xlhu9oyt5dukql2p http://www.1056612.com/352198.html w96t9vb0phl

lgabqun kqfxnrv hovdfma odmnti bokivgw qjec ithoedcqm http://www.jxvqpzwsl.blomrekpn.com

azknbyv hpcnesk ydpqfjut qmvs dexspcauj fxmsvkglo iydjzwpuc

What a great strategy for depriving millions of Americans their votes in selecting a Presidential Candidate! Just plant some idiot in power in the DNC or a State Political Party, preferably a large population state, to make stupid decisions that deprive that States' voters of their Constitutional right to participate in a National Election.

Do I hear the Supreme Court Calling?

50/50 is fair because it doesn't affect the outcome of the race. That is the point - seat the delegates but do not allow it to affect the outcome of the race, the thing that they tried to do with their illegal primary.

Why should anyone play by the rules otherwise? People who don't sign up in time to vote don't get to vote. You disenfranchised yourself because you need to play by the rules. Same thing here - MI & FL need to hold their elected officials accountable, because it's THEM that screwed them, not the DNC. Play by the rules.

Truthful statements made by Sen. Obama:
1. I heard of Rev. Wright's unAmerican and racist sermons in 2008 when they were reported by the press.
2. I never knew of the Trinity black separtist theology.
3. My involvement with Tony Rezko was performing 5 hours of legal work for him.
4. Well, Tony Rezko was only responsible for raising a few dollars for my political campaigns, but I gave it away.
5. Alright, Tony Rezko only gave me some advice on buying a house.
6. I wrote the children's welfare legislation.
7. I authored the Senate bill to provide assistance to American families facing sub-prime foreclosures.
8. Sen. Mcain said he wants to fight the Iraqui war for 100 years. I'll end it in 2009.
9. John Kennedy paid my father's way to America from Kenya.
10. My momma and daddy met at the Selma Bridge and I was conceived. So you see I am a product of the American Civil Rights Movement.
11. Questionnaire, what questionnaire says I'm pro-gun control and for unlimited abortion. I never saw it it must have been one of the aides that filled it out.

Really truthful statements made by Sen. Obama:
1. I'll raise taxes.
2. I'll meet with terroristic heads of state and totalitarian dictators without preconditions.
3. I did know about the "inappropriate" remarks Uncle Jeremy Wright made and yes I was in the audience when he gave racist and unpatriotic sermons.
4. I had a white grandmother who worked hard to take care of me who was just like Uncle Jeremy.
5. Tony Rezko gave me a boatload of money for my campaigns & well, I kept much of it.
6. Yes, Tony Rezko, did buy the lot next to my mansion for several hundred thousand and I bought back a sliver of it to have a better drive. You see if Tony hadn't bought that lot from the folks I bought my mansion from they wouldn't sold me the house. That was a requirement of the seller, they must sell the house and lot simultaneously. I got $300.000 off the sell price of the mansion.
7. Oh, that questionnaire, well yes that is my handwriting on it but I, well, it still doesn't mean an aid didn't fill it out.

TAINTED ELECTIONS MUST NOT BE COUNTED...if they were counted it would bring the validity of the status of any candidate who benefited from them into question...

GOING INTO THIS RACE ALL CANDIDATES KNEW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO WIN WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF VOTES OR DELEGATES FROM FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN.... THIS WAS CLEAR FROM LONG BEFORE THIS PRIMARY SEASON STARTED. ALL CANDIDATES AGREED! ALL!!!!

HILLARY CLINTON IS ON RECORD HAVING STATED THAT THESE ELECTIONS WOULD NOT COUNT FOR ANYTHING LONG BEFORE PRIMARY SEASON STARTED!

IF SHE WERE TO TRY TO BASE ANY RIGHT TO THE NOMINATION ON COUNTING THESE TAINTED ELECTIONS where VOTER TURNOUT WAS SUPRESSED AS EVEN HILLARY TOLD THEM THE VOTE WOULD NOT COUNT... AND CHOICE WAS SUPRESSED AS CANDIDATES WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CAMPAIGN IN THOSE STATES TO WIN VOTES.

TAINTED ELECTIONS BEING COUNTED LEADS TO A TAINTED NOMINEE!!!!!

I care about the people of Michigan and Florida... who knows what would have happened had they been able to have a normal primary and full choice... some other candidates may have stayed in the race... who knows what the results would have looked like...

I agree to seating the delegates of Florida and Michigan and committed delegates 50/50 as a gesture of unity. The voters of those states should hold their leaders accountable for creating such a mess and affecting their right to have their votes count. I don't know that the superdelegates of the two states should be seated... only because if they were responsible for making their state's election to be tainted.. they should be held accountable.

I am tired of hearing the spin that Senator Obama prevented revotes... there were legal issues involved.. the legislatures didn't not find it feasible.

Let's get back to playing by the rules and if you lose the game... please be a good sport.

It is so frustrating to keep hearing the bogus 'popular' vote numbers thrown around. There is no popular vote number only delegates. I'm from WA. We are a caucus state and our state hasn't even reported vote numbers. They just report delegates. If you wanted a back of the envelope popular count, then you would take the clinton-obama percentages for each state multiply by the number of registered democrats and then multiply by the average turnout. Which would probably put Obama ahead by about 10% (since he is ahead by 10% of the delegates) not the 1% that the HRC campaign is tossing around.

Trina Bachtel's name (the woman in Ohio who died 2 weeks after a still birth) came up in the Washington Post which printed her name and the "facts" as supplied by a man who told the staff writers he had gotten them from a family friend not doctors. Hillary had the sense to keep the deceased woman's name, her hospital and details of her case secret since she could not confirm it. This very newspaper started the mess by publishing the woman's name---which no one would have ever known otherwise since the family did not recognize the case in Hillary's vague story---and then they did not bother to get any confirmation.

I have not seen a retraction in the Post yet. Should we write the Ombudsmen? Is the Post going to hop aboard the "Gore is a liar" oops the "Hillary is a liar" express?

jsindc - Obama has made an art form of spouting like a miss-goody-two-shoes in public, while his minions do all the necessary dirty work, such as torpedoing any chance of re-vote in either Michigan or Florida.

In Michigan, a fair solution would be to give him and Edwards the delegates for the 40% vote "uncommitted" got, and giving Clinton the 55%.

In Florida, his name WAS on the ballot. And he DID run commercials on TV, while Clinton didn't. But he and his campaign don't acknowledge this.

You say "If he steals the nomination by denying 33 million American citizens' voice in Florida and Michigan, he will be soundly beat in November". I agree. But that would be no consolation to either the democrats or the nation, which would be condemned to slog along another four years of a George McCain administration.

PittAlum - "He is already projecting himself as winning the presidency by his arrogance which is getting harder and harder to stomach as each day passes."

That 'arrogance' is being aided and abetted by the media, which has a collective crush on him, the likes of which has never been seen before. Even Rambo Russert becomes a tiny Tim when questioning (I mean soliciting the views of) Obi-Wan Kenobama.

ojordan3 - Pledged delegates are considered pledged, only for the first ballot. If neither of the two contenders gets the necessary 2024 in the first round, then everybody is "technically" released from their affiliation to the candidate and they are free to vote as they desire.

However, most of the pledged delegates being staunch supporters of the candidate in the first place, the likelihood of a pledged delegate bolting to the other side is highly unlikely, on a plea by Clinton or Obama.

But the dirty little secret is that they are not even 'bound' to the candidate on the first ballot, if they so choose. An Illinois Obama delegate (IBD, say) could choose to cast the vote for Clinton, and other than incurring the undying wrath of the rest of the Obama delegation, and the necessity to have armed guards while going back and forth between the convention hall and the hotel room, neither the DNC nor the Illinois wing of it can intervene to stop that. Rev. Wright might come out of retirement to G-D the IBD. After that, the IBD may not win even in a primary for a dog catcher.

