at night, I guess...

At the very least, let us strive to be accurate. Clinton did not "just" lend 5 million dollars to her campaign. She did it in January, well before Super Tuesday. It's entirely possible there's been quite a few donations which came into the Clinton camp because of Super Tuesday.

At the very least, let us strive to be accurate. Clinton did not "just" lend 5 million dollars to her campaign. She did it in January, well before Super Tuesday. It's entirely possible there's been quite a few donations which came into the Clinton camp because of Super Tuesday.

well before? do you have a date on that? cause all that was said when the story ran (on wednesday) was late january. it is 'just' enough by anyone's standards.

I'd pretty much guarantee it.

of course they have. she sent out an appeal to help raise 3 million dollars in 3 days already.

We don't have time to catch our breath -- the next races are just three days away, and there are 10 more contests in February alone.

Let's meet this moment with bold action worthy of those who have put their faith in us. We are setting a big goal for the next three days: raise $3 million to fund our history-making campaign.

Contribute today to help us reach $3 million in three days.

At the very least, let us strive to be accurate. Clinton did not "just" lend 5 million dollars to her campaign. She did it in January, well before Super Tuesday. It's entirely possible there's been quite a few donations which came into the Clinton camp because of Super Tuesday.

I'd pretty much guarantee it.

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:

That is the lamest conspiracy theory ever perpetuated on this forum, and I go to the effort to read Ocean Drive's nonsense.

Prove it. I live here. I watch the news and read the paper. Thats what Ive gathered. Show me otherwise.

Dont let your crazy arousal for Billary blind you from the blatantly obvious truth.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html
Read it. It will confirm what I said.
And this (http://www.drudge.com/news/103436/clinton-michigan-florida-should-count) will confirm what you stated was in fact NOT true.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Florida Democratic Party clamored to restore convention delegates that had been stripped by the national party. At stake: 185 delegates in a state where Clinton leads almost 2-to-1. The presidential candidate said Friday -- just four days before Florida's primary -- that she wants the convention delegates from Florida and Michigan reinstated.
Also, the only name not on the Michigan ballot was Obama. And ALL the Democrats were on the Florida ballot.

Your suggestion that she flip flopped is made of fail.

the facts (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html)

So you're hold out is that Chris Dodd was on the ballot, too?

The reality is that she was the only 'real' candidate to be on the ballot. To re-instate Michigan at this point would be ridiculous since it essentially didn't have a primary. Michigan knew ahead of time that they had lost their delegates and the voters knew that, too.

The time to restore Michigan and Florida's delegates was before their primaries. To do so afterwards because your candidate needs the boost is dishonest. Nakedly so.
To deny the delegates from Michigan and Florida to select the Presidential nominee is ultimately damaging to the Democrats.

As far as the Michigan ballot is concerned, the only name missing was that of Obama's and why the others got on the ballot is anybodys' guess.

To deny the delegates from Michigan and Florida to select the Presidential nominee is ultimately damaging to the Democrats.

how?

how?
As I alluded to earlier, like this (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071217/moser):

"This whole thing here is a joke," said John Taylor, a hulking schoolteacher from Jacksonville wearing the tallest, most bodacious Chef Boyardee-style, star-spangled red-white-and-blue hat you ever saw. "How stupid the Democrats are--we're shooting ourselves in the foot!" Taylor angrily recalled some of the Republicans' tactics for suppressing the Democratic vote in 2000 and 2004. "They stole two elections, and now we've been working six years to make sure that don't happen again. And the Democrats screw us!"
This is just dumb politics by Democrats who should know better.

Read the whole article and you will get a feel for just how stupid this nonsense is, especially since Florida was so critical in the 2000 general election.

And this (http://www.drudge.com/news/103436/clinton-michigan-florida-should-count) will confirm what you stated was in fact NOT true.


Also, the only name not on the Michigan ballot was Obama. And ALL the Democrats were on the Florida ballot.

Your suggestion that she flip flopped is made of fail.
Which was after the Michigan primary.
To deny the delegates from Michigan and Florida to select the Presidential nominee is ultimately damaging to the Democrats.

As far as the Michigan ballot is concerned, the only name missing was that of Obama's and why the others got on the ballot is anybodys' guess.
Are you even listening to yourself? The name missing was the only cat still in the race. Perhaps the others missed the filling deadline, but at least honored the agreement.

C'mon, man-where's the intellectual honesty? You're better than this.

Which was after the Michigan primary.
But before the Florida primary, which is not what Knights of Liberty stated.

Are you even listening to yourself? The name missing was the only cat still in the race. Perhaps the others missed the filling deadline, but at least honored the agreement.

C'mon, man-where's the intellectual honesty? You're better than this.
Did Hillary agree to withdraw? I don't think so. If you can find it please let me know.

If you want to see a Democrat in the White House in January, I don't think that this is the way to go about it. It is made of fail.

Edit: I believe that all the candidates agreed not to campaign and to my knowledge, none of them did.

But before the Florida primary, which is not what Knights of Liberty stated.


Did Hillary agree to withdraw? I don't think so. If you can find it please let me know.

If you want to see a Democrat in the White House in January, I don't think that this is the way to go about it. It is made of fail.

Edit: I believe that all the candidates agreed not to campaign and to my knowledge, none of them did.

I guess you answered my question. Rather disappointing.

I guess you answered my question. Rather disappointing.
Is your love affair for Obama so great that you would gladly screw over the delegates of two States with a population of 29 Million people? States that I might add that would be crucial to any Democrat bid for the Presidency.

I just find this suicide pact unbearable to watch. :(

Is your love affair for Obama so great that you would gladly screw over the delegates of two States with a population of 29 Million people? States that I might add that would be crucial to any Democrat bid for the Presidency.

I just find this suicide pact unbearable to watch. :(

It's not a love affair with Obama, paint it as you may. Yours for Clinton has become, frankly, embarrassing.

Where the fuck was she in 2007 when the decision to strip them of their delegates was made? Huh? This shit is a year and a half old-

The DNC, as it does every presidential cycle, voted in mid-2006 to give special permission to certain small states to hold early caucuses and primaries. This time around the winning states were the traditional Iowa and New Hampshire, plus South Carolina (first moved to the front row in 2004) and Nevada (the new state on the early calendar). The DNC's rationale was compelling: Small states require personal campaigning rather than airport rallies, and they prevent politics from totally degenerating into a contest of who has the most money for TV ads. With the exception of the kerfuffle over caucus locations in Nevada, the early states did their job well in giving a fair look to the Democratic field before narrowing it down to Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

No other state, under the DNC's regulations, could hold a primary or caucus before Feb. 5. But last year, first Florida and then Michigan defiantly scheduled their 2008 primaries in January. This queue jumping not only undermined the special status of the four small states, but it also meant unfairly squeezing ahead of the throng of 22 states that had slated primaries and caucuses for Feb. 5.

