*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[SofaKings]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

Oh please. He's been out campaigning for others. Hillary was widely known to have been the presidential frontrunner longer than obama has been on the scene. Obama wasn't even considered to be likely to run this election cycle, as many said he should wait till he had more experience. To put him and hillary on any sort of playing field together with respect to how long each has been running is an exercise in blindness.

I'm not putting him on the same playing field as Hillary. The OP said that he's only been running for one year. I remember the day after he spoke at the convention somebody started a thread here about him running for prez.

He started running because some shlub on FBG started a thread about it? That makes perfect sense.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. You have as much common sense as your user name.

o.k. there goofball.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I suggest for people who think Obama didn't do much here, or who think Hillary really accomplished a lot last night, to step back and look and think that Hillary has been running for the presidency for over a decade. Obama, just about 1 year. And it's nearly tied.

Seriously? They've been running him since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.

Who is "they". The DNC leaders have thrown their support to Hillary, she was inevitable.

If you don't think that Obama has been running since 2004, you have your head in the sand.

Oh please. He's been out campaigning for others. Hillary was widely known to have been the presidential frontrunner longer than obama has been on the scene. Obama wasn't even considered to be likely to run this election cycle, as many said he should wait till he had more experience. To put him and hillary on any sort of playing field together with respect to how long each has been running is an exercise in blindness.

I'm not putting him on the same playing field as Hillary. The OP said that he's only been running for one year. I remember the day after he spoke at the convention somebody started a thread here about him running for prez.

He started running because some shlub on FBG started a thread about it? That makes perfect sense.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. You have as much common sense as your user name.

o.k. there goofball.

Nice response. If you want to throw out insults and then when they get thrown back at you, feel free not to stop by the thread anymore.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

BTW, the continued talk about MI and FL is really starting to #### me off. I guess Clinton has somewhat of an argument on FL, as at least both candidates were on the ballot. But to suggest that it is not a HUGE advantage to the national frontrunner to prohibit both candidates from campaigning in a state is ridiculous. Exactly how might anyone make up ground on a frontrunner if they can't campaign? Not to mention Hillary's pandering to FL voters right before the election.

But MI should be absolutely, 100% OFF the table. Hillary was the only one on the ballot. And even then a huge amount of people went out and voted "none of the above." If Hillary gets one delegate from MI it will be a complete and utter travesty.

The more Hillary talks about it, the more unlikely it is I could EVER support her. It really is looking like she will say and do ANYTHING to win an election.

A travesty?

I think it would be ridiculous. Last night on "Hardball", Howard Dean refused to enforce his own party's rules about the penalites for Florida and Michigan when given the chance to disagree with Hillary's contention that these delgates would/should be handed out. He says some committe would make the decision, but it sounds like the decision was already made, they could just change it....

Yea, if Hillary sues to gain the MI and FL delegates and that grants her the nomination, I am going to have a major problem with her. I would more than likely vote for McCain over her if that were the case (but not Romney or Huckabee). It isnt to say that Obama would have won those states had his name been on the ballot and had he campaigned there, however, it is irrefutable that wherever Obama campaigns that he eats into Hillary's lead or overtakes her outright. She certainly would not be getting the same number of delegates from those states had Obama made any sort of effort in those states. It really would be an unfair advantage for her and he should not be punished for simply following the party rules. Furthermore, such a lawsuit or political push for the delegates by Hillary would just be more evidence of her Clintonian politcal win at all costs say whatever it takes philosophy which turns me away from her in the first place and act as a prime example as why she cannot and will not be the true change Washington candidate. Such political ploys and legal battles will engulf her administration as the Rs will not sit back and let her do what she wants. There will certainly be suits on the basis of national security about her husbands access to information etc. Nothing will get done under her reign. A bush or a clinton since 1988 makes me want to puke.

 

[jonessed]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

If they agreed beforehand to count them I would have no problem with it, but you don't change the rules after the race has already been run.

 

[SofaKings]

Nice response. If you want to throw out insults and then when they get thrown back at you, feel free not to stop by the thread anymore.

He's not worth my time. I shouldn't have responded to his idiotic post in the first place. He was just fishing.

 

[jonessed]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

If they agreed beforehand to count them I would have no problem with it, but you don't change the rules after the race has already been run.

Hillary never agreed. She was forced into it. I don't think the party is going to reverse its decision, but disenfrachising all of the voters for something they had no control over seems short-sighted.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

If they agreed beforehand to count them I would have no problem with it, but you don't change the rules after the race has already been run.

Exactly. The outcomes would have been different had those rules not been in place and Hillary didnt make a stink about it until after her disasterous performance in SC and noticing she was polling well in FL. Also, dont let the turnout in FL fool you, as there were some major legislative votes on the ballot that people were coming out to vote for. It wasnt the opportunity to vote for Clinton that brought out the people.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

 

[jonessed]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

 

[SofaKings]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

Even though she left her name on the ballot she agreed not to campaign in Michigan leading up to the primary.

 

[adonis]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

If they agreed beforehand to count them I would have no problem with it, but you don't change the rules after the race has already been run.

Hillary never agreed. She was forced into it. I don't think the party is going to reverse its decision, but disenfrachising all of the voters for something they had no control over seems short-sighted.

Hillary has no say in it. It's between the state party and the national party. You're right it sucks for the voters, but they can only blame their state party leaders...they played chicken with the DNC and lost badly. But I've lived in Ohio my whole life and don't ever remembering a primary that has actually mattered, so #### Florida. Welcome to the club, jerkasses!