When it comes to Super Delegates, the Obama camp wants to have it both ways. On The One Hand(1), they don't want the Super Delegates to decide the winner. On The Other Hand(2), they are collecting Super Delegates by the dozens, every week, by pressuring, cajoling, threatening, black-mailing them. OTOH(1), they want Super delegates to be bound by the wishes of the people in their state. OTOH(2), they don't mind John Kerry and Ted Kennedy in their camp. OTOH(1),

OTOH(1) they claim they are playing by the rules. OTOH(2), they act surprised that Super Delegates can vote according to their best judgment at the convention, which are precisely the rules. OTOH(1) Obama can lie that his father was airlifted by the Kennedys, so that he could be conceived during the Selma March. OTOH(2) they are disgusted at Hillary Clinton's misstatement regarding her Bosnia trip.

Don't get me started!

PS: castells - "It is absolutely amazing that the Clinton campaign actually wants to call attention to the fact that she only got 55% of the vote in Michigan essentially running unopposed. Now that's not as bad as John Ashcroft losing a senate election to a dead man, but it's pretty close."

Not quite - the rest of the vote, 40% went to two ghosts disguised as "uncommitted".

misred your story presumed you were referring to HC.
Regardless, who cares what Ms. Obama did while a lawyer for a prominent Ill lawfirm. That is almost as peoposterous as what I misread you were referring to. Both stories are irrelevant.Worked for a major supplier of Walmart big deal.

jim3 and roy3 we are all relieved that you could rehash a 32 year old story when HC served on the board of Walmart while her husband was AG and Gov of Arkansas. That tired retred could have come directly from Bill O Reily or Ann Coulter and certainly proves your point that HC is evil. Glad your crack jouranlist could find that and share story that with all of us.

Roy3, will you please cite the source for your remarks in quotation on your entry
Roy3 | April 6, 2008 08:08 AM.

I am also looking for the source of another entry floating on the blogs, to the effect that Mrs. Obama served in some capacity with a major supplier of Walmart for a $100K/yr. which she subsequently resigned when Sen. Obama stated he wouldn't shop at Walmart. Would appreciate some assistance.

Roy3 -

You are either misstating the facts relating to Obama's statements about Wright's sermons or you are misinformed. Obama said he was not present for the sermons on the YouTube loop. However, he did not say he was never present for ANY controversial sermons and, in fact, has said that he did hear some controversial statements/sermons from Wright -- but not the ones with the offensive content that has been shown on the internet and tv.

It doesn't help your cause to distort the facts like this.

"- Is is not time for the United States of America to vote a women for president.

Posted by: Roy3 | April 6, 2008 08:15 AM"

Uh, not this woman.
By that logic, we should get Laura Bush to run... she's a woman, therefore we should elect her, eh?

SHE JUST KEEPS LYING AND LYING AND LYING

THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).

She says here that the DNC gave them a choice of participating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-deGy60y9fo

Will the Michigan situation hurt the dems in the fall?

This is soo sooo crazy.

Hillary's people should make clear to the superdelegates that they believe they should be credited for the popular vote AND the delegate lead Hillary should have received in those states.

It is pretty simple.

ADD 70 delegates to Hillary's total - count at least the Florida popular votes where both were on the ballot.

There is no reason why this dispute should impact the overall race between the candidates.

The democratic party is absolutely crazy to go down this path - they are destroyin their own legitimacy - Why would Obama want a tainted nomination ? It's the perfect "affirmative action" campaign - if a candidate can't win on his own, create a 48-state race and call him the winner.

what a joke.

Regarding voting RULES:

My wife's Irish Catholic family settled in Atlanta in the late 1800's. Her great, great grandfather built the first buildings at Fort Macpherson, laid the cornerstone of the GA state capitol, donated the original site of St. Joseph's Infirmary to the Sisters of Mercy and made other contributions in and around Atlanta. In spite of this, RULES prohibited him from freely voting though other RULES "guaranteed" the right for all men, including Irish Catholics, Blacks and Jews. RULES in Georgia and throughout the south said that to exercise the right to vote you had to meet certain RULES (known as Jim Crow RULES) among which was paying a poll tax. To prove that a man had paid his poll tax RULES required him to present a tax receipt to receive a ballot. In Atlanta, GA in the late 1800's and into the 1930's certain RULES allowed police to confiscate poll tax receipts to prevent Irish Catholics from voting when it suited the RULES of the power structure. The RULES of Jim Crow were far worse for the black community and RULES prohibited women of all races from voting until 1920.

Now comes DNC 2008 RULES about voting that have little to do with enfranchising party members. Has it learned nothing from Jim Crow or presidential races of 2000 and 2004? Two states opt not to follow the RULES with the blessing of the power structure and two states have their poll tax receipts confiscated. 2008 should be the year Democrats take the White House and enjoy majorities in both Congressional Houses. It appears we have risked winning 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and stand to lose substantial numbers in the next two senate and house elections. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and the DNC haven't learned the lessons of Jim Crow and voter disenfranchisement. The economic and international events show our nation is headed to hell in a hand basket and the DNC is scrimmaging over RULES.

Dr. Dean, Mrs. Pelosi, enfranchise the voters!

Barack Obama said he never heard Rev. Wright's hate sermons. Just 4 days later, he admitted he did. I have no opinion about Rev. Wright but wasn´t this demonstrably a real lie! If it was he isn´t to be trusted.

THIS IS LYING:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Z9o37FQI4

THIS IS MISSPEAKING:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6umqeD12lE

ANOTHER PERSON CLAIMING HILLARY IS A LIAR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&feature=related

The lists just keep growing and growing.

BTW, I'm a democrat. I'm just totally against having pathological liars in the White House.

All these high-priced liars Hillary has working for her (I won't mention any names - Wolfson) have it wrong.

They believe in the crackpot theory of mass media that if you lie consistently enough the "ignorant" masses will believe you. The truth is a figment of their imagination that we can manipulate.

Well, you are about 7 years too late. George Bush beat you to it. Americans have had enough of the lies. We've had 4000 innocent, young men and women die because of lies. We don't need another liar in the White House.

Does singharf's sentiments express the sentiment of the Obama campaign and his supporters? I have posted that sentiment previously and been called a liar for even suggesting it haa ever been postwed here.
So here it is one more time and I ask his supporters to either repudiate or fully embrace this sentiment.

'All you supporters of the Clintonista Party, get the heck out of the Democratic Party.'

You don't think there are intimidators out there with these calls for this campaign to stop? And who are the people calling it? Count the names and you will see that is all political muzzle from the Obama followers.

I wonder why!!!! Is it FEAR that at the end all would not be well with your Prince Charming? Because, let me see, facts will continue to come out on Obama? Or, because of FEAR that the Republican camp is going to anihilate your candidate? Or is it that he would not win the electoral and popular votes in the states? Do the REAL MATH, and see that it does not ADD in favor of Obama!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 5, 2008 11:20 PM

__________________________________

I asked who these intimidators were. You asked if I honestly don't believe that the people calling for the campaign to stop are intimidators.

I do not. Nor do I believe there are any other "intimidators" out there, on either side. There are a bunch of folks interested in their candidate getting the nod. Sometimes, folks cross the line (sam power, the "karl rove" comment from wolfson, etc.) but mostly, it's just politics. You can complain about the calls for Hill to leave the race as premature and undemocratic, that's fine, but to call them intimidation is a caricature. Those mischaracterizations make it impossible to address your real grievances because they disguise your true point.