The abuse was so flagrant that not only did the DNC play tough guy (stripping Michigan and Florida of all their convention delegates), but the party chairs in the four small front-of-the-pack states pressured the candidates into signing a pledge not to campaign in the two outlaw primaries. Obama and Edwards, in fact, even took their names off the Jan. 15 Michigan primary ballot in which Clinton beat "uncommitted" by a 55-to-40 percent margin.

And you want to paint this as a concern for the voters? Bull-fucking-shit. This decision was made in 2007, but when did Clinton make her grumble?

Only when the dimensions of her South Carolina setback were clear did Clinton begin portraying the Florida vote as ... well ... the 2000 Florida vote. The former first lady suddenly had a new cause -- justice for Florida. She pledged on primary night to do everything in her power to guarantee that "Florida's Democratic delegates [are] seated."

There was a time to make this argument, there was a time to champion this cause. After the fact when you're struggling isn't it. She had a fucking year, a year.[edit-meh, since October of last year, point still stands] But it's not until she already 'wins' Michigan and is falling behind in states that have delegates that she takes it up.

Where's her concern for the agreed upon process? About diminishing the small states that were given their positions so as not to get skipped over entirely?

What about Michigan's Mark Brewer counting on the DNC not having any teeth-
Mark Brewer, the Michigan party chairman, radiates optimism that his state will get its delegates back. "In the past when such penalties have been imposed on states that have gone early, they have always been lifted," he said in an interview. "But beyond that, the political reality is that Michigan is a targeted battleground state ... It would be political suicide for the Democratic nominee to refuse to seat us and hope to win Michigan in November."

He could end this, but will he?

In the short term, under Democratic Party rules, Michigan and Florida could theoretically petition for a do-over, asking to hold a party-sanctioned caucus or primary between Feb. 5 and June 10. But Brewer insists that the DNC has not asked Michigan to hold another delegate contest -- and he added, "If they did, we would refuse."

There are solutions that are equitable for all. Clinton's is a grab no matter how you paint it. No one, I'm betting even you alone in the dark, buy this 'concern for the voters' nonsense, not when there were and are so many opportunities for equitable resolutions.

Please, stop embarrassing yourself. It really is beneath you.

source (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/30/hillary/)

EDIT II: More on 'where the fuck was she in October when this decision was made?'

Well, where was she? Was she campaigning to have the votes counted? Was she speaking out against this decision?

She was, rather, shutting out reporters from Florida (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/30/florida/index.html?source=sphere) (from an article at the time)-
Two weeks ago, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times was denied a chance to speak with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, because he carried the scarlet letter of his home state. "You're still from Florida," the spokeswoman told him. "A tiger can't change its stripes." Last week when Bill Clinton came to south Florida to host a fundraiser for 2,000 people in Miami, the Miami Herald had to contribute a $50 fundraising ticket to witness his only appearance in the state.

Still want to try and paint this as anything other than opportunism?

EDIT the III: (CH appears to have gone to bed, or out, or to work, or is simply doing something else, so I have the luxury of just adding to this instead of making a whole bunch of new posts.)

This is an interesting analysis- (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=the_florida_vote)
In comments, many of you asked how I could be so dismissive of Floridians who voted for Hillary Clinton. And the answer is, I'm not. I didn't keep their vote from counting. When the Democratic National Committee decided to impose order on an out-of-control primary process by stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates if they refused to return their primaries to their original dates, there were three individuals who could have restored the franchise to those states. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the DNC, could have changed his mind, or changed his proposed penalty. Even in the face of his intransigence, however, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could have simply refused his entreaty to avoid the offending states. A declaration by either that they disagreed with the DNC's decision and would instruct their delegates to alter the rules at the convention and seat Florida and Michigan would have forced all the other candidates to do the same, and the DNC's prohibition would have collapsed. The voters in Florida and Michigan would have attended speeches, and seen ads, and hosted a debate, and been able to make an informed choice

That didn't happen. Clinton's campaign manager backing the DNC, said, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role." So Florida and Michigan didn't get their primaries. They didn't get campaigns. They didn't have serious Get Out The Vote efforts. And now, they're being cynically used, the language of democracy revisited and dusted off in service of a power play for additional delegates. Where, rightly or wrongly, the campaigns agreed to deny them a primary, now Clinton's campaign, which in Michigan won because they were the only campaign on the ballot and in Florida won because no one contested their lead, is demanding they be seated. The intervention did not come in time to give Florida and Michigan a full role in the democratic process, only in time to let the Clinton campaign benefit from their essential disenfranchisement.

I'm still hunting down that quote, because, well, this is a blog.

Another source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012902998_pf.html) cites the same quote-
"There are more voters in Florida alone than there are in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina combined," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle argued in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. This was the same Solis Doyle who last summer committed Clinton to signing the Florida boycott pledge, saying, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

And another, this one actually dated Sept. 1st, 2007 (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2007/09/top-democrats-s.html)-
Now this Democratic boycott is serious.
On Saturday, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards added their names to the list of Democratic presidential hopefuls who plan to skip campaigning in Florida and other states that violate national party rules for when they can stage primaries.
This from Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager:
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."
Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden a day earlier endorsed the so-called "four state" pledge not to veer from the small-state Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina road to the party nomination.
After Clinton's announcement, Florida Democratic Party Executive Director Leonard Joseph issued a letter stating "No matter which cards we're dealt, Florida Democrats are going to win the state's 27 electoral votes and elect a Democratic President in 2008. The country needs us."
But the reaction from state Democratic stalwarts is decidedly less upbeat.
I found the abstract of the original article, but you have to pay for it so, you know...no. But it seems clear this isn't a 'made up' quote and certainly underlines the opportunistic nature of this sudden desire for the votes to be heard.

From September- (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/11/news/iowa/c07662f8adc84f9a8625735300091c7f.txt)
The Clinton campaign announced they would sign the pledge on Sept. 1.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role," Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle said in a statement that day.

To deny the delegates from Michigan and Florida to select the Presidential nominee is ultimately damaging to the Democrats.

I hate to say this but this is what got Florida in hot water back in 2000. Changing the rules in midstream is wrong unless it is for safety reasons. Michigan and Florida lost their opportunity to have delegates the moment the polls opened.

It's not a love affair with Obama, paint it as you may. Yours for Clinton has become, frankly, embarrassing.

Where the fuck was she in 2007 when the decision to strip them of their delegates was made? Huh? This shit is a year and a half old-

And you want to paint this as a concern for the voters? Bull-fucking-shit. This decision was made in 2007, but when did Clinton make her grumble?