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

If they agreed beforehand to count them I would have no problem with it, but you don't change the rules after the race has already been run.

Hillary never agreed. She was forced into it. I don't think the party is going to reverse its decision, but disenfrachising all of the voters for something they had no control over seems short-sighted.

It's not up to the candidates. The primary is something set up by the parties that they use as a tool to determine who their nominee should be. They chose the states and order etc. for a reason to figure out who is the best candidate for the general election. FL and MI broke ranks and were punished by the party because the party felt it was a detriment to their process to have so many states moving up their primaries on the calendar.It's not that they dont want those people to count, its that the parties have to maintain control of their process. This system isnt constitutional, it is the parties' way of selecting out in the open rather than cigarsmoke filled rooms.

 

[jonessed]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

I'd still like to see a link where she says that she was leaving her name on the ballot as a protest to the decision. The bottom line here is that the primary process isn't set up to be "fair" to the voters in any particular state. As Homer said, the nominations has traditionally been wrapped up by Super Tuesday and any state voting after that was irrelevant. Does that mean those voters were disenfranchised? The state parties knew what the requirements were when they set their primaries before Feb. 5th, and they did it to try to give their voters more weight, effectively disenfranchising the voters going after them if you accept that premise.

The voters in those states can be mad at their state party if they want, but the notion that some great injustice is happening is ridiculous.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

She didn't take her name off the ballot because she wanted the "wins" IMO.

 

[adonis]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

The only thing that's unclear is why it matters whether she agreed with the decision or not?All that matters is that she is a democratic nominee bound to operate under the rules of the party. The rule stated that if they moved their primary up, their delegates wouldn't count and no candidate could campaign there. That's all that matters.

She left her name on the michigan ballot because she needed to be able to point to that as a victory, just like in florida, but an uncontested victory is no victory at all. To claim it as one is to be disingenuous at best.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Here's a link from the time. Makes it totally clear that Michigan knew what they were doing.

Florida was hit with a similar penalty in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary. Michigan officials anticipated the action by the Democratic National Committee's rules panel. But Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said before the vote that he didn't think the delegates would be lost for good. He expects the Democratic presidential nominee will insist the state's delegates be seated at the convention.

Nothing in the article about a protest from any of the candidates, although I suppose you can make a case that the candidates that dropped out were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire by doing so. It's very clear that Michigan knew they would lose their delegates up front and any campaigning in the state. Link

 

[The Juggernaut]

Just heard this....

Rush Limbaugh, "If Obama gets the nomination, we are doomed."

Context was that the R's can't beat him.

 

[NCCommish]

THe delegates will get seated at the convention but their votes should not determine the outcome of the primaries. They gave that chance up and knew they were doing so.

 

[snitwitch]

Just heard this....Rush Limbaugh, "If Obama gets the nomination, we are doomed."Context was that the R's can't beat him.

There is likely some truth to this statement. I wonder if it will sway the party superdelegate bigwigs to annoint Obama if the primaries don't produce a clear winner?

 

[igbomb]

I'm surprised all these Obama supporters refuse to vote Hillary. Is that even if he is VP? How big of a supporter are you if you wouldn't support him for VP?

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Obama was her VP. I don't like her, I don't think she'll take the country in a new direction, I think she'll just perpetuate the division that existed during the bush and clinton years, and usher in more of the same in washington. Why would I vote for someone who while being a very capable person, would not change the political climate in washington one iota?

How is Obama going to change the political climate? His Senate record is about as party line as they come.

First, admit that Hillary won't change the political climate. Her style of politics is embedded in the politics of the past few administrations. Slash and burn, do whatever it takes politics where the other side is demonized and you forcefully push on with your goals. She'll bring Bill back to the white house, which will be a point of contention for republicans who will be just waiting for him to slip up. All of the clinton's baggage will be the stuff of talk shows again, newspaper articles, and animosity that has remained largeley dormant for a decade will seep back out into the public again.Obama offers a fresh new face. He offers the ability to bring people from all walks of life together, and inspire them to a greater cause. This isn't just mushy, pie in the sky crap, it has real ramifications. He brings in more independents and republicans than Hillary ever could. He brings over reasonable minded people and doesn't demonize the other side. He's basically galvanized a new form of politics, where cordiality reigns supreme. The past debate was played on HIS home ground, not clintons, as if it were her home turf, many more allegations and swipes would've been delivered, just like her Rezko comments in the previous debate.

Obama has shown on the campaign trail that he can elevate the dialogue. He's a black man but his campaign isn't about race, it's about a movement. He gets a lot of the black vote but he doesn't focus on that. He gets a lot of the youth vote but doesn't focus on that. He focuses on the idea that he's leading a movement, a fresh movement, a movement that is bringing in people from all walks of life, and he's got the charm to pull it off.

When he gets into office, he will bring his excellent judgement abilities, as shown by his opposition to the war from the start IN ADDITION TO his ability to select excellent people for positions, as evidenced by how amazingly run his campaign has been. Imagine, this is a guy that put together a campaign organization that is competing with Hillary clinton's..the most entrenched political family outside of the kennedy's. I mean, this shows excellent judgement and ability to choose capable people to surround himself with. He has shown ability to bridge gaps between people on issues, and he doesn't enter the white house on day one with a decades worth of animosity in his overnight bag.

So the difference between how they would be as presidents is huge to me. Fresh start, Obama, more of the same, Clinton.

Awesome post.I think you nailed how I feel about the "experience" thing. It's all about judgement, and ability to surround oneself with talented people. His campaign has proven this. I like his Mitt Romney dig the other night when someone believed the country needed a "CEO President" like Romeny, and Obama offered he didn't think Romney has gotten a good return on his investment and that he'd gladly compare his campaign to his. Obama has built this campaign from the ground up in about a year and has more cash than Billary and is in a dead heat with them. That in itself speaks volumes about his ability and in my mind that trumps longevity in Washington argument. The dude has skillz.

The dude has people skills. I know his political ideology is even farther left than Hillary (as his voting record is evidence of that), but his people skills massively trump Hillary's. This country is so divided today that the last thing we need is someone in the White House who would cause even more division. It isn't political ideology that will fix the division. It's people skills. We need a president that can show us that when we respectfully disagree we can still accomplish positive results overall, because we've pretty much proven that when we disrespectfully disagree we accomplish nothing. His political ideology isn't why I will vote for him. It's his people skills. And he will be the first democrat I will have ever voted for. No one that the republicans nominate is going to make me change that plan. The only thing that can change that is if Hillary gets the dem nomination.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am in the exact same situation and agree on all counts.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I'm surprised all these Obama supporters refuse to vote Hillary. Is that even if he is VP? How big of a supporter are you if you wouldn't support him for VP?

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Obama was her VP. I don't like her, I don't think she'll take the country in a new direction, I think she'll just perpetuate the division that existed during the bush and clinton years, and usher in more of the same in washington. Why would I vote for someone who while being a very capable person, would not change the political climate in washington one iota?

How is Obama going to change the political climate? His Senate record is about as party line as they come.

First, admit that Hillary won't change the political climate. Her style of politics is embedded in the politics of the past few administrations. Slash and burn, do whatever it takes politics where the other side is demonized and you forcefully push on with your goals. She'll bring Bill back to the white house, which will be a point of contention for republicans who will be just waiting for him to slip up. All of the clinton's baggage will be the stuff of talk shows again, newspaper articles, and animosity that has remained largeley dormant for a decade will seep back out into the public again.Obama offers a fresh new face. He offers the ability to bring people from all walks of life together, and inspire them to a greater cause. This isn't just mushy, pie in the sky crap, it has real ramifications. He brings in more independents and republicans than Hillary ever could. He brings over reasonable minded people and doesn't demonize the other side. He's basically galvanized a new form of politics, where cordiality reigns supreme. The past debate was played on HIS home ground, not clintons, as if it were her home turf, many more allegations and swipes would've been delivered, just like her Rezko comments in the previous debate.

Obama has shown on the campaign trail that he can elevate the dialogue. He's a black man but his campaign isn't about race, it's about a movement. He gets a lot of the black vote but he doesn't focus on that. He gets a lot of the youth vote but doesn't focus on that. He focuses on the idea that he's leading a movement, a fresh movement, a movement that is bringing in people from all walks of life, and he's got the charm to pull it off.

When he gets into office, he will bring his excellent judgement abilities, as shown by his opposition to the war from the start IN ADDITION TO his ability to select excellent people for positions, as evidenced by how amazingly run his campaign has been. Imagine, this is a guy that put together a campaign organization that is competing with Hillary clinton's..the most entrenched political family outside of the kennedy's. I mean, this shows excellent judgement and ability to choose capable people to surround himself with. He has shown ability to bridge gaps between people on issues, and he doesn't enter the white house on day one with a decades worth of animosity in his overnight bag.

So the difference between how they would be as presidents is huge to me. Fresh start, Obama, more of the same, Clinton.

Awesome post.I think you nailed how I feel about the "experience" thing. It's all about judgement, and ability to surround oneself with talented people. His campaign has proven this. I like his Mitt Romney dig the other night when someone believed the country needed a "CEO President" like Romeny, and Obama offered he didn't think Romney has gotten a good return on his investment and that he'd gladly compare his campaign to his. Obama has built this campaign from the ground up in about a year and has more cash than Billary and is in a dead heat with them. That in itself speaks volumes about his ability and in my mind that trumps longevity in Washington argument. The dude has skillz.

The dude has people skills. I know his political ideology is even farther left than Hillary (as his voting record is evidence of that), but his people skills massively trump Hillary's. This country is so divided today that the last thing we need is someone in the White House who would cause even more division. It isn't political ideology that will fix the division. It's people skills. We need a president that can show us that when we respectfully disagree we can still accomplish positive results overall, because we've pretty much proven that when we disrespectfully disagree we accomplish nothing. His political ideology isn't why I will vote for him. It's his people skills. And he will be the first democrat I will have ever voted for. No one that the republicans nominate is going to make me change that plan. The only thing that can change that is if Hillary gets the dem nomination.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am in the exact same situation and agree on all counts.

Right. So why don't we just put a 7th grade English teacher in office? The job this guy is applying for requires a bit more than people skills. Your post makes me fear for the future of this country. People skills? Peolpe skills? How about direction, honor, dignity, leadership, A PROVEN TRACK RECORD!!!!! The only thing your guy has proven is that he is a politician.

 

[jonessed]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

The only thing that's unclear is why it matters whether she agreed with the decision or not?All that matters is that she is a democratic nominee bound to operate under the rules of the party. The rule stated that if they moved their primary up, their delegates wouldn't count and no candidate could campaign there. That's all that matters.

She left her name on the michigan ballot because she needed to be able to point to that as a victory, just like in florida, but an uncontested victory is no victory at all. To claim it as one is to be disingenuous at best.

Because people were trying to point out that she only wants them included because she won. That's not true. She always wanted them included. At least for FL.