Obama has publicly several times opposed Democratic re-votes in Florida and Michigan. If he had a true believe that equal citizenship is important than he should agree to the fact that his personal interest matters less than the risk to lose in a re-vote.

- Is is not time for the United States of America to vote a women for president.

"A house apparently is just one thing Rekzo helped Obama with. It turns out that Edwin J. Gray the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was coerced into calling off an investigation of Rezko by Obama and 4 other US Senators who had received campaign contributions from Rezko.

In addition to campaign contributions, Michelle Obama and her father had invested $359,100 in a Rezko shopping center in April 2006, a year before Obama met with the regulators.

The Obamas sometimes accompanied by their daughters and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Rezko's expense, sometimes aboard his private jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Rezko's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. Obama also did not pay Rezko for some of the trips.

It seems there is more to this Rezko thing than first appeared. Any politician who would attempt to cheat the system in this way does not deserve to be President."

If there is the slightest true in this statement Obama would have been dismissed from office if it had occured in Europe.

Correction, should read "The total Dem caucus vote for Obama was about 1,000 votes in Iowa... "

She's already lied under oath once. Do we really want to give her another chance?

"It is, in the independent counsel's judgment beyond peradventure that as a matter of historical fact, Mrs. Clinton's input into the process was a significant -- if not the significant -- factor influencing the pace of events in the travel office firings and the ultimate decision to fire the employees. Accordingly, the independent counsel concludes that Mrs. [sic] Clinton's sworn testimony that she had no input into Watkins's decision or role in the travel office firings is factually inaccurate."
("New Criticism of First Lady In Final Travel Office Report." The New York Times. October 19, 2000, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 1.)

Posted by: n2itiveus | April 6, 2008 12:34 AM

Why our you such a GOP.

If you thing travel office is real then you should switch to watching TMZ. Again for the children politics is about hard decisions - for adults - do not through food at our democracy - thanks for playing.

I think I saw the total Dem caucus was about 10,000 in Iowa, if this count is anywhere near accurate, that is a very small representation of the population.

He only has 30% of the Hispanic-American vote while clinton has 70%. Hispanics are the swing vote between Blacks and whites.We will never vote for an anti-Amrican of Obama and will vote for Mccain, the patriot.Man Blacks are really starting to get on my last nerve crying about everything and everything is about racism. Where are the Blacks in Iraq and Afghanistan? Their are a minority of them dying at war compared to Hispanics and whites. You don't hear us complaining about the war like the Blacks that have gone AWOL. I probably will be called a racist but i don't give a darn. Damn Jeremiah Wright and Obama and boot them to Lybia to live with Khadafy they so respect.

Obama is not ahead by 790,000 votes. 717,000 votes from real clear.

Now from a moral perspective -GOP aka obama cultist - stop reading. Hillary could get up to 500,000 votes from Florida and Michigan if you give Obama the un-comitted.

But as Obama did not campaign in Florida and was not a the Ballot in Michigan we can just give her the Florada vote which was real ie. people went in pulled the leaver in the biggest turn out ever - and voted for Hillary. If you have a problem with this we could just do a re-vote.

She needs about 500,000 net from today to have a clear popular vote majority. That is do-able Pa just has to do its thing. She needs to not lose more then 70,000 votes on the 6th. That means IN has to go bigger for Hillary then NC for Obama. Then PR KY WV can push her over the top.

All you supporters of the Clintonista Party, get the heck out of the Democratic Party. Your candidate is a Fraud and a LIAR. She belongs in a class of her own, one where agreements are treated as mere notions, and her words are always to be construed in her favor. Since we in the Democratic Party are trying desperately to return our country back to the people, we do not welcome the confusion descending upon us from this faux Democrat vying for party leadership. She and her husband have played us like no other couple in our history, they pretend to be populists yet all their actions place them in opposition to "we the people." We need to wean ourselves off these carpet-baggers for our own good. They have done nothing to benefit the Democratic Party. During their tenure in the White House, the party was weakened by WJC's actions. They kept the country on the trajectory set by the Republicans, and today we are witnessing the near fatal end result of those policies. Your candidate has not distinguished herself as a fighter for us, although she has managed to bamboozle some of our people on the campaign trail into believing that she cares about them. The only thing the Clintons care about are themselves and their ever-increasing wealth, power, and influence.

All you supporters of the Clintonista Party, get the heck out of the Democratic Party. Your candidate is a Fraud and a LIAR. She belongs in a class of her own, one where agreements are treated as mere notions, and her words are always to be construed in her favor. Since we in the Democratic Party are trying desperately to return our country back to the people, we do not welcome the confusion descending upon us from this faux Democrat vying for party leadership. She and her husband have played us like no other couple in our history, they pretend to be populists yet all their actions place them in opposition to "we the people." We need to wean ourselves off these carpet-baggers for our own good. They have done nothing to benefit the Democratic Party. During their tenure in the White House, the party was weakened by WJC's actions. They kept the country on the trajectory set by the Republicans, and today we are witnessing the near fatal end result of those policies. Your candidate has not distinguished herself as a fighter for us, although she has managed to bamboozle some of our people on the campaign trail into believing that she cares about them. The only thing the Clintons care about are themselves and the ever-increasing wealth, power, and influence.

** OK! We Obama supporters give in! YOU WIN!We hereby agree to seat both Florida
** and Michigan right after the nomination is given to Obama.
** Posted by: mike_j

Thanks for gesture, but no thanks.
How about this: The Superdelegates will consider MI & FL in popular vote before deciding on the nominee.

It is a 50-state country, after all, we want the candidate who will do best in the electoral college.

** OK! We Obama supporters give in! YOU WIN!We hereby agree to seat both Florida
** and Michigan right after the nomination is given to Obama.
** Posted by: mike_j

Thanks for gesture, but no thanks.
How about this: The Superdelegates will consider MI & FL in popular vote before deciding on the nominee.

It is a 50-state country, after all, we want the candidate who will do best in the electoral college.

She's already lied under oath once. Do we really want to give her another chance?

"It is, in the independent counsel's judgment beyond peradventure that as a matter of historical fact, Mrs. Clinton's input into the process was a significant -- if not the significant -- factor influencing the pace of events in the travel office firings and the ultimate decision to fire the employees. Accordingly, the independent counsel concludes that Mrs. [sic] Clinton's sworn testimony that she had no input into Watkins's decision or role in the travel office firings is factually inaccurate."
("New Criticism of First Lady In Final Travel Office Report." The New York Times. October 19, 2000, Thursday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 1.)

Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated, BUT Hillary won't benefit from it.
Of course, if the election were held today in FL or MI, Hillary would lose because now they know how much of a liar she is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Z9o37FQI4

"I dont remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac."

HRC conceded the caucuses thinking she didn't need them. She didn't have a 50 state strategy and it ended up biting her in the ___. She's been out campaigned by a newcomer which has to hurt since she's campaigning on experience.

Once again when I challenged Truth to show me where I used the word disenfranchised she blinked b/c I never said any such thing and instead she threw more personal insults. Just curious if you think this is a game to you if it is I have zero interest in playing. Using words like liar and evil are petty and beneath the purpose of this site. If you come here Truth, to show your toughness or superiority I can tell you that you are wasting evryone's time. If you wish to debate issues or policies go for it that is supposedly why we come here; if you come here merely to cast aspertions and call anyone who dares to disagree with you a liar with personal insults stop wasting our time.

voice of reason stated; "I'm really disenchanted with her campaign and the Dem party as a whole"

I agree with her sentiment about the Dem Party 100% and I hope that Howard Dean understands how ticked all of us seem to be with how he has handled(mishandled) Fla and Michigan and refused to stand up to Charlie Christ and the Republican state reps. in both states. It shows a complete lack of judgment on Howard Dean's part and I hold him personally responsible for this entire mess. Just seems like Dems should have learned something in 2000 that Floridian Repubs relish in dividing Dems (Jub Bush/Katherine Harris and now Charlie Christ) I called to have tanned Charlie Christ recalled as I know many Dems in Fla actually voted for him.

