digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Clinton Asks Obama Delegates In North Dakota To Switch

huffingtonpost.com — Sen. Hillary Clinton made a blunt appeal to North Dakota delegates to switch their support to her, despite the fact that Sen. Barack Obama handily defeated her in the state's caucus in February.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • redcolumbine, on 04/06/2008, -7/+107"To hell with the voters. The common man is incapable. Your constituents are morons, and their trust in you is meaningless. They should have voted for me." ??? Why would anybody want this creature in the White House? She blows her nose on the Constitution louder than Dubya!
    • Berkana, on 04/06/2008, -2/+38That's one hell of a claim, my friend. I don't like Clinton, but Dubya's record of constitutional violations is pretty hard to beat.
      • jaymzz, on 04/06/2008, -10/+8You need to give her a chance.
      • noahhoward, on 04/06/2008, -1/+6He's had more opportunity. I'd dare say, given the opportunity, she'd be worse.
        • Berkana, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1That's hypothetical, and I'm not sure if I can imagine her being worse, but I'm not willing to find out. No more Clintons and Bushes in office!
      • qwerter, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1This seems to me like a diversion. He's closing in on her in the PA polls, so she pulls a stunt that provokes him to leave PA and fly back to ND, a state he's already won. Let's not lose focus here!
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/06/2008, -16/+6Why are you surprised a Democrat would act like this? Just look at how their nomination process is set up. The reason they have super delegates is to create a firewall between the party elites and common man.
      • theaceoffire, on 04/06/2008, -2/+16If she was a real democrat, she would be concerned with what this is doing to the party.
      • RRJackson, on 04/06/2008, -10/+1That's because the "common man" is a moron. I'm in favor of anything the party can do to retain more control of the nomination process.
      • WasabiBomb, on 04/06/2008, -2/+3Let's see... Hillary is doing all of this because the majority of the Democratic voters aren't voting for her.... and you say that her actions are those of a typical Democrat.

        Clearly, you're a moron. Typical Republican. (See what I did there? I generalized your party based on one person's actions.)
      • Bulletbillx, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1The republicans have them too they just call them unpledged delegates rather than superdelegates.
        • RamesySC, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2They don't wield anything close to the power that they do in the Democratic party, don't be stupid...
    • insanebrain, on 04/06/2008, -2/+1because it is a tradition
    • d3mag0gu3, on 04/06/2008, -11/+2So when is obama going to reject Richardson's support? After all Hillary won New Mexico. Those are the rules of the game. Delegates ( pledged or super ) can vote for whoever they want and both Hillary and Obama are trying to get delegates to switch. But filthy scum obamabots are lousy hypocrites. If Obama does it, it's okay, while if Hillary does it, it's evil. Pathetic.
      • djSyndrome, on 04/06/2008, -2/+3"So when is obama going to reject Richardson's support?"
        How about...never?
      • saska, on 04/06/2008, -2/+5Delegates through caucuses are elected by supporters of the candidate they represent. Maybe you don't understand how that works. They're called "pledged" delegates because they pledged to support the candidate who won a percentage of votes that gave the candidate a delegate.

        I believe superdelegates can vote however they want. That's their legal right. If they choose to overturn the popular vote, the states-won count, the pledged delegate count, and the will of the majority, they will reap what they sow -- but it's their right. And I'll say the same thing in August if something shocking happens in the next 10 contests that changes those metrics, too.
      • qwerter, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2Hillary won NM by less than 1%. The NM superdelegates can still reflect the will of the people--half go to him, half go to her. Richardson isn't doing anything shady. This isn't winner-take-all.
      • gwolf, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Filthy scum? Is there a name for whats wrong with you.
    • saska, on 04/06/2008, -1/+3What Hillary blows her nose on is the will of voters -- the voters who allegedly support her are okay, but the voters who support Obama are just "wrong," in her estimation. This attitude isn't new from her -- I saw it in late January and it's what prompted me to caucus for Obama in Washington state.

      The NERVE of this woman claiming that we're disenfranchising FL and MI. What does she think it would be if a delegate who was ELECTED by the voters in North Dakota to represent Obama were to switch and vote for her instead?
  • superduperguy, on 04/06/2008, -3/+78She’s desperate; it’s beginning to appear awfully pathetic. Give it up HRC!
    • theaceoffire, on 04/06/2008, -0/+19"No matter how long or heated this primary contest gets, I believe that either Sen. Clinton or I would do a far better job of leading this country over the next four years than John McCain. That is something that we can all agree to," Obama said

      Oh my god, even as she STABS HIM IN THE BACK, he is nice to her.
      • Shananra, on 04/06/2008, -2/+4That looks like a campaign strategy to me. He's kicking her ass, so the one for him to beat now is really McCain.
      • purzzzell, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1that's part of his campaign strategy - I personally speculate that he would, at this point, with the ***** he's dealt with from her, love to throw mud all over her, but not reducing himself to that level of bs just continually wins him more and more supporters.
    • FutureGuy, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1I don't know wtf she is thinking, that woman needs to get locked up in a psychiatric ward.
  • whoreable, on 04/06/2008, -5/+18Lol I guess it cant hurt to ask.
  • dhendrix1, on 04/06/2008, -3/+41I bet she would be crying a serious case of the blues if Obama was doing this same thing to her. One thing I have figured out this go-around, there are no rules (written or unwritten) that HRC will not by-pass, break or just flat out ignore.
    • imgstacke, on 04/06/2008, -1/+14Imagine her in the White House... She would be AS BAD as Bush.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 04/06/2008, -11/+0Uh worthless obamabot, you don't think obama is doing the same thing? What do you think Hillary is doing that Obama is not? Filthy cult member. Obama can't do no wrong right? When is obama going to tell Richardson to support Hillary because she won New Mexico?
    • absurdist, on 04/06/2008, -0/+7Uhm, d1mag0gu3, you are aware of the difference between pledged delegates and supers, are you not? if not, then please try to refrain from making posts that merely demonstrate your ignorance.
  • soot, on 04/06/2008, -3/+14Just go away, Hill.
  • travbrack, on 04/06/2008, -13/+9Remember Ron Paul? Yeah...me neither
    • InSectWar, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2who?
    • purzzzell, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1I haven't forgotten him - and if you refer back to ronpaulforums.com , it still has activity, and RP has started a movement of taking back the republican party with true conservative values (small government, reduced spending).

      "Conservative" vs. "Neo-Con" - the party had gone neo-con, but the true conservative faction of the party is growing and growing stronger :)
  • smacksaw, on 04/06/2008, -2/+46Wow...so she's losing in Pennsylvania and goes to North Dakota. Obama has to go to North Dakota to deal with her treachery and stop focusing on Pennsylvania, a state Clinton is trying to win to save her credibility.

    I just hate her. She's ruining our country. This is not how you have to do politics.
    • mooseontheloose, on 04/06/2008, -31/+4She's RUINING the country? Are you ***** serious? Take Obama's dick out of your mouth for one second, christ.
      • BrendanSheehan, on 04/06/2008, -1/+21Now there's an elegant response.
        /sarcasm
      • walruspanzer, on 04/06/2008, -9/+1People need to be fair to all of the candidates that seek our nation's highest office. Clinton can't get any good press because Obamites on this site bury any pro-clinton or anti-obama story. That strategy should lead to real change in our country. Democrats piss me off.
        • savantidiot, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2I want to digg you up for "People need to be fair to all of the candidates", but then you went and said "Clinton can't get any good press". I will leave your comment digg count as I found it.
          • walruspanzer, on 04/06/2008, -3/+1Search "Clinton" and "Obama" on Digg and see what I mean. I just think we're screwed no matter who wins the election.
          • savantidiot, on 04/06/2008, -0/+0It doesn't seem to be giving me a 'reply to walruspanzer' link...

            I saw what you meant with your 'on this site' point, and handily ignored it. In using digg as a litmus test for the representation of coverage candidates receive, the internet replied "you're doing it wrong".

            The blatantly obvious counterpoint to what you bring up: Ron Paul
      • martalli, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1Your comment stands on its own demerits.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 04/06/2008, -11/+0God damn you should go kill yourself. Treachery? Don't you ***** get it? That's how you "do politics". Like how Obama got Richardson's support even though Hillary won New Mexico. YOu filthy worthless obamabot, even obama will need to get Hillary's delegates to switch to his side to win the convention. Obama is doing the SAME thing as Hillary. So you ***** piece of *****, is obama being treacherous too? Is he ruining the country? Getting sick of you worthless obamabots.
      • ThugThrasher, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Richardson=Superdelegate

        BIG difference
      • purzzzell, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2there's been discussion lately (here's the FIRST source I've found, there's dozens more) that in a private conversation with Richardson, Hillary tried to convince him to support her by saying Obama was unelectable (she denies, this, but that doesn't mean anything at this point) -

        I think her being that desparate pushed Richardson away from her more than anything Obama did to woo him.
    • phatcat77, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4Actually he announced he was going to ND first, nobody really knows why she came. Either way it wont make much of a difference over here, it's pretty Obama centric, especially now that he came here.
    • xen0side, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Actaully Obama was the keynote speaker for the North Dakota convention, thats why he was there, not in response to Hillary.
  • rhabd0mancer, on 04/06/2008, -5/+17It's time for the fat pantsuit lady to start singing.
  • BrendanSheehan, on 04/06/2008, -7/+12This bitch has no morals. In that resect she'd follow in the current president's footsteps perfectly. Your choice America?
    • insanebrain, on 04/06/2008, -4/+1so she is a perfect candidate . .;)
  • exomni, on 04/06/2008, -6/+14Hillary Rodham Clinton just beat out Bush and co. for my most hated politician of my time.
    • mooseontheloose, on 04/06/2008, -9/+6You're a moron then. The list of Bush's atrocities are long and unprecedented. Hillary asked some delegates to vote for her because she thinks she'd be a good President. OMG ONE IS SURE WORSE THAN THE OTHER!

      Oh well, Obama just beat out Hitler as my most hated politician of all time because he sucks at bowling.
      • walruspanzer, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2LOL
      • gwolf, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1All exomni said was she's hated, He/She wasn't comparing atrocities.
    • bsmang, on 04/06/2008, -0/+5I wouldn't go THAT far.
  • seraphisset, on 04/06/2008, -3/+24Can any of you Hillary supporters out there do me a favor and try to defend this? I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around people supporting a candidate who sinks to this level.
    • moduc, on 04/06/2008, -12/+2I don't support Hillary over Obama, or Obama over Hillary. However, due to the ridiculous number of comments on Digg here, I have voiced for Hillary many times.

      What is the problem of asking super delegates to vote for you? There is no thing wrong at all here. Also, people talks about popular vote and Hillary lose on that front. Let me ask you, then what are super delegates for in the first place? If there are super delegates, they can vote different from popular vote.
      Also, Obama get 14 out of 21 delegate on the popular front, but he gets 6 out of 7 super delegates. Why none of you complain that he should get 2/3 of the number of super delegates instead of 6/7? You people are just like Bush supporter. Pull your head out of sand.
      • s14sh3r, on 04/06/2008, -1/+13moduc, read more carefully. She's asking the pledged delegates to switch.
      • seraphisset, on 04/06/2008, -1/+7Exactly what s14sh3r just said moduc.

        And come on - "We people are just like Bush supporters"? I'm asking you to give your side of the argument, not insulting you. I guess I was expecting too much by hoping for a civil explanation.
  • skyz, on 04/06/2008, -16/+2forget for a moment that this is about hillary - companies ask you to change your minds all the time - verizon tells sprint users they can do a better job - netflix that they can make you more satisfied than blockbuster - it is not subversive -
    • deadbaby, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4That may be the case with super delegates but this story suggests she's trying to flip regular delegates. One person, representing themselves, is entirely different from one person representing others.
    • martalli, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4This is not an issue of changing from Kroger to Publix. In this case, pledged delegates represent the amalgamation of a group of voters. If 120 people supporting Obama were to 3 pledged delegates, then 40 people supporting Clinton would equal 1 pledged delegate. For example, if Clinton could influence a one of these pledged delegates to switch, it would be the same as changing the original vote count from 120/40 to 80/80. Changing the original vote count is probably a felony (depending on the state), but subverting the pledged delegates apparently deserves only a short news article...
  • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/06/2008, -23/+1Sen. Barack Obama made a blunt appeal to Texas delegates to vote for him, despite the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton handily defeated him in the state's caucus in March.

