Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Hillary wrote an article today with more reasons she is staying in the race. The first reason is especially hilarious:
To unite the party
For 90 yr old women that want to see a woman President before they die
Her parents did not raise me to be a quitter
"I am running because I still believe I can win on the merits."
Big wins in West Virgina and Kentucky
"I am running because I believe I'm the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/
...nue_to_run.html
I thought the electorial vote only counted in the general election? In states that have traditionally voted demogratic, like NY or MA isn't this a disingenerous argument?
The bottem line is all of the canadates started the primary by agreeing to the rules which is that the nomination is based on the delegate count. Now that Clinton is behind she is trying to change the rules.
The most recent hominidviews analysis has Hillary with a 100% chance of winning in November (which is a slight improvement from the last analysis which showed her at 99.9%. Barack also made up some ground. His chance was 34.6% but now its up to 37%.
Yep, the Clintons have a strong argument about electability which is definitely something the SDs are supposed to be taking into account.
As far as the will of the party. Everyone would agree (except the deepest kool-aid imbibers) that the current primary system is chaotic and bears little relationship to true representative democracy. Popular vote is therefore a cleaner indication of party member choice. Clinton leads already and will increase her lead in the upcoming contests. (Party "roolz" don't discount popular vote, they only deal with seating delegates. Why people don't get that simple fact constantly amazes me.)
P.S. HominidViews does a 10,000 iteration monte carlo analysis with the most up-to-date polling data to simulate the general election results.
Clinton's Logic is flawed. Many of the "big states" that she is so keen to point out she won were won by small margins. Texas and Nevada are close calls. However in CA,NY,PA Obama garnered 45% of the vote.
Democrats are turning out to vote in numbers dwarfing that of the republicans. Clinton's argument fallaciously assumes that the states she won won't vote democratic come the general election.
Do you see CA and NY voting republican? I didn't think so. Obama has the greater appeal and is less of a polarizing figure. One of McCain's staff members refused to run a campaign against Obama.
Bob Barr and the libertarians will weaken the republican ticket and put georgia in play. If Clinton is on the ticket, all those far-right conservatives will come out in droves to keep her out of the oval office.
Clinton needs to drop the faulty logic if she wants to claim she's the best candidate. On top of it Americans need to stop believing the garbage they are spoon fed by the media and do some critical thinking of their own.
Sorry Bill, and no I won't refer you to you as Mr. President. I and many others went door to door for you in NH in 1992, we believed and had faith in you even though in our gutts we knew at best you constantly stretched and twisted the truth. 8 years of the politics of triangulation, lies, deception, manipulation and continual moral lapses left man us who supported you wonder, "what if"...what if Paul Tsongas never got sick, what if your boldface lies as Tsongas referred to you the "Pander Bear". Now in this campaign we have seen the depth of your lies, deception, fraud. The Clinton Legacy is a Myth. I have long since stopped drinking the Clinton Kool Aid. America will need a colonic to cleanse itself of the stench of Clinton;s old politics and flush the remnants of the political fecal matter from the bowels of our democracy. Sorry, Bill, you trained Hillary too well, she is seen by anyone with half a brain as a shape shifting political fraud. The woman is not only UNFIT TO LEAD this country, but the Clinton Campaign has discredited Hillaryin the eyes of many and she should stand down and vacate her New York Senate Seat. You people truly disgust me.
Well said Christopher.
It sure is interesting to see the hopey-changey crowd substituting their "feelings" about how they "believe" the general election will come out for the actual DATA. Not too surprising given how poorly Obama does vs. McCain in the DATA. I guess you have to roll with what you've got. My HOPE is the superdelegates are much more reality-based than the typical Obama partisan. Don''t you want to win the WH?
Obama can't win the general election. Hold your seats tight and be prepared for Bush's third term.
Can't you people see that hillary clinton is the antiChrist?
I am truly ashamed to say I am a citizen of the United States. People have no more brains than to want to vote for that OBama. Please bring on 4 more years of Bush in McCain, rather than Obama. I want Hiliary. Hiliary has stated her case and if people do not heed what she says and the nominee turns to Obama, well McCain has my vote, and everyone I know of that wanted Hiliary feels the same way. As far as the Clintons I think Bill and Hiliary should work for McCain. I want nothing to do with the Democratic party if everyone turns out to let their emotions rule them rather than logic. Logic is what will get a Democrat in office in November, not being a pretty boy or American Idol.
Let’s hope you are right and that Obama’s nomination will hand the November election to John McCain!
All the data showed Hillary cleaning Obama's face? What happened? Data is just that, data, a gestimate and nobody knows where the s**t will land once it reaches the fan.
Who tells the Hillary cloud the African Americans will fall into line once Obama's poll victory is overturned? And if they dont how does Hillary win in the fall? She will fall.
These democrats are half asses (opps, FULL asses!) [No pun intended]. Let the fun times begin!!! Elephants will dance!!! Whoever comes to the front, McCain WILL win. Hillary has too many negatives minus heavy African Amerian support = WIN. Obama has at least a chance if only Hillary's supporters get in line behind him, but she wont let them do that if she's not the one. SO WE WIN AGAIN, HA, HA, HA
Linda, I don't know how someone who is a democrat can so flippantly claim that in November, you will vote Republican merely because your "special candidate" wasn't able to pull off getting the nomination. The fact that Ms. Clinton is using any and every tactic to salvage her disastrous campaign should clue you into the fact that that is probably symbolic of how she would run our country if she were elected. You would really vote Republican? Really?
Seriously, I am so tired of Bill and Hillary making this whole Michigan and Florida argument. ALL of the candidates knew from day one that MI and FL votes would not be counted because MI and FL broke the rules. Neither candidate argued with that decision when it mattered. All of the democratic candidates agreed they would not campaign in FL and MI. Now, Hillary and Bill are crying about getting the votes counted. Why should the DNC Rules Committee throw her a bone? Hillary knew, she AGREED, that the votes wouldn't count for crap, but that was back when she thought she was so unstoppable, before Iowa. If she were still winning, I bet we wouldn't be hearing a peep out of her about "counting every vote". She is the epitome of a Sore Loser, and I hope the Rules Committee sticks to their guns about FL and MI. There will not be some huge crack in the Democratic party if they don't count those votes - those voters knew when they went out to the polls that their state party officials screwed up and their votes would be irrelevant.
As a Conservative (a real one), I would probably come out and vote against Obama for McCain. I would probably write in Mickey Mouse if it is McCain vs. Clinton.
I would think that if Obama is it, Clinton's people would come to McCain just enough to tilt it and that Conservatives would feel like they have to vote to keep Obama out. Incredibly, Obama is a bigger threat to our country than Clinton.