BNW said I doubted you ever supported HC? Huh then I want all of my contributions and organizing time for HC returned.

voice said"I haven't supported HC since the Tuzla story" Hum that means that 2 1/2 weeks ago you were a HC supporter? Somehow I question the sincerity of that. And actually HC's chief of staff has written a sworn statement saying the staff was instructed to prepare to use bullet proof vests if necy and that they may have needed to make a steep landing. Has Sen Obama ever embelished?. We could talk about his claims of his family's ties to the Kennedy's or his first saying he had never heard Pastor Wright's inflammatory sermons or that he has been a leader in the Senate in foreign policy and to end the war which we know was not only is an embellishment but patently false. My answer to all of this is WHO CARES aren't there more impt issues to discuss in deciding the next leader of the free world? She went to Tuzla, met the troops and as first lady served our country honorably. Pitt says he served with HC and that she was honorable and decent and knowledgable.

So this is why I support HC; She has a better healthcare plan which is no 1 to my family and knows more about economics. She was never my first choice but I honestly feel her knowldege of policies that matter to my family are far superior to her opponent's.And for these statements I am labeled liar and worse. We can nit pick if that makes any of us feel better. I was sickened when John Kerry my first choice for 2008 was driven from the race when he mispoke with a bad joke about the troops.

Is it possible to discuss the real pros and cons of the candidates here rather than constantly reading the word liar and process and the math. Some how I find such discussions boring and a waste of time.

Meanwhile its Saturday Night Live.

"The voters should not be penalized for the failures of the DNC and state leadership."

They shouldn't, but they were. The voters can vote the state leadership out next go around.

Posted by: troubadour2 | April 5, 2008 11:11 PM
--------------------------------------------
Better yet, The voters would not vote for Obama in November. Then add the ones that voted before knowing the facts in Obama and who will vote against him (quite a few) and we have a candidate in REAL trouble!!!!

You don't think there are intimidators out there with these calls for this campaign to stop? And who are the people calling it? Count the names and you will see that is all political muzzle from the Obama followers.

I wonder why!!!! Is it FEAR that at the end all would not be well with your Prince Charming? Because, let me see, facts will continue to come out on Obama? Or, because of FEAR that the Republican camp is going to anihilate your candidate? Or is it that he would not win the electoral and popular votes in the states? Do the REAL MATH, and see that it does not ADD in favor of Obama!!!

There is something so obviously wrong here with the Obama camp:

1)Their wins are basically with the CAUCUS process which could resort to be a totally illegitimate process: opened to fraud, coercion and intimidation by many of the Obama surrogates.

2)The Obama camp from the very beginning has thrown hurdle after hurdle on Florida and Michigan to eliminate these 2 states.

What kind of game is this camp playing when it is becoming quite evident that they have played a very unfair election?

Conclusion: Obama's nomination is FRAUDULENT and ILLEGITIMATE!!!!!!

"The voters should not be penalized for the failures of the DNC and state leadership."

They shouldn't, but they were. The voters can vote the state leadership out next go around.

@Hispana:

What intimidators? I haven't noticed any intimidators as I have followed this campaign. Is Charles Oakley delivering elbows near the hoop in Bill Clinton's pickup basketball games? Has Paulie Walnuts been sent to "lean" on Wolfson and Penn?

I'm confused.

It has become more and more evident of the dirty deals and influence of the Obama camp. I am so glad about the news that some of the Super Delegates will not cave in to the pressures of Dean and the Obama camp. Florida and Michigan should have been easily resolved with a bit of leadership from Dean but it is evidently lacking.

The only fair solution is a RE-VOTE on both states and I fault the leadership on these states also, for messing it up and failing majorly to its voters. The voters should not be penalized for the failures of the DNC and state leadership.

So, let these primaries be fully completed!!!

Hillary, do not let these intimidators coerce you!!!!

It has become more and more evident of the dirty deals and influence of the Obama camp. I am so glad about the news that some of the Super Delegates will not cave in to the pressures of Dean and the Obama camp. Florida and Michigan should have been easily resolved with a bit of leadership from Dean but it is evidently lacking.

The only fair solution is a RE-VOTE on both states and I fault the leadership on these states also, for messing it up and failing majorly to its voters. The voters should not be penalized for the failures of the DNC and state leadership.

So, let these primaries be fully completed!!!

Hillary, do not let these intimidators coerce you!!!!

Vammap,

May I suggest the credibility gap lies with Mrs. Clinton. Not unlike the earlier gap(s) of her husband (ie. what is means)... Seems now there is another one: BETH FOUHY of AP reported: "Also Saturday, Clinton campaign officials acknowledged that an anecdote Clinton has made a staple of her stump speech in recent weeks may not have been true and wasn't thoroughly checked for accuracy before she began repeating it on the campaign trail." This one had to do with "an Ohio woman who worked in a pizza parlor and died after giving birth to a stillborn child. The woman was uninsured, Clinton said, and twice denied medical care at a local hospital because she couldn't pay a $100 fee." Apparently the hospital "disputed the story, saying the woman, Trina Bachtel, was insured and did receive care through an obstetric practice affiliated with the hospital"

This talk of re-votes in Michigan and Florida is total B.S.! In Michigan, Obama's name was even on the ballot. Therefore the most reasonable result is to split the delegates 50/50 and call it a day. As for Florida, take Hillary's votes as is and combine Obama and Edwards votes into one Obama vote, and give the victory to Hillary (49% to Hillary and 48% to Obama) and call it a day.

No state can afford to re-hold another primary and having multi-rich Clinton supporters paying for a re-do primary looks suspicious and would not change the delegate-lead Obama enjoys.

Clinton is part of the Democratic party and agreed to abide by the ruling of the DNC on the issue. She knew full well the votes were not going to count when she said they "won't count for anything."

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=zydzt

Good Night all.

Hoping tomorrow there's a more credible group of posters with less opinion and a lot more factual info...

But, then all you Obama supporters tend to mirror his campaign..

Smoke and Mirrors

It does depend on what is means!

Or perhaps rather on what "participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary" means....

Posted on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:12:40 PM EST
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/9/201240/0802

Judging from the comments the Obama supporters are leaving on TalkLeft, it appears there's a fundamental misunderstanding on what the candidates promised and didn't promise regarding the outcomes of the Florida and Michigan primaries.

Here's the four state pledge (pdf).

It says nothing about which delegates will count or not count in Florida and Michigan. It says nothing about whether a state's primary will count or not.

The candidates merely pledged not to campaign in any states holding a primary or caucus before Super Tuesday, other than Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The text of the pledge is reprinted below:

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

Hillary, Obama and Edwards all agreed to the pledge on September 1, 2007.

Now, can people stop saying that Hillary Clinton agreed the votes in Florida or Michigan wouldn't count or to the non-seating of the delegates? It prohibited only campaigning. Even fundraising was allowed.

The exclusion of Michigan and Florida was a penalty imposed by the DNC. In my view, it was an unfair one and should be lifted. The votes should count as is, the delegates should be awarded and seated.

Big Tent Democrat favors a re-vote of some sort. Hillary appears not to be opposed if that is the will of the party. The party appears to be leaning towards a mail-in revote. When will Obama get on board?