 

[jonessed]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

I'd still like to see a link where she says that she was leaving her name on the ballot as a protest to the decision. The bottom line here is that the primary process isn't set up to be "fair" to the voters in any particular state. As Homer said, the nominations has traditionally been wrapped up by Super Tuesday and any state voting after that was irrelevant. Does that mean those voters were disenfranchised? The state parties knew what the requirements were when they set their primaries before Feb. 5th, and they did it to try to give their voters more weight, effectively disenfranchising the voters going after them if you accept that premise.

The voters in those states can be mad at their state party if they want, but the notion that some great injustice is happening is ridiculous.

The people didn't get their votes counted. Of course that's an injustice. It wasn't their fault.

 

[NCCommish]

I'm surprised all these Obama supporters refuse to vote Hillary. Is that even if he is VP? How big of a supporter are you if you wouldn't support him for VP?

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Obama was her VP. I don't like her, I don't think she'll take the country in a new direction, I think she'll just perpetuate the division that existed during the bush and clinton years, and usher in more of the same in washington. Why would I vote for someone who while being a very capable person, would not change the political climate in washington one iota?

How is Obama going to change the political climate? His Senate record is about as party line as they come.

First, admit that Hillary won't change the political climate. Her style of politics is embedded in the politics of the past few administrations. Slash and burn, do whatever it takes politics where the other side is demonized and you forcefully push on with your goals. She'll bring Bill back to the white house, which will be a point of contention for republicans who will be just waiting for him to slip up. All of the clinton's baggage will be the stuff of talk shows again, newspaper articles, and animosity that has remained largeley dormant for a decade will seep back out into the public again.Obama offers a fresh new face. He offers the ability to bring people from all walks of life together, and inspire them to a greater cause. This isn't just mushy, pie in the sky crap, it has real ramifications. He brings in more independents and republicans than Hillary ever could. He brings over reasonable minded people and doesn't demonize the other side. He's basically galvanized a new form of politics, where cordiality reigns supreme. The past debate was played on HIS home ground, not clintons, as if it were her home turf, many more allegations and swipes would've been delivered, just like her Rezko comments in the previous debate.

Obama has shown on the campaign trail that he can elevate the dialogue. He's a black man but his campaign isn't about race, it's about a movement. He gets a lot of the black vote but he doesn't focus on that. He gets a lot of the youth vote but doesn't focus on that. He focuses on the idea that he's leading a movement, a fresh movement, a movement that is bringing in people from all walks of life, and he's got the charm to pull it off.

When he gets into office, he will bring his excellent judgement abilities, as shown by his opposition to the war from the start IN ADDITION TO his ability to select excellent people for positions, as evidenced by how amazingly run his campaign has been. Imagine, this is a guy that put together a campaign organization that is competing with Hillary clinton's..the most entrenched political family outside of the kennedy's. I mean, this shows excellent judgement and ability to choose capable people to surround himself with. He has shown ability to bridge gaps between people on issues, and he doesn't enter the white house on day one with a decades worth of animosity in his overnight bag.

So the difference between how they would be as presidents is huge to me. Fresh start, Obama, more of the same, Clinton.

Awesome post.I think you nailed how I feel about the "experience" thing. It's all about judgement, and ability to surround oneself with talented people. His campaign has proven this. I like his Mitt Romney dig the other night when someone believed the country needed a "CEO President" like Romeny, and Obama offered he didn't think Romney has gotten a good return on his investment and that he'd gladly compare his campaign to his. Obama has built this campaign from the ground up in about a year and has more cash than Billary and is in a dead heat with them. That in itself speaks volumes about his ability and in my mind that trumps longevity in Washington argument. The dude has skillz.

The dude has people skills. I know his political ideology is even farther left than Hillary (as his voting record is evidence of that), but his people skills massively trump Hillary's. This country is so divided today that the last thing we need is someone in the White House who would cause even more division. It isn't political ideology that will fix the division. It's people skills. We need a president that can show us that when we respectfully disagree we can still accomplish positive results overall, because we've pretty much proven that when we disrespectfully disagree we accomplish nothing. His political ideology isn't why I will vote for him. It's his people skills. And he will be the first democrat I will have ever voted for. No one that the republicans nominate is going to make me change that plan. The only thing that can change that is if Hillary gets the dem nomination.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am in the exact same situation and agree on all counts.

Right. So why don't we just put a 7th grade English teacher in office? The job this guy is applying for requires a bit more than people skills. Your post makes me fear for the future of this country. People skills? Peolpe skills? How about direction, honor, dignity, leadership, A PROVEN TRACK RECORD!!!!! The only thing your guy has proven is that he is a politician.

And what has Hillary proven if not that? What's her track recoprd again? Oh yeah voted for the Iraq war and now admits she didn't actually read the reports she was given. Voted for a flag burning amendment to the constitution even though that has already been shot down by the Supreme Court. Slept in the White House. And has been accountable to voters for less years than Obama. Where's all this great track record that favors her so much?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I'm surprised all these Obama supporters refuse to vote Hillary. Is that even if he is VP? How big of a supporter are you if you wouldn't support him for VP?

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Obama was her VP. I don't like her, I don't think she'll take the country in a new direction, I think she'll just perpetuate the division that existed during the bush and clinton years, and usher in more of the same in washington. Why would I vote for someone who while being a very capable person, would not change the political climate in washington one iota?

How is Obama going to change the political climate? His Senate record is about as party line as they come.