There was a time to make this argument, there was a time to champion this cause. After the fact when you're struggling isn't it. She had a fucking year, a year.[edit-meh, since October of last year, point still stands] But it's not until she already 'wins' Michigan and is falling behind in states that have delegates that she takes it up.

Where's her concern for the agreed upon process? About diminishing the small states that were given their positions so as not to get skipped over entirely?

What about Michigan's Mark Brewer counting on the DNC not having any teeth-

He could end this, but will he?

There are solutions that are equitable for all. Clinton's is a grab no matter how you paint it. No one, I'm betting even you alone in the dark, buy this 'concern for the voters' nonsense, not when there were and are so many opportunities for equitable resolutions.

Please, stop embarrassing yourself. It really is beneath you.

source (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/30/hillary/)

EDIT II: More on 'where the fuck was she in October when this decision was made?'

Well, where was she? Was she campaigning to have the votes counted? Was she speaking out against this decision?

She was, rather, shutting out reporters from Florida (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/30/florida/index.html?source=sphere) (from an article at the time)-

Still want to try and paint this as anything other than opportunism?
Opportunist or not, Clinton's point is valid and underscores what I have stated earlier and what one of your own links (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/30/florida/index.html?source=sphere) talks about:

The Democratic Party is doing battle -- with itself -- over the state's role in the primaries. Some members say it could cost the party in November 2008......

In any other state, this sort of intra-party fight might seem like little more than an inconvenience. But messing with the vote in southeast Florida is a bit like lighting a fire under a burn victim's home. The retirement communities of Broward County form the core of the state party's strength, with some of the highest Democratic margins in the nation. There are nearly 460,000 Democratic voters in the county, or about three-quarters of the total number in the entire state of Iowa. Broward County was ground zero for the Bush v. Gore presidential recount, the sight of courtroom shout-fests, dimpled chads and, finally, anguished disillusionment. In 2006, electronic voting machines in a Florida district across state failed to record a vote for Congress from 18,000 voters, a glitch that may have been due to voting machine malfunction or poor ballot design. But there was no way to investigate since the machines left no paper trail. "We're always so troubled," says Berger.

Although the latest trouble is stirring around the upcoming primaries, its consequences may extend beyond. No one knows if the anger will entirely fade in the Century Village card rooms in time for November 2008. "There is no question whatsoever but that there will be damage in the general election" from a declined turnout, said Democrat Steven Geller, a state senator from Broward County. The question, he says, is "how significant the damage will be."
This is shoot yourself in the foot politics. I am starting to believe that American Democrats are self destructive and masochistic.

The Republicans must be laughing their heads off.

Opportunist or not, Clinton's point is valid and underscores what I have stated earlier and what one of your own links (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/30/florida/index.html?source=sphere) talks about:


This is shoot yourself in the foot politics. I am starting to believe that American Democrats are self destructive and masochistic.

The Republicans must be laughing their heads off.

I'm laughing my head off that you want to change the rules in midstream.

Opportunist or not, Clinton's point is valid and underscores what I have stated earlier and what one of your own links (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/30/florida/index.html?source=sphere) talks about:


This is shoot yourself in the foot politics. I am starting to believe that American Democrats are self destructive and masochistic.

The Republicans must be laughing their heads off.

Clinton's point was valid in October, when she should have made it. Now, it's not. The solution, equitable solutions, are available and already cited (and seemingly ignored). If there was any real concern for the voters thats what would (have) be(en) pursued. That you continually fixate on only the one that unfairly benefits your chosen candidate gives lie to your rhetoric.

Perhaps I have given you too much credit in the past. You've contorted yourself to ridiculous lengths to justify this flimsy edge for your candidate.

And this (http://www.drudge.com/news/103436/clinton-michigan-florida-should-count) will confirm what you stated was in fact NOT true.

Yeah, except for the fact that it DOESN'T.

From your own source:
Most of the Michigan voters who chose uncommitted backed Obama or Edwards, who pulled their names from the ballot to avoid angering Iowa and New Hampshire, which didn't like other states crowding to the front of the election calendar.
Those are the only two other contenders that matter and they wern't on the ballot in Michigan.


You keep sitting there accusing everyone else of wanting to subvert democracy because we want Obama to win so bad. Bullshit, you want Hillary to win so bad that you are actively advocating the subversion of the democratic process by allowing Michigan's delegates to count when they couldn't possibly go to anyone but Hillary because she was the only real contender on the ballot.

Is your love affair for Obama so great that you would gladly screw over the delegates of two States with a population of 29 Million people? States that I might add that would be crucial to any Democrat bid for the Presidency.

I just find this suicide pact unbearable to watch. :(
I'm from Michigan, and would feel very offended if delegates were seated based on that January vote. People were reluctant to vote "Uncommitted" with no idea who those people were (random party hacks, no idea what they would do). I voted Kucinich, mostly in protest. That slate does not represent the people of Michigan, who stayed away in droves.

I'm from Michigan, and would feel very offended if delegates were seated based on that January vote. People were reluctant to vote "Uncommitted" with no idea who those people were (random party hacks, no idea what they would do). I voted Kucinich, mostly in protest. That slate does not represent the people of Michigan, who stayed away in droves.

Well said.

Well said.

And blatantly obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

But then, we're talking about US politics here. Common sense is like unobtainium.

I'm from Michigan, and would feel very offended if delegates were seated based on that January vote. People were reluctant to vote "Uncommitted" with no idea who those people were (random party hacks, no idea what they would do). I voted Kucinich, mostly in protest. That slate does not represent the people of Michigan, who stayed away in droves.

yeah, i voted in chicago instead. ambiguous residence for teh win!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:

A politician with 10 votes will explain how it is that he came off best against his opponent (who got 100 votes)! :confused:
It's the way a politician's brain works, they are all missing the 'reality' chip.

LOL this exploded like a vial of nitro shaken hard, didn't it?

So much so, I'm not terribly interested in digging though over 100 posts to make a substantial reply.

LOL this exploded like a vial of nitro shaken hard, didn't it?

So much so, I'm not terribly interested in digging though over 100 posts to make a substantial reply.

As much as I hate to bust your similie, a vial of nitro actually probably won't explode if shaken. It's fairly stable when sealed in without the ability to move. Drop it and let it smash, though, and bad things will happen.

This is shoot yourself in the foot politics.

yes, the democratic parties of florida and michigan are fucking stupid as hell. i still fail to see why you think we should blame everyone else for their retardosity.

LOL this exploded like a vial of nitro shaken hard, didn't it?

So much so, I'm not terribly interested in digging though over 100 posts to make a substantial reply.
There is no point, it is mostly CanuckHeaven fellating Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, except for the fact that it DOESN'T.

From your own source:

Those are the only two other contenders that matter and they wern't on the ballot in Michigan.

You keep sitting there accusing everyone else of wanting to subvert democracy because we want Obama to win so bad. Bullshit, you want Hillary to win so bad that you are actively advocating the subversion of the democratic process by allowing Michigan's delegates to count when they couldn't possibly go to anyone but Hillary because she was the only real contender on the ballot.
All I can say is that with the attitude I have witnessed on these boards, you will more than likely get the President you deserve but not the one that you want.

Kerry got "swift boated".

Now the Dems are "swift boating" themselves.

You all realize that if Michigan and Florida delegates get representation, then Hillary will more than likely win the nomination. And they should have representation.

Who can blame Hillary for going after those votes? Certainly if the situation were reversed, Obama would be going after those votes?

So of course, Obama supporters would prefer to believe that Florida and Michigan doesn't exist for the nomination process.

Democrats exercising democracy. NOT!!

You all realize that if Michigan and Florida delegates get representation, then Hillary will more than likely win the nomination. And they should have representation.

You are right that they should but they got punished because they broke the rules. That's the problem you are not seeing. You want to reward rule breakers in this instance. That's wrong. It's like letting a spammer off the hook for not understanding the rules even after being warned to stop. Both states were warned of consequences and were told to change and they didn't. Hence the punishment.

I'm from Michigan, and would feel very offended if delegates were seated based on that January vote. People were reluctant to vote "Uncommitted" with no idea who those people were (random party hacks, no idea what they would do). I voted Kucinich, mostly in protest. That slate does not represent the people of Michigan, who stayed away in droves.
Well then, a fair means to get those delegates seated should be a huge priority. Find a workable solution that allows democracy to succeed.

Well then, a fair means to get those delegates seated should be a huge priority. Find a workable solution that allows democracy to succeed.

It was talked about earlier but apparently both Michigan and Florida have yet to comment on it. If they don't then they should not be seated.

You are right that they should but they got punished because they broke the rules. That's the problem you are not seeing. You want to reward rule breakers in this instance. That's wrong. It's like letting a spammer off the hook for not understanding the rules even after being warned to stop. Both states were warned of consequences and were told to change and they didn't. Hence the punishment.
However, the Republicans were smart enough to allow 50% of the delegates to participate. That allowed those States to have primary campaigns wereby Republicans campaigned actively.

On the Democrat front all was silent.

Stroke of genius. :rolleyes:
Democrat self punishment to the benefit of Republicans.

Kerry got "swift boated".

Now the Dems are "swift boating" themselves.

you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means

And they should have representation.

no. the rules of fairness, democracy, and reason itself says that they should absolutely not, on top of the party rules governing primary season.

the only reason to let them in at all is party unity. but that must and will take place only after places that actually had primaries determine who the winner is, at which point florida and michigan's delegates will all vote for that person at the convention anyways.

It was talked about earlier but apparently both Michigan and Florida have yet to comment on it. If they don't then they should not be seated.

They have until June 10th to ask for essentially a "do-over." Michigan has already said their piece on that. They won't do it.

However, the Republicans were smart enough to allow 50% of the delegates to participate. That allowed those States to have primary campaigns wereby Republicans campaigned actively.

On the Democrat front all was silent.

Stroke of genius. :rolleyes:
Democrat self punishment to the benefit of Republicans.

you seem to be confused about the nature of primaries vs general elections

However, the Republicans were smart enough to allow 50% of the delegates to participate. That allowed those States to have primary campaigns wereby Republicans campaigned actively.

On the Democrat front all was silent.

Stroke of genius. :rolleyes:
Democrat self punishment to the benefit of Republicans.

And if you notice, it was 50% of the delegates and not all the delegates. They still got punished just not as harshly as the Democrats did. The Federal Party members set policies that the State Party members have to follow. Just like we have rules here laid out to us by the mods and when we break them, we get punished. The State Parties got punished in pretty much the same way.

They have until June 10th to ask for essentially a "do-over." Michigan has already said their piece on that. They won't do it.

Then Michigan's delegates should not be seated.

you seem to be confused about the nature of primaries vs general elections
I do? Please enlighten me.

Not as they stand because Clinton was the only frontrunner on the ballot. And in Florida the candidates honored the request that they not campaign there. So both states would have to have a new primary to make it fair. I wouldn't be against that and I am an Obama supporter.

Clinton supporters should admit that seating the delegates where Obama wasn't even on the ballot would be unfair.

Well then, a fair means to get those delegates seated should be a huge priority. Find a workable solution that allows democracy to succeed.

I posted what I think to be a fair proposal; yet you keep insisting "We must seat their delegates [exactly as is from the uncontested primaries that they already had], in the name of fairness!"

Yet I am sure that you would not be advocating seating those delegates had Obama won them. I would advocate the "do-over" solution myself, no matter who won the illegal primaries, because it's blatantly obvious that if you allow states to break the scheduling rules, then the next election, every state will move their primaries up-- which is exactly the problem that was trying to be solved.

Do you really think that if we just let Florida and Michigan get away with this, other states will still follow the rules in future elections? Are you that naive? People rarely follow rules unless there is a consequence of some sort for breaking them.

I still think we should have a national primary day.

By the way, am I the only one who views the situation as being very much like the following?

Teenager: Dad, is it alright if I go to the movies with some friends of mine?
Father: No, son, I need you to help me fix the roof.
The teenager goes to the movies anyway, and then complains that it's "nooot faaaaair!!!!111one" when his father takes his car away.

I mean, come on.
No, it is far more complex, and serious than that.

By the way, am I the only one who views the situation as being very much like the following?

Teenager: Dad, is it alright if I go to the movies with some friends of mine?
Father: No, son, I need you to help me fix the roof.
The teenager goes to the movies anyway, and then complains that it's "nooot faaaaair!!!!111one" when his father takes his car away.

I mean, come on.

No, it is far more complex, and serious than that.

Um actually...no it isn't that complex nor complicated.

you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means
Okay then, what do you think, what I think it means? :p

the only reason to let them in at all is party unity. but that must and will take place only after places that actually had primaries determine who the winner is, at which point florida and michigan's delegates will all vote for that person at the convention anyways.
Party unity is taking a beating because of this nonsense. Voting for a candidate after they have already been confirmed is next to meaningless, especially if it might have been a different nominee if they had been allowed to vote in the first place.

By the way, am I the only one who views the situation as being very much like the following?

Teenager: Dad, is it alright if I go to the movies with some friends of mine?
Father: No, son, I need you to help me fix the roof.
The teenager goes to the movies anyway, and then complains that it's "nooot faaaaair!!!!111one" when his father takes his car away.