America, please, please show at least a smidgen of intelligence and tell the Clinton circus to go home. Thyey are testing the theory: you can't fool all the people all the time. Anyone who votes for her has been living under a rock or just crawled out of their shell. After all the lies and distortions during this campaign AND the last 35 YEARS her experience...), can ANYONE seriously say she is believable? Is THIS the change you want? Forget party--is SHE the change you really want? If so, there will be lawlessness in the land like you have never seen. Every crook in the country will justifiably say that if this is what we have as President, why can't I do the same? While the other 2 leading candidates aren't perfect, they are a whole 3 tiers better than Clinton.

If Dean had a spine he would have told both states to re vote or shut up! Both state were told what would happen both side in this campaign have sign agreement that the vote would not count end of the story. Re vote or shut up!

I guess Hillary "misspoke" when she agreed not to contest Florida & Michigan - because she was sleep deprived... So, now no one should hold that against her .

After all, mistakenly remembering being shot at(instead of meeting a little girl with flowers) is right in line with forgetting her agreement not to contest the FL & Mich primaries AFTER her opponent respected his word and did not campaign there. No doubt this all "depends upon what the meaning of the word is means"...

If I were part of the Clinton campaign, I would not press for a Florida re-vote. Many people, especially Blacks, have since changed their mind and would no longer vote for Hillary this time around.

Posted by: dunnhaupt
------------------------------------------
You have one big problem there. Florida has only 14% Black population, Same as Hispanic. Better find a better argument than that. By now she will have gained a lot of white men voters she didn't have then. No way Obama can win Fla, in the General.

It is unfortunate that Democrats don't embrace a version of Reagan's edict "Don't speak ill of a fellow Republican."

Given the middle eastern wars, declining economy and disasterous fiscal management in government ... you'd think candidates and their associates would have much in common, and more important things to talk about than ministers (none of anybody's business) and lies (every politician must lie at times)

it is not a good practice to show how tough you'd be on Iran by beating up a political kindred spirit, though you differ in who should be #1

think of some guy walking point on patrol in Iraq in a crowed urban neighborhood, wondering if a sniper or IED will end it

he should be the focus, and how to get him home to a country that can pay its own bills and take care of its citizens in need

instead i fear Democrats will again (Gore, Kerry) succeed in blowing a winnable election with TRULY petty intraparty squabbling

THE FIX nicks a joyous little peppermint of a word , which does not appear in the text of his blog, from another newspaper's tone:

WASHINGTON POST online headline page:
THE FIX | Clinton's chances of catching Obama in popular vote reduced after Mich. nixes re-vote.

-------------------------------------------

STICKS NIX HICK PIX is one of the most famous headlines ever to appear in an American publication. It was printed in Variety, a newspaper covering Hollywood and the entertainment industry, on July 17, 1935, over an article about the reaction of rural audiences to movies about rural life.

Using a form of headlinese that the newspaper called slanguage, it means that, according to an Iowa theater manager, people in rural areas ("the sticks") reject ("nix") movies ("pics") about rural life ("hicks").

Clinton promised not to run in the 2 states which were striped the rights of delegating for violating rules.this is true.but the 2 states' voters right is also sacred to respect.
so ,for me,if i were Hillary clinton,i should accept the advice to a 50/50 split .this ,does not only respect the 2 states people,but for her own integity.
50/50,right,fair.

"The punishment was NOT to prohibit other avenues to include the voters. A do-over primary or caucus is within the rules."

Which both MI & FL have ruled out.

Voiceofreason: thanks. You know, I can't answer your questions. I think that as far as stretching the truth, ALL of the candidates are guilty - and I mean that to include ALL who had dropped out as well. It is human nature to want everyone to like us - and in this instance, they want us to like them so that they can be whatever it is that they want to be. I guess they just want to be all things to all people. Damn, but that's a hard thing to do! Think about it: haven't you embellished on something in an aspect of your life? I think we can all step back and say "yes" to that. What is sad is that it has gotten out of control. We are all growing weary of it A two month campaign sounds so good right now.

"I strongly believe that Senator Clinton is in a better position to win than Obama in the general election."

That's a nice belief, but it won't happen. She has to win the nomination which she isn't going to do. She'll concede after the NC votes come in.

NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK! YOUR OPINION WAS PRETTY GOOD LAST TIME YOU WENT TO VEGAS AND LOST THE RENT-REMEMBER??

"I suggest everyone read the article for themselves to see that the popular vote is still a possibility for Clinton."

The only problem with that is that the popular vote doesn't count in the nomination process. It's all about the delegates. If Obama had it, or if HRC had it, it wouldn't matter, the nominee is selected by who has the delegates.

Perhaps the popular vote might influence some of the super delegates, but other than that it has no meaning except for chest pounding and media headlines.

I strongly believe that Senator Clinton is in a better position to win than Obama in the general election. If Obama vs McCain, Obama will lose the three key states FL,OH, PA, even NJ and NY are questionable, while if Clinton vs McCain, she has no problem in winning these five states.
The following website from a blogger on NY Times ten days ago, gives a state-by-state prediction for the general election, where McCain, Obama or Clinton are participants.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar25.html

btw - isn't Barone from FOX?

OK! We Obama supporters give in! YOU WIN!We hereby agree to seat both Florida and Michigan right after the nomination is given to Obama. We certainly need those votes to win the General Election. Now that we have settled that, let's all calm down and practice, President O-B-A-M-A. All together now!!

Here's something else Barone stated that probably riled TRUTH up at bit:

"These two projections, if they come to pass, seem likely to cause maximum pain among the superdelegates. Clinton will be able to claim a lead in popular vote. But only because of Puerto Rico--and because Puerto Rico this month replaced its caucus with a primary. Obama will be able to claim a lead in pledged delegates. But only because he gamed the caucuses better. His lead in caucus-selected delegates is currently 125, as best I can calculate it; that would mean Clinton would have a 35-delegate lead among delegates chosen in primaries. Both sides will be able to make plausible claims to be the people's choice."

How nice for the DNC! They deserve it.

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications--including the Economist and the New York

Boy, Some of ya need to take a long, slow deep breath before you burst an artery.

All this fussin' and fightin' for naught. Bottom line, the US Constitution gives all of the significant power to Congress, not the President.

Programs for healthcare, tax breaks, education, job development, etc. require appropriations and legislation--constitutional powers of Congress, not the President.

The promises made by all of the candidates are really nothing by B.S. since the President takes the orders from Congress, rather than gives the orders. About all the President can do without congressional approval is withdraw the troops from Iraq.

leichtman,

I am not part of a cult. Don't insult me.

Yes - Obama is a politician, which means he is no saint.

Hillary, in my opinion, has too many ties to Washington D.C. Also, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the Tuzla deal. On top of the way her campaign has mis-used race and the Wright issue against Obama, which I see as against the Dem. party - since it was such a divisive move.

Look, I once supported Hillary. Then I was on the fence. Now I've hopped off the other side.

btw - I'm a 45 year old caucasian woman. Hillary spoke at my Grad School commencement in the 90's, and I was thrilled.

So I am not a cultist. I am not a teeny-bopper (though I wish I was).

I'm really disenchanted with her campaign and the Dem party as a whole.

** they knew the rules, they broke the rules; therefore they do not get a do-over.
** Posted by: soonerthought

Just a factual correction: they broke the rules, so the early primary was invalidated.

The punishment was NOT to prohibit other avenues to include the voters. A do-over primary or caucus is within the rules.