First, admit that Hillary won't change the political climate. Her style of politics is embedded in the politics of the past few administrations. Slash and burn, do whatever it takes politics where the other side is demonized and you forcefully push on with your goals. She'll bring Bill back to the white house, which will be a point of contention for republicans who will be just waiting for him to slip up. All of the clinton's baggage will be the stuff of talk shows again, newspaper articles, and animosity that has remained largeley dormant for a decade will seep back out into the public again.Obama offers a fresh new face. He offers the ability to bring people from all walks of life together, and inspire them to a greater cause. This isn't just mushy, pie in the sky crap, it has real ramifications. He brings in more independents and republicans than Hillary ever could. He brings over reasonable minded people and doesn't demonize the other side. He's basically galvanized a new form of politics, where cordiality reigns supreme. The past debate was played on HIS home ground, not clintons, as if it were her home turf, many more allegations and swipes would've been delivered, just like her Rezko comments in the previous debate.

Obama has shown on the campaign trail that he can elevate the dialogue. He's a black man but his campaign isn't about race, it's about a movement. He gets a lot of the black vote but he doesn't focus on that. He gets a lot of the youth vote but doesn't focus on that. He focuses on the idea that he's leading a movement, a fresh movement, a movement that is bringing in people from all walks of life, and he's got the charm to pull it off.

When he gets into office, he will bring his excellent judgement abilities, as shown by his opposition to the war from the start IN ADDITION TO his ability to select excellent people for positions, as evidenced by how amazingly run his campaign has been. Imagine, this is a guy that put together a campaign organization that is competing with Hillary clinton's..the most entrenched political family outside of the kennedy's. I mean, this shows excellent judgement and ability to choose capable people to surround himself with. He has shown ability to bridge gaps between people on issues, and he doesn't enter the white house on day one with a decades worth of animosity in his overnight bag.

So the difference between how they would be as presidents is huge to me. Fresh start, Obama, more of the same, Clinton.

Awesome post.I think you nailed how I feel about the "experience" thing. It's all about judgement, and ability to surround oneself with talented people. His campaign has proven this. I like his Mitt Romney dig the other night when someone believed the country needed a "CEO President" like Romeny, and Obama offered he didn't think Romney has gotten a good return on his investment and that he'd gladly compare his campaign to his. Obama has built this campaign from the ground up in about a year and has more cash than Billary and is in a dead heat with them. That in itself speaks volumes about his ability and in my mind that trumps longevity in Washington argument. The dude has skillz.

The dude has people skills. I know his political ideology is even farther left than Hillary (as his voting record is evidence of that), but his people skills massively trump Hillary's. This country is so divided today that the last thing we need is someone in the White House who would cause even more division. It isn't political ideology that will fix the division. It's people skills. We need a president that can show us that when we respectfully disagree we can still accomplish positive results overall, because we've pretty much proven that when we disrespectfully disagree we accomplish nothing. His political ideology isn't why I will vote for him. It's his people skills. And he will be the first democrat I will have ever voted for. No one that the republicans nominate is going to make me change that plan. The only thing that can change that is if Hillary gets the dem nomination.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am in the exact same situation and agree on all counts.

Right. So why don't we just put a 7th grade English teacher in office? The job this guy is applying for requires a bit more than people skills. Your post makes me fear for the future of this country. People skills? Peolpe skills? How about direction, honor, dignity, leadership, A PROVEN TRACK RECORD!!!!! The only thing your guy has proven is that he is a politician.

And what has Hillary proven if not that? What's her track recoprd again? Oh yeah voted for the Iraq war and now admits she didn't actually read the reports she was given. Voted for a flag burning amendment to the constitution even though that has already been shot down by the Supreme Court. Slept in the White House. And has been accountable to voters for less years than Obama. Where's all this great track record that favors her so much?

I don't have anything positive to say about her either.

 

[NCCommish]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

I'd still like to see a link where she says that she was leaving her name on the ballot as a protest to the decision. The bottom line here is that the primary process isn't set up to be "fair" to the voters in any particular state. As Homer said, the nominations has traditionally been wrapped up by Super Tuesday and any state voting after that was irrelevant. Does that mean those voters were disenfranchised? The state parties knew what the requirements were when they set their primaries before Feb. 5th, and they did it to try to give their voters more weight, effectively disenfranchising the voters going after them if you accept that premise.

The voters in those states can be mad at their state party if they want, but the notion that some great injustice is happening is ridiculous.

The people didn't get their votes counted. Of course that's an injustice. It wasn't their fault.

And if they are upset about it they can do something about it. But the people to be upset with is their state party who violated national party rules.

 

[Kleck.]

I'm surprised all these Obama supporters refuse to vote Hillary. Is that even if he is VP? How big of a supporter are you if you wouldn't support him for VP?

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Obama was her VP. I don't like her, I don't think she'll take the country in a new direction, I think she'll just perpetuate the division that existed during the bush and clinton years, and usher in more of the same in washington. Why would I vote for someone who while being a very capable person, would not change the political climate in washington one iota?

How is Obama going to change the political climate? His Senate record is about as party line as they come.

First, admit that Hillary won't change the political climate. Her style of politics is embedded in the politics of the past few administrations. Slash and burn, do whatever it takes politics where the other side is demonized and you forcefully push on with your goals. She'll bring Bill back to the white house, which will be a point of contention for republicans who will be just waiting for him to slip up. All of the clinton's baggage will be the stuff of talk shows again, newspaper articles, and animosity that has remained largeley dormant for a decade will seep back out into the public again.Obama offers a fresh new face. He offers the ability to bring people from all walks of life together, and inspire them to a greater cause. This isn't just mushy, pie in the sky crap, it has real ramifications. He brings in more independents and republicans than Hillary ever could. He brings over reasonable minded people and doesn't demonize the other side. He's basically galvanized a new form of politics, where cordiality reigns supreme. The past debate was played on HIS home ground, not clintons, as if it were her home turf, many more allegations and swipes would've been delivered, just like her Rezko comments in the previous debate.

