What is Digg?Remove
Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.
Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- Lava20, on 05/22/2008, -15/+191Clinton is clearly trying to mak sure Obama does not win. If she can encourage FL and MI not to vote then McCain will win and she will run in 2012. Our troops will be stuck in Iraq forever with McCain! Please don't do this Hillary.
- guntario, on 05/22/2008, -16/+8Right... As if she's going to end the war. Empty rhetoric is all I hear coming from her, Obama, and McCain.
- growler1, on 05/22/2008, -0/+14There is no "war." It's an occupation with skirmishes against militias and insurgent forces, and it has to be scaled down, no matter what side you listen to. Unless a draft is reinstated, we cannot maintain our presence there. We have neither the troop levels or the money (in our current economy) to stay there. The only question is, who's going to take steps to bring our troops home sooner rather than later.
- guntario, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2So... I guess you're agreeing with me, while thinking you're not?
- growler1, on 05/22/2008, -0/+14There is no "war." It's an occupation with skirmishes against militias and insurgent forces, and it has to be scaled down, no matter what side you listen to. Unless a draft is reinstated, we cannot maintain our presence there. We have neither the troop levels or the money (in our current economy) to stay there. The only question is, who's going to take steps to bring our troops home sooner rather than later.
- foggycity, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9Its worse_Ickes acted to strip all delegates as part of a larger attempt to insure Obama's defeat. Remember Obama was the underdog, Hillary was expected to win this on Super Tuesday. This was an orchestrated attempt to help Hillary widen the distance between she and a lessor known candidate while most were sure she would win early on. A form of insurance
- ErikHarrison, on 05/22/2008, -7/+1this is from dailykos, take it with a grain of salt. They are super media hype.....
- DevilDriver, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8Not much to take with a grain here. Clinton agreed that Michigan and Florida should not count. Now she's going back on that because its more beneficial for her if they do count. Simple *****.
- Julik, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2It is garbage that the candidates EVER agreed to this in the first place. All of them should be ashamed that they took this away from the residents of those states.
- absentmindedjwc, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Julik, it really had nothing to do with the candidates at the time. The state broke the rules, and got punished by both the democratic and republican parties. Obama and Clinton only really agreed that the rules were broken.
Knowing this, Hillary went and campaigned in this state, and won by a landslide as there was no opposition.
The ones who should be ashamed are the people who ran the elections and decided that Florida does not need to follow the rules.
- DevilDriver, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8Not much to take with a grain here. Clinton agreed that Michigan and Florida should not count. Now she's going back on that because its more beneficial for her if they do count. Simple *****.
- CannedMango, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9I think you have the subject matter confused here. This story is from last August and is referring to the fact that Clinton's supporters in the DNC (12 out of the 30 voters) pushed very strongly to make sure that Florida and Michigan wouldn't have their votes counted towards the nomination. The reasoning for this is most likely that Clinton was (at the time) assured of the nomination and she didn't want any wild cards in play as she had only been focusing on the usual primary states.
It's only now that she is desperate to win that she's suddenly a "champion of democracy" and comparing her plight to freeing the slaves and giving women the right to vote. The problem? In her scneario, she's the plantation owner. - dmadip, on 05/22/2008, -4/+4Stuck in Iraq? Did anyone ever stop to ask the troops?
Maybe they like being there- roflbrothel, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8I asked.
They don't.
- roflbrothel, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8I asked.
- Brainclone, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Lava, you are incorrect.
The feeling here in Florida is that the Republicans in Tallahassee tweaked and moved the date for the vote knowing what the DNC would do... and when the democrats (DNC) kicked us from the other side by taking away the delegates... the people lost their vote.
When the democrats of Florida lose their vote because of republicans in Tallahassee, and the DNC doesn't come to understand this, the Florida dems simply believe that the DNC has completely failed the people.
This is not about Obama or Clinton, the democrats of Florida now feel that their party has abandoned them. The vote in the presidential race will be one of anger against the DNC, because they let the republicans take their votes away a second time.
And that in my book is the reason people here are upset. It is not because they love Clinton, it is because the DNC failed to understand that the republicans executed a plan to disenfranchise the Florida dems, and the DNC did nothing.- amirman, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2great point but it's still not enough to make any self respecting democrat vote for John McCain.
- guntario, on 05/22/2008, -16/+8Right... As if she's going to end the war. Empty rhetoric is all I hear coming from her, Obama, and McCain.
- Evergreen2U, on 05/22/2008, -10/+168Christ all mighty what is this woman trying to do to the Democratic Party??
- pinchduck, on 05/22/2008, -0/+17The Dems are a vehicle for her power grab. What do you do when a vehicle no longer meets your needs? You get rid of it. Sometimes you will make more money if you trash the vehicle and sell off the component parts. If Hillary can trash her party and sell each constituency their own brand of bile, poisoning them against Obama, she has a shot in 2012. She is a dishonorable person who should not lead our country.
- pidgas, on 05/22/2008, -6/+2We've made our decision Jerry - we're goin' with Jerk Store. Jerk store is the line!!!
For those of you not picking up on the 90's pop culture reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Comeback_(Seinfel ... - diggingaround, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5The same thing the neocons like Bush did to the Republican party.
- Super6, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Don't you mean (Charlie) Crist almighty?
- revgerry, on 05/22/2008, -6/+89Can you define what the meaning of IS is? She is a Clinton, and I do recall another Clinton parsing his lying words to save himself while bringing down the Party. Please, supers, make it stop!!
- moolaismyfriend, on 05/22/2008, -9/+139If Clinton reneges on a signed pledge what other things will she renege on when she is in office? She looks more and more like Bush with every passing hour.
- thal3s, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3Exactly! You took the words right out of my mouth.
We already have a President who thinks rules don't apply to him. We don't need another one...
- thal3s, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3Exactly! You took the words right out of my mouth.
- BabushkaBlue, on 05/22/2008, -5/+109She made a pledge and now she's breaking the promise she made to the Democratic party. I can't trust her if she can't keep her word.
- temptxan, on 05/22/2008, -5/+75Hillary, is your ego really this large? It is not all about YOU. For the benefit of the American public, Senator Clinton needs to face reality.
- preneel, on 05/22/2008, -6/+100She doesn't care about the party, only herself. As a woman and a Democrat I am disgusted!
- khail250, on 05/22/2008, -3/+3There's no woman on digg, although it is almost friday...
- thal3s, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Thank you for not being a blind follower of Hillary just because she's a woman. :)
These women who support her no matter what she does amaze the hell out of me.
- jilikins, on 05/22/2008, -7/+47Hillary, for the good of the country you must stop this now. If you think for one moment that you can make Obama lose and run against McCain in 2012, you are sadly mistaken. You will be despised by most thinking Democrats, the Clinton name will be mud. I almost despise you now, and last year, I liked you. Is this the legacy you want for the Clinton name? I am from MI and I cannot stand your lying and trying to steal the delegates from this state. Yours was the only name on the ballot, you can't seriously claim a "win" when the only other choice on the ballot was uncommitted.
- jkizzle, on 05/22/2008, -27/+4I am glad you addressed her directly. It is important that people make direct references on digg because we know that Hillary Clinton reads digg everyday.
Also, I am glad you know what is for the good of this country. You are an important citizen. - SuperVepr308, on 05/22/2008, -24/+5What "thinking" democrats? I didn't think there were any. (sorry, I couldn't resist).
- reuscel, on 05/22/2008, -0/+18Especially when "uncommitted" had such a good showing. When the choice is you or "no one" and "no one" has a good showing, that's not a good sign.
- papipablo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+12Uncommitted got 40% of the vote and didn't spend a dime on advertisements. Hillary faired worse in North Carolina.
- neognostic, on 05/22/2008, -0/+13I saw a news report somewhere, that Obama's staff was trying to negotiate with Clinton's staff for a way to seat your MI delegates. They offered a 60%/40% split, favoring Clinton, and her staff turned it down insisting on a higher percentage.
- GratefulGroover, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1well she's a dumb bitch. ahhh don't bury me *wince*
- jkizzle, on 05/22/2008, -27/+4I am glad you addressed her directly. It is important that people make direct references on digg because we know that Hillary Clinton reads digg everyday.
- MoZeu, on 05/22/2008, -7/+39It's the Clintons. This is just "what they do." Only now they don't get away with it so easily, because there are too many people exchanging information too rapidly and putting too much pressure on the media and decision-makers for them to get away with such blatant lies. I cannot WAIT for this primary to be officially over.
- BlackJackJester, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1I think its just Digg. It still seems to be fooling about 45% of democrats.
- BaudiIROCZ, on 05/22/2008, -6/+80What is so difficult to understand? Florida and michigan broke party rules.
- str0ngbad, on 05/22/2008, -28/+2
- antoniogaud, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3Why do you assume that because Florida delegates - people who 99.9% of the Florida population do not even know exist - don't get seated the electorate will not vote? That is asinine.
- BaudiIROCZ, on 05/22/2008, -0/+19I'm not even an obama supporter. I just don't understand what is so difficult about following the rules.
- kylere, on 05/22/2008, -1/+15You are clearly without a clue. This is about things being way X, until they were inconvenient and now they want them way Y. The Michigan Democratic Party caused this problem for Michigan, no one else. Implying that Michigan will vote Repulican PROVES that you have no idea WTF you are talking about.
- haxcorner, on 05/22/2008, -1/+15You're an idiot. I live in Michigan and knew full-well that my vote wouldn't count. How can any person with half a brain and the ability to think for themselves justify voting for McCain? Maybe you ought to do a little bit of research on what you're saying before you spew your ignorance here.
I don't know about Florida - but here in Michigan it's our leadership that disenfranchised us.- ccheath, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2I TOTALLY AGREE
it was the state level politicians that decided to screw their constituents out of (voting) delegates at the national convention by breaking the DNC party rules. The rules actually state that they would only lose half their delegates, but to discourage other states (which didn't work) they voted 29-1 to strip FL of all their delegates. The one decenter was from Tallahassee, go figure. Then Michigan figured they could pull the same stunt and get away with it.
BTW 12 of the 30 on the DNC committee were Hillary supporters.
EDIT: and Howard Dean said that the FL and MI delegates would get to attend and be seated at the convention. (They just won't vote.)
- ccheath, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2I TOTALLY AGREE
- HellDonut, on 05/22/2008, -0/+10"your retarded logic"
I wonder how non-retarded is the logic of Clinton supporters, who constantly try to bend reality to fit their inclinations. Like saying RULES and AN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY CLINTON don't matter anymore. - acroyear2, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Our Logic:
1. DNC threatens to remove delegates of states that move up their primary.
2. Hillary agrees.
3 Obama agrees.
4. MI and FL move up their primary
5. They lose their delegates.
6. Hillary changes her mind
7. Idiotic Clinton supporter blames Obama and simple logic.
8. Obama wins nomination.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -15/+3Read http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/15/17261/4418 and then get back to us...
- pablo0713, on 05/22/2008, -1/+7Your article wants to blame this all on Republicans...which I don't believe. What I do believe is that Florida and Michigan wanted their states to dictate the pacing and direction the primaries would take. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire get all the fun? There was this notion to seal the nomination for Hillary because it was assumed that she would easily win both of those states plus Iowa and New Hampshire and that would seal her win. But, things didn't turn out that way. She didn't win early and the move by Florida and Michigan back fired. No matter what happened in the Florida legislature, no one could have foreseen what would happen in Iowa and New Hampshire. If Hillary had won those states, this would be a non-issue right now because lots of early wins (including Florida/Michigan) would have most likely sealed the nomination for her.
- Haroshia, on 05/22/2008, -1/+14OK let me explain this...nobody in Michigan VOTED to change the rules. None of the people in Michigan thought "Hey you know what would be awesome...if we just didn't have to worry about having a say in the next election". What happened is Governor Granholm has publicly thrown her support behind Hillary, and Hillary is terrified of the "black vote". Michigan has a very prominent black population. Granholm wanted the primary moved up for this election because of her strong Hillary support, and to disenfranchise the black voters in Michigan. After all the other Democrat candidates pledged to not even put their names on the ballot, Hillary did it anyways. Even WITH her name on the ballot, she only had a 60% vote, with 40% showing up to basically vote "Not Hillary".
We're not happy about it here in Michigan, and I am sick of seeing the posts that we "broke the rules" and other dismissive *****. Granholm basically told her Democrat voters to ***** off, and she's going to feel the heat from it come next election.- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9The two prevailing camps seem to be the most idiotic. Either "We need to seat Michigan exactly as they voted, because you know nothing would change if you added Barack to the ballot, right?" Then there's "***** Michigan, they broke the rules, they deserve it."
The truth is what you said, it wasn't the voters in Michigan that ***** things up, it was the establishment. Don't blame Obama, don't blame the DNC, don't blame the voters, blame the Michigan leaders that decided to ***** everything up. - coldpockets, on 05/22/2008, -0/+7This is the kind of thing that makes me dislike politics. No logical person could take her stance, but no one really calls her out on it to her face. "The people need to have their voice heard!"...it's funny coming from a person who early on constantly criticized Obama for his "rhetoric." Someone just needs to straight up say to her "How do you reconcile the fact that you agreed with the party on this before you won? Do you honestly think it's fair that you broke the rules that you and Obama agreed to and basically ran uncontested? How would you feel about a 'redo'?"
- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9The two prevailing camps seem to be the most idiotic. Either "We need to seat Michigan exactly as they voted, because you know nothing would change if you added Barack to the ballot, right?" Then there's "***** Michigan, they broke the rules, they deserve it."
- bernandoo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1They broke the Republican rules too, but the GOP still counted their votes...
- str0ngbad, on 05/22/2008, -28/+2
- chanop, on 05/22/2008, -10/+41If this were the other way around where Clinton was ahead, and Obama was expected to win Florida all these Clinton supporters would not be crying about it. They're just soar losers
- dave122, on 05/22/2008, -4/+9All these politics make me feel like going for a sore in an airplane.
- bernandoo, on 05/22/2008, -2/+3Congratulations on pointing out the obvious!
- GratefulGroover, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Congratulations on pointing out the even more obvious.
- str0ngbad, on 05/22/2008, -22/+4
- B1663r, on 05/22/2008, -14/+3They are starting to get it, it was so close and it has slipped through their hands, and as it becomes apparent to them over this long summer that Obama can not, and will not win in the general election they will rectify it with what has to happen next.
- TheInfamousOne, on 05/22/2008, -2/+13did you even read anything? In 07 she agreed to disallow the votes, and now that she wants their votes, she's breaking a pledge she signed. Please respond to THIS, not the florida voters. The fact that she only cared about Florida and Michigan when it benefited her.
- tzarak, on 05/22/2008, -1/+12I think you don't understand. Please take a moment to reconsider the situation objectively.
Florida and Michigan broke the rules. The Clinton and Obama campaigns went along with the DNC's decision to strip the state delegates. At the time, there were no major speeches about the voters being "disenfranchised". Clinton could have urged her people (such as Ickes) on the DNC to not punish either state. She did not. She could have refused to agree to the DNC decision. She did not.
The votes that were tallied in Florida and Michigan do NOT reflect the "will of the people". In Michigan, they reflect only the will of the Clinton supporters. In Florida, they reflect the will of the people who decided to vote even though they were told it wouldn't count. These were not representative of the true will of the people.
The point at which this became an issue is when the Clinton campaign realized they were behind in the delegate count. This is not about the will of the people or voter disenfranchisement -- it's about the Clinton campaign trying to win and subvert the will of the people, who have given Obama the clear lead at this point.
One more thing -- how is it not "disenfranchising" Obama supporters in Michigan to seat the delegates as-is?- B1663r, on 05/22/2008, -10/+1Obama willfully took his name off the ballot because he was losing. Therefore he made an affirmative declaration that he was uninterested in ANY Michigan delegates. Therefore, ALL Michigan delegates should go to Hillary.
Also several other states broke the rules as well. If you want to be consistent you should refuse to seat those delegates as well, oh but you don't want to be consistent, your goal is nominating Obama.
Your logic makes perfect sense now.- MacEnvy, on 05/22/2008, -1/+9Almost all of them took their names off the ballot in MI because they had SIGNED A PLEDGE THAT THEY WOULDN'T PARTICIPATE. Hillary signed it too, but she didn't "think it would make a difference" if she didn't remove her name. Only her, Dodd, and like one other had their names on there. The rest all removed their names.
Furthermore, you aren't even a Democrat. I don't have any input into your nomination process, and you shouldn't have any input into mine. You're just anti-Obama as you've proven over and over again here on Digg, so stay the ***** out of our nominating process and concentrate on providing your own ***** candidate with a tactic that involves some sort of positive outcome for our country. - B1663r, on 05/22/2008, -7/+1Yeah, right there, that post right there one (of the many) reasons why Obama is unelectable this fall.
He lost dude, get over it. You are too young to know why a competent politician is important. Obama and his faithful followers are obviously already getting tired of the campaign process, and you get all disaffected when it isn't going your way.
Your post, is yet more proof that Obama cant win. - Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -0/+7@B1663r: Here's what everyone else heard from that post:
Blah blah blah, Obama sucks. Blah blah blah, I'm ignoring the actual issue and just saying that Obama sucks. Blah blah blah, Obama cant win for reasons I can't explain because I made them up blah blah blah.
Either address the arguments being made or gtfo. Just to let you know, it sounds pretty elitist when you're just sitting there telling everyone that you know better than well over half the democratic party, and your god Hillary says that being elitist is evil! - yeti22, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Oops, you made a mistake there: "Obama willfully took his name off the ballot because [snip] he signed the same pledge that Hillary and everyone else signed, which obligated him to remove his name." Ok, now you're on the right track.
Next, please identify the other states that broke the rules. Note that Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina were specifically named as exceptions to the "Feb 5" rule.
- MacEnvy, on 05/22/2008, -1/+9Almost all of them took their names off the ballot in MI because they had SIGNED A PLEDGE THAT THEY WOULDN'T PARTICIPATE. Hillary signed it too, but she didn't "think it would make a difference" if she didn't remove her name. Only her, Dodd, and like one other had their names on there. The rest all removed their names.
- B1663r, on 05/22/2008, -10/+1Obama willfully took his name off the ballot because he was losing. Therefore he made an affirmative declaration that he was uninterested in ANY Michigan delegates. Therefore, ALL Michigan delegates should go to Hillary.
- MikeFallopian, on 05/22/2008, -14/+8Clinton had no say in this decision - but if she had tried to leverage the rules committee into not punishing FL, you can bet that the daily kos would be crying foul over that as well. Also, the numbers don't add up - 30 people on the committee, 12 of whom support Clinton, with one dissenting vote... that's not exactly a Clinton-dominated committee.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -13/+4They might as well change the name of the site to thedailyobama...
- antoniogaud, on 05/22/2008, -1/+11She didn't personally have a say, but the highly placed people in her campaign did, which is essentially the same thing.
- MikeFallopian, on 05/22/2008, -2/+112 of 30 people on the committee were Clinton supporters. The committe had a near-unanimous vote. That implies that the reason for the vote was not "highly placed people in her campaign", whatever that even means.
- kreneskyp, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4and if hillary really did care then why didnt her 12 people vote against the measure? the other people went along with it too but they did not try and stop them. i'm willing to bet that if they had they could have at least convinced enough of the committee (they only needed 4 others on their side) to go with a lesser punishment.
- MikeFallopian, on 05/22/2008, -2/+112 of 30 people on the committee were Clinton supporters. The committe had a near-unanimous vote. That implies that the reason for the vote was not "highly placed people in her campaign", whatever that even means.
- kreneskyp, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6no but 12 is big portion of the committee, and they ALL voted to strip the delegates.
- queotic, on 05/22/2008, -1/+415 is half of 30. 12 is only 3 away from 15, so from the beginning, she had almost 50% in her corner. The only Obama supporter was the only one to vote against it.
- MikeFallopian, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2The article doesn't say that the dissenting vote was cast by the ONLY Obama supporter.
- tkstock, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1Stupid logic. So 4 out of 10 is almost a majority since 5 - 4 = 1.
The Republicans are closer to holding a majority in the House and Senate.- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -1/+14 out of 10 is a large chunk, just like 12 out of 30, and when you're the presumptive nominee (like Clinton was at that time) your 12 pull a lot of weight with any committee.
- tkstock, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1You're missing the point. 12 out of 30 is not a majority - it's 40%. And, the article didn't say how many Obama supporters were there.
- funkyloki, on 05/22/2008, -0/+11You're right, she wasn't at that meeting, but SHE SIGNED the pledge that was a result of that meeting, effectively having her say. If she, at that time, felt there was a problem, she should not have signed it. Period. End of story.
- plhearn, on 05/22/2008, -4/+2Hillary bad! Obama good! Me smash bury button!
- coldpockets, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2So funny you had to post it twice I guess?
- StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1You're aware of what a contract is, right? Involves a bunch of declarations and consequences that need your signature down at the bottom verifying that you personally read the contract and are able/willing to abide by what was in it? Know what happens when you breach a contract? A lot of things can happen, not excluding being dragged to court.
- plhearn, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Hillary Bad!! Smash!
- plhearn, on 05/22/2008, -4/+2Hillary bad! Obama good! Me smash bury button!
- plhearn, on 05/22/2008, -6/+1Hillary bad! Obama good! Me smash bury button!
- IAmTheGuy, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I too had a problem with the numbers. While 12 of 30 (40%) is by no means insignificant, it is still 4 people (13%) away from being a majority. I don't like the fact that they called it a "near majority." The fact that they were Clinton supporters is also irrelevant. It was a near unanimous vote which shows that the members, regardless of who they supported, were in favor of penalizing MI and FL. Stop all this negative spin on stories. Of course Hilary wants to include the two states after agreeing to strip them of their delegates in the past. She is desperate. Let us not, however, resort to crazy conspiracies about how she tried to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates when she thought they would help Obama.
- wvaughan, on 05/22/2008, -1/+34This provides additional evidence that Hillary will say or do anything to get elected.
- Shrooms27, on 05/22/2008, -2/+8Well... Guess Its time I hit the Dusty Trail...
To Canada!!!- CBass8282, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4I'm headed to Sweden.
- RAEP, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5I plan on visiting both and moving wherever the difficulty of immigration and my love for the place balances out the best.
- miket, on 05/22/2008, -4/+3Aww poor little diggies :( I doubt youre really moving
- BlacklabelSAR, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Shut Up Bitch.(and I don't think you are female)
- bneals, on 05/22/2008, -19/+5I find it interesting to watch Democrats fighting about disenfranchising voters. Just a few years ago, I heard many of my Democratic friends making passionate and poignant arguments about how rules shouldn't invalidate a person's vote. More specifically, we all heard arguments about which chads should be counted and which chads didn't clearly reflect a vote at all. The main point from many of my Democratic friends was that a rule shouldn't invalidate an individual's will to cast a vote. The argument went that the voter didn't do anything wrong - he or she went to the polls and did what he or she was asked to do. Now, when many gen x and gen y people want Obama to win, the rules are more important than an individual's will - rather right - to vote. The people in Florida did nothing wrong. They voted - something that is their civic duty to do. These people should not be punished because of a rule - regardless of who was for or against that rule.
If you don't agree with me, think of this scenario. What would have happened If it was Obama's votes that weren't being counted - if it was a State that he had won? I bet Jesse Jackson and or civic leaders would rightfully and justifiably, be calling for these votes to be counted. Where are those voices now? Why is everyone so silent that a few million votes are clearly recognizable, but are being rejected outright because of a rule. The hypocrisy is amazing.
Again, I am NOT a Hillary supporter. I don't know who I will vote for. I can't truly make up my mind until I know more about the issues and the candidate's positions on those issues. That said, the hypocrisy here isn't Hillary's flip flop on this issue, but rather the Democratic philosophy that every vote should count.
Apparently, the will of the people isn't that important anymore.- flamingduck, on 05/22/2008, -0/+10yeah but if she was the only one on the ballot - what is that a vote for, anyways? Pick a) or a). Enjoy. Thanks for your vote!
Not to say their vote is irrelevant, just that the whole thing has been irrelevant because of the lack of involvement by other candidates. - secrity, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5There are major differences between the rules and laws regarding primaries and elections. Even different states have totally different primary procedures. The strange procedures used for many caucuses crack me up.
- StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1"These people should not be punished because of a rule..."
You're right. The DNC should have smiled and happily accepted that MI and FL leaders decided to break the DNC Rules regarding Primaries and Caucuses. They should have looked forward to the time where every state, each Presidential election, would move their primaries or caucuses earlier and earlier and earlier with no set boundary. Each cycle, "just another week or two... just another... just another... Oh, hey! Look! We're in March the year before election year! Just another..." Extreme? Sure, but then what's to stop them? Obviously the national party would have been too weak to impose a limit if MI and FL just walked on by.
The constituents need to vote out their leaders responsible for initiating or being bullied into breaking the DNC rules. - gandhii, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2This is a primary. Not an election. A party is not a part of the government. Merely a group of people with specific political interests that they believe can be better supported by working together.
With that said... I tend to be Washingtonian in my belief that in execution, parties tend to be more vehicles of corruption than anything useful.
- flamingduck, on 05/22/2008, -0/+10yeah but if she was the only one on the ballot - what is that a vote for, anyways? Pick a) or a). Enjoy. Thanks for your vote!
- bubba9999, on 05/22/2008, -2/+36As a Floridian, I'd rather my vote not count at all, rather than to be co-opted into some sort of life preserver to save a drowning candidate who can't take no for an answer.
Our election was tainted from the get-go because of the craptacular in-fighting between the DNC and our state party. Since our votes were not to count, no candidates really campaigned here, and Hil's win was pretty meaningless. Not even symbolic of anything.
If the primary were held again, and all candidates were back on the playing field, only then would I be comfortable with the results that came out of it. But that jackass Howard Dean quashed that months ago. I'd punch him in the face if I could.- neognostic, on 05/22/2008, -3/+8Your Governor has the most dirt on his hands. His good friend (another Republican) pushed the bill through the Florida Legislature where the Republicans hold a majority and forced the primary up, knowing full well of the coming consequences. Of course Frisk is a good buddy of McCain, so this underhanded B.S. is no surprise. If you want to punch somebody, deck Frisk, especially when he is on CNN whining about how the Democrats disenfranchised his people.
- badqat, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8Oh...so the fact that EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT (yes, every single one of them, as it was UNANIMOUS) in the Florida Senate voted in favor of this horrible republican bill forced through the republican legislature by a republican governor means it's the fault of republicans?
Florida wanted to have an earlier say...not just republicans, but democrats too. - nicc, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8you do realize that if the State Dems had voted "NO" (even if the bill passed and the Primary was pushed forward) then the state would NOT have been punished with their Delegates not being seated, right?
of course, you overlook that fact and blame it on the Repubs only.
all they had to do was vote no and none of this would have happened, but they decided to get all high and mighty and push their Primary forward regardless of the consequences.
- badqat, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8Oh...so the fact that EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT (yes, every single one of them, as it was UNANIMOUS) in the Florida Senate voted in favor of this horrible republican bill forced through the republican legislature by a republican governor means it's the fault of republicans?
- aladrin, on 05/22/2008, -2/+7No, it's not YOUR vote you're worried about, it's Florida's vote. You're happy to have it go this way simply because you disagree with the general population.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with why FL and MI can't vote in the primaries. (I've lived in FL most of my life, and still do.) But the simple fact is they signed legislation that ***** them over because they thought they had to. It's just another sign of our broken system. Maybe this will lead to some good change.- MacEnvy, on 05/22/2008, -1/+10"But the simple fact is they signed legislation that ***** them over because they thought they had to."
Why would anyone think they "had to"? There was no reason for it aside from wanting to have more influence over the nominating process. It's not as though Florida deserved more influence, they were just upset that they didn't feel as important as NH and IA. Well, tough ***** Florida.
The really ironic thing is that if they'd just done what they were supposed to in the beginning, they would have had a lot of influence over the election. Now they're getting boned, and they deserve it for trying to jump the line. - modese7en, on 05/23/2008, -0/+0I wonder if you know why, exactly, it was a unanimous vote in FL.
If you don't know, allow me to answer your question. Here is the official statement from the FL Democratic leadership concerning voting to move the primaries ahead of Feb 5.
http://www.fladems.com/page/content/makeitcount-fa ...
"The Rules say you had to try to stop the primary move, but Democrats voted for the law. What gives?
Initially, before a specific date had been decided upon by the Republicans, some Democrats did actively support the idea of moving earlier in the calendar year. That changed when Speaker Rubio announced he wanted to break the Rules of the Democratic and Republican National Committees. Following this announcement, DNC and Florida Democratic Party staff talked about the possibility that our primary date would move up in violation of Rule 11.A.
Party leaders, Chairwoman Thurman and members of Congress then lobbied Democratic members of the Legislature through a variety of means to prevent the primary from moving earlier than February 5th. Party leadership and staff spent countless hours discussing our opposition to and the ramifications of a pre-February 5th primary with legislators, former and current Congressional members, DNC members, DNC staff, donors, activists, county leaders, media, legislative staff, Congressional staff, municipal elected officials, constituency leaders, labor leaders and counterparts in other state parties. In response to the Party’s efforts, Senate Democratic Leaders Geller and Wilson and House Democratic Leaders Gelber and Cusack introduced amendments to CS/HB 537 to hold the Presidential Preference Primary on the first Tuesday in February, instead of January 29th. These were both defeated by the overwhelming Republican majority in each house.
The primary bill, which at this point had been rolled into a larger legislation train, went to a vote in both houses. It passed almost unanimously. The final bill contained a whole host of elections legislation, much of which Democrats did not support. However, in legislative bodies, the majority party can shove bad omnibus legislation down the minority’s throats by attaching a couple of things that made the whole bill very difficult, if not impossible, to vote against. This is what the Republicans did in Florida, including a vital provision to require a paper trail for Florida elections. There was no way that any Florida Democratic Party official or Democratic legislative leader could ask our Democratic members, especially those in the Florida Legislative Black Caucus, to vote against a paper trail for our elections. It would have been embarrassing, futile, and, moreover, against Democratic principles."
- MacEnvy, on 05/22/2008, -1/+10"But the simple fact is they signed legislation that ***** them over because they thought they had to."
- jjcyber, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Lol, Florida has been the unruly child of elections for what? The last 10 years now? We should just give it to the cubans and save ourselves a massive headache.
- neognostic, on 05/22/2008, -3/+8Your Governor has the most dirt on his hands. His good friend (another Republican) pushed the bill through the Florida Legislature where the Republicans hold a majority and forced the primary up, knowing full well of the coming consequences. Of course Frisk is a good buddy of McCain, so this underhanded B.S. is no surprise. If you want to punch somebody, deck Frisk, especially when he is on CNN whining about how the Democrats disenfranchised his people.
- SuperVepr308, on 05/22/2008, -3/+21Whenever I see the word "disenfranchised" I either:
1. Bust out laughing
2. Shake my head in disbelief- bneals, on 05/22/2008, -10/+4Yeah, I see what you are saying. Because voter disenfranchisement is such a funny concept.
That is sarcasm by the way.- SuperVepr308, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5Man, good one. You used the word in a sentence and I went with option #1.
Thanks!
- SuperVepr308, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5Man, good one. You used the word in a sentence and I went with option #1.
- bneals, on 05/22/2008, -10/+4Yeah, I see what you are saying. Because voter disenfranchisement is such a funny concept.
- LuCiFer6, on 05/22/2008, -9/+7First let me say that I'm supporting Obama and I feel that she's destroying the Democratic Party and hurting Obama's chances by staying in this race.
But if I were in her shoes and spent all this money on a campaign that I was told that I going to win easily I think I would try just about everything in the book to win this election. - iamthearm, on 05/22/2008, -3/+0This is a good thing. I was worried they where going to enable Clinton's *itching.
- dinobot, on 05/22/2008, -1/+11Can we try to use the power of Digg and bomb Olbermman and Anderson Cooper or whoever else from the MSM that is willing to listen to this? Please, please, pretty please?
- thal3s, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Wut?
If you ever watched Keith at night (including the interview with her a few weeks ago), you'd know that he has ZERO love for her. In fact, he called her out to her face over similar BS.
He is the ONLY person in the MSM to do so.- dinobot, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2That's my point, we need someone who is willing to say something about this, but we need to drive the point across~
- yeahgoggletan, on 05/22/2008, -3/+0***** Kieth Olbermann
- thal3s, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Wut?
- dimreapa, on 05/22/2008, -9/+2
- queotic, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Read the article please.
- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4btw, nothing's cooler than signing your digg posts and whoring out your blog. Just letting you know.
Thanks,
-Mejari
http://www.*****.com
- jimmyjohnston, on 05/22/2008, -1/+29I'd tell Clinton to foot the bill for another vote in Florida and Michigan but her credit is no longer good with me. Oh well we live in a day and age now where everyone can do what they want even if they are told specifically beforehand that they are not allowed too and they are told clearly what the consequences are.
I'm a republican considering voting for Obama because of what the republicans have turned into. No offense but if the democrats don't win this election that is basically being given to them in a hand bag you have no one to blame but yourself and Hillary.- vexingmodstwo, on 05/22/2008, -10/+4I'm a Republican considering WRITING MY OWN NAME IN come November because of what the Republican Party has become.
But you wouldn't catch me dead voting for Obama because of it.
- vexingmodstwo, on 05/22/2008, -10/+4I'm a Republican considering WRITING MY OWN NAME IN come November because of what the Republican Party has become.
- Deoliver47, on 05/22/2008, -0/+20Oh the hypocrisy of it all. And people are falling for it. It is really frightening that the media are letting Senator Clinton get away with tons of free airtime to push a series of lies.
- username484767, on 05/22/2008, -23/+26She is a *****.
- tkstock, on 05/22/2008, -7/+5It's a sad state where a comment like that gets dugg up. If that's all it takes to get dugg up, then I don't want to be.
- 11b1p, on 05/22/2008, -8/+2I believe Obama is a *****...
Now watch me get dugg down by the bots- invisiblehat, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I Dugg you down and I am not bot.
Clearly Hillary has displayed way more '*****-like' behaviour than Obama. Even people who initially supported Hillary would have to agree with this.
- invisiblehat, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I Dugg you down and I am not bot.
- acroyear2, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Tsk. The only ***** is my ex-girlfriend. Hillary is... well. It doesn't matter. We need stop some of the sexist slander.
- papipablo, on 05/22/2008, -10/+4Note to Hillary: these shirts won't iron themselves.
- nightwing2000, on 05/22/2008, -9/+4Well, let's see. 12 out of 30 were Clinton friends. That doesn't mean they do exactly what Clinton wants, or that the rest hate Clinton's guts. They are all adults (I hope...)
Secondly, yes, everyone was pretty much in agreement that the primary process should not degenerate into a "Who can go earliest?" campaign. So, the DNC said - "Too early doesn't count." Fair enough. Who wants a system where you have to campaign all over the map before Christmas? Who wants a system where momentum counts for nothing because all the big states have already voted? How long will Kentucky or Oregon put up with a primary usually being over before they get a chance? Maybe it's time to completely re-write the election rules - buit until then, this is what you get.
This is the flip side - if you say "don't do it or else!" you have to be prepared for following through on the "or else". If those disenfranchised ("Huh? No McDonalds for you!?") people suddenly find their votes are very important, what did you expect to happen?
OTOH, why put down Clinton? This is how the system works. Who knows, maybe by the convention someone will have aheart attack, or accidentally say "God Damn America!" or put on the wrong lapel pin. Nobody told McGovern or Dukakis or Nader (? they should have?) to pack it in because the polls said they'd already lost. It's her perogative to go until the convention. It's time to have a real convention for once.- yeti22, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I mostly agree with you. It's not at all surprising* that there would be some negotiation over whether and how to include FL and MI in the convention, but the thing that drives me nuts is when I see Clinton pointing her finger at Obama saying, "He took his name off the MI ballot by his own choice." That is clearly deceitful, and that is what I hold against Clinton.
*The only surprise is that Dean and the DNC didn't foresee this happening. The Republicans had the same problem with states moving their primaries up, and they solved it by slashing those states' delegate counts *in half*. The states were punished but still got to vote, and it wasn't viewed as extraordinary because the parties are constantly tweaking the states' representation at the convention. The Democrats stupid plan to basically cancel the FL and MI primaries blew up in their faces because they were bending over backwards to preserve IA, NH, NV, and SC's "special" role in the process. The Republicans punished every state, including these, that held a primary before Feb 5th, and in doing so came up with a better solution in every way than what the Dems are stuck with.
- yeti22, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I mostly agree with you. It's not at all surprising* that there would be some negotiation over whether and how to include FL and MI in the convention, but the thing that drives me nuts is when I see Clinton pointing her finger at Obama saying, "He took his name off the MI ballot by his own choice." That is clearly deceitful, and that is what I hold against Clinton.
- sonaboy, on 05/22/2008, -4/+5I'm not a fan of Hillary, but she's not the one doing this - the DNC made this decision long ago, and even warned the state party heads about moving up the dates of their caucuses. They ignored the direction by their elected national party leaders, so the DNC said, "Too bad. You blew it." If you want to blame anyone for getting the delegate votes scrubbed, blame the Dem party heads in FL and MI. They just thought they didn't have to play along with the rules, but have found otherwise.
Obama 08!- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3She is the one behind this push to inappropriately seat these delegates "as is", i.e. w/out any campaigning (btw, every state Obama campaigns in and actually informs people of his ideas he gets a huge boost, how do you think he cut down Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania by around half?) and without one of the two main candidates' names on the ballot in one state. The people in those states were told their votes wouldn't count, so there's no way in hell that those votes reflect the true 'will of the people', as Hillary is so fond of saying. Don't get the wrong idea, I still think that the 2 state's democratic parties have ***** up royally, but the ensuing brouhaha is entirely of Clinton's design.
- yeti22, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1I blame the DNC for coming up with such stupid rules. Why do IA and NH keep getting the first say in presidential elections? The DNC settled on stupid rules to try to preserve a broken system, and they got called on it by the FL and MI state party leaders.
For the primary process to be fair to every state, either (1) all states must vote on the same day, or (2) the order of the primaries must change each time, so that no one state is treated as special. Anything short of this is inherently unfair. The Republicans were willing to treat all the states the same (they punished IA and NH for having early primaries), and in doing so showed a lot more political spine than Dean and the DNC did. Treating the states equally is the first step toward making the process more fair.- sonaboy, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1one reason is, that NH has consistently been able to get the feel for the whole nation on issues - they're a state that's almost directly down the middle in opinions - it's been tracked for years with little margin for error - candidates who do well in NH usually end up running in the final election.
FLORIDA on the other hand, is a goddamn mess, half the state population is transient or unregistered, the campaign managers CONSISTENTLY try and ***** with the registrations, it's DUMB to ask the DNC to push back NH and put some wacked state like FL as the lead defining caucus.
the end.- yeti22, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Here's an idea, poll the states at the *same time*, so no one state has disproportionate influence.
You say that "candidates who do well in NH usually end up running in the final election". Could that be because they get lots of free media attention, as a result of doing well in NH? I think we need some better controls for this experiment...
- yeti22, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Here's an idea, poll the states at the *same time*, so no one state has disproportionate influence.
- sonaboy, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1one reason is, that NH has consistently been able to get the feel for the whole nation on issues - they're a state that's almost directly down the middle in opinions - it's been tracked for years with little margin for error - candidates who do well in NH usually end up running in the final election.
- skoles, on 05/22/2008, -7/+14She must have family at Buckinham because she's acting like a Royal *****.
- jbenson2, on 05/22/2008, -11/+1Go girl... keep softening him up for the general election.
- JackWOrf, on 05/22/2008, -22/+1
- LeggoMyEgo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6But how do you really feel?
- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3I normally don't respond to racist, sexist dumbass ***** such as yourself but here I will attempt to respond rationally and laugh at your inebitable response consisting of all caps, foul language and zero sense.
a) How is this accusing Hillary of something Obama is doing? Hillary is on record (video, audio and written) as saying that these two states shouldn't and wont count. Obama also agreed to this, but he's not the one trying to renege on his word, she is.
b) Donna Brazile has not endorsed any candidate and will not do so until after all the voting has been completed. She has been working as hard as anyone to find a solution to this problem that Hillary is dredging up, so it's hard to paint her as Obama's minion (unless of course, we act like you and simply assume all black people are in cahoots with each other).
c) a 50-37 point spread is actually not that much, and would not affect the race in any meaningful way. Imagine what the %'s would have been if Obama had been allowed to campaign (anywhere Obama campaigns and gets his actual message out there to counteract the racist and ignorant statements about his church, his religion (he's not muslim) and his supposed lack of experience (he has served in elected positions longer than Hillary) his numbers go through the roof).
d) So Hillary offers $15 million that she doesn't have for a revote and Obama's the pimp? 'Chickens**t Obama' (btw, I like how you have no problem calling him a *****, pimp, black dung, etc.. but can't bring yourself to type *****. Are you by any chance one of those 'christians' who finds it un-christian to swear but very christian to insult, revile, and hate people and spread racism?) had no authority to refuse a revote, nor did he do so. Regardless of what you think, Obama does not have full power in the democratic party. And here your argument that people are blaming Hillary for Obama's shortcomings is tossed on it's head, because it is Obama's camp that has been offering solutions to this problem that are favorable to Hillary but she has refused because she didn't get everything she sees as her 'right'.
e) I find it funny that you call Obama a 'pimp', when he has done so much to help inner-city Chicago. It appears here that your only motivation/evidence for this claim is that he is black, which simply proves your ignorance and racism yet again.
f) '***** Obama'? Well, at least you show enough respect by capitalizing his name while you call him a '*****'. Why would you even bother with this 'insult'? Oh, right, but it's Obama supporters that are full of ***** and spreading unfounded lies.
g) "Unelectable black dung" eh? Again, the only reason for the word 'black' there would be to underscore your own racism, so lets move on to the unelectable part. Why is it, if he is so unelectable, that he is leading in nation-wide polls against John McCain? It may have something to do with his ability to draw in Republicans and Independents, whereas Hillary causes so much bile to rise in Republican's throats (as well as an increasing number of Democrats) that people who wouldn't even vote are saying that they would go vote simply to vote against her.
Well, I've spent too long on this, but it will be entertaining to see your response.- LeggoMyEgo, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2If you expect a response, you haven't been trolled nearly enough.
- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Like I said, if I get one, it'll be just as trollish as the first post, but I was bored so I thought I'd have some fun. :)
- LeggoMyEgo, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2If you expect a response, you haven't been trolled nearly enough.
- yeti22, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Wow... just... wow. And reported, you disgusting racist scum.
- AsylumAleikum, on 05/22/2008, -9/+1Screw moonbats and gangstas. Hillary 2012!
- ADVIZR, on 05/22/2008, -0/+14The Clintons wanting to count the votes in a state Obama wasn't even on the ballot and a state he, being newer to people, couldn't campaign in!? And breaking the rules and their agreement in doing so? The more I hear the Clintons (or a pro-Clinton pundit) try to make a case for that type of traitorous behavior, the more I am insulted and appalled.
The nerve of the Clintons disgusts me. If they really push this, they will flush what's left of their "brand" and "legacy" down the toilet. - pidgas, on 05/22/2008, -1/+7FL and MI Democratic voters disenfranchised themselves. Ironically, they did so by deliberately breaking the party rules so as to have MORE influence on the nomination process. Alanis take note, this is real irony.
Now FL and MI are going around declaring that they're "too important" to leave out of the Democratic Convention. It's the same lame logic they used to explain why they needed to hold their primaries early, and the logic should fail again. Not least because they don't actually matter for the nomination process. They need to get that through their swelled heads. Indeed, even if their stilted invalid primaries are included, the results don't change! The nomination process should go on without seating FL or MI delegates. Then, the Democratic party leaders of FL and MI should eat some humble pie and feel the full wrath of their constituents.