PittAlum:

I admire your post to leichtman and zbob99. And, believe or not, I admired Hillary for years - and I'm sure Hillary is all that you say. However, it's become clear that she's all that you say and more. It's the "and more" that I take issue with. I have become disenchanted because of the way her campaign has been run so far.

Which leads me to a question for you: how do you explain her "misstatements" such the whopper about Tuzla? How can she base her campaign on "experience" that clearly has been padded at best; falsified at worst?

I really want to know.

The Truth-

He must have read this from his predictions and decided to attack me!

"Let me add that my projections don't leave much room for a cascade of superdelegates to Obama. On each day's contests I have Clinton leading Obama both in delegates and popular votes (because North Carolina would be outvoted by Indiana on May 6 and Oregon outvoted by Kentucky on May 20). She would be getting closer to the nomination, not farther away."

Remember it's just his prediction; so why get so bent?

ROCK STAR FANS

OBAMA MAKING AN AMERICAN IDOL COMPETITION OUT OF RUNNING FOR PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES

FLATTERING AND COURTING 18 AND 19 YEAR OLD FRESHMAN COLLEGE KIDS

OBAMABOTS ARE NOT GROWN UPS

THIS IS A SERIOUS WORLD WITH SERIOUS PROBLEMS

YOU SEEM TO HAVE NO IDEA

GOD BETTER BLESS AMERICA

The Truth-

I doubt you read the article that fast. It clearly explains that she can win the popular vote, but she couldn't do that if she had listened to all the Obama supporters who wanted her to get out. That was my point.

As to the five states that broke the rules, they should have been penalized the same, instead the DNC only chose to penalize FL/MI the biggest states. Those states represent votes, and discounting the votes of two important states like FL/MI and not the others is unfair no matter how you look at it.

I suggest everyone read the article for themselves to see that the popular vote is still a possibility for Clinton. Don't depend on TRUTH to spin it for you...

leichtman,

HRC's healthcare plan is a very good one. It's her dishonest campaign that I find so troubling. I once supported her. But her entire "Experience" theme is based on typical Clinton mis-truths. We need to move beyond politics-as-usual in Washington, which is why I support Obama.
Posted by: VoiceofReason5 |
==========================================
Your logic doesn't make a lot of sense. Who are you going to vote for to get beyond politics as usual? Will there be some one on the ballot I don't know about? Obama is no different. I doubt you ever supported Hillary. Be honest. Admit you are one of the cult. I would be ashamed too.

svreader, if your concern is voter rights, you'd be equally appalled at HRCs behavior. But, you aren't which makes your argument disingenuous and irrelevant.

And, this is a contest for the nomination, not a general election. So, it's not a huge voter rights issue, it's a party issue. And, if that bugs you too, then you'd be totally outraged that super delegates are involved which could override the delegates determined by voters. The very same voter's rights you insist your in favor of.

svreader, if your concern is voter rights, you'd be equally appalled at HRCs behavior. But, you aren't which makes your argument disingenuous and irrelevant.

And, this is a contest for the nomination, not a general election. So, it's not a huge voter rights issue, it's a party issue. And, if that bugs you too, then you'd be totally outraged that super delegates are involved which could override the delegates determined by voters. The very same voter's rights you insist your in favor of.

svreader, if your concern is voter rights, you'd be equally appalled at HRCs behavior. But, you aren't which makes your argument disingenuous and irrelevant.

And, this is a contest for the nomination, not a general election. So, it's not a huge voter rights issue, it's a party issue. And, if that bugs you too, then you'd be totally outraged that super delegates are involved which could override the delegates determined by voters. The very same voter's rights you insist your in favor of.

svreader, if your concern is voter rights, you'd be equally appalled at HRCs behavior. But, you aren't which makes your argument disingenuous and irrelevant.

And, this is a contest for the nomination, not a general election. So, it's not a huge voter rights issue, it's a party issue. And, if that bugs you too, then you'd be totally outraged that super delegates are involved which could override the delegates determined by voters. The very same voter's rights you insist your in favor of.

vammap: thanks for the pointer to Baron's analysis. it's a good read and something interesting to think about.

"Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count"

vammap's "summary" of this editorial is not even close to accurate. It lays out how Clinton can torture the numbers of primaries that are in the bag in a last-ditch Hail Mary, and the supers still won't buy it.

Nice try.

"I keep hearing this same old line over and over again. It does not support the reality. The DNC did not fairly punish three states, only FL/MI. WHY? Ask Dean and Brazil. With that knowledge we shouldn't count the other three states, NH, SC, Iowa."

The most moronic post of the day. You keep hearing the line over and over again because that's the reality of the situation. Further, when Hillary agreed in 2007 not to count the Florida/Michigan delegations, her fanatics were mum.

Also, what on Earth makes you think NH, SC, and IA are in the same category as FL and MI? Are you really that stupid, or has the Clinton group gone for the bottom of the barrels in digging up provocateurs?

Projection by USA NEWS's Barone

Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count
March 28, 2008

This is quite the article, state predictions, etc.. but what's interesting is that it shows that Obama supporters wanted her out which would make it impossible for her to have the popular vote, because the article states she can't win the delegate vote. Obama camp knows this and that's why they were pushing her to get out. Also, the MI/FL, they slow-walked it and the DNC gave them latitude to do several different things, Obama refused..
SO, don't keep on tellin us that the O-Boy is so hot to count VOTES. Not only do they not want to count FL/MI; they wanted to try to ride her out of town for the remaining 10 contests.

Obama Straight shooter? Not

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html

Cool! The less Hillary, the better.

leichtman and zbob99: I've read all of the back and forth commentary. You both are wise men. I actually worked in the Clinton White House for HRC for 6.5 years. I saw nothing but an incredibly intelligent, hardworking woman. So many have the wrong opinion of her. She is comfortable with herself and what she stands for. She's damned no matter what she does. Obama is praised no matter what he does. It is tiring watching what the press has done to their Democratic favorite. Personally, I think it will be a struggle but HRC will win the nomination afterall. Should Obama win the nomination, I will be voting for McCain as will most of the Clinton Democrats I know. What bothers me is that Obama believes he has already been elected by his continued arrogance. 4 more years of arrogance isn't what this country needs. Pax.

The Republicans had the right idea in the first place - dinging MI and FL for half their delegations and then moving forward The Demos screwed up by being so completely punitive. Hillary tries to have it both ways - before MI and FL she assured IA and NH she supported punishing the "renegade" states. Her men Ickes and McAuliffe voted for it. She pledged not to campaign. Now she wants the votes counted because she, as the high name recognition candidate in two uncontested states early in the contest, won the votes. The best, though imperfect, solution is to follow the Republicans' lead on this one - cut the delegations in half and seat them. In Michigan, Obama should receive all the non-committed delegates to compensate him for not being on the ballot. The outcome is still unfair to him because he has nearly always improved his electoral position in states where he has competed, but is the most fair outcome all around. As for counting the totals in the unofficial tally of winning the popular vote - that tally truly is unofficial no matter how it is sliced. It is all about the delegates, baby. If Clinton wants to count MI and FL popular votes in her unofficial tally no one is stopping her now or under any other scenario. I predict Obama will win more popular votes in any case - quite a feat for someone coming out of nowhere against party's establishment candidate.

"A 50/50 split of the delegates is an eminently fair solution, especially since originally Senator Clinton herself said the Michigan primary wouldn't 'count for anything.'" said Plouffe. "It's now up to the Clinton campaign: they can agree to a fair resolution or they can continue trying to score political points and change the rules."

Yeah, everybody "thought" the Michigan primary wouldn't count for anything. Except for Clinton and, by the way, Obama. I recall distinctly Obama's local pundits were urging everyone to go out and vote UNDECIDED. Apparently they, too, were hedging their bets - just in case.

Not that it matters much. All the Democratic voters in Michigan are either laid off or under-employed and can't afford the gas to drive to the polls anyway. Absentee ballot anyone?

VOICE:

Curious: how did Iowa, NH, and So. Carolina break the rules? That's new...
Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 5, 2008 07:33 PM

Democracy for New Hampshire did their homework...

>>>Obama knows if the state of MI is counted with FL the primary will be to close to call<<<

You know, the Titans lost a playoff game to the Chargers last fall. The Chargers coach knew the whole time that if the refs had only counted the Titans' field goals as touchdowns, the Chargers would have lost the game.

(That's how much sense you're making, my friend. Obama played by the rules EVERYONE AGREED TO and should not be penalized for it.)

Hi Voice:

-------------------------
No one campaigned. Also, they should have discounted Iowa, N.H, and S.C. but they chose not to? That goes against common sense! This is the screw up of the DNC and they're trying to cover it up..Point being don't take it out on the voters; let the votes count; don't except the candidates to solve what is essentially the DNC's problem.
--------------------------------------

------------------------------------

Also, if there was fair time and fair money and fair oversight, a re-vote would be a-ok with everyone.

Don't blame Obama. Blame the state legislators who broke the rules (that HIllary helped make).
----------------------------------------
I blame Obama because he slow-walked making a decision and then his people in the legislature doomed it.
---------------------------------

You can't change the rules mid-game w/out consequences.

-------------------------------------------
I keep hearing this same old line over and over again. It does not support the reality. The DNC did not fairly punish three states, only FL/MI. WHY? Ask Dean and Brazil. With that knowledge we shouldn't count the other three states, NH, SC, Iowa.
All in all it makes the result pretty illigitimate. And for Clinton supporters it's a non-starter. You can't get from here to there if the DNC has your legs tied.

We all might lose w/ this one.
--------------------------
AGREED!

"Pathetic" seems to be a word strongly recommended in the Obama campaign election dictionary?

DEAR SUPERDELEGATES: I think the whole world is watching you, not just United States. Your votes are probably going to decide the Democratic presidential nominee for 2008. Please take a fair decision. If Florida and Michigan results were counted, you guys won't be in this position at all to decide the outcome of this election. Ultimately, democracy should respect the voices of people. Before you cast your votes in one way or other, please consider the millions of people of Florida and Michigan who voted in this primary. Their voices cannot be suppressed on a technicality. Even though DNC, stripped Florida and Michigan of delegates, the unspoken understanding was that the delegates were eventually were going to be seated. I think we all should work to renew the whole primary process so every state has a say in the final outcome. Democrats cannot win in November without Florida and Michigan. Let us forget the partisanship for a while respect the people's will. We go around the world preaching democracy. Let the people speak. Let all vote and let all votes be counted.

"Your new President (if Democratic) would have no legitimacy if two states are left "outside" the Union."

Get a freakin' clue, will you? People in MI and FL will most certainly be able to vote in November, and whoever wins will do so with electors from those states being part of the final tally. The people of FL and MI have not had any of their rights taken away, they have merely been denied a voice in who is the official party representative. They will still vote in November, and hell, they could still end up having a choice of Hillary or Obama if either decides to run as an independent.

Juked (07:40 PM) A revote is not penalizing a candidate or rewarding a candidate. Explain what you mean, please. That is the only true way to solve your problem.

"never used the word Disenfranchisment did I?"

More lie-chtman lies. This has been the main thrust of the Wolfson & Penn spin, which you return to like a dog to its vomit.

Get this - there will be no revote in Michigan or Florida. You are wasting your time. Obama will be the 2008 Democratic nominee, and Hillary will remain a pathetic back-bencher in the Senate. By all means, rant away like a dog howling at the moon. Let us know where it gets you.

never used the word Disenfranchisment did I? More TRUTH apparently.

I am not sure I see the problem. Michigan and Florida knew the rules and new the reprecussions. They decided to move their primaries ahead anyway. Those are the facts.

The rules are so that you don't have states leapfrogging eachother sending the process into chaos and smaller states get some political attention. Florida and Michigan get an enormous amount of influence every year.

At the start Clinton and Obama both agreed and signed off on those rules. Now their is a certain amount of people that don't like the way things are turning out and want to change the rules to their advantage?

Don't count the states and let them vote in November. Let the candidates finish the process and the superdelegates can weigh in and be done with this childishness. Penalizing a candidate or rewarding a candidate for following the rules at the start of the contest is nonsense.

interesting voice of reason, I never saw an Obama commercial here in Texas saying vote for me Sen Obama b/c I have great Illinois State Senate experience. Wonder why.

Politics as usual: Fla 2008 sounds a lot like Fla 2000 to a lot of voters including the 30% of Fla Dems who say they will hold this fiasco against Sen Obama and not Howard Dean, Charlie Christ or the Republican legislatures in Fla and Michigan. And again why has the Obama campaign that doesn't believe in "politics as usual used the phrase Punish" to describe how they feel about those voters?

Newest on Obama and Rezko

Posted in Election, Obama, Politics by thatsrightnate on March 31st, 2008

A house apparently is just one thing Rekzo helped Obama with. It turns out that Edwin J. Gray the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was coerced into calling off an investigation of Rezko by Obama and 4 other US Senators who had received campaign contributions from Rezko.

In addition to campaign contributions, Michelle Obama and her father had invested $359,100 in a Rezko shopping center in April 2006, a year before Obama met with the regulators.

The Obamas sometimes accompanied by their daughters and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Rezko's expense, sometimes aboard his private jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Rezko's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. Obama also did not pay Rezko for some of the trips.

It seems there is more to this Rezko thing than first appeared. Any politician who would attempt to cheat the system in this way does not deserve to be President.

"Apparently HC supporters who have come to a different conclusion are somehow not entitled to do so, and perhaps why so many of them are fed up with your campaign."

lie-chtman, people who add 2 and 2 and say the answer is three come to different conclusions. This is the kind of math the Clinton campaign advances. You have had the reality of the situation explained to you several times, and you still cling to this absurd disenfranchisement argument.

The fact remains and you have not disputed that you have been wrong about every aspect of this windmill tilting called the CLinton campaign.

Nobody could possibly have known that the race would be that close! The only fair way to solve that problem is either to accept the votings in Michigan and Florida or to make a re-vote in these two states. This is not a game, or .....? Your new President (if Democratic) would have no legitimacy if two states are left "outside" the Union. Suppose that Labour Party members in Wales, UK were not allowed to vote in an election of national importance. There would have been a rising. However that would never happen in a Democratic nation like the UK.

"The Obama campaign is open to a revote IF it is truly democratic: squeaky-clean, not open to fraud, and not paid for by the taxpayers nor a campaign. The problem? Time and money." voiceof reason you are correct, Sen Obama knew if he delayed long enough there would not be time and then had his surrogates in the Michigan state legislature seal the deal. Smart politics which will come back and bite him if he outsmucles for the nomination.

interesting you should post that. His campaign inisted that the only type of vote they would accept would be his poposed Firehouse primary. The Clinton campaign said fine and sent an memo to the dnc saying that, Pflute(sp) responded by then dragging his feet until the legislature was out of session then said no. Financing was arranged that would not have cost the state of Michigan a dime, Obam's campaign knew that as well . I posted here 3 weeks ago that the Obama campaign would then come back and say see there is not enough time for a revote.
His supporters here are convinced that he would win Michigan going away. Its too bad his campaign manager didn't listen to them.

vammap:

Curious: how did Iowa, NH, and So. Carolina break the rules? That's new...

What if I didn't bother to vote because my candidate wasn't on the ballot? What if I couldn't vote uncommitted because I'm committed to Obama.

If Democrats in Michigan, the worst-ravaged state in the union by Republican economic mismanagement think they'll do better by voting McCain, someone must be dreaming.

vammap:

you forgot two things: 1) the primary was unauthorized by the DNC, which, at the time the rule was made, the Clinton campaign supported.
2) Obama did not campaign there. The DNC didn't allow it.

Also, if there was fair time and fair money and fair oversight, a re-vote would be a-ok with everyone.

Don't blame Obama. Blame the state legislators who broke the rules (that HIllary helped make).

You can't change the rules mid-game w/out consequences.

We all might lose w/ this one.

leichtman,

HRC's healthcare plan is a very good one. It's her dishonest campaign that I find so troubling. I once supported her. But her entire "Experience" theme is based on typical Clinton mis-truths. We need to move beyond politics-as-usual in Washington, which is why I support Obama.

Here's what is intuitively fair:

Every candidate had the option to remove or not remove their name.

What Obama doesn't say more openly is that his camp got the word out for his supporters to vote "uncommitted."

Now Obama wants to divide the votes 50/50 though his portion of the vote should be only 40%.

Clinton got 55% of the 600,000 votes cast, which is what she should get.

As you can see not every candidate removed their name.

Hillary Rodham Clinton 328,151 /55.3%
Uncommitted 237,762/ 40.0 %
Dennis J. Kucinich 21,708 3.7 %
Christopher J. Dodd 3,853 0.6 %
Mike Gravel 2,363 0.4 %

With 100% reporting

Clinton should agree to give Obama his 40% because he told his supporters to write uncommitted.

I doubt very much that she would agree to split 50/50 and why should she? The votes for FL/MI should be split however the final result tallied.

Don't forget that 3 other states broke the same rules by setting their contests earlier, but they were not penalized; Iowa,New Hampshire and South Carolina. So, that's an entire other can of worms Clinton could open up. I'd say she's got the legal upper hand. You also don't hear the Obama camp or the DNC talk about this.

You know, it's not even slightly transparent, it's ridiculously blatant: the real old Washington politics PLAYER is Obama...

glosski,

MI revote proposals had many flaws. For instance, any vote funded by one of the candidates' surrogates is undemocratic and will bite that candidate hard in the end.

The Obama campaign is open to a revote IF it is truly democratic: squeaky-clean, not open to fraud, and not paid for by the taxpayers nor a campaign. The problem? Time and money. You find both and there's your re-vote. If not, divvy up the votes fairly. Or find some democratic, clean way to seat delegates and/or let the voters' voices be heard.

Don't blame Obama. Blame the state legislators who broke DNC rules at the expense of the voters. Remember, the Clinton campaign was well-behind the DNC's decision --- until they found themselves behind in the campaign.

You can't change rules mid-game w/out consequences. If you do, however, you'd better make sure you've covered all your bases or you (Democratic party) lose in the long run.

Why is anyone surprised? If Hillary had not started on her crusade about this because she was short delegates, none of us would be losing any sleep or hair over seating those who broke the rules. She needs it for her purposes and would likely be on the other side if it so suited her purposes. All this is one big manipulation

troubadour2, wrote; "FL & MI votes have been invalidated. Your candidate, HRC, agreed to that. She agreed to it and it's fully documented"

Nobody can deny any citizen in Florida to vote, neither DNC nor Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. By the way, Barack Obama followers acts like facists.

truth your immature comments are truly not worth responding to as there are some folks like mark who rationally argue their candidate's position something you are unable or unwilling to do without constantly posting vapid insults. Would you like to report that to your censorship crew?

And sorry to disppaint I read every word of Audacity of Hope and can probably site quotes from it if necessary. I was particularly disturbed by his failure to return from a vacation in Hawaii to vote for a critical Gun Bill and Juvenile Justice bill in the Illinois state legislature, that even he admitted was a political mitake that he underestimated(I will gladly site that chapter and page). I was truly impressed with his knowldge of constitutional law but left his UT Austin speech feeling empty and why I eventually decided to support John Edwards and the HC. You may not like Cramer but his knowledge of Wallstreet and economics is phenominal. The HR analysts I spoke with have healthcare certification and usually don't vote. Did you bother to read that Elizabeth Edwards also agrees that HC's healthcare plan is superior, or do you just dismiss her too as another HC partisan? Yea I am partisan but did my homework before I decided who to work for and have refused just to just be swept up by rhetoric. You seem to have a problem with that.Apparently HC supporters who have come to a different conclusion are somehow not entitled to do so, and perhaps why so many of them are fed up with your campaign.

leichtman,

It is the state leaders -- not the voters -- who should feel the consequences.

C'mon Hillary, even your own supporters are not this stupid. You cannot talk about remaining voters and superdelegates in the same breath. The more you talk about your path to the popular vote, the more you support the nomination of Barack Obama. Split the delegates from Michigan and Florida 50/50 (the only fair and democratic solution), run the remaining 10 contests and allow the superdelegates to use independent judgement to vote whenever for whomever. Good luck.

Anyone else enjoy the humor of this headline?

With respect to the Democratic campaign you should consider 1) that "facist" nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Have you ever heard about a female dictator? I guess that you have not and the reason probably depends on differences in male and female mentalities and 2) that elections in a "fascist" nation are sham democracy.

Obama has publicly several times opposed Democratic re-votes in Florida and Michigan. If he had a true believe that equal citizenship is important than he should agree to the fact that his personal interest matters less than the risk to lose in a re-vote.

It´s time for the United States of America for change.

It´s time for the United States of America to vote for a women as president.

Why in the world would Clinton agree to give up votes she got to Obama with a 50/50 split? Obama says to give him half of the people who didn't vote, all of the people who didn't vote for Clinton, and part of the people who did vote for her. None of her voters mistook her name for his - he isn't entitled to those votes or those delegates. You can blame the DNC for killing the Michegan revote, but, keep in mind that they would have approved it IF OBAMA HAD APPROVED IT. Obama killed the Michigan revote because the only option he will accept for either state is a 50/50 split of delegates so he doesn't have to risk losing.
Typical Obama strategy. STICK to the letter of the law and STICK it to the other candidates so that you can later STICK it to the suckers who support you.

svreader

I've read all the posts and yours stink the most. You are an arrogant, misinformed person hiding behind your computer. I was a Hillary supporter and voted for her, but if I could do it all over again, I would vote for Obama. Stop the hating !! It will continue to eat at your insides.

svreader, what about the VOTERS RIGHTS to know that the candidates they voted for will indeed receive the backing of the delegates awarded? Hillary says that shouldn't necessarily be the case. where is her regard for the VOTERS RIGHTS?

troubadour --

You miss the main point entirely.

The VOTERS RIGHTS should be our highest priority.

If you win this battle, you will lose the war.

This is yet another example of full of BS Obama really is.

People aren't stupid.

Obama's making a very big mistake in thinking that they are.

Jesus!! Today yet another story is breaking over another Hillary Clinton bold face lie.

Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&ex=1365134400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Hillary - when are the lies going to stop??

America demands an answer and a apology.

You are a sick woman Hillary. GET OUT!!

America an't stomach your ilk any longer, now SCRAM ya old lyin hag!!

The point is this. If by now you can't see that the media is fixing this election for Obama, you would need a seeing eye dog. Gee, lets see.... all of a sudden it is MLK year, come on; most of us are not that STUPID.

svreader, you don't get it, FL & MI votes have been invalidated. Your candidate, HRC, agreed to that. She agreed to it and it's fully documented.

If she were truly about counting every vote