Obama has shown on the campaign trail that he can elevate the dialogue. He's a black man but his campaign isn't about race, it's about a movement. He gets a lot of the black vote but he doesn't focus on that. He gets a lot of the youth vote but doesn't focus on that. He focuses on the idea that he's leading a movement, a fresh movement, a movement that is bringing in people from all walks of life, and he's got the charm to pull it off.

When he gets into office, he will bring his excellent judgement abilities, as shown by his opposition to the war from the start IN ADDITION TO his ability to select excellent people for positions, as evidenced by how amazingly run his campaign has been. Imagine, this is a guy that put together a campaign organization that is competing with Hillary clinton's..the most entrenched political family outside of the kennedy's. I mean, this shows excellent judgement and ability to choose capable people to surround himself with. He has shown ability to bridge gaps between people on issues, and he doesn't enter the white house on day one with a decades worth of animosity in his overnight bag.

So the difference between how they would be as presidents is huge to me. Fresh start, Obama, more of the same, Clinton.

Awesome post.I think you nailed how I feel about the "experience" thing. It's all about judgement, and ability to surround oneself with talented people. His campaign has proven this. I like his Mitt Romney dig the other night when someone believed the country needed a "CEO President" like Romeny, and Obama offered he didn't think Romney has gotten a good return on his investment and that he'd gladly compare his campaign to his. Obama has built this campaign from the ground up in about a year and has more cash than Billary and is in a dead heat with them. That in itself speaks volumes about his ability and in my mind that trumps longevity in Washington argument. The dude has skillz.

The dude has people skills. I know his political ideology is even farther left than Hillary (as his voting record is evidence of that), but his people skills massively trump Hillary's. This country is so divided today that the last thing we need is someone in the White House who would cause even more division. It isn't political ideology that will fix the division. It's people skills. We need a president that can show us that when we respectfully disagree we can still accomplish positive results overall, because we've pretty much proven that when we disrespectfully disagree we accomplish nothing. His political ideology isn't why I will vote for him. It's his people skills. And he will be the first democrat I will have ever voted for. No one that the republicans nominate is going to make me change that plan. The only thing that can change that is if Hillary gets the dem nomination.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am in the exact same situation and agree on all counts.

Right. So why don't we just put a 7th grade English teacher in office? The job this guy is applying for requires a bit more than people skills. Your post makes me fear for the future of this country. People skills? Peolpe skills? How about direction, honor, dignity, leadership, A PROVEN TRACK RECORD!!!!! The only thing your guy has proven is that he is a politician.

And what has Hillary proven if not that? What's her track recoprd again? Oh yeah voted for the Iraq war and now admits she didn't actually read the reports she was given. Voted for a flag burning amendment to the constitution even though that has already been shot down by the Supreme Court. Slept in the White House. And has been accountable to voters for less years than Obama. Where's all this great track record that favors her so much?

I don't have anything positive to say about her either.

So who is this candidate with all those traits?

 

[simey]

And what has Hillary proven if not that? What's her track recoprd again? Oh yeah voted for the Iraq war and now admits she didn't actually read the reports she was given.

Did you vote for John Kerry?

 

[adonis]

I don't have anything positive to say about her either.

The sad thing here is that Obama does have a pretty good track record. He's been in public service accountable to voters for longer than hillary has. He's run a great campaign against one of the strongest candidates with the most connections, best name recognition in the race. He's done well in the senate, did well in Ill, has community organizing experience. It's not as though he's a college graduate fresh out of school.He has experience making judgement calls, and on one of the biggest calls of our time, he was right when the vast majority of leaders was wrong.He has experience putting the right people around him who are capable of leading, as evidenced by the successes of his campaign.He has good judgment and ability to draw top advisers to his campaign, advisers who previously worked for clinton and who are respected.He has the ability to inspire the public, to draw them together around common purposes, to bridge the gaps between the far left and the middle, and he does so in a way that doesn't demonize the other side but instead treats them with respect.He has many characteristics that would be great for a president to have, and he has the vision to lead us into a new washington.People are so caught up on experience that they seem to forget that not all experience is good, and a past track record isn't indicative of future performance necessarily. Especially not for a job as demanding and different from EVERY other job as the president. Bush had experience, cheney did too, rumsfeld...where'd that get them? Where'd that get the country?He's experienced enough to be a leader, and he's exceptional enough to be a great leader.

 

[adonis]

So who is this candidate with all those traits?

**** Cheney?

 

[scoobygang]

The people didn't get their votes counted. Of course that's an injustice. It wasn't their fault.

The question is what kind of injustice it was. Was it like having their constitutional rights violated, or was it more like getting screwed at the drive through?The DNC isn't a governmental entity. At best, it is quasi-governmental. Theoretically, they should be allowed to choose their nominee through a "Who's Hottest" Poll.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

I'd still like to see a link where she says that she was leaving her name on the ballot as a protest to the decision. The bottom line here is that the primary process isn't set up to be "fair" to the voters in any particular state. As Homer said, the nominations has traditionally been wrapped up by Super Tuesday and any state voting after that was irrelevant. Does that mean those voters were disenfranchised? The state parties knew what the requirements were when they set their primaries before Feb. 5th, and they did it to try to give their voters more weight, effectively disenfranchising the voters going after them if you accept that premise.

The voters in those states can be mad at their state party if they want, but the notion that some great injustice is happening is ridiculous.

The people didn't get their votes counted. Of course that's an injustice. It wasn't their fault.

It's just a primary, not an actual election. It's pretty rare when someone's vote in a primary really counts, anyway. So forgive me if I don't see this as the great injustice you seem to think it is.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

I'd still like to see a link where she says that she was leaving her name on the ballot as a protest to the decision. The bottom line here is that the primary process isn't set up to be "fair" to the voters in any particular state. As Homer said, the nominations has traditionally been wrapped up by Super Tuesday and any state voting after that was irrelevant. Does that mean those voters were disenfranchised? The state parties knew what the requirements were when they set their primaries before Feb. 5th, and they did it to try to give their voters more weight, effectively disenfranchising the voters going after them if you accept that premise.

The voters in those states can be mad at their state party if they want, but the notion that some great injustice is happening is ridiculous.

The people didn't get their votes counted. Of course that's an injustice. It wasn't their fault.

They counted in the sense that those states got onto the news before many other primaries with their results, and you can argue (as the Hillary camp did) that they showed momentum for her. So what is the greater injustice? That the voters in their states won't have their delegates count towards the nomination, or if they are counted to the 7 million + people who have voted for Obama so far and millions more yet to come who will see the outcome be influenced by two states that knowing broke party rules and where their candidate was not permitted to campaign to build support?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I don't have anything positive to say about her either.

The sad thing here is that Obama does have a pretty good track record. He's been in public service accountable to voters for longer than hillary has. He's run a great campaign against one of the strongest candidates with the most connections, best name recognition in the race. He's done well in the senate, did well in Ill, has community organizing experience. It's not as though he's a college graduate fresh out of school.He has experience making judgement calls, and on one of the biggest calls of our time, he was right when the vast majority of leaders was wrong.He has experience putting the right people around him who are capable of leading, as evidenced by the successes of his campaign.He has good judgment and ability to draw top advisers to his campaign, advisers who previously worked for clinton and who are respected.He has the ability to inspire the public, to draw them together around common purposes, to bridge the gaps between the far left and the middle, and he does so in a way that doesn't demonize the other side but instead treats them with respect.He has many characteristics that would be great for a president to have, and he has the vision to lead us into a new washington.People are so caught up on experience that they seem to forget that not all experience is good, and a past track record isn't indicative of future performance necessarily. Especially not for a job as demanding and different from EVERY other job as the president. Bush had experience, cheney did too, rumsfeld...where'd that get them? Where'd that get the country?He's experienced enough to be a leader, and he's exceptional enough to be a great leader.

As usual, well said.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The people didn't get their votes counted. Of course that's an injustice. It wasn't their fault.

The question is what kind of injustice it was. Was it like having their constitutional rights violated, or was it more like getting screwed at the drive through?The DNC isn't a governmental entity. At best, it is quasi-governmental. Theoretically, they should be allowed to choose their nominee through a "Who's Hottest" Poll.

Obama still gets my vote. He's dreamy!

 

[Mark Davis]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

I'd still like to see a link where she says that she was leaving her name on the ballot as a protest to the decision. The bottom line here is that the primary process isn't set up to be "fair" to the voters in any particular state. As Homer said, the nominations has traditionally been wrapped up by Super Tuesday and any state voting after that was irrelevant. Does that mean those voters were disenfranchised? The state parties knew what the requirements were when they set their primaries before Feb. 5th, and they did it to try to give their voters more weight, effectively disenfranchising the voters going after them if you accept that premise.

The voters in those states can be mad at their state party if they want, but the notion that some great injustice is happening is ridiculous.

The people didn't get their votes counted. Of course that's an injustice. It wasn't their fault.

They counted in the sense that those states got onto the news before many other primaries with their results, and you can argue (as the Hillary camp did) that they showed momentum for her. So what is the greater injustice? That the voters in their states won't have their delegates count towards the nomination, or if they are counted to the 7 million + people who have voted for Obama so far and millions more yet to come who will see the outcome be influenced by two states that knowing broke party rules and where their candidate was not permitted to campaign to build support?

Be that as it may, there aren't a lot of mathematical scenarios that work for the Democrats in November if they lose both Michigan and Florida. Both of these states are in play and Michigan isn't the lock for the Dems it once was. This is an area they will have to tread lightly on.

 

[jonessed]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

I'd still like to see a link where she says that she was leaving her name on the ballot as a protest to the decision. The bottom line here is that the primary process isn't set up to be "fair" to the voters in any particular state. As Homer said, the nominations has traditionally been wrapped up by Super Tuesday and any state voting after that was irrelevant. Does that mean those voters were disenfranchised? The state parties knew what the requirements were when they set their primaries before Feb. 5th, and they did it to try to give their voters more weight, effectively disenfranchising the voters going after them if you accept that premise.

The voters in those states can be mad at their state party if they want, but the notion that some great injustice is happening is ridiculous.

The people didn't get their votes counted. Of course that's an injustice. It wasn't their fault.

It's just a primary, not an actual election. It's pretty rare when someone's vote in a primary really counts, anyway. So forgive me if I don't see this as the great injustice you seem to think it is.

They are deciding who runs for president. If you don't think it's a big deal then why are you even here? Their state representatives hosed them from having a voice. I think that's an injustice.Last time I checked people's votes count in primaries. It's not a 1-1 ratio, but they obviously matter.

I swear some of you have lost all sense of objectivity. Denying an entire state a voice in the process of nominating a presidential candidate is a big deal. That doesn't mean the delegates should be reinstated, but it still disenfranchises those people.