All this BS about Clinton disenfranchising FL and MI is typical Democratic party cannibalism...it's like saying the twin towers were brought down by a fire instead of by terrorists in planes. Yeah, both contributed, but the most proximate cause was the planes - and the massive "disenfranchisement" of Democrats in FL and MI was caused by their self-important insistence on holding an early primary despite clear party rules and clear warnings about the consequences.- queotic, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3"FL and MI Democratic voters disenfranchised themselves."
Not the voters, the party leaders.- nicc, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2the State Democratic leaders and local Congressman did this, not the National Democrats.
all they had to do was vote no, even if the bill passed and the primary was pushed forward, but they voted to push the primary forward KNOWING IN ADVANCE that their YES vote would cause their delegates to not be seated.- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, and queotic's point was that it was the state's democratic leaders, not the state's democratic voters.
- nicc, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Mejari, the post was ambiguous at best.
when one says "party leaders" it is generally assumed (yes, I know...) that the National party leaders are being referenced.
- nicc, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2the State Democratic leaders and local Congressman did this, not the National Democrats.
- sunruh, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1didn't you leave the part out about the republican dominated state something or other refusing to let Florida go back to the original primary date when they discovered how angry the DNC was?
- vexingmodstwo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1You guys just LOVE to play victim.
- sunruh, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1actually, support Obama
- vexingmodstwo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1@sunruh
Yeah? You guys are even worse!
- vexingmodstwo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1You guys just LOVE to play victim.
- queotic, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3"FL and MI Democratic voters disenfranchised themselves."
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/22/2008, -1/+8Using the Florida and Michigan votes is impossible. The original decision basically disenfranchised voters -- the damage is already done. And throwing these votes to Hillary, doesn't change that. Hillary cannot pretend that you can say; "Don't campaign" and then campaign and suddenly appear on the ballot. They would either have to re-hold the elections to give voters NOW, an opportunity to choose between her and Obama, or ignore the original votes -- because at that time, the voters had no choice but Hillary (in practical terms). Hillary is about $31 Million in debt, and it would not be possible for her to launch a media campaign in those states. So, in a fair fight -- who are we kidding? And in the final fight against McCain, she won't have any money because her donors are tapped out for the most part. It really sucks that money decides who wins -- but it is a measure of who CARES enough, to not just vote, but support a candidate.
Including the current standing of MI and FL is a cynical ploy. It isn't a fair determination of the voters will.
I would also note, that, I wouldn't trust a Florida recount. With all the resources of the Republican operatives focused on Florida -- rather than all the other states, they can gerrymander, throw out, and have McCain supporters vote for one or the other (guess which one they want?). Obama has still been winning, even with Hillary getting help from the dark side. Because this isn't a battle of ideas for the Republicans, so much as it is an attempt to keep themselves out of prison if the people EVER get the Justice system working again.
This notion that ANY votes can be thrown out is bogus. If a former felon wants to vote, they have served their time in prison and they should vote. But the assumption allows the RNC operatives to throw out, I'm sure, many times more than the number of actual former felons voting. There is no penalty for disenfranchising a voter and getting it wrong.
Even with out this "conspiracy theory" (I know I'm right on this), you have no way of knowing with a run-off in Florida and Michigan that you were JUST getting the original voters. Because, this would allow some people to vote twice -- namely McCain supporters, getting in and voting for the Democrat with the least chance against McCain.
However, Hillary does seem to have a good chance against McCain -- because apparently, Republicans are not bothered by corruption at all -- they merely say they are to have a talking point. They just like their team winning. McCain is getting a free pass while he is amazingly, even more a puppet of lobbyists than Bush was before he took office. How is it possible? The mind boggles. - rthakidn, on 05/22/2008, -7/+2I'm prepared to be buried, but I love to see these guys eat their own. LOL
- queotic, on 05/22/2008, -3/+3If you're a neocon, then I have news for you sir - Dems are fighting hard to get the honor of throwing neocons out of Washington.
- rthakidn, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1And frankly, I wish them luck. The conservative (BTW the use of the term neocon is getting so stale, the left should come up with a better attempt at an insult) have pissed away their opportunity and deserve to lose there claim to power. You see, being a "neocon" (which translated correctly means new conservative???), I understand this left vs. right is all politics and that any one movement will not destroy this country or render the constitution obsolete. So I'm not too concerned that the NEOPHYTE Obama will be the next President of the U.S. Believe it or not, as wacky as I think you guys on the left are, I don't wish to see you brought up on charges or hanged. Your opinion is what keeps a balance in this country.
- queotic, on 05/22/2008, -3/+3If you're a neocon, then I have news for you sir - Dems are fighting hard to get the honor of throwing neocons out of Washington.
- DestroyFascism, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Florida should move to Washington and start makin a fire.....
- timothydonohue, on 05/22/2008, -5/+3uh, 12/30 = near majority? last i heard that is called a minority. 40% is definitely a minority. yep. oh wait, hold on...yes, definitely a minority. so...what were the other 18? btw, nice wording there, spin doctor
- queotic, on 05/22/2008, -2/+5Half of 30 is 15, so YES, 12 out of 30 is a near majority. And the other 18 weren't Obama supporters (one was), so what exactly is your point?
- timothydonohue, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1near majority is a slant, designed here to rouse anti-clinton sympathies. it would appear that it is working. 12/30 is still a minority, not half, definitely not greater than half. i'm a supporter of obama, fully, and can't wait for hillary to drop out, but seriously...why would she, if she had such a strong interest group within the 'deciders' and a strong case in that state, pull for their disenfranchisement? don't get so caught up in the hate
- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Yes, because 12/30 on a committee when Hillary was all the presumptive nominee carries no weight. Besides, even if you claim that, why did none of Hillary's supporters vote no if she really didn't want to 'disenfranchise' their voters? Oh right, because Hillary was scared of Michigan's large Pro-Obama contingent and by getting Florida's votes thrown out she ensured that Michigan's would be as well. Remember, this decision was made when it was Hillary's race to lose, so she was simply trying to stack the odds in her favor. Fortunately, it backfired and now she's trying to go back on her word and the ruling of the committee she held a, if not majority, than more weight than any other single person.
- timothydonohue, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1near majority is a slant, designed here to rouse anti-clinton sympathies. it would appear that it is working. 12/30 is still a minority, not half, definitely not greater than half. i'm a supporter of obama, fully, and can't wait for hillary to drop out, but seriously...why would she, if she had such a strong interest group within the 'deciders' and a strong case in that state, pull for their disenfranchisement? don't get so caught up in the hate
- queotic, on 05/22/2008, -2/+5Half of 30 is 15, so YES, 12 out of 30 is a near majority. And the other 18 weren't Obama supporters (one was), so what exactly is your point?
- groverblue, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2D/K used to be such a good source for news, but this election cycle has turned them in the same type of evil we've come to expect from Fox News. It's funny that they talk about fair elections, etc, but they had no problem with pulling their own "operation chaos" in Michigan. Anything I read from D/K now is taken with a grain of salt. That's sad, cause they had some real potential.
- thund3rstruck, on 05/22/2008, -3/+18Does anyone realize that if Clinton earned the nomination and defeated John McCain that the country will have been ruled by the same 2 families for 24 years, and that's not even counting the additional 8 years George H.W. Bush was vice president under Reagan.
George H.W. Bush came to the presidency in 1988 and he cleaned up savings and loans, won the Gulf War (correctly) and contrary to his political future he raised taxes which lead to his 1992 defeat, which in turn led to the great economic successes of William J. Clinton.
1988 - 1992 : George H.W. Bush
1992 - 2000 : William J. Clinton
2000 - 2008 : George W. Bush
2008 - ?
If any of us actually want a change then we better not choose Clinton- vexingmodstwo, on 05/22/2008, -7/+3Does anyone realize that this country isn't "RULED" by the President?
Take a ***** civics lesson.- wtfpwned98, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5Right, in civics you learn that the president is entirely inconsequential. Sure.
He was making a point, and used the word "ruled," and the semantic difference between "govern" and "rule" is totally beside the point. "Rule of law"; "Republican-ruled"; we use the word, so who cares...?
You basically heard a word that you didn't like and proceeded to freak out. Take a civility lesson.
- wtfpwned98, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5Right, in civics you learn that the president is entirely inconsequential. Sure.
- KLBP, on 05/22/2008, -2/+4This is the number one reason I decided from the get go I would not vote for Clinton. We are not a monarchy and should not have dynasties let alone swap back and forth between two dynasties. After Hillary had her eight years who would we elect next? Jeb Bush, followed by Chelsea?
- 11b1p, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2Well that is a ***** reason. So by that rationale it's OK to choose not to vote for someone based on their name.
- KLBP, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2I said it was the number one reason, it by no means the only reason I would not vote for her. Other reasons includes she has unapologetically supported the war in Iraq and tries to pander for votes with false solutions like her gas tax holiday. There are countless other reasons I won't vote for her.
- 11b1p, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2Well that is a ***** reason. So by that rationale it's OK to choose not to vote for someone based on their name.
- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2There are dozens upon dozens of reasons not to vote for Clinton, I don't need "She married a guy who was also president and some other family was also president for a while". I'll stick to my reasons that involve dishonesty, inability to lead, her general disdain for the common American, her Rovian tactics, her economic stupidity, and much more.
- Super6, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1No, I did not know the names of the only 3 presidents whose "leadership" I have ever lived through.
- vexingmodstwo, on 05/22/2008, -7/+3Does anyone realize that this country isn't "RULED" by the President?
- arkan, on 05/22/2008, -2/+4To say that Floridians did this to themselves is foolish - the average Floridian had absolutely no say in this matter. In fact, I fully believe that this sort of discord is exactly what the republican lead legislature was hoping for when it moved the primary. Sure, we were sanctioned by the RNC, but they only removed 50% of our delegates and there hasn't been any controversy there. Overall, I think it was a calculated move by the republicans and its seems to be working just as they hoped.
- nicc, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4it doesnt matter that the Bill to move the primary forward was from the Republicans.
the state Dems still voted yes knowing that if they had voted no, and the bill still passed, then the delegates would have been seated afterall.- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1state democratic leaders != state democratic voters.
- Super6, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1I'm a Floridian, I liked the move forward. The way I understand it we only get penalized once and it means that from now on our state actually matters because the race is still up for grabs when it gets here.
- nicc, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4it doesnt matter that the Bill to move the primary forward was from the Republicans.
- HagiaSophia, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4I'd like to see more coverage of the people of Florida and Michigan and the backlash that should be occurring against their party leaders who are the ones who caused this mess to begin with. Hillary did not strip their delegates and Obama is not fighting against having them seated...the party leaders are just letting this slide by without taking any action and allowing this to play itself out in the Presidential nominating process.
More attention should also be paid to the amount of times Hillary has redefined her "platform." She was against Michigan voting before the big 4, but now she's against it....Doesn't anybody see how she plays the game??- Mejari, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Any way she wants? It's despicable, but it's what she thinks will win her the race, so that's what she'll do.
- elcob32, on 05/22/2008, -0/+23I'm sick of all of this talk about Florida and Michigan. I live in Florida, and here is my take. I was told my vote would not count, but there were other items on the Ballot, so I voted anyway (many people didn't). I choose Mike Gravel, an obvious throw away. Now if they tell me that my vote does count, that will make me feel more disenfranchised, as I could have voted for Obama, but decided to throw it away intentionally, as it was already said to be worthless.
Bottom line you can't tell the electorate that their votes don't count, wait for them to vote, and then say, remember your worthless votes, they count now.- thal3s, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Good point!
- tkstock, on 05/22/2008, -6/+1Did I read the article quote incorrectly or is everyone else just not getting it?
"Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)"
The only way we could understand this fully is to know how many Obama supporters were there, but of course that was left out. And, 29 of 30 people voted to disenfranchise FL, only 12 of these were Clinton supporters, so how is this her fault?
Sounds like another hack job by the Daily KOS.- dinot, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/meet-the- ...
Clinton supporters = 12
Obama supporters = 8
Undeclared = 7
... You were saying?- tkstock, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Did you not actually read the article? It shows Clinton having 13 supporters. You think you'd catch something that would bolster your argument. An there were 9 undeclared if you include the co-chairs. I was wondering when the 30 person panel was suddenly missing 3 by your numbers.
So, the premise is that the 13 Clinton supporters somehow strong-armed 16 of the other 17 people, including the co-chairs, What did they use, guns? Tasers? Bad breath? If democrats are so easily cajoled, do you really want them running our country?
The fact is, Clinton was the clear leader in Florida at that time - her supporters had no reason to want to strip the delegates. This is just an extremely poor attempt by the DailyKOS to discredit the nemesis of their poster boy.
- tkstock, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Did you not actually read the article? It shows Clinton having 13 supporters. You think you'd catch something that would bolster your argument. An there were 9 undeclared if you include the co-chairs. I was wondering when the 30 person panel was suddenly missing 3 by your numbers.
- dinot, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/meet-the- ...
- danrobitaille, on 05/22/2008, -11/+4Dailykos, an independent BLOG, misquoted and misrepresented a number of "facts" in their article. They might as well be another huffingtonpost... another bias propaganda tool of the potential police state organized by the left-wing.
- moolaismyfriend, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1Scum bags like you poison our society and limit the potential of mankind.
- DreadPirate, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1And so do you, you logic-impaired buffoon.
- thal3s, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Ok, i'll bite troll.
Please reply to your post and list for us exactly what these inaccuracies were (with references). Otherwise, go become an hero.
Protip: Stating someone/something is "wrong"/"misquoted"/etc without any supporting evidence is meaningless.
- tkstock, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3It would be great to have Clinton as president. There would never be any wars, only every 28 days there would be "intense negotiations". And she wouldn't make bombs that kill people. She would make bombs that make you feel really bad!
Anyone get the vague reference? - jholden42, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3God. Damnit. If I could digg this ***** twice, I would.
- junkwheel, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2This is now the supers problem.
It is their job to stop the madness and end this outright. Hillary has clearly lost of her ***** mind and doesn't CARE. It's all about HER. And the democrats NOT GETTING IN this time. - vacantnight, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3I hate people bashing other candidates outright, but Hilary has officially lost it. She is obviously only in it for herself and some weird point of pride/control issue. If nothing else, the tactics she is using show that she would not make a good president--lying, going against her word, and not to mention that her vote is mostly coming from those uneducated. How would she ever seek to better the country? She would never support education; she would no longer have any votes! To make it worst, how are these conservative hillbillies not seeing her as elitist? Apparently, intelligence and passion make you elitist, not money and greed.
- Plastic3D, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5I don't usually paste links, but this is the most important video from the page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI
Back in October, Hillary clearly says the votes aren't going to count.- acroyear2, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2The Hillary supporter's heads might explode if they watch that. In their minds, that moment in time never existed.
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is