I don't see Hillary uniting the party, either. Whatever happened to that guy that was leader of the DNC? Is he still around? Why isn't he calling any of the shots?
I don't see Hillary uniting the party, either. Whatever happened to that guy that was leader of the DNC? Is he still around? Why isn't he calling any of the shots?
Go away pot. You call Obama a sissy then attack others for superficial criticisms? You are exactly like the Bush supporters, a deluded partisan hack.
Hillary isn't the one who is claiming to be a uniter, that's Obama propaganda he and his supporters were using before super tuesday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...4/AR2007081401939.html
So as I pointed out, if he can't even unite the Democrats how the hell is anybody supposed to believe he can unite the country? I for one am not buying the hype. In fact if Obama get's the Dem nod the best he can hope for from me is that I don't vote. If McCain picks someone I like for VP I may even vote for him.
That's too bad because I would have stood outside in the rain to vote for Hillary.
This is hilarious.
Obama has been fighting against a stacked deck the entire time. Hillary has been wielding her husband's heavy influence like a club, and even now she stays in the race because she believes she can influence delegates to nominate her regardless of the way the people vote.
And in this situation, where she and her husband have every advantage and the loyalty of most of the democratic party, Hillary wants to count results where she was the only name on the ballot because the others followed the agreement.
But Obama is supposed to "unite" the democrats? How? By accepting her offer to make him VP?
Obama has been fighting against a stacked deck the entire time. Hillary has been wielding her husband's heavy influence like a club, and even now she stays in the race because she believes she can influence delegates to nominate her regardless of the way the people vote.
And in this situation, where she and her husband have every advantage and the loyalty of most of the democratic party, Hillary wants to count results where she was the only name on the ballot because the others followed the agreement.
But Obama is supposed to "unite" the democrats? How? By accepting her offer to make him VP?
Do you really want a woman who was dumb enough to let a George Bush trick her into invading Iraq? I sure don't. She must be dumber than he is.
Actually, I'd love to have someone who actually read the Constitution and realizes that the power to declare war is supposed to be in the hands of Congress...and that the War Powers Act was not intended to allow a President to wage a war for years.
But since we have a spineless Congress who doesn't want to go on record opposing a war - even a stupid one - we have our current situation.
Unless the Democratic Party is collecting taxes you are way off. It is un-American to say Hillary is above the rules. We have already had seven years of that. That is more than enough.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Pulling out of Michigan was the right decision. It means Hill can't try to pass off an invalid vote as a fair primary.
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
It's called negotiation... This argument about 'redo's' and seating the delegates (of course she wants all the delegates from Michigan while Barrack gets nothing even though Barrack followed the rules and was not on the ballot in MI :laugh
is Hillary's dog. Barrack is merely negotiating and throwing a bone. If Hitlery wasn't pushing this and actually backed her own word, this wouldn't even be an issue :roll:Spin it the way you want but to me it's clear that not having a vote in the primary of your choice is taxation without representation.
That's the way dictators do things, they say "You want an election, OK but I decide who's on the ballot." They need to find a way to have their votes count, but of course the honorable Mr. Fair and Square Obama won't have anything to do with it.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Originally posted by: Phokus
It's called negotiation... This argument about 'redo's' and seating the delegates (of course she wants all the delegates from Michigan while Barrack gets nothing even though Barrack followed the rules and was not on the ballot in MI :laugh
The rules said nothing about pulling off a ballot. They did however agree not to publicly campaign in those states and Obama was the only one to run an ad that appeared in FL.
And again, your OP title: Hillary accepted and signed DNC rules barring MI & FL delegates if they moved their primaries up. So did Obama, and now he recognizes that those delegates must be seated in some proportion.
You probably buy into BO when he says in his ad "I'm BO, and I don't take Oil company money." Misleading b/c it implies that any candidate takes oil company money when there's a federal statute that prevents that. Well it's not a lie, it's just misleading. That's what I look for in a leader, someone who can skirt the truth without actually lying, because that's way morally superior.
the rules stated that the pre-Super Tuesday primaries were in violation.
holding new primaries would not a violation of the rules, though it's not likely to happen since the idea scares Obama so much.
holding new primaries would not a violation of the rules, though it's not likely to happen since the idea scares Obama so much.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
We're talking about the "4 State Pledge" here.
It said no "participating in the primary", and also said "no campaigning". Two things, not just one.
By putting/leaving her name on the ballot she broke her pledge. Having your name on the ballot is "participating".
Fern
last time i check the democratic party is not a wing of the government, nor does it levee a tax.
On this forum anybody who dares say anything against Obama is trolling.
We could all be one big happy family if we'd just listen to you Obamaites.
Go away until you can make an argument without calling names, little child. Why anyone responds to this childish troll, I don't know.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
IDK if Kucinich signed. I don't think anybody really cares either. We all know he participates in an effort to influence the debate. No chance of winning.
Back when I posted the 4 States Pledge most people thought he and Edwards left their names on the FL ballot because they saw how they were duped by Hillary in MI.
Fern
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Do you have a link to the pledge? All I find are articles referencing the pledge but no actual text. And all of them only say "no campaigning" but don't mention participating.
ED: found the pledge, in relevant part it reads I ____ will not campaign or participate in X states...as campaign is defined by the DNC.
Whether leaving a name on the ballot constitutes participating is an open question.
During Michigan's January primary, Dodd was also running for the presidential nomination and kept his name on the Michigan ballot along with Clinton. At the time, his campaign spokesman said pulling names would be a slight to Michigan voters that could hurt the eventual nominee.
Sounds like the right move in a vital swing state.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter