For 4 lousy delegates? How small are you people? Could you not understand what was swirling enough to allow Clinton her due in Michigan? Four lousy delegates?
You have no idea what you've done. The fury you have unleashed. Your arrogance is topped only by your ignorance and the sheer stupidity of this "compromise," which sends a message that you just don't get it. Oh, and by the way, you've also likely just thrown the 2008 election.
Taking myself out of the equation, as well as my support for Clinton which is unending, and to encapsulte the carnage wrought by Saturday's idiocy, you have simply given Hillary's supporters the reason they were craving. Outraged already, many of Hillary's supporters were waiting for a reason to raise a ruckus, and you just gave them one. A righteous one. They were already screaming for Clinton to go to Denver. Now the decibel level is ear shattering.
Over 4 delegates? This is the best solution a group of supposedly astute political minds could come up with? No wonder we lose national elections... oh, except in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton won two terms, the first to do so since F.D.R. Hey, but who's keeping score?
This could not have been handled worse. It could not have made Senator Obama's job more difficult to "unify" the Hillary supporters behind him either, which wasn't going to be easy before, but is now even harder, maybe even impossible.
Over 4 delegates?
Let me enlighten you. Senator Obama is ahead in delegates. A gracious split of Michigan would not have jeopardized his lead. But instead, the RBC, in your infinite wisdom, decided to adjust the delegates just enough to infuriate the entire Clinton contingent that is now set on Defcon Activist Revenge.
The perception problem created is beyond comprehension. Honestly, you have no idea the fuse that's now been lit. But to give you an idea. I'm in the minority on my own blog when it comes to pushing back against a McCain presidency. This didn't happen because of anything Clinton did, my friends. You all cemented it all by yourselves. Oh, with the help of some eager, power hungry people thinking they can push the Clintons out of the Democratic Party and take over without half of the people who support the Clintons signing on. Good luck with that one. Trust me, everyone knows what's really going on.
8 comments :
It is rather hard to follow the DNC's thinking on Michigan and Florida. First the delegates of those states would not be seated. Now after meeting this weekend, they will seat the delegates but will not divide the delegates up the normal way. That is a contradiction in itself. It remains to be seen how the voters of those two states vote in the general election. I think it may very well create problems for the democratic party.
If you're thin skinned, you may want to stop reading right here...
GEEZ!!! There ain't no pleasin' you Hillbots, is there? If they had done the RIGHT thing, they would have not seated Florida and Michigan at all. After all, that's the punishment that they were told they would get if they broke party rules, which they did anyway.
BTW, it's "party rules", not general election rules. Each party can set their own rules as to how they run their own primaries and caucuses, including the dates of the primaries. Michigan and Florida had been warned that if they broke the rules, their delegates would not be seated. That was the right thing to do BUT in order to not disenfranchise the voters in these two states, the DNC reached a compromise, which is exactly the same thing that the Republicans did, give Florida and Michigan delegates 1/2 a vote.
Yes, the whiners in the Hillary camp are complaining about this but the results of the Saturday meeting actually gave CLINTON the unfair advantage. All of the candidates, including Hillary had agreed not to campaign in these two states and that their primaries would not count. Obama didn't campaign in these two states and he took his name off the Michigan ballot in support of party rules, amove done by all of the major candidates... except Hillary. The voters in neither state got to hear his message and were basically given two choices, Clinton (a familiar Democratic name) or someone they knew nothing about. How fair was that to a national political newcomer?
The "four votes" that you're crying about WON'T make a difference in the final results, as Obama thouroughly whipped Hillary's butt anyway and the "four votes" was not something that the DNC pulled out of thin air. It was the compromise offered by the Michigan Democratic part.. but Heaven forbid that Michigan should get to decide their own compromise when Hillary and her minions are so Hellbent on imposing their own compromise, which is to reward all of the votes in what was basically a communist election, where the voters only had one major candidate on the ballot.
However, fair elections don't matter to the Clintonistas, who have shown that they can cheat, lie and steal almost as well as the Busheviks.
As far as how you vote in November, I couldn't care less. We have a saying for people like you here in the deep south, though. You'd cut off your nose to spite your face. Search deep in your heart. Are you voting for McCain because you love your country and want what is best for it or because you love Hillary more than your own country and want to spite the voters who turned your candidate away in favor of another candidate? A candidate that promises change and does not have the ties to the corporate interests that would prevent any chance at real change.
Basically, what your post is saying is that "I love Hillary Clinton more than my own country and will use my love of Hillary to vote for four more years of George W Bush". Please correct me if I'm wrong!!
The author of my state's top political blog (leftinalabama.com) spoke it a lot better than I ever could.
Party Unity: We Don't Need No McCainocrats!
... This is about party unity. After this week, the superdelegates who have been mum so far will likely declare their support for either Obama or Clinton in sufficient numbers to put one of them over the 2118 delegate mark. Which means one will win and the other will lose. Sure, the final vote will be taken in Denver in August (and some LiA folks will be there blogging it for your enjoyment and enlightenment) but for practical purposes, we'll know the winner soon.
Will you be ticked that your candidate lost? Gracious because yours won? It's tough to lose. My preferred candidate has been out since January and I remember how much it hurt. My question tonight is "Will you be hurt enough to vote for John McCain in November?" Let me rephrase that. "Are you willing to cut off your nose to spite your face?" Will you become a McCainocrat?
I hope not. Here is the incomparable Meteor Blades on this subject:
If your shrieking can be believed, you McCainocrats are premeditating ballot support for an exclusive club of racist, union-busting, woman-suppressing, bedroom-peering, rights-scoffing, warmongering, torture-backing, buccaneering, global warming-denying, privatizing, public land-grabbing, Supreme Court stuffing, empire-building, Constitution-shredding raptors. All for self-indulgent revenge. You’re unhappy that your candidate has not won the nomination. I understand that. Mine didn’t win either. But you’re not just unhappy, you're also willing to contribute to the election of someone who stands against most of what your candidate has been promoted as standing for. That, I don’t comprehend at all. Emotionally, intellectually or morally. I get the feeling you would vote for George W. Bush in 2008 if the 22nd Amendment weren’t in the way.
You McCainocrats might recall that you have ancestors.
There were George Corley Wallace Democrats, for example. Whether Wallace was really a racist or merely used racism opportunistically is a semantics game I’ll leave for others to sort out. Having lost an election in which his foe was deeply racist, Wallace vowed never to be "out-ni**ered" again. Until he was reborn and publicly repented of his segregationist ways, nobody could doubt that his policies epitomized Jim Crow apartheid. Because of those policies and his ferocious rhetoric, millions of registered Democrats abandoned the party in 1968 to vote for Wallace, running as an independent against Humphrey and Nixon. Four years later, he attracted droves of Democratic voters, peppering his campaign with racist code phrases (while claiming he no longer supported segregation), and winning six primaries, including Michigan, where the open primary allowed massive crossover votes from independents and Republicans, just as it did this year. After that, he more or less faded away, and most of his supporters drifted permanently over to the Republicans.
Just so you know where McCain really stands on some important issues, we've added some links down at the bottom of our blogroll called McCain on Issues. Before you decide to vote for John McCain on November 4th, check out what you'd be voting for. Another 100 years in Iraq. Two more Supreme Court Justices who want to overturn Roe v. Wade, Grisold v. Connecticut (made birth control legal) worker protections and big chunks of the Constitution. Lobbyists writing policy -- even moreso than we have now, if you can wrap your head around that! Do you like NAFTA? McCain will give you even more "free trade" agreements.
See where I'm going with this? Take some time. Let the hurt subside a bit and think about what you really want for your country. Whichever Democrat you supported, I can guarantee that the other Democrat is miles closer to you, on any issue you can name, than is John McCain.
McCainocrats? We don't need 'em. Please, don't go there.
Anonymous reminds me more and more of Republicans, lots of talk and end up saying nothing. Most comments are not even related to what is said in the posts. Anonymous does not even seem to realize that Clinton did not campaign in Florida or Michigan either. But tries to cover Obama by saying he does not have the name recognition that Clinton does. A poor excuse. As far as democrats voting for McCain, we won't know if that happens untill after the general election when the votes of the swing states are counted that Clinton won in the democratic primary. As for my money I have not voted for a Republican Presidential candidate since Ike. But I would be willing to bet the ones who are doing all the talking in all probability voted republican in the last few years. Those who wished to have Clinton drop out the race months ago don't know the meaning of party unity.
Argo said...
Anonymous reminds me more and more of Republicans, lots of talk and end up saying nothing. Most comments are not even related to what is said in the posts. Anonymous does not even seem to realize that Clinton did not campaign in Florida or Michigan either. But tries to cover Obama by saying he does not have the name recognition that Clinton does. A poor excuse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No. It's a legitimate assessment. Hillary is big on name recognition. Up until this primary season, the Clintons were seen as the leaders of the Democratic party. (It sucks to have that yanked outta your grasp, don't it?) Most people will vote for someone they're familiar with over an unknown. By not being able to campaign in Florida, the person who is known by the voters has an automatic advantage.
A poor excuse would be something like... people vote against me because they hate women. People vote against me because the MSM has been giving my opponent a free ride. People vote for my opponent because he's a black man and that gives him an advantage. People vote against me because some people suggest that I bow out just because it's all but mathematically impossible for me to win the nomination.
Anonymous surely recognized Obama's name why not anyone else. The excuses pile up why Obama did not do well in Florida. A poor excuse is Blaming Clinton for Obama's problems. By the way the latest excuse by Obama himself after the indictment of Mr. Antoin Rezko on 16 counts of felony charges was, " This isin't the Tony Rezko I know. Obama made the same comments after the two preachers in his church made racial remarks. It is almost laughable when he tries to tell the people that after all the years he knew them. Mr. Antoin Rezko was a fund raiser for Obama when he was in the Illinois legislature.
Argo said...
Anonymous surely recognized Obama's name why not anyone else. The excuses pile up why Obama did not do well in Florida...
~~~~~~
Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z..... Hey Argo. It's over. You lost!! Or does Hillary and Bill have to use that LAST option, declaring that using the voting rules of the founding fathers, any votes for Obama only count 3/5.
Delegates needed to nominate: 2118
Obama: 2190
Clinton: 1920
zzzzzzzzzz Hey anonymous, I did not loose. I noticed you changed the subject and had no answer concerning name recognition. We were talking about Florida remember. You brought up the name recognition subject. Senator Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee but she gave the people an opportunity to vote and make a choice.
Post a Comment