    Fixed that for you.
    • LuCiFer6, on 04/06/2008, -2/+12No I think you are wrong my friend..
      First Obama never went back to Texas begging for votes.
      Secondly Texas held a Caucus and a Primary. Hill won the Primaries and Obama won the Caucus. Remember it took about a month for them to count all the Caucus votes.

      Now it's fix...
      • deadbaby, on 04/06/2008, -1/+9Cut him a break.... he just "misspoke"
    • thezettabytes, on 04/06/2008, -1/+9No, Clinton beat him in the texas primary and got the delegates for that but Obama beat her handily in the caucuses.
  • s14sh3r, on 04/06/2008, -6/+3It's my understanding that a pledged DNC delegate can vote for whomever they choose at the convention. Is this true? I've looked, but can find no basis for this. If it's not true, then isn't she breaking party rules? If it is true, then the DNC has no one to blame but themselves.
    • bsmang, on 04/06/2008, -0/+9If it's true, then why bother with voters casting votes? Might as well just skip them. Unless they just needed to do the whole campaign thing to help it look like Americans are still spending money.
      • s14sh3r, on 04/06/2008, -1/+7Apparently it's true. There's a loophole in the process that allows Democratic delegates to switch votes on "good conscience". Trying to exploit this loophole is deplorable, but it shouldn't be a loophole if they didn't want anyone to ever use it.

        Tell Governor Dean what you think of this tactic: http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/chairman/fc ...
    • d3mag0gu3, on 04/06/2008, -8/+0It's true, super and "pledged" delegates can vote for whoever they want. You worthless obamabots don't seem to know how the democratic political system works.
      • purzzzell, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4yeah, but it's clearly ***** over the will of the voters and completely undermining the democratic process.

        Basically, when you vote for a delegate, you're voting for them B/C their support is ALREADY pledged. By changing, that person has said that the people who voted for them as a delegate are suckers.

        Supers can do whatever the ***** they want, but it's a similar situation - if the [pledged] delegates heavily favored one candidate yet the supers voted in such a way that reversed that decision, it would demolish the party - basically, it would be anti-democracy. And the supers know this.
  • bsmang, on 04/06/2008, -1/+12I'm starting (once again) to think that if Hillary wins the D nomination, then I'll have no reason to bother voting in November.
  • PNess, on 04/06/2008, -1/+5You mean kinda like how bush won but lost right?
  • kolinkoolface2, on 04/06/2008, -7/+2cause everyone knows ND is like... crawling with delegates...
    • yellowfish04, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1so we don't even deserve a stop by the candidates, huh? Screw you *****, North Dakotans have ten times more integrity and decency than you have in your pinky finger.
  • KDX200rider, on 04/06/2008, -2/+5Does this surprise anyone?
    • djSyndrome, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Not really, although I would have thought she might try this in a state with more delegates. Maybe she figured ND is so small, no-one would notice?
  • RRJackson, on 04/06/2008, -7/+1Good. Hopefully she can exert some pressure to *make* them switch.
  • papipablo, on 04/06/2008, -1/+8I can't wait to vote for Chelsea in 2016.
    • chodges4, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2This family needs to stop procreating..
      • papipablo, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1Thank god they only had one. You know Republicans will run Jeb Bush against Chelsea.
        • chodges4, on 04/07/2008, -1/+2What about if Chelsea has children? We could potentially have Clintons running for office for the rest of our lives...and imagine Bill getting more and more intense with each race...God help us all
  • Lambrakis, on 04/06/2008, -7/+2Good for her! Most people want to rescind their votes for the ANTICHRIST anyway.
    • djSyndrome, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3Why, because he's black or because he happens to have a Muslim middle name?
      • GhostyBoy, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3Does anyone else find it side-splitting funny that arguments against this dude have devolved to "he's the antichrist"?
  • youfuckingsuck, on 04/06/2008, -1/+8holy *****. I've been trying to /not/ get too personal with my dislike of Hillary - but this is ***** ridiculous! This woman who is "standing up for every person" in every ad and speech she gives is no laying down when it comes to their votes. She is a liar, hypocrite, and narcissist.
  • discochew, on 04/06/2008, -4/+1News article: Politician asks for peoples votes!
  • NSResponder, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4So, what was their response? Something along the lines of "Sorry, Senator: you lost. Go cope." ?

    -jcr
  • amightywind, on 04/06/2008, -13/+2Obama can't win. Go Hillary! Bleed him out for the GE.
  • offspring06, on 04/06/2008, -2/+2OK, it is time for Obama to do the same thing. She started it.
  • odinfire, on 04/06/2008, -6/+1Another round of Clinton bashing on digg. Ho-hum. Ad nausem.
    • erkokite, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3Meh. It's not like it's undeserved.
  • kornflake325, on 04/06/2008, -0/+8love how she says people in florida and michigan should have their say in the matter. but now she doesn't want ND to have a choice? wtf?! go away hillary
  • darkstar808, on 04/06/2008, -0/+7Oligarchy for everyone!
    • martalli, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2No, just for us and the Third World. Other mature, First World democracies leave inheritance of political power to the few remaining ceremonial monarchies.
  • d3mag0gu3, on 04/06/2008, -10/+0The hypocrisy of these worthless scum obamabots is unbelievable. Hillary wins New Mexico and yet Richardson supports obama. obamabots support this. Hillary wins the most votes in Texas and yet Obama manages to win more delegates. obamabots support this. Obama camp campaigns behind the scene to get delegates( pledged/super ) to switch to him. obamabots support this. Hillary does the same, deranged obamabots foam and froth at the mouth. Degenerate cult members. The hypocrisy and phoniness of obama and his mindless obamabots...
    • martalli, on 04/06/2008, -0/+4Listen up d3man0gu3...For reasons mysterious to the rest of us, TX held both a primary and a caucus. Clinton won by a very slim margin for the 2/3 of pledged delegates at stake in the primary, while Obama had a fairly comfortable win in the caucus (1/3 of pledged delegates). Adding the primary and caucus together gives a slim victory to Obama. No shenanigans there at all. If it makes you feel better, why not just say Clinton won the Texas primary, and the Obama folks can say Obama won the Texas caucus? See, everybody wins!
  • worldinmyeyes, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Would it surprise anyone if her wealthy supporters (handlers) offer to financially bribe the already pledged delegates? Does everyone have a price? Illegal you say? What would stop her?

    The people who want her or McCain in the Presidency are already in power. And they've shown no regard to following laws.
  • mrraven200, on 04/06/2008, -2/+8Quick poll here digg me up if you would vote for Obama but not Hilary. Digg me down if you are a Hilary supporter. Note votes will actually count unlike with HRC.
    • martalli, on 04/06/2008, -1/+2Only limited by digg's broken comments system.
    • saska, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1I can't digg you up because I'll vote Democrat in the general election. Your question is flawed.

      However, if Clinton takes the nomination by force and not by will of the voting Democrats, she won't win the general election.
    • teamgwho, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1I am a superdelegate from NJ, so anyone voting from NJ can forget it. Only my vote counts
  • paker, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1HRC and hubby are worth 100 million +. How much more would they be worth if she gets into office?
  • JointVenture, on 04/06/2008, -4/+1What a beautiful thing watching the Democrats expose themselves for what they really are, its been fun watching them eat themselves.
    • spencabt, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0What are we, then? People who have the temerity to question our own actions, rather than the Republicans who agree with anyone who's "conservative enough"?
  • brownrecluse888, on 04/06/2008, -4/+0If you don't understand that both the Clinton and Obama camps are behind the scenes doing everything they can to get every single super delegate than you truly are ignorant, BOTH camps are doing this.
    • bjhath, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3RTA. She is asking pledged DELEGATES, not the unpledged SUPERDELEGATES, to change their pledged Obama vote. There is a difference.
  • AdamaObama, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Every time I see an article like this, I begin to hear the theme from the Twilight Zone. She's lost her damn mind!
  • stutimandal, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1Well now you see what a woman candidate will do while losing; I doubt if any male candidate did like this, ever.
  • BinaryDelt, on 04/06/2008, -1/+16Clinton to N.D. Delegates: "Go against the will of the voters."
    Clinton to Superdelegates: "Go against the will of the voters."
    Clinton to Richardson: "You ass. You went against the will of your voters."
    Clinton to Florida and Michigan voters: "Your voices must be heard!"

    I ***** hate this bitch.
  • Norma156, on 04/06/2008, -2/+0Clinton lied habitually in the White House years and the media let her get away with it. How shocking it must be to her now that they don't. But I don't see that Obama offers anything different except, oh, yes, he's black or sort of. See, I'm not a racist, why I'm going to vote for Obama and give myself lots of warm cuddles and to hell with the country. He ain't MLK, guys.
    • iamnobody8614, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1People who don't say racist things don't need to qualify their statements by saying "I'm not a racist, but...". Most of these people are racists, but simply do not even admit to themselves, e.g you.
  • wetard57, on 04/06/2008, -0/+3North Dakota is in the news!
    • yellowfish04, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Quick, phone the governor, time to hold our bi-annual "North Dakota made the national news!" state-wide celebration! The funny thing is, it's never for anything "good"...

      "City submerged by horrible flood"
      "UND student kidnapped, raped, killed"
      "Sex offender from Fargo, ND kills girl"

      etc etc
  • yellowfish04, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1"Can you imagine if the Fighting Sioux [University of North Dakota hockey team] had played the Gophers [University of Minnesota hockey team] for a tie on Sunday and then given up? Well they kept fighting and that's why they are going to the Frozen Four in Denver next week."
    --Hillary Clinton, during her speech to North Dakotans on Friday
    Hahah, nice try Hillary, but it was the Wisconsin Badgers, not the Minnesota Gophers. Grand Forks, ND is one of the biggest hockey towns in the nation, you can't make a blunder like that around here, especially when the game was less than a week ago. One point for the effort, though, I guess.
  • e3winter, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Desperation is a stinky cologne.
  • wonderworm, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2Next she'll try to get some of those imaginary Bosnia snipers to take delegates who refuse to bow down to her (wink) "believed rightful inheritance" of the presidency. She and Bush would both make great evil dictators, oh I forget, the Bush/Cheney administration is already an evil Oligarchy that routinely squashes the other branches of our government and the constitution like a bug.
  • alogicsocold, on 04/06/2008, -0/+2I was at the Obama/Clinton speech in North Dakota. And I can tell you right now that people were much more excited to see obama in this state. The only Clinton we ever want to come back to Grand Forks, ND Is William
  • cruzan73, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Is this the type of person that should be representing the Democratic party! Why should delegates support a candidate that asks them to ignore the voters they represent.
  • purzzzell, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1Weak - and I HATE Clinton - but it's really poor "journalism" (really it's what I expect from HuffPost) to say she made a "blunt appeal" without sourcing an actual statement, or time/location that she made a speech.

    I'm not saying it didn't happen - and I don't need Hillary to do something ELSE to make me dislike her, I already do- I'm just saying that we need a bit more information before making the judgment in this case.
  • purzzzell, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1WAIT, WTF???

    The text is straight PLAGIARIZED! It's the first two paragraphs of this article on ABC NEWS: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4596305&pa ...

    even ***** weaker.
    • purzzzell, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1can't edit - sorry, bury it if you want, they link to the full article - still, they should say AT THE TOP somewhere "from ABC News."
  • teamgwho, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Hillary and bill: "People who are asking her to quit are trying to subvert the democratic process and deny people (in states which haven't had primaries) their vote"

    Let's wait till the convention and then we can subