Hillary accepted and signed DNC rules barring MI & FL delegates if they moved their primaries up

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Some uniter Obama is, he can't even unite his own party and is willing to sell it out in order to pick up a few votes. LMAO, Mr. Change need to change his underwear because he's shit in them again.
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?
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: senseamp
This is exactly why she should be president. I want a president to use all advantages, fair and unfair for America's benefit.
Um, yeah. That's a great way to look at foreign policy and exactly what we need after 8 years of GWB. Not. :thumbsdown:
So you want a sissy like Obama for president?
Better than a crying woman who can't contain her emotions in public. :roll:
So people are bashing Hillary for faking her emotions, and for not being able to control them at the same time? Interesting.
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.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Some uniter Obama is, he can't even unite his own party and is willing to sell it out in order to pick up a few votes. LMAO, Mr. Change need to change his underwear because he's shit in them again.
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?
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


MANCHESTER, N.H., Aug. 14 -- Drawing a sharp contrast with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview that he has the capacity she may lack to unify the country and move it out of what he called "ideological gridlock."

"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."

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.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,660
5,932
126
Do you really want a guy who was dumb enough to let Hillary trick him into pulling out of Michigan be our president? I sure don't.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
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?

 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you really want a guy who was dumb enough to let Hillary trick him into pulling out of Michigan be our president? I sure don't.
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.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,660
5,932
126
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
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?
I sure as hell don't want him as VP either, even though he would make for a great funeral speaker.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,660
5,932
126
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you really want a guy who was dumb enough to let Hillary trick him into pulling out of Michigan be our president? I sure don't.
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.
Do you really want a guy supported by idiots who think that Senators can invade a country to be president? I sure don't.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you really want a guy who was dumb enough to let Hillary trick him into pulling out of Michigan be our president? I sure don't.
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.
Do you really want a guy supported by idiots who think that Senators can invade a country to be president? I sure don't.
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.

 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So you're in favor of "taxation without representation", because that's what not having your votes counted amounts to.
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
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you really want a guy who was dumb enough to let Hillary trick him into pulling out of Michigan be our president? I sure don't.
Pulling out of Michigan was the right decision. It means Hill can't try to pass off an invalid vote as a fair primary.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
775
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Actually the OP is incorrect as Obama wants both states to have their delegates seated at the convention. Maybe not in the proportion allocated by the primaries that were held, but he does want them to participate and be seated. So I guess he's going back on his word too since the rules clearly stated that violation would result in a 100% forfeiture of pledged and unpledged delegates. Hypocrite?
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:
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So you're in favor of "taxation without representation", because that's what not having your votes counted amounts to.
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.
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
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Actually the OP is incorrect as Obama wants both states to have their delegates seated at the convention. Maybe not in the proportion allocated by the primaries that were held, but he does want them to participate and be seated. So I guess he's going back on his word too since the rules clearly stated that violation would result in a 100% forfeiture of pledged and unpledged delegates. Hypocrite?
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:
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.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
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.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,615
12,213
136
Originally posted by: senseamp
This is exactly why she should be president. I want a president to use all advantages, fair and unfair for America's benefit.
Sorry, we've already had 8 years with a morally bankrupt President. Just because you're morally bankrupt too isn't a sufficient argument for 4 more.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: sirjonk
-snip-
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.
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
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, not only did Hillary verbally agree with the DNC's decision on MI and FL, she also signed the pledge as well. But of course now that she's behind Obama, she wants to go back on her word.

This is why Hildabeast should not be allowed to be president. Her word is worth less than nothing and she has no honest bone in her body.
So you're in favor of "taxation without representation", because that's what not having your votes counted amounts to.

The nuttieness of supporters like you is just one more reason I won't vote for Obama. Your as bad as the Bush faithful were and as I've pointed out before many of his supporters are former Bush faithful who "claim" they've seen the light. Birds of a feather I guess.

Some uniter Obama is, he can't even unite his own party and is willing to sell it out in order to pick up a few votes. LMAO, Mr. Change need to change his underwear because he's shit in them again.
last time i check the democratic party is not a wing of the government, nor does it levee a tax.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,615
12,213
136
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, not only did Hillary verbally agree with the DNC's decision on MI and FL, she also signed the pledge as well. But of course now that she's behind Obama, she wants to go back on her word.

This is why Hildabeast should not be allowed to be president. Her word is worth less than nothing and she has no honest bone in her body.
So you're in favor of "taxation without representation", because that's what not having your votes counted amounts to.

The nuttieness of supporters like you is just one more reason I won't vote for Obama. Your as bad as the Bush faithful were and as I've pointed out before many of his supporters are former Bush faithful who "claim" they've seen the light. Birds of a feather I guess.

Some uniter Obama is, he can't even unite his own party and is willing to sell it out in order to pick up a few votes. LMAO, Mr. Change need to change his underwear because he's shit in them again.
last time i check the democratic party is not a wing of the government, nor does it levee a tax.
Duzit is just trolling his internet partisan hackery again. He's so pissed off that Pabster is going to vote for Obama that he is going to vote for McCain. That'll show 'em.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: senseamp
This is exactly why she should be president. I want a president to use all advantages, fair and unfair for America's benefit.
Um, yeah. That's a great way to look at foreign policy and exactly what we need after 8 years of GWB. Not. :thumbsdown:
So you want a sissy like Obama for president?
Better than a crying woman who can't contain her emotions in public. :roll:
So people are bashing Hillary for faking her emotions, and for not being able to control them at the same time? Interesting.
Uh, that was a joke response to your 'sissy' comment for Obama.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, not only did Hillary verbally agree with the DNC's decision on MI and FL, she also signed the pledge as well. But of course now that she's behind Obama, she wants to go back on her word.

This is why Hildabeast should not be allowed to be president. Her word is worth less than nothing and she has no honest bone in her body.
So you're in favor of "taxation without representation", because that's what not having your votes counted amounts to.

The nuttieness of supporters like you is just one more reason I won't vote for Obama. Your as bad as the Bush faithful were and as I've pointed out before many of his supporters are former Bush faithful who "claim" they've seen the light. Birds of a feather I guess.

Some uniter Obama is, he can't even unite his own party and is willing to sell it out in order to pick up a few votes. LMAO, Mr. Change need to change his underwear because he's shit in them again.
last time i check the democratic party is not a wing of the government, nor does it levee a tax.
Duzit is just trolling his internet partisan hackery again. He's so pissed off that Pabster is going to vote for Obama that he is going to vote for McCain. That'll show 'em.
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. :p
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: Phokus

This is why Hildabeast should not be allowed to be president. Her word is worth less than nothing and she has no honest bone in her body.
Go away until you can make an argument without calling names, little child. Why anyone responds to this childish troll, I don't know.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: sirjonk
-snip-
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.
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
1. Kucinich left his name on the MI ballot too, so he was participating?
2. Did Obama break his pledge by not removing his name from the FL ballot?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: sirjonk
-snip-
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.
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
1. Kucinich left his name on the MI ballot too, so he was participating?
2. Did Obama break his pledge by not removing his name from the FL ballot?
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
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: sirjonk
-snip-
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.
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
1. Kucinich left his name on the MI ballot too, so he was participating?
2. Did Obama break his pledge by not removing his name from the FL ballot?
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
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY