Political Punch

Chris,

I know you're scared they are going to seat those states, however the Obama campaign pundits, and media should never have pissed off all the women voters who support Hillary. Probably that was a big mistake. Pissing off a large group of women is never a good thing. lol. As for Obama winning over voters....ummmm...probably he's not going to be winning anymore voters at this stage of the game. More like losing them at this point. Whereas Hillary has such a strong base all in the right places that it's going to be very difficult to beat her.

I thought Hillary's mantra is: "Count Every Vote." If that is the case, why doesn't she want to count the votes of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming? They all voted by caucus and, they voted for Obama. Could that be the reason she DOES NOT want every vote to count?

I thought Hillary's mantra is: "Count Every Vote." I that is the case, why doesn't she want to count the votes of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming? They all voted by caucus and, they voted for Obama. Could that be the reason she DOES NOT want every vote to count?

Who's good for the country
should be decided based
upon who the smart people
voted for. Smart people
did not vote for her.

YES, absolutely, and unfortunately.

The 2008 Presidential Election was being handed to the Democratic Party on a silver platter even as far back as 2007.

Typical of their inability to win the White House... the Democratic Party threw BOTH Clinton and Obama in the same ring to batlle it out! What they should have done is forge ahead with the Clinton candidacy to win versus McCain, and have Obama as VP, in the best position to take over... for a 16 year run.

Instead, they have a limping Obama, dragging himself to November, with a guaranteed LOSS to McCain.

She lost this nomination because
she is self-serving, doesn't
stand for anything good, has no
regard for rules, laws and legal
agreements - and she is
exceedingly incompetent.

Why superdelegates? Consult
astrologers or flip a coin
to decide who's more electable.

Maybe both the Hillary and the Obama supports have it wrong -- maybe the primary and caucus results are telling us that neither of the candidates is electable. All those rules experts -- is it possible to nominate a third person at the convention? Someone who didn't participate in the primaries at all?

jlynee writes: "If there were a 100% chance Hillary would win and a 100% chance Obama would lose, would you still put Obama on the ticket because the rules say to?"

Yes, I would. Absolutely. Because you're right, the superdelegates are in place to reduce the risk that a popular doomed candidate receives the nomination.

So I would follow the rules and let the superdelegates stop him.

What I would not do is steal the election from him and give it to Hillary by changing the agreed-upon rules in the middle of the game just because I don't like who's winning.

Don't like it? Fix it in 2012.

And, may I add, it is truly sad to see people who claim to be feminists invoking the civil right movement, the suffrage movement, and civil disobedience in the cause of a single hugely-powerful woman's right to arbitrarily change rules THAT SHE AGREED UPON once those rules were no longer to her advantage.

I do not believe a bra was ever burned for such a purpose.

jlynn 12:26:55pm...Amen.

Martin Luther King Jr didn't follow the rules or obey the laws -- and he was a great leader.

Susan B. Anthony didn't follow the rules or obey the laws -- and she was a great leader.

The rules are not the end all and the be all of this process. If you truly believe this country is in a crisis because of the Bush administration -- then surely the stakes are high enough to warrant a frank discussion about electability.

If there were a 100% chance Hillary would win and a 100% chance Obama would lose, would you still put Obama on the ticket because the rules say to? If not, then the party leaders have some discretion to act in accordance with both the party's and the nation's best interests. That is why the superdelegate system was put in place --to mitigate the damage done to the party by a caucus/primary process that led to an overwhelming and embarassing general election loss.

Many people refuse to take the threats of Hillary supporters seriously. They dismiss these women as being overly emotional -- or so terrified of losing their right to choose they will fall in line bcause they have to. They ignore the significant policy differences between Obama and Hillary -- and they ignore the fact that the blue dog or conservative wing of the democratic party can and does vote Republican in presidential elections. I think this is a huge mistake.

Hillary supporters are the women who fought for the right to vote. Hillary supporters are the women who burned their bras and fought for the right to work and to earn a living wage. Hillary supporters are the malcontents who brought about the social changes in the 60s and 70s that have so greatly benefited the young Obama supporters. Hillary supporters are the women who learned that the more someone tells you to sit down and shut up the more you have to fight for your rights. If there is any group of people out there who is likely to follow through on its threat, its this group of people.

I can't imagine why any candidate would allow this group of people to be labeled uneducated bigots or dismiss their importance to not only the democratic party but to American society but that is what has happened.

Clinton is electable only
in dumbed-down states
like Arkansas.

After BO get used to Washington, he would change himself so fast that you see him no more. He is the least qualified of the three. With his credential running for CEO, he would be the first one to show the exit.

Money can't buy election as the Pennsylvania primary told us. Votes could not be bought to win. He is going to loss most of his caucus states, MI, FL, OH, Texas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arizona and even New York and California are in danger.

And your point is? Same as usual, Clinto is more electable I assume. The Rev. Wright issue was blown WAY out of proportion, but I've long since given up on trying to debate that issue with people. Too many feet stuck in the mud.

New Politics:

The half seated delegates is clearly stated in the DNC rules, and was present at the time that Hillary signed the pledge with the rest of the candidates. It seems people are awfully confused about what is fair. Just because Hillary is moving the goal posts, doesn't make seating delegates a fair solution. That would be fair to Hillary and Hillary only.

Obama hasn't once raised the race card. I wish you people would stop and think for yourselves, or better yet, back up your arguments with examples and facts.

Polls, polls, polls. Maybe Clinton should try to get the DNC rules changed for 2012 so that polls determine the nominee. It would save us all a lot of time and money.

All this talk about Hillary being divisive, it's the Obamaites that are touting that line.
I can't imagine any candidate that the Blacks split 90:10 can be anybody but divisive for America as a whole.
Obama has done more than anyone else to make race an issue to help him win.
We will be fielding the weak-don't know his American history/foreign policy/economics-confabulator-candidate to run against McCain by sidelining the best Democratic candidate to come along in a decade.
Obama’s antics over the past months and his complete distortion of Hillary’s remarks re:RFK leave a very bitter taste in my mouth, that will not be washed away by November.

Hill the Bosnin General must understand that there was a competition and she has lost that competition through vote and caucus. Nowhere any official is elected or chosen because of poll numbers. She cannot take away Obama's clean and strategic victory. God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.

this is the kind of math that has always made Hillary supporters skeptical and uneasy about BO and the Dems club :
"In the Texas primary on March 4, Clinton won by a margin of 100,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. For that victory, Clinton was awarded 65 delegates while Obama got 61. Then , on election night, according to the Texas democratic Party, nearly 1 million Democrats - many of whom had already voted in that day's primary - gathered in party caucuses. We don't know how many came down on either side, but we know that more came out for Obama than for Clinton. For that, Obama was awarded 38 delegates to Clinton's 29.

Put them together, and Obama left Texas with 99 delegates to Clinton's 94 - even though Clinton handily won the contest in which votes were actually counted.

In Idaho, about 21 000 Democrats gathered for caucuses. Obama won in a blowout by a margin of 13,000 votes. for that, he won 15 delegates to 3 for Clinton - a net gain of 12 delegates .
In New Jersey, Clinton won by a margin of 110,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. For that, she won 59 delegates to Obama's 48 - a net gain of 11 delegates." (article by Byron York).

This kind of maths come from the rules of DNC.

Sure go by the rules and you just walk out the door, because that's the kind of rules that they want everyone to accept.
Why don't they say from the beginning : we have already figured out the whole thing. The voters just have to go out for a little tour to make sure the whole race looks democratic. Is this the kind of hope and change that awaits America?