She has been treated unfairly? Remember the bitter, guns, religion comment made by Obama and how their campaign kept that in the news for over a month? Now s/he says that the Kennedy comment is misinterpreted?
The math does not calculate. He is hoping people won't spend time researching the truth. She voted against having FL/MI counted, she advocated against electoral college votes in the past - whatever works for her is what is right apparently.
Bill, are you listening?
It is not a secret - no one is covering it up. It has been reported somewhat, but has basically been ignored because the numbers you use aren't accurate - they are selective and people know it.
As earlier supporters- our opinion about the Clintons continues to decline!!
They can not have- what they want- in this manner. Any chance of supporting her again, in a next endeavor is over for us.
They have NO integrity.
A must read: "HOW COULD SHE GO THERE? Hillary, Political Psycopath" by Emma Voberry in the Sunday, May 25th edition of the Daily Kos.
Bill Clinton's argument is valid. Its ironic how ppl are attacking Bill Clinton, when his presidency along with the brains of his wife bought this country to the most prosperous decades in American History. I understand the partisanship of republicans but the rest of you democrats are traitors. Sad but true. Traitors! we had the most formidable, best prepared candidate in the history of American candidates--Hillary--but the democrats dissed her bad. Fuckers!
The polls I've seen show that Obama would beat McCain. I saw polls which have shown that Obama could now win some of the states that he lost, if the primaries were held again. Remember that Hillary had to throw the kitchen sink before she could start winning again after Obama's 11-state sprint, but now people nationwide (who aren't racists) are getting sick of the Clinton lies.
You can't say that because a candidate won a state in the primary that they would win it in the general: there are 3rd party candidates to consider, as well as crossover voters and independent voters. People in the news media know better than to go along with Bill's faulty "electoral win" argument - shame on you!
Also, the popular vote total is unfair because there is no way to get an accurate count of votes in the caucus states. Maybe that is why the delegates determine the primary winner.
Somebody, please tell Bill to stop spreading this crap like he did in KY. The Clintons are the ones who are destroying the Dems chances in Nov. Obama is 200 delegates ahead, people! What about that fact?
How can foreign governments respect the US and its President (should Hillary win) if our own leaders do not uphold the rules they agreed upon and signed on the dotted line?
If our President constantly keeps changing rules and beliefs to fit their needs, then how can we expect foreign countries and leaders to trust our leadership during times of global crisis and delicate political negotiations?
Looking from a global perspective, after the Bush years of unilateralism and all the damage it has done to the US because of his administration's determination to do things according to their views of the world, the US desperately needs a morally and ethically strong leader who respects, upholds and plays by the rules agreed upon by all parties (including themselves) -- whether it is in domestic politics or in the international arena.
The US needs to rebuild the trust and respect we have lost around the world and we need a president who plays by the rules.
We need to think in terms of how our president will act as a WORLD LEADER IN MORALS & ETHICS WHO PLAYS BY THE RULES IN DEALING WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS to recover our respect worldwide.
Hillary Clinton has shown that she does not have the critical leadership qualities of morals and ethics to be the President of the United Stantes of America.
Yesterday Emma Voberry had an article in the Daily Kos questioning if Hillary is a political psycopath. I think she should have included bill in that question.
I find it amazing that this country is still fighting with the CIVIL war mentalality. Oh we can only have the WHITE house with WHITE in it. I would hope that this country would soon wake up to see the Clintons as DO WHAT EVER it TAKES to win attitude as a disgrace to the office. We already had that with the BUSH and now we are playing right back in the hands of the CLINTON and the BUSH. Clinton does not want to play by the rules for she feels how can a person with the name Barack beat her--the CLINTONS-and therefore is set to prove that he MUST fail so that she can say I told you so and then tell the country Im the better candidate. Meaning his people are not as good as her people--wow -civil war all over again. And the Clintons dont care --all they see is that they deserve it.
Janice,
Every, and i mean EVERY reputable electoral college analysis shows Hillary is much stronger in the Electoral college than Barack. At best, some see Barack squeaking through with a 1 or 2 point victory.
Second, Hillary will be ahead in the popular vote after the remaining contests in almost any conceivable way you count it.
Third, in the three states where both caucuses and primaries were held, Barack's strong win in the caucuses translated into two very close calls and one not too close LOSS. The byzantine, bizarre, and totally UNREPRESENTATIVE caucus biased democratic primary system is unfair. Therein lies the SHAME.
Delegates determine it -- not merely pledged delegates. Superdelegates are supposed to correct for errors in the system like McGovern, Dukakis,...Barack. We can only pray they are strong enough to do their duty.
Meanwhile, your ridiculously over the top nasty rhetoric and invective against the Clintons will only harm your candidates chances of uniting the party if he is nominated and ultimately will contribute to his loss in the GE.
Finally, being 158 PLEDGED delegates ahead is only one measure of strength. It takes 2210 TOTAL delegates to clinch the nomination. Neither candidate can mathematically do this prior to the convention when the SD's vote. Plus watch for the pledged delegate gap to narrow between now and June 3rd. At that point the difference will be less than 100 pledged delegates out of over 4000. But, to repeat, pledged delegates are only one of many things the SDs take into account. Electabliity in the GE should be more important. Popular vote should be more important. So out of the three big factors, Hillary will wins 2 out of 3 with the third esssentially being a tie. Plus you could focus on trending and momentum where Hillary has been steadily gaining and Barack steadily losing ground in all demographic categories except African Americans.
As I commented somewhere above. The DATA is what the DATA is. Barack loses, Hillary WINS.
Oh yeah,
Reading the Daily Kos will rot your brain.
I am a long time Democrat.
DNC Chairman, Dean has created this
mess. Republican has punished the two States by getting rid of 50% of their delegates. It is a smarter move than Democrat.
I would vote for McCain because I truly believe that it is insane to elect two years Freshman Senator to be our President!
ALL the votes have NOT been counted in the TX primary. There are MANY counties that are somewhere between 40% to 70% done. Some counties have no results posted as yet!
I agree with Bill -- count ALL the votes -- in ALL the states and territories, etc.
It's appalling that 50% of the Democratic electorate seems to be uninterested in the sanctity of someones right to vote and have it counted.
The "popular vote" argument is false because it requires including Michigan, where Obama's name was not even on the ballot, while giving him no credit for the "uncommitted" votes, of which a large portion were voting indirectly for him in the only way they could. It also does not count the caucus states at all. So basically, if you invent new math and change the rules for counting enough, you can find a scenario under which Clinton leads in the popular vote.
The "electoral votes" and "big states" arguments are false because they make the assumption that primary votes against an opponent within the party = general election votes against the other party's candidate, which is a false assumption. Many of the states won by Hillary in the primary (CA, MA, NJ, NY, etc.) will still vote for Obama in the general election. Some of the states won by Hillary (KY, WV, IN, etc.) would vote for McCain over her. In fact, in some of these states Republicans crossed over to help her win them (Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos").
The bottom line is that it is more than obvious at this point that Hillary cannot overcome Obama's lead, even with MI and FL included under the exact terms she desires, which is not going to happen anyway. And her arguments directed toward the superdelegates are not working, as the steady stream of these toward Obama continues.
So all she is doing is continuing to stir up discontent and disunity in the party. It is not because she is still running, and hardly anyone is really pressuring her to drop out before the final primaries--certainly not Obama. Most certainly do not want the fight to go on to the convention in August but to be decided in June, to allow sufficient time to be in a general election campaign against McCain, who has been in that mode for months already. And the big thing is that she needs to stop stirring up discontent by claiming to be a victim, claiming that sexism is responsible for her losing, and agitating the people of FL and MI just to try to gain advantage in a losing cause. Those delegates will be seated, though it will not change the outcome of the race. But she is stirring up hard feelings among the voters of those states and among her own supporters with the charges of sexism and victimization. In other words, it is not her staying in the race until the finish (the final primaries) that is dividing the party. It is the things she is saying. This whole FL and MI bit is very hypocritical on her part anyway, since she agreed with these delegates not being seated when the action was taken (when she wanted to be on the good side of Iowa and NH voters) and only changed her stance when she saw that it could work to her advantage.
Clinton also wants to deny Obama any of the "uncommitted" delegates in MI. But these delegates are in the process of being selected now, and most of them are supporters of Obama. So she will not win that one under any circumstances.
"If Clinton is on the ticket, all those far-right conservatives will come out in droves to keep her out of the oval office."
Not this year, because Obama is more leftiest than Clinton. Look at all his voting records both in State Senate and US Senate, Republican will
make the case in General Election, the Right will go out even bigger to against him.
I am a long time Democrat and I would vote for MCcain. Why? It is a
complete insane to elect a two years Freshman Senator to be our president!
Bill you of all people know the DNC rules. It was not Obama's fault that Florida and Michigan broke those rules. How can you say she's winning when she's almost 200 delegates behind. Florida and Michigan does not count, hence , your wife voted against them, now that she's losing fairly I must add, you're gone off your rocker.making up rules as you go along. If this was reversed, and Hillary was winning, you would have a different opinion. Why is it so hard for you and your family to admit defeat? I's over, he is the Nominee..You all are pathetic..Obama did not write the DNC rules, he's just following them.You can learn from him..
IF one is really interested in being fair, then watch how the DNC hearing.
Link to C-Span.org video of Florida decision by the DNC committee:
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/archive/c08/
c08_082507_florida.rm
Florida 2008 Democratic National Convention
Florida 2008 Democratic National Convention
During the Democratic National Committee Rules & Bylaws Meeting, in Washington, D.C., plans for the Florida 2008 Democratic National Convention were reviewed.
8/25/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 26 min.
Hillary is ahead in the popular vote ONLY if you give Obama no votes in Michigan AND ignore all of the caucus states that he won. As a resident of Washington State -- where he won every single county, I find it offensive for the Clinton's to ignore our votes. We count just as much as Florida!
"I'm a loyal Democrat but if Obama gets elected I'm voting for McCain." What kind of b.s. is that? Okay, cry and throw a tantrum because you little friend lost. Take you ball and go home. How childish is that. How utterly, incrediby stupid. Hillary voters are great examples of the kind of narrow-minded, childish, poor, undeducated, racist, sexist, elite-bashing, bone-heads this nation has to offer. The worst of society. 4 more years of Bush politics. Okay, and a 100 years in Iraq. And perhaps a possible assassintion for Sen. Obama. A Democrat conspiracy and coverup? How dumb can you be. And how callous. Hillary has jumped off the deep end the rest of you have followed. Let's all vote for McCain. Let's re-instate the draft. Let's nuke Iran. Let's do all this in the name of McCain/Clinton. Let's do that people. Let's fight the good fight and die trying. This is Memorial Day. We remember our fallen heroes. Each day more of our young men and women come back in body bags. Let's keep going until "mission accomplished." Let's land on an aircraft carrier and proclaim to the world we WON. WON? How?
We've lost. And we're lost as a nation. Let's just put a collective gun to your head right now. Miss Hillary voter, go and vote for McCain. Do us a favor and send your son to Iraq for us. We need him now. To die.
Hillary wants Florida to by counted?
What about me?????
I didn't vote that day 'cause
i was told it wouldn't matter.
Get out, Hillary. Opportunist, that's what you are.
pastorgene,
One, please visit realpolitics to find the truth on popular vote. Also things will change significantly when Hillary NETS another 400-500K more popular votes in PR on June. Substituting your "feelings" for the FACTS will not suffice.
Two, any arguments for the "higher" ground that Barack MAY have held when he TOOK HIS NAME OFF THE BALLOT WHEN HE SAW HE WOULD BE TROUNCED IN MICHIGAN IN ORDER TO PANDER TO IOWA VOTERS were completely DESTROYED when his campaign BLOCKED THE REVOTE the Clinton campaign, the state of Michigan, and the Democratic National Committee had agreed to. That's right, I'll say it again. BARACK ACTIVELY BLOCKED THE VOTERS IN MICHIGAN FROM REDOING THE ELECTION. ( Most fair-minded folks would disqualify Barack's candidacy just for violating the basic, moral tenet of the Democratic Party -- Count all the votes.)
I feel that once Barack made the decision to BLOCK the vote in MI, he BURNED AND BURIED any moral or logical grounds for counting any of the votes of the good citizens of Michigan in his favor.
The electoral college analyses are not based on primary voter patterns Barack vs. Hillary. Rather, they are based on polling of the two democrats vs. McCain. So don't use that RED HERRING. Instead the DATA shows Barack loses, Hillary easily wins. Google republicans are gleeful.
SDs who are caving to pressure from African Americans in their districts to vote for Barack or lose their jobs are cowards who won't do the job they were chosen for as SDs. Similarly, those SDs who are supporting Barack because his PAC gave them money or he is promising them a seat in his admin are abdicating their responsibility to adjust for weak GE candidates.
Wake up SDs!!! Let's take back the WH and support the most qualified, most experienced, most electable candidate -- Hillary Clinton.
v4hill, and all the rest of you--in case you haven't noticed, this is a conservative site and none of us are either BHO or HRC supporters. Get that little factoid through your itty bitty brains first and foremost and quit calling either of them "our" candidate.
This is simply a report on how the DNC breaks the rules and then the contenders want to ignore and re-write the rules. Neither BHO or HRC is in anyway, shape or form qualified to be CIC based on their characters, voting records, intent for this country's direction or any other ways or means. It has nothing to do with race or gender and if you can't handle that or the reporting of what your beloved Bubba is saying, go back to the leftist swamps and whine there.
We clear?
Miss Beth,
Glad you are so civil (no name calling here LOL). Please refer to the 1st amendment.
I would point out that in the entire history of our great country, only once has a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed a candidate for President. Hillary has been endorsed by two -- General (Ret.) Hugh Shelton and General (Ret.) John M. Shalikashvili and one Vice-Chairman. In fact 35 former Admirals and Generals have have endorsed Hillary to be the the next Commander-in-Chief. Here is a partial list:
* General Wesley Clark
* General John M. Shalikashvili
* General Henry Hugh Shelton
* General Johnnie E. Wilson
* Admiral William Owens
* Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
* Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
* Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
* Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
* Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
* Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur
* Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
* Major General Roger R. Blunt
* Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
* Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
* Major General Paul D. Eaton
* Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
* Major General Antonio M. Taguba
* Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
* Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt
* Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
* Rear Admiral David Stone
* Brigadier General Michael Dunn
* Brigadier General Belisario Flores
* Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
* Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
* Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
* Brigadier General Preston Taylor
* Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
* Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Now we could take your word and judgment on this important matter over the top military leader's judgment on the matter -- but that would be insane.
Clear enough?
bill---get over it---your wife is too much like you---both liars and cheats---i dont think the american people will fall for your shit anymore---she has lost---go back to arkansas, new york or anywhere else there are stupid enough people to swallow the clinton crap anynmore
Obama cannot win the general election. It's as simple as that. His fan base is made up of 90% of the black vote, and though that segment is large, it is only less than 15% of the total, and his alienation of the rest of the nation will result in his loss to McCain. Now isn't that stupid? How is it possible that, after the last two elections, where Republicans managed to elect the unelectable, Democrats still believe in fairies, and are willing to put up the most extreme liberals as candidates? Don't they realize that the vast majority of people in the U.S. are worried about who will protect them from extremists and economic chaos? Obama is not that guy. He has portrayed himself as the friend of our foes, willing to chat with anyone who has America on his or her hate list. How in the world is that going to get him elected? It can't. He can't win. If the democrats put him up there, it would be the dumbest thing since allowing Carter to sit in the oval office. Of course, Hillary is not the answer either, but at least she won't be sending out invitations to members of the Dictator's Club and/or Totalitarians Anonymous for tea. The Democrats' penchant for totally unrealistic expectations of Americans' acceptance of ultra-liberal politics has become legend, and it will once again be their undoing.
v4hill, you're silly. Sorry to be so blunt.
First of all, the DATA doesn't show any such a thing. Check www.fivethirtyeight.com, for example, which shows both Hillary and Obama win the GE based on weighted results of recent polls. It also shows that the results strongly alternate - for a while, Obama had a major lead, recently it shifted to Clinton, and it's all strongly in flux. The overall tendency however is clear: Once the Democratic race is over and the voters rally around the respective candidates, it will be an entirely different ballgame. Any Hillary camp talk saying "the data shows that Obama can't win the GE" is flat-out ludicrous. Look at what happened to Hillary - half a year before now, she was the washout winner of the Democratic primaries, and now she has lost. Basing predictions on numbers _now_ is tea leaf reading at best, and making factual statements like "the data shows that this will happen" is poppycock. Simple as that.
However, one thing is for sure: If the superdelegates would indeed decide to overturn the voters' will (which they won't, because they're not crazy), which gave Obama a clear victory based on the rules agreed upon, there will be civil war within the Democratic party. There's alot of talk about "Obama can't win without the Hillary fanatics", which remains to be seen. But it doesn't take much brain to realize that without the AA bloc, Clinton is absolutely without any chance.
Anyway, it will soon be over. It's clear that the supers are flocking around Obama. If Hillary really takes things to the convention, it will be a liability on Obama, but there's still a fair chance he will win. If however by some strange backdoor dealing and inexplicable superdelegate movements Hillary might end up the nominee without a very clear and compelling reason, she will go down in flames in the GE, due to AA backlash.
v4hill
All of this is a disgrace! I voted for Obama but still had a lot of respect for Hillary...back then. V4hill do you really think people are really going to continue to vote for HC like they have, taking into consideration the last weeks worth of comments by herself and Bill? I agree with a comment above that Obama would now win some states that HC won. This reminds me of a monopoly game...HC is the banker, if she does not have enough money to continue...CHEAT!
Clinton is beyond vile.
Please contact Howard Dean (deanh@dnc.org) and Nancy Pelosi (http://speaker.house.gov/) to let them know how you feel. You can also go to this website and lobby the Uncommitted Superdelegates in each state (https://www.lobbydelegates.com/)
Please take action.
v4hill, please give me some background on all these experts--I didn't notice Gen. David Petraeus listed at all and since he is, essentially, the man keeping us safe at the moment, frankly, the rest are irrelevant, and probably either retired and denigrating the service they were once in, or simply desk commanders. So please provide their bona fides.
I notice you also left out Brig. Gen Amos Jordan--who I know for a fact would never endorse HRC as he believes she is a clear and present danger to this country (as is BHO) and what we stand for and are. He's also a Medal of Honor Recipient.
Gen. Petraeus will never support her because of her stand on Iraq and the GWOT--her famous "willing suspension" remark.
Have you even heard of Gen. Jordan? And, how would I know what his feelings and bona fides are? Simple--he's my cousin.
So, you can rattle off a bunch of names but unless they are truly FOR this country, I really don't give them a lot of credence, regardless of what position they attained. If they are supporting HRC, they are no better than HRC and her treasonous, socialistic, Saul Alinsky educated self.
Andi, Dean and Pelosi are responsible for this mess and it will do no good to petition them. They don't give a damn about the people, just their own power.
Once again one of the Clinton's now known and Bozo and Bozia are clowing. How were we ever fooled by these 2. I like on Bloggers suggestion that they have made so many promises to speical interest groups, big corps., and are in such financial debt they have to get the nomination, or it will be cherrios for them. To bad!!! Never write a check you can't cash. Soon it will be over and we will move on!!, without the Clintons. I don't won't them to campaign for Barrack, I just want them gone.
IN ORDER TO KNOW WHO WILL HAVE TO BE THE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT,I TOOK A TRIP
FROM NEW YORK TO CALIFORNIA,I SEE SO MUCH MESS IN OUR COUNTRY,HOMELESS,HUNGRY PEOPLE,LACK OF HOUSING EVERYWERE,LACKS OF JOBS,I PASSED BY ILLINOIS?I ASKED MY SELF? WERE IS THIS SUPER FREEK OBAMA?
WHAT HE HAVE DONE AS A SENATOR!
I BELIEVE HE IS A COMMUNIST!
DURING MY JOURNEY I CRY MANY TIMES,
THERE IS NOT AMERICAN DREAM,THE PRESS IS FULL OF LIES..OUR COUNTRY,MY COUNTRY IS GOING DOWN THE HILL!
AFTER MY I FINISH MY TRIP,THE ONLY ONE LEFT THING I HAVE TO SAY...IS DEAR GOD IN ORDER TO FIX OUR COUNTRY
PLEASE ALOUD HILLARY CLINTON TO BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT..LIST SHE IS THE REALLY AMERICAN DEMOCRAT HOPE!
We supported Clinton at the beginning of this primary season. We no longer support her or the
supporters who call the rest of the Democrats filthy names- for prefering Obama. They are NOT Democrats, but, Clintonites!! They claim to be victims, blaming everyone- but themselves. Bill is protecting his wife, like she is incapable of taking care of herself. "Get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat" was a phrase Hillary and Bill loved to say to Obama!!! Look who's the cry babies now! We would never support a Clinton, again- NO integrity.
Thank you for pointing out how Howard Dean changed the rules and penalities twice. Florida and Michigan should have lost 50%, or retained, of the elceted delegates. He chose to remove all delagates in Florida and later in Michigan. Was there any nefarious intention there? If he could change the rules twice why not a third time and seat all or have a revote?
Theres still the issue of Michigan and Florida. And we need to come up with an issue in how to account for every vote there is in this Election. And how we will franchise our Voters that will put us in the lead. I trust your plan Hillary. But whatever it is, if it is a secret, then just keep it to yourself, till that moment arises. Long as you have a plan. Thats all thats important. And you'll be raised up high, and whirling your towel around in the air, with Victory! Thats what I'm talking about. And it will bring us to where we want to be.
Bill....yuo lost...I undestand that living at the White House for 8 years blow your head, but now it is time to leave ...we are tired of all of you, phony and disgusting people
I will never vote for BO because: "In March and April 2008, Clinton publicly supported the revote proposals of Michigan's Granholm and Levin and Florida's Nelson. She repeatedly invited Obama to join her and do the same. He never did — and the revotes never occurred." http://www.politico.com/news/sto...0508/
10614.html
BO will only support the vote that supports him. He is not above politics, he is NOT change.
Operation Scorched Earth is now officially under way. If anyone doubted that the Clinton's would actually try to make the democrats lose in November for their own political gain, their recent maneuvers are concrete proof. They are dragging quite a few of their followers with them into their lunatic fringe. This is like a bad twilight zone episode. I don't think Hillary is the antichrist though, is Carville.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were both wrong in their assumption at the start up of the campaign that Hillary will be a hands down nominee of the Democratic Party, and they are wrong again nearing the end of their campaign that Democrats cannot win without Hillary! Barack Obama has done extremely well, and unlike Clintons, has run and managed his campaign well, used his resources wisely and looks more sane and presidential compared to his rivals in both parties.
When Hillary is not on the ticket, we here in NC and many Democrats in CA, PA, NY, WV, OH and all over the country will vote for Obama, so Bill, please stop your foolish arguments and face the new reality It is far more important to us to have a good president than to have a woman president. We can happily wait for a good woman to get elected President of the United States, hopefully in the near future. Unfortunately, you both have destroyed Hillary's chance to be that candidate.
If it is that important to the Clintons that US should have a woman President and Hillary is THAT good, Bill should have either changed his sex or promoted Hillary or some other woman to become President in 1992 AND 1996. Thank you.
Everything you say now sounds so hollow and self-serving!
Miss Beth,
I will not spend too much more time here in this den of ignorance and name-calling. However, I will ask you to kindly do your own research on the list of Generals and Admirals to find out who they are and what they stand for. Though I doubt you'll find the time to step beyond your limited horizons. But, as far as Petraeus goes, he is active duty and is thus precluded from involving himself in the presidetial election process. Tell your cuz, that I honor his service but feel free to ignore his opinion.
cya
Democrats who earlier in the primary- supported her- are slowly turning to Obama as the Clinton's continue to show their "true colors". Our Republican friends knew both Clintons better than we, her supporters. Unfortunately, they were right!
Most of Bill Clinton's noted achievements were accomplished with a Republican Congress- and we
are now seeing the results. NAFTA- free trade without any concern or safe guards for the US worker- tax breaks for corporations working out of the Country & etc.
True- he didn't screw up the Country like Bush- but, Gore would have been OUR BEST president.
IRONIC- Bill Clinton's lack of morals and caught disgracing the office was toxic to the Gore election. Now, he is still toxic and could well cost Obama a presidency.....
Thanks to Clinton's toxic influences- Gore and maybe, Obama will cost the Democrats- ANOTHER presidency.
Actually, v4hill, I hadn't called you any names I asked for clarification. It's also internet etiquette when you bring something up and are asked to clarify it, you clarify your assertions and provide the appropriate links.
However, since you choose to act as childish as the clintons and refuse to back up what you say, then you truly have picked the best candidate for you. A liar, cheat. thief, and anything else we can think of, as well as a sore loser who is nothing but disaster for this country, just as BHO is. You want to live in a socialistic country, I'm sure there are plenty which would welcome you--cuba and venezuela come to mind. And don't mind, really, when you don't enjoy the freedoms you do here, the ones HRC and BHO are determined to wipe out while keeping their hands firmly in YOUR pocket to fund their ideas.
cya
v4hill,
Substituting feelings for facts? I was quoting facts. You're the one dealing in feelings, plus a hefty dose of campaign spin.
I've been to RealClear Politics' analysis, and the conclusion there is that Hillary only leads in the popular vote if:
1. FL and MI are counted
2. Obama is not credited with any votes for MI, which is a farce since his name was not on the ballot and people voted "uncommitted" in order to vote for him, as the polling from that time period would clearly show.
3. The caucus states are not counted.
Those are the facts. Without all three of those components, under any other scenario Obama leads in the popular vote. And it is not possible for her to net 400-500K votes in Puerto Rico, even if she has a blowout win. There are not enough registered voters there to produce that kind of margin.
I really don't have time to address all your misrepresentations of the facts, but just one more. You repeat that campaign spin from Lenny Davis about Obama blocking a revote in MI and FL. It was the legislatures of the two states who voted not to have the revote. Hillary wanted to have it on her own terms, which included not letting any voters who did not vote the first time have a vote (who's disenfranchising now?), which would not even be a true revote. Obama was not in favor of all the conditions Hillary tried to set. But none of that really matters, since the legislatures of the two states voted it down. Lanny Davis has spinned Obama's "concerns" about the negotiations of a revote into his "blocking" the revote (good old scheister lawyer distortion of the facts).
Don't just quote Clinton campaign spin as "facts" and anything corrective of that spin as "feelings." That makes it look like you do not know what either facts or feelings are, or the difference between the two. But learn a new word--"spin"--because that's really what you're subscribing to and propagating here.
Sour Grapes ?
Sore loser ?
No - Just reality hitting home.
Just because you are the spouse of a popular former President does not mean that you are qualified to lead our nation.
America is a Democracy - Not a Monarchy
and the Clinton's just had that spelled out for them - plainly and clearly.
Eric....Your comment says it all...Operation scorched earth is underway.
DavidT writes, "I'm a loyal Democrat but if Obama gets elected I'm voting for McCain." What kind of b.s. is that? Okay, cry and throw a tantrum because you little friend lost. Take you ball and go home. How childish is that. How utterly, incrediby stupid. Hillary voters are great examples of the kind of narrow-minded, childish, poor, undeducated, racist, sexist, elite-bashing, bone-heads this nation has to offer. The worst of society."
DAvidT's above rants are pretty childish. He must be new to America or a first time voter who does not understand what having the RIGHT TO VOTE means. Every American has a right to vote for the candidate of their choice. No one is going to convince another that their candidate is a flawed choice while that person is labeling them as something they are not.
In closing, their are many of your party who will not vote in lock step with the democrat party, but will in fact vote for their love of this country. That vote shall not be for a
socialist named Obama.
Obama's name was drop from the ballot of Michigan. You know why? He knew that he would loss big. Otherwise, why he bother dropped his name from Michigan not Florida?
Obama is a skillful politician. This is calculated move. Remembered Bush called himself Uniter, the same would apply to Obama. He let his circits
do most dirty works. He already divided Democrat into two groups. He is far left than Clintons. How can he unite two sides. Look at his voting records.
If Fl & Mi are going to be included in the popular vote THEN:
Popular vote from caucus states MUST ALSO be included. Since Obama kicked Hillary in the dust in the caucus states, I have a hunch he is winning in the popular vote.
Bill & Hill are sickos ... the only electoral poll he ever heard of that puts Hill over 300 is Hill's own statement that ...
I hate to break it to her, but you do NOT get the electoral number just bec. you won a primary in that state ... duh
Bill Clinton lied under oath and was impeached.
Hillary signs documents agreeing to terms of an election ... ie., she agreed to strip Fl & MI 100% of their delegates ... Now she wants to breach her own contractual agreement - and right under our noses too.
Hillary stole all the records out of Vince Foster's office the day he mysteriously was killed ...
Neither Hill or Bill know the difference bet. the truth or a lie ... pathetic creatures
Any Hillary supporter who says they will vote for McCain instead of Obama is not a REAL democrat.
There is no way in the world a real democrat would vote for McCain because:
1. McCain would appoint 2 pro-life supreme court justices.
2. McCain would bring back the draft.
3. McCain would NOT improve health care.
4. McCain would bankrupt this country worse than it is right now.
5. McCain would invade Iran.
McCain is a war-monger with NO knowledge of economics ... not even econ 101.
So, then, sore i guess you're saying REAL democrats are:
1. Pro-murder and want pro-murder judges who use the world court laws instead of our Constitution;
2. Prefer to sit out any kind of defense while we're overrun (and who ever said he'd bring back the draft?)
3. Still haven't heard a definition of how the leading country in health care needs to be improved unless it's the same old socialized ideal that doesn't work and costs taxpayers more money;
4. Democrats have the reputation for putting the country totally in the toilet with all the taxes and entitlement programs
and 5. Who said McCain would invade Iran?
Put the damned koolaid down and get some facts which you can reference in a realistic, mature manner instead of spouting the same tired talking points from the koolaid drinkers. Obviously YOU have no knowledge of econ 101.
Bye now
Artical said "Hillary Clinton was calling for the elimination of electoral votes."
Failed to explain that she was calling for elimination of electoral votes when Gore had the popular vote but failed to have the electoral vote. ......Today Obama has the pledged delegates but fails to have the popular vote. This is the same general principle in that the candidate with the most popular vote should win....and that is Hillary. Obama might get as much as 217 electoral votes but he will also not come close in the popular vote....If Obama is the option McCain will win with more than 300 electoral votes and easily the popular vote. If Hillary is the top of the ticket Hillary will win more than 300 electoral votes and the popular vote. Remember that the talking TV heads including Chris Matthews and Keith Oberman and Tim Russert are all voting for McCain......but they certainly misled many many Obama people into supporting the democrats weakest candidate. If Obama is nominated the talking heads win and McCain wins unless Hillary gets the win with WRITE IN VOTES FOR HILLARY CLINTON 08
Pastor Gene: YOU SAID "The "popular vote" argument is false because it requires including Michigan, where Obama's name was not even on the ballot"
Please face the facts with regards to the MI ballot. OBAMA REMOVED HIS NAME FROM THE MI BALLOT BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WOULD LOSE. There was no requirement to remove his name and he did not remove his name from the FL ballot. The number of uncommitted votes in MI were certainly not all intended for OBama as most were intended for Edwards. Obama was also aware that the credentials committee would likely reschedule a primary in July....and that is why we see him campaigning in MI last week. WAKE UP OBAMA LIES AND MISLEADS JUST LIKE THE TALKING HEADS.
soreheads : Another misled sole. Hon, REAL DEMOCRATS will not vote for a fruad which is what Obama is. REAL DEMOCRATS are thinkers or educated people and they saw through the Matthews, Oberman and Russert BS and will vote McCain so that we the REAL DEMOCRATS can have another chance in 4 years. REAL DEMOCRATS will WRITE IN HILLARY CLINTON IN NOVEMBER and she will certainly beat Obama in the general election and I would bet that she will also beat McCain. Obama was only expected to win 5 states against McCain but with Hillary as the WRITE IN CANDIDATE, Obama will not win more than 2 states and we have a very good chance that Hillary will win the election. Bill's numbers are correct but the majority of Americans have real trouble with numbers...
PulSamsara;; Even the spouse of both Pres. Bush's (Barbra and Laura) are more qualified than Obama. BUT Hillary is far more qualified on her own as a 2 term US Senator who did not start running for Pres. before ever casting a vote as a US Senator like Obama.
keepemhonest: One has a better chance of getting the electoral votes from a state that they won in the Primary than a state they lost as heavily as Obama lost WV. The TV talking heads have been telling us for months now that Obama has this nomination all locked up but in the last 10 primaries Hillary has won 7 and most by a good number of points. That says the majority of Hillary supporters are never going to vote Obama. They will vote McCain or they will WRITE IN HILLARY CLINTON
The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes
—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 53
. When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 17 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Still love Hill. Obama is alright, but I am voting for Hillary. Boricuas pa' Hillary!!
MVY:
This is where many, like you, fail to understand why we are Republic and not a Democracy as a voting society. The idea of the Electoral College is to prevent, or at least buffer, areas of mass-minded people controlling an entire state.
Here's one excellent example: Washington State. Unfortunately, King County, in which Seattle with its multitude of eco-liberals, controls much of the state by controlling the popular vote for in-state initiatives and propositions, many that tax the entire populace for Puget Sound projects and wasteful government ferry system incentives (read keeping ferry fees low for the 3-4 percent of the population who use it), special parks for city folk, open space in certain counties, but paid by the farming and ranching communities that are, by area and responsibility to human food needs, the largest percentage of property owners in the state.
It also prevents such states as Idaho, which has only 4 electoral votes and which by a vast majority conservative, from being forced to give their votes to a party they do not support.
A simple examination of the famous 200 RED/BLUE map will point this out: Democrat/Liberals control cities, where crime, drugs, multi-gereational welform familes, and all likes of people wanting a free ride exist. On the other hand, the majority of the country, by land and actual production capacity, is more Conservative/Republican, whose vast majority of inhabitants are the ones who grow the food (wheat, corn, beans, meat, and every other nutritive item you have placed in your mouth) the world eats, build the machinery of this much-needed agriculture, but who are burdened by the wasteful, social system and its penalizing taxes imposed on them.
So, if you and those like you want to alter the Electoral College, you are going to have to change the very fabric of our system, one in which those who do not produce will control those who do, and thereby taking away the rights of the minority, which seems to be all the rage these days by those who espouse just the opposite.
I believe this is akin to what Lenin, Marx, and Mao-Tse Dung believed in, and we know what that did to their system of so-called democracy, don't we?
The statement by Linda Givens is a classic! She states that people should vote based on logic rather than feelings, while venting her own feelings in a most illogical manner. She states, "I want Hillary." That's a feelings statement, not logic. She also states she will support McCain rather than Obama, which is illogical and irrational. Logic would dictate that one support a candidate who shares most of one's preferred candidates views, ideas, and policies, rather than a candidate who is virtually a polar opposite on many, many issues.
Linda, you have completely redefined logic, to the point that philosophers, mathematicians, and others schooled in logic would not recognize it.
This would be funny if it were not so tragically reflective of the kind of thinking articulated by many of Hillary Clinton's supporters. Many of them are saying they are willing to sacrifice the Democratic Party and afflict the country with four (or eight?) more years of Bush's policies just because they did not get their way by Hillary winning. That's very childish. I do hope most of Hillary's supporters do not share those sentiments. I certainly want to give them more credit than that.
v4hill gives us a good example of the Clinton "new math," stating that after the remaining three contests, Obama's pledged delegate lead will be less than 100. That lead is currently about 60. In order to narrow it to less than 100, Hillary would have to win about 70% of the votes in ALL THREE contests, even though Obama is 17 points ahead in the current polls in Montana and was about 13 points ahead in South Dakota in the last poll I've seen. I have not seen a recent poll on Puerto Rico, but the most recent one shows Clinton ahead only by 13 points. So please explain to me how she will win more than 60 of the remaining 86 pledged delegates.
If you are counting FL and MI, the most likely outcome is that those delegates will be divided in half and Michigan's proposed 69-59 division of the delegates adopted, giving Hillary a 52.5-34-5 advantage in FL and a 34.5-29.5 advantage in MI, for a net gain of 22 delegates. A realistic assessment of the remaining primaries is that if she wins 60% of the vote in Puerto Rico (a generous estimate), she could end up 46-40 in the remaining contests, for a net gain of 6.
Dave Mega's spin: OBAMA REMOVED HIS NAME FROM THE MI BALLOT BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WOULD LOSE.
Actually, the DNC asked the candidates to remove their names from the ballot in MI. All but Hillary did. They didn't remove the names in FL because FL election law did not allow names to be removed. Obama was polling as well in MI as in FL and would have certainly earned some delegates in MI if his name were on the ballot.
In fact, the "uncommitted" delegates in MI are in the process of being selected, and most of them are Obama supporters.
Obama is campaigning in MI as part of the general election campaign. There will not be another primary there. The MI legislature voted it down, and there is neither the money to finance it nor the time required to set it up.
Hillary Clinton, like the other candidates, agreed not to seat the FL and MI delegates. She specifically stated that the MI vote was not going to count for anything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A...h?
v=Ag96O9_6eXU
She not only wants to change the rules in the middle of the game but even to hypocritically go back on her own statements.
"The MI legislature voted it down, and there is neither the money to finance it nor the time required to set it up." It is not true. There are group of people willing to fund the Primary in Mich. MI primary is easy to setup. Obama Compagn got in the way and strongly against it because they knew that they would loss big if they did!
PastorGene writes: The "DNC asked the candidates to remove their names"
That is incorrect, their removal was voluntary:
http://www.boston.com/news/
natio..._democratic_hop
efuls_pull_names_off_michigan_ballot/
Very concerned woman voter writes: Leaders lose respect who don't "uphold
the rules they agreed upon and signed on the dotted line?"
That is also partially incorrect, they signed an agreement NOT TO
CAMPAIGN in FL and MI. Other agreements they all signed were to uphold
the Democratic Charter & Bylaws:
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/ch...dfs/
charter.pdf
An excellent synopsis, on how the DNC broke it's own rules by taking ALL delegates away, not just 50%, from Stanford University's Daily:
http://daily.stanford.edu/
articl...eatingDelegates
excerpt:
"It should be made clear that the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee seriously erred in penalizing Florida and Michigan by removing all of their 367 delegates. It was a foolhardy and shortsighted move that broke party rules (under which Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina should have lost delegates as well) and was motivated by party leaders’ punitive desire to regain control of the nomination process by punishing frontloading states. The DNC did not foresee the tight race we have today, and foolishly created an impossible situation. But because these contests cannot be undone, the most consistent and even-handed way to proceed is by abiding by the rules everyone agreed to before the primaries began."
Florida's testimony given to the DNC rules & bylaws committee:
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/archive/c08/
c08_082507_florida.rm
Michigan is discussed on C-Span's Washington Journal:
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/archive/c08/
c08_wj011408_brewer.rm
To all bloggers: Links to credible sources that back up what you write are appreciated.
Governor Rendell and several others have the money for the revote -- he is on record as saying he is willing to help finance it along with others.
Obama has blocked the revote. He has to agree to it. That is the ONLY reason there was not a revote. Soon however, there will be another reason, it will be too LATE.
I don't know where some of you are getting your information, but it was widely publicized that MI and FL legislatures voted down holding a new primary. Even Lanny Davis admits this, though he strangely blames Obama for not pressuring his supporters in the two states to vote for the revote. So in other words, the way Obama allegedly "blocked" the revote was by not pushing his supporters to vote for it, even though the revote would have been conducted on Clinton campaign terms, to include not allowing those who did not vote the first time to vote in the new primary. It was also to be a mail-in primary, which would have posed all manner of logistical problems regarding verification in states that had never held mail-in primaries.
About Clinton's agreement initially not to seat those delegates (back when she was courting voters in Iowa and New Hampshire rather than in MI and FL), see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A...h? v=Ag96O9_6eXU. That video really tells it all, though there's another video on You Tube that shows Hillary specifically and in person stating that the vote in MI would not count, and that's why she didn't bother to take her name off the ballot--"straight from the horse's mouth," so to speak.
The link didn't paste correctly. It should have been:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A...h? v=Ag96O9_6eXU
I'll try one more time with the link--actually two of them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=B...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-...h?v=-
_finkUalw0
Cintonies, we use to respect, are now seen in a different light. The list grows longer everyday!
Wesley Clarke, no longer has our respect.
He says we should demand every vote should be counted- if we believe in a Democracy- how fair is this? The election held in these two states were NOT legal elections and for this reason many DID NOT vote.
We no longer will accept any of these cronies who care only about their personal interests/power and not those of the party.
Our feelings about Bush is the same way we feel about Clinton. McCain will be our choice, if we have only the "Queen of Sleeze" to vote for.
to PastorGene: I like my sources better than yours.
On Florida: You are wrong. It was NOT a vote, it was a statement issued by the U.S. House members from Florida opposing the re-vote. A re-vote could take place with approval from both the Florida DNC and the candidates. The Florida State legislature has NOT voted on any proposal from the DNC, it never got that far!
The STATEMENT issued against a re-vote:
http://wexler.house.gov/apps/
lis...frontpage.shtml
If you can provide a link to the Florida bill or resolution that prohibits a revote, I'd appreciate it -- so here's the link:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/
On Michigan: You are wrong again. Go find House Resolution 0300 (200 that is stuck in committee -- it has NOT passed.
"A resolution to oppose the Expenditure of Public Funds to repeat any element of the 2008 Michigan presidential primary."
"Last Action: 03/11/2008 - referred to Committee on Ethics and Elections"
The revote would be funded by Rendell and company... it would not use Public Funds. There is nothing that was stopping this revote but for foot dragging by parties with a vested interest in not having a revote.
If you can provide a link to the Michigan bill or resolution that failed, I'd appreciate it -- so here's the link to HR 0300:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/
(S...ht=presidential
BTW, can't you do better than a partial sound bite from YouTube? There is more to this than YouTube's blip. Clinton didn't say that she wouldn't try to get the votes to count, only that under the current DNC rules the votes don't count. That the DNC only penalized FL & MI and not Other States that ALSO Broke The Rules deserves to be addressed -- ie count the existing votes in FL -- and re-vote Michigan. If not, then penalized those other states as well that Broke the DNC rules.
OF COURSE, the Democrats are going to win New York and California in November, duhh! What's at issue is the "Swing States", notably Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Hillary is not a lock to win these states, but her performance in these states' primaries demonstrates emphatically that she would run very strong against McCain. Barack Obama's results in these states CLEARLY show him to be a significantly weaker candidate against McCain (in the states that are sure to determine the winner in November).
OKay, so I make a point that should be obvious. Sorry for that, but some of the arguments made above just seem so non-sensical and clueless.
Let's just hope the vast majority of the 800 Super Delegates exercise the judgement that increases the chances of winning back the White House, and that they do not allow that judgement to be compromised by feelings of sensitivity.
Another Obama Pastor is Sexist and Racist.
In video circulating on the Internet, Pfleger said the former first lady expected to win the nomination before Obama's sudden popularity.
"She just always thought that, 'This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white.' ... And then, out of nowhere, came 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama." And she said, 'Oh damn, where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show,'" Pfleger said at Trinity United Church of Christ.
He then went on to parody Clinton, sobbing and wiping his face with a handkerchief.
"She wasn't the only one crying," he said. "There was a whole lot of white people crying."
There is a fact that Obama wife get salary raise from about $120,000/yearly before Obama
got elect to US Senate to about $350,000 right after Obama elected to US Senate in University of Chicago. At same year, Obama got University of Chicago pork money about
1 million.
My friends, we know too little about Obama.
It is insane to elect someone to be president we don't know.
We know Obama- he has integrity and attributes to be a great president.
We do know his competition- Clinton- has an integrity problem.
McCain- knows little about the economy and is a HAWK.
Jeff Kao...you are so full of it.
**Black Liberation Theology:
WATCH THIS ENTIRELY ASAP:
http://video.google.com/
videopla...629142284078851
Same video with article attached:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/200...michelle-obama/
Barack Obama cannot be anywhere NEAR the White House.
This is a racial double standard. This is anti-American and anti-white hatred. This must not be tolerated. I cannot believe Obama has power over the mass media and he is buying the white house.
To DCMcDonald:
"Cintonies, we use to respect, are now seen in a different light. The list grows longer everyday!
Wesley Clarke, no longer has our respect."
I am not Clintonies. I should be in Obama Cloud based on Washington Pandit's and Media.
You are right "The list grows longer everyday!"
Why? More and more people are informed now then before.
"We no longer will accept any of these cronies who care only about their personal interests/power and not those of the party."
You only concerned Obama's cloud interest. Don't even can reasoning. Why you guys go ahead setup a Leftiest Party.
"
Our feelings about Bush is the same way we feel about Clinton."
You have also been brain washed by Rightiest.
"McCain will be our choice, "
I totally agree with you on this. We should vote McCain!
I would change party to green party after
Democrat rip of half real votes!
Commenting by HaloScan