I mean, come on.

There is that. There's also the element of:

"Ok, so balls that go out of bounds don't count, right?"
"Right."
....
....
"If those balls that went out of bounds earlier counted, I'd win. We should change the rules right now to make them count."
"Erm...no."


If an argument was to be made about including Michigan and Florida delegates, the place for that argument was before the elections were held there, not after.

Now, if the DNC wants to allow them to rehold elections at the end of the season, and the states agree to do so, that would be fine. The candidates could then actually campaign there. I doubt that's going to happen, however.

And yes, this would be true no matter who had won those states. You don't change the rules midstream.

Party unity is taking a beating because of this nonsense.

The time and place for declaring it "nonsense" was before the primary season. At this point, them's the rules, whether they're good ones or not.

and florida and michigan were allowed to have meaningful votes in the first place. they decided not to. they chose to not have any delegates. blame the stupid state parties for being stupid. what is complicated about this? do you just not grasp what actually happened?

Indeed, if anyone has disenfranchised voters, it was the state parties that decided to break the rules.

That said, I find it funny that CH is attacking a process is already miles from truly being democratic for being undemocratic. If the DNC really wanted a democratic process, they'd get rid of superdelegates and hold all primaries/caucuses/etc. on the same day. Also, closed primaries wouldn't exist.

Party unity is taking a beating because of this nonsense.

no, it isn't. at all. in the slightest. demonstrate otherwise with polling. i dare you.

Voting for a candidate after they have already been confirmed is next to meaningless, especially if it might have been a different nominee if they had been allowed to vote in the first place.

you are aware that in typical primary campaigns, most states wind up having no real race because the nomination is locked up already anyways, right? and that the convention almost always has a near-consensus show vote for the already selected candidate, yes?

and florida and michigan were allowed to have meaningful votes in the first place. they decided not to. they chose to not have any delegates. blame the stupid state parties for being stupid. what is complicated about this? do you just not grasp what actually happened?

However, the Republicans were smart enough to allow 50% of the delegates to participate. That allowed those States to have primary campaigns wereby Republicans campaigned actively.

On the Democrat front all was silent.

Stroke of genius. :rolleyes:
Democrat self punishment to the benefit of Republicans.



Im 100% positive that if Obama won Florida and Mich youd be singing a totally different song, just like Billary.

And this (http://www.drudge.com/news/103436/clinton-michigan-florida-should-count) will confirm what you stated was in fact NOT true.


Also, the only name not on the Michigan ballot was Obama. And ALL the Democrats were on the Florida ballot.

Your suggestion that she flip flopped is made of fail.


Actually, no it isnt. Also, your claim about Michigan is false. Only Clinton, Dodd, and the forest elf were on it.



Seriously dude, your love for Billary Clinthullu is so obvious and blind to all logic that its embarassing to witness, and IMO it should be embarassing to you too.

I'd be curious what CH's proposed solution would be to prevent the big states from overshadowing the smaller states in the primaries? That's the goal here. Since you propose taking away the consequences that were stated before those states broke the rules, what do you propose will prevent rule-breaking when there are no consequences?

I find it interesting that Obama supporters totally support an actual campaign in those states, but Hillary supporters so commonly just want to count the delegates unfairly won in states where no campaigning happened, whose delegates were stripped PRIOR to the vote, and where Obama wasn't even on the ticket (in one state). Hillary plainly supported the ban when she thought she didn't need them. This is dirty politics and it's embarrassing.

Why does the opinion of these two states suddenly outweight the opinion of the entirety of the rest of the party? They had a vote to set up the schedul and settled on it. Florida and Michigan are trying to strongarm the party into allow them to move-up because of their status as battleground states and that any liberal would suggest we should submit to might makes right is terrible.

Actually, no it isnt. Also, your claim about Michigan is false. Only Clinton, Dodd, and the forest elf were on it.

You're wrong! How could you forget MIKE GRAVEL?

You're wrong! How could you forget MIKE GRAVEL?

Who the fuck is that?:p

Well then, a fair means to get those delegates seated should be a huge priority. Find a workable solution that allows democracy to succeed.

Under no circumstance should THOSE delegates be seated. There is no "democracy" involved in telling everybody, "This vote isn't going to matter" and then saying "Oh, let's make it matter" after most people didn't bother. I don't know the Florida details, but Michigan is an open primary so lots of the Obama and Edwards people were voting over on the GOP side: should we seat some of the McCain delegates at the Dem convention?

Billary Clinthullu

If Obama is such a transformational politician that he will unite us, why do so many rely on such juvenile name calling against his opponent?

Seriously, grow up.

If Obama is such a transformational politician that he will unite us, why do so many rely on such juvenile name calling against his opponent?

Because it's fun? :p

Seriously, grow up.

Awww. :(

Who the fuck is that?:p

my choice for the new cabinet position of youtube video guy.

If Obama is such a transformational politician that he will unite us, why do so many rely on such juvenile name calling against his opponent?

Seriously, grow up.

To be fair, you can be juvenile with most names.

For instance, Obama campaign t-shirts tend to run small, and the material in the women's shirts is very stretchy and clingy. Because of the placement of the words on the front, Obama's name is displayed very predominantly on a large-breasted woman. A few days ago, this prompted the term "Obamammaries."

(Although "Boobs for Barack" was totally my choice, I think I got overruled).


And things like "Ronulan Paulbot" have been going around for a while now.

http://www.gearcrave.com/content/threadspot/bros-before-hoes.gif

'Nuff said.

If Obama is such a transformational politician that he will unite us, why do so many rely on such juvenile name calling against his opponent?

Seriously, grow up.

It is very disappointing.

If Obama is such a transformational politician that he will unite us, why do so many rely on such juvenile name calling against his opponent?

Seriously, grow up.




Because its amussing. Get over it.

Because its amussing. Get over it.

And if it is jouvenile then those people who keep calling those who support Bush busheviks are also jouvenile. That includes Chanukheaven :D

And if it is jouvenile then those people who keep calling those who support Bush busheviks are also jouvenile. That includes Chanukheaven :D

Chanukheaven? Is that like Chanukah?

I do have to say, it's crazy to me that people have taken to screaming at each other (virtually) over Obama and Hillary. They're both fairly good candidates and there's an excellent chance either of them will mop the floor with McCain who seems to have more trouble tracking his marbles by the day. Can't we have a reasoned discussion about the candidates without calling each other and them names like Clintard, Obama Sin Ladin, Gigantic Leprichauns and everything else equally insulting to be compared to.

TCT said it first, but the discussion really is a good one. How do you recitify the problems in FL and MI without either allowing might to make right or completely disenfranchising the state? Already, typically, a good portion of the states don't matter. I don't blame them for wanting to move up. It's been decades since TX primaries mattered. However, now we're in a position where instead of them not mattering due to the nature of the best, a turf war is denying the people of FL and MI the right to have their vote count. There has to be a better way.

Because its amussing. Get over it.

It really isn't. It makes me skip over most of your posts.

Chanukheaven? Is that like Chanukah?

Sue me. I'm typing out a grad paper :D

It really isn't. It makes me skip over most of your posts.

Im devestated.:p

If Obama is such a transformational politician that he will unite us, why do so many rely on such juvenile name calling against his opponent?

Seriously, grow up.

If this is an argument against Obama, then you need to get past such fallacious arguments and actually come up with something that took more than 30 seconds to think of.

If you're not attacking Obama, then ignore this whole post.

I do have to say, it's crazy to me that people have taken to screaming at each other (virtually) over Obama and Hillary. They're both fairly good candidates and there's an excellent chance either of them will mop the floor with McCain who seems to have more trouble tracking his marbles by the day.

Debateable. But that's neither here nor there.

Can't we have a reasoned discussion about the candidates without calling each other and them names like Clintard, Obama Sin Ladin, Gigantic Leprichauns and everything else equally insulting to be compared to.

Some of us can. =)

TCT said it first, but the discussion really is a good one. How do you recitify the problems in FL and MI without either allowing might to make right or completely disenfranchising the state? Already, typically, a good portion of the states don't matter. I don't blame them for wanting to move up. It's been decades since TX primaries mattered. However, now we're in a position where instead of them not mattering due to the nature of the best, a turf war is denying the people of FL and MI the right to have their vote count. There has to be a better way.

Moving them to the back of the line would have been a good way. Or taking the RNC tactic of allowing candidates to campaign there but only half of the delegates being sat.

Trying to suddenly count an election that was run under the assumption that it wouldn't count (not to mention the rules against campaigning) isn't fair to anyone.

Even the idea of re-holding primaries in both states at the end of the primary season, with the candidates given time to campaign, isn't really fair to the voters. How many voters, knowing that their states would not have delegates, chose to vote in Republican primaries instead? Not to mention the money the state governments already spent on the election. It might, in the end, be the "best" decision (although I think someone has already said that Michigan has already declined to hold a "do-over"), but it still wouldn't really be fair.

The real problem is that the time for this discussion has long since passed. A decision like this had to be made before the primaries began, and it was. The time to dispute it was prior to the election, not after.

Pointing out typos is jouvenile. It's not amussing.

I know you are but what am I?

;)

If this is an argument against Obama, then you need to get past such fallacious arguments and actually come up with something that took more than 30 seconds to think of.

If you're not attacking Obama, then ignore this whole post.
He ultimately voted for Obama (as seen in his "Politicos" thread), but it's not unreasonable to expect civil debate.

Though I don't know that I'd make much of the seeming rancor between the supporters. Last poll I saw Obama and Clinton supporters tied at @75% saying they would gladly vote for the other candidate should they become the nominee.

Chanukheaven? Is that like Chanukah?

Pointing out typos is jouvenile. It's not amussing.

I know you are but what am I?

;)
I'm afraid I'm no better than you. :(

That would make me a non-amussing jouvenile. Guilty as charged.

no, it isn't. at all. in the slightest. demonstrate otherwise with polling. i dare you.
Of course it is divisive. I have already posted some examples. You need polls for proof?

you are aware that in typical primary campaigns, most states wind up having no real race because the nomination is locked up already anyways, right?
Which has no bearing on my point of concern.

and that the convention almost always has a near-consensus show vote for the already selected candidate, yes?
I guess "a near-consensus show vote" might be appropriately named if Obama wins the nomination with a small plurality that excludes the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

and florida and michigan were allowed to have meaningful votes in the first place. they decided not to. they chose to not have any delegates. blame the stupid state parties for being stupid. what is complicated about this? do you just not grasp what actually happened?
Stupid DNC + "stupid state parties" = stupid Democrats= Republican bonus

http://www.gearcrave.com/content/threadspot/bros-before-hoes.gif

'Nuff said.
Perfect example of party disunity.

Keep up the good work!! :rolleyes:

Perfect example of party disunity.

Keep up the good work!! :rolleyes:

I found it humorous. Please lighten up a bit.

Note that I am not a supporter of the Democrats - though, if I vote, it will likely be for Obama, since he's the least bad candidate.

I do have to say, it's crazy to me that people have taken to screaming at each other (virtually) over Obama and Hillary. They're both fairly good candidates and there's an excellent chance either of them will mop the floor with McCain who seems to have more trouble tracking his marbles by the day. Can't we have a reasoned discussion about the candidates without calling each other and them names like Clintard, Obama Sin Ladin, Gigantic Leprichauns and everything else equally insulting to be compared to.
I agree. Although I prefer Hillary, you won't see me playing the name calling game. That is truly divisive.

TCT said it first, but the discussion really is a good one. How do you recitify the problems in FL and MI without either allowing might to make right or completely disenfranchising the state? Already, typically, a good portion of the states don't matter. I don't blame them for wanting to move up. It's been decades since TX primaries mattered. However, now we're in a position where instead of them not mattering due to the nature of the best, a turf war is denying the people of FL and MI the right to have their vote count. There has to be a better way.
There has to be a better way indeed.

And if it is jouvenile then those people who keep calling those who support Bush busheviks are also jouvenile. That includes Chanukheaven :D
Well there is such a word. :D

Bushevik (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bushevik).

And you do seem to fit the mold. :)

Im 100% positive that if Obama won Florida and Mich youd be singing a totally different song, just like Billary.
Well then you would be 100% wrong. Regardless of what you may think, I do believe in democracy. There appears to be a lot of undemocratic principles in the US, such as the electoral college, and nullifying people with criminal records from ever voting again.

Although I prefer Hillary, I do not hate Obama.

Of course it is divisive. I have already posted some examples. You need polls for proof?

yes. and even that probably wouldn't amount to much. people that were going to vote democrat will vote fucking democrat. tempers are flaring pretty high all over the place, but only among the activist class. who will calm down.

I guess "a near-consensus show vote" might be appropriately named if Obama wins the nomination with a small plurality that excludes the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Stupid DNC + "stupid state parties" = stupid Democrats= Republican bonus

if michigan and florida wanted to have a say, they should have held a primary or caucus that counted. they chose not to participate. michigan, at least, is right now actively choosing to not do so, even given the do-over option.

why exactly do you think the rules should be changed? what possible justification could there be for changing the rules after the fact? how, exactly, is the dnc being stupid? how, exactly, are republicans actually going to benefit from this in what is effectively an eternity in political time?

Well there is such a word. :D

Bushevik (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bushevik).

And you do seem to fit the mold. :)

Its jouvenile. But then again...

Although I prefer Hillary, I do not hate Obama.

You're certainly entitled to your choice, of course, and I respect you for it, but if you don't mind my asking: Why her? :confused:

I agree. Although I prefer Hillary, you won't see me playing the name calling game. That is truly divisive.


Well there is such a word. :D

Bushevik (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bushevik).

And you do seem to fit the mold. :)
Umm...

Umm...

yea he did pretty much debunk himself there :D

You all realize that if Michigan and Florida delegates get representation, then Hillary will more than likely win the nomination. And they should have representation.
Did anyone else read this as "I want Hillary to win regardless of her breaking the rules and I refuse to listen to any logic or facts to the contrary."

Umm...
If you think about it for awhile, it will come to you. :D

Yet again Obama wins but the media wants Billary. :mad:
Now that ALL the votes have been tabulated, it would appear that Hillary did indeed win Super Tuesday?

After South Carolina, the total number of pledged delegates were:

Obama 70
Clinton 57

After Super Tuesday (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D):

Clinton 840
Obama 831

A gain of 22 pledged delegates for Hillary. :D

Did anyone else read this as "I want Hillary to win regardless of her breaking the rules and I refuse to listen to any logic or facts to the contrary."
Speaking of "facts", what "rules" did Hillary break?

Speaking of "facts", what "rules" did Hillary break?
Campaigning in Florida for one.

Campaigning in Florida for one.
Proof that she campaigned in Florida?

Proof that she campaigned in Florida?
Proof you arn't averting attention from you being irrationally pro-Hillary?

Proof you arn't averting attention from you being irrationally pro-Hillary?

What's so irrational about asking for proof? I haven't seen any, outside of what people have said on this forum. It shouldn't be too difficult to find an applicable news link.

Did anyone else read this as "I want Hillary to win regardless of her breaking the rules and I refuse to listen to any logic or facts to the contrary."

Speaking of "facts", what "rules" did Hillary break?

Campaigning in Florida for one.

Proof that she campaigned in Florida?

Proof you arn't averting attention from you being irrationally pro-Hillary?
Ahhh, so you don't have any "facts", therefore it would be logical to assume that you are just making stuff up. :D

Hilary would be the best choice she has the experience of bill going for her and thats what this country needs right now after this idiot bush has killed the economy voting for obama would be a roll of the dice and we cant afford anther screw up in office we need bill Clinton again and the closest we can come is Hilary

Ahhh, so you don't have any "facts", therefore it would be logical to assume that you are just making stuff up. :D

Not that I really care about this particular spat either way, but simply searching "Clinton campaign Florida" immediately turned up:
Clinton Makes Campaign Stop in Florida
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/73991
(sorry, the Add Link button isn't working for me, you have to cut-and-paste to the browser line)

Not that I really care about this particular spat either way, but simply searching "Clinton campaign Florida" immediately turned up:
Clinton Makes Campaign Stop in Florida
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/73991
(sorry, the Add Link button isn't working for me, you have to cut-and-paste to the browser line)

Your linked worked, but it's an article that was written 8 months before the decision to remove the delegates and 4 months before the states allowed to place their primaries before Feb 5th were selected. 7 months before her campaign manager said that the Clinton campaign said they would honor the pledge to not campaign in Florida.

This might take me a minute so I'll make it a seperate post just in case someone adds something while I'm at it.

Clinton breaking the pledge is a bit of a gray area, more or less. The candidates were allowed to fund raise in the state, and did, so it's in dispute as to whether or not what she did in Florida was truly campaigning or not-
Clinton, who earlier attended a fundraiser in Sarasota, spoke for about 30 minutes at the Lucky Strike before heading to a developer's house for the second fundraiser.

Clinton and the other Democratic hopefuls pledged not to campaign in Florida after the state's primary was scheduled in January. The party also stripped the state of delegates to the party's convention, but Clinton on Friday issued a statement saying she would urge seating delegates from Florida and Michigan, which also scheduled an early primary.

At least two Obama supporters charged that Clinton's presence in Florida constituted campaigning.

"She's campaigning by her presence here. She's telling Florida voters she cares," said Brooke Gaebe, 24, of Miami Beach. "That's campaigning."

All things being equal, that last sentence isn't the greatest thing. I don't know who Brooke Gaebe, 24, of Miami Beach is, but that was...well...that could have been phrased better, to be generous.

source (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flaclinton0128sbjan28,0,4122238.story)

Your linked worked, but it's an article that was written 8 months before the decision to remove the delegates and 4 months before the states allowed to place their primaries before Feb 5th were selected. 7 months before her campaign manager said that the Clinton campaign said they would honor the pledge to not campaign in Florida.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-qGLDs-gAnZiUXD2NU51ry3j3dwD8UEGVO00

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-qGLDs-gAnZiUXD2NU51ry3j3dwD8UEGVO00

Already covered it man, I was just pointing out that that guy had picked the wrong article.

my concern is not with the names and faces that will warm those supposedly all important thrones for the next term of office, but with policy.

a forign policy of getting along with the rest of the world instead of bullying it, and a domestic policy of bringing and keeping infrastructure in harmony with nature's cycles of renewal.

i think obama's probably a better shot at that then hillary and even hillary much more likely then generalisimo mccain.

i will give mccain that he probably has a more real sense of honor, then the ultra-loonies we've been having. i just don't trust that to be sufficient. not with his stated perspectives on immegration and his bomb iran and hundred years war.

so i hope obama gets it, gets in, and doesn't get shot in his first hundred days in office. which choosing a running mate like kussenich of gravel might help insure.

i hope if it IS hillary, she picks edwards, to get the things that need doing done, while she goes off and does the great publicity gambits and whatever else a president is actually required personally to do.

i think if she spends it all at the hair dresser's and on world tours and lets someone like edwards get things done, it won't be all bad either.

=^^=
.../\...

Did anyone else read this as "I want Hillary to win regardless of her breaking the rules and I refuse to listen to any logic or facts to the contrary."

I read it that way

Now that ALL the votes have been tabulated, it would appear that Hillary did indeed win Super Tuesday?

After South Carolina, the total number of pledged delegates were:

Obama 70
Clinton 57

After Super Tuesday (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D):

Clinton 840
Obama 831

A gain of 22 pledged delegates for Hillary. :D

From MSNBC: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/)

Obama: 861
Clinton: 855

Perfect example of party disunity.

Keep up the good work!! :rolleyes:

So you're opposed to primaries in general? Of course there is "party disunity" right now. The party is fighting over who to nominate. It happens every election cycle, unless they're just backing an incumbent. And, at the end of the cycle, they unite behind whoever has been chosen and go into the general election.

This might take me a minute so I'll make it a seperate post just in case someone adds something while I'm at it.

Clinton breaking the pledge is a bit of a gray area, more or less. The candidates were allowed to fund raise in the state, and did, so it's in dispute as to whether or not what she did in Florida was truly campaigning or not-


All things being equal, that last sentence isn't the greatest thing. I don't know who Brooke Gaebe, 24, of Miami Beach is, but that was...well...that could have been phrased better, to be generous.

source (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flaclinton0128sbjan28,0,4122238.story)

That's rich, given her allegations that running a national ad that happened to air in Florida constituted campaigning there.

So you're opposed to primaries in general? Of course there is "party disunity" right now. The party is fighting over who to nominate. It happens every election cycle, unless they're just backing an incumbent. And, at the end of the cycle, they unite behind whoever has been chosen and go into the general election.

i think CH isn't really all that well versed in this political system we got going on here. which would excuse the ignorance, but also makes the stridency all the more ludicrous.

Wasn't Monica Lewinski also a candidate?:confused:

Speaking of "facts", what "rules" did Hillary break?

She broke the rules of her party. Whether or not you think that was the right thing for the party to do is another issue. They made the rules and she would be breaking them.

Now that ALL the votes have been tabulated, it would appear that Hillary did indeed win Super Tuesday?

After South Carolina, the total number of pledged delegates were:

Obama 70
Clinton 57

After Super Tuesday (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D):

Clinton 840
Obama 831

A gain of 22 pledged delegates for Hillary. :D

Actually the totals are..

Obama 831
Clinton 840

Edit: This is according to cnn as of 2 hours ago

Actually the totals are..

Obama 831
Clinton 840

Edit: This is according to cnn as of 2 hours ago

Um... does it really matter what order you list the candidates in if the numbers given are the same?

Or is there some other correction I'm missing? :confused:

it doesn't really matter the order. But the numbers were different from the poster I quoted.

Um... does it really matter what order you list the candidates in if the numbers given are the same?

Or is there some other correction I'm missing? :confused:

Yes, he turned the numbers around.

Yes, he turned the numbers around.

Damnit, I quoted the wrong poster. I meant to quote Corny. I'm dead tired today folks. The Rangers/Ducks game kept me up last night. MSG is a great venue to watch hockey though.

Damnit, I quoted the wrong poster. I meant to quote Corny.
You were trying to "correct" the more complete numbers with the less complete numbers? You were tireder than you thought.

From MSNBC: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/)

Obama: 861
Clinton: 855

Actually the totals are..

Obama 831
Clinton 840

Edit: This is according to cnn as of 2 hours ago

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475

Obama has the lead according to MSNBC

So, what is MSNBC counting that CNN isn't?

So, what is MSNBC counting that CNN isn't?

I don't know but CNN is counting the smoke rings from their crack pipes. They disagree with themselves.

For example.

MSNBC -
Clinton 2,132,166 52% 207
Obama 1,735,105 42% 163

That's 370 delegates, the total number of delegates going to CA.

CNN on the main page -
Clinton 217
Obama 164

Which of course adds up to 381, 11 more delegates than CA has.

But it gets better.

From the link for CA on CNN -
Clinton 2,132,166 52% 195
Obama 1,735,105 42% 152
Notice the votes add up the same, and now they don't have all the delegates allotted.

If you run the numbers there were a total of 3,867,271 votes for the two candidates.
By percentage that 55% Clinton votes out of the votes for the two of them and 204 delegates.
166 Obama delegates.

I can't see how either one of them could be right.

Which of course adds up to 381, 11 more delegates than CA has.
Maybe MSN is trying to estimate the superdelegates? (Of course, those guys can flip-flop all they want.)

So, what is MSNBC counting that CNN isn't?

Yeah, at this stage there shouldn't be two different numbers. I'm groggy and my google search skills suck, apparently. Someone sort this out for poor me...

Yeah, at this stage there shouldn't be two different numbers. I'm groggy and my google search skills suck, apparently. Someone sort this out for poor me...

Well, from what I can see, MSNBC has the right delegate counts. CNN is on crack (I stated this backwards in my other post).

I added up the actual delegate counts and my numbers agree with MSNBC.

There is one oddity. Currently both sites have Clinton with 12 delegates pledged to 13 for Obama from Nevada even though Clinton won. That's currious.

There is one oddity. Currently both sites have Clinton with 12 delegates pledged to 13 for Obama from Nevada even though Clinton won. That's currious.
Yes, that was noted at the time. Delegates are allotted by district in that state, so Obama won one more district, although the total number of votes across all districts favored Clinton.

This is giving me a headache. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html) has a whole other set of numbers...

Hillary Rodham Clinton 667 892
Barack Obama 583 716

The first set is Feb 4th, the second afterwards.

Isn't there some sort of .gov page that should have official results or something.

CBS (http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/d_delegateScorecard.shtml) has it at Obama 877, Clinton 864.

I think I'm just going to start breaking stuff until they clear this all up.

There is one oddity. Currently both sites have Clinton with 12 delegates pledged to 13 for Obama from Nevada even though Clinton won. That's currious.

That's correct. It's because delegates are apportioned both by overall state numbers and by district numbers. Clinton won the overall state vote by winning the largest areas, but Obama had more support in the more rural areas, and won more districts.

You were trying to "correct" the more complete numbers with the less complete numbers? You were tireder than you thought.

Yeah, I've been running on 5 hours sleep for almost two weeks now. Needless to say I'm carrying a great deal of "sleep debt."

She broke the rules of her party. Whether or not you think that was the right thing for the party to do is another issue. They made the rules and she would be breaking them.
How did she break the rules?

MSNBC is reporting Obama is ahead of Hillary by 4 delegate total.

Hillary thought she had won, then it went into surprise overtime and Obama showed off some mad poll handling skills and dunked on Clinton for the winning score.

Yeah,but 4 delegates is like a last second buzzer beater in overtime to tie. Seriously 4 delgates is almost nothing. Yeah you can win by 1 but still with this many delegates left 4 might as well be 0.

How did she break the rules?

Getting back to the point of the post you responded to. Mich and Fla were deemed to have broken the party rules. They were stripped of their delegates and that's that. Hillary trying to gain delegates from states where she was the only one who remained on the ballot (due to the aforementioned rules thing) is f?cking weak. Others have already posted her transgressions so go back and read. My original intent was to remind you that Hillary going back and trying for a power grab she is not entitled to is BS. Now there is a middle ground for these two states. They've discussed having caucuses for the states if the DNC agrees. This would be the only way to make it fair as there's no way the state would be able to set up for another primary election in time. I also like that these contests favor Obama. I'm off to a client so my time is through for now. Be well my friends.