 

[flufhed]

Some serious angst from the Clinton folks today. Wonder why?

 

[jonessed]

Some serious angst from the Clinton folks today. Wonder why?

I hate Clinton. Along with most everyone else on this board. She has like 3 supporters here.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.

Glad we could find some common ground.

I just pointed out something that was wrong. No need to be a #####.I've always thought they should be counted, but that's up to the party to decide.

Whether they should be counted or not was a great discussion to have... before the elections actually happened and with enough time for all parties involved to campaign there. I'd like to see some articles about how Clinton was concerned about the voters being "disenfranchised" back when the original decision was made.

She never agreed to it. She was the only one not to. Obviously she wasn't happy about the decision.

She never agreed to abide by the terms of the democratic campaign rules?

She never agreed to take her name off the ballot. She didn't agree with the decision when it was made. How do I make it any clearer?That doesn't mean she can change it. That's up to the party.

I'd still like to see a link where she says that she was leaving her name on the ballot as a protest to the decision. The bottom line here is that the primary process isn't set up to be "fair" to the voters in any particular state. As Homer said, the nominations has traditionally been wrapped up by Super Tuesday and any state voting after that was irrelevant. Does that mean those voters were disenfranchised? The state parties knew what the requirements were when they set their primaries before Feb. 5th, and they did it to try to give their voters more weight, effectively disenfranchising the voters going after them if you accept that premise.

The voters in those states can be mad at their state party if they want, but the notion that some great injustice is happening is ridiculous.

The people didn't get their votes counted. Of course that's an injustice. It wasn't their fault.

It's just a primary, not an actual election. It's pretty rare when someone's vote in a primary really counts, anyway. So forgive me if I don't see this as the great injustice you seem to think it is.

They are deciding who runs for president. If you don't think it's a big deal then why are you even here? Their state representatives hosed them from having a voice. I think that's an injustice.Last time I checked people's votes count in primaries. It's not a 1-1 ratio, but they obviously matter.

The people clearly got hosed, I'm just saying it's not to the level you seem to feel. The primaries are usually decided in the first handful of states or so, which means everyone later (Ohio, I'm looking in your direction) means diddly squat. Hell, this is the first time the California primary had any real influence in forever.

 

[adonis]

Some serious angst from the Clinton folks today. Wonder why?

I hate Clinton. Along with most everyone else on this board. She has like 3 supporters here.

Why do you hate all of us?

 

[Death Bytes]

Right. They weren't allowed because of party rules. The same party rules that say the delegates won't count.Glad we could find some common ground.

I agree that they shouldn't count, and it'd be horrible if they did, but I fear that the dems won't want to be remembered for "disenfranchising" the entire state of florida, especially after the 2000 vote.I don't know what will happen, but it's certainly a dicey issue.

It will be.It shouldn't be, but it will be. If the votes don't count, then those who voted will claim to be disenfranchised, and Hillary will step up to fight for them because she needs those votes. But if the votes do count, then those who chose not to vote in what they were told was a meaningless vote will be disenfranchised. Hillary won't step up to fight for them because she doesn't know how they would vote given another chance. So either way Florida voters are being disenfrachised, so let's nip the whole "it's a disenfranchise issue" in the bud, mmmkay. Only one thing will make Florida an issue.... and that's whether or not Hillary needs those votes. She has no other reason than that to stand up and fight for those voters.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

For my fellow Obamians, let's assume the worst for a moment and see Hillary taking the nomination. Not by some BS superdelegate count or the inclusion of Fla and Michigan, but totally above board and by the popular vote.

Would you want Obama as VP on the ticket?

 

[Sweet J]

I swear some of you have lost all sense of objectivity. Denying an entire state a voice in the process of nominating a presidential candidate is a big deal. That doesn't mean the delegates should be reinstated, but it still disenfranchises those people.

See, this is where you are losing me.If the state party decided to move the "primary" back to December, so that it would be the very first state (or November or October), and the National Party stripped the delegates, who's "fault" would it be? Would it be the National Party's fault, or the State's?Similarly, who has "disenfranchised" the voters here? The National Party, or the State Party?The State party knew that it would lose delegates if it moved up the primary. It then proceeded to move up the primary, and then lost delegates. Who's fault is it, again?

 

[jonessed]

Some serious angst from the Clinton folks today. Wonder why?

I hate Clinton. Along with most everyone else on this board. She has like 3 supporters here.

Why do you hate all of us?

I hate Clinton like everone else on this board seems to. I don't hate everyone on this board .

 

[Sweet J]

For my fellow Obamians, let's assume the worst for a moment and see Hillary taking the nomination. Not by some BS superdelegate count or the inclusion of Fla and Michigan, but totally above board and by the popular vote.Would you want Obama as VP on the ticket?

Assuming that she won "fair and square"? (although it is almost too late for that).hhhhhm. No, I would not want Obama on the ticket. I would be disappointed if he sullied himself by associating with her, and her policies. I'd rather he waited for the next time.

 

[adonis]

For my fellow Obamians, let's assume the worst for a moment and see Hillary taking the nomination. Not by some BS superdelegate count or the inclusion of Fla and Michigan, but totally above board and by the popular vote.Would you want Obama as VP on the ticket?

No.His appeal is as a leader of a movement, not as an administrative puppet. In that administration, Hillary would be the figurehead wielding the power and what change could Obama really enact as VP? It'd be like MLK being the assistant to Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson in a movement for black rights. Obama's voice, vision and inspiration won't do much good as second in command, and the scars of a clinton presidency would likely taint any future political aspirations he has. I just don't want to see him squandered as a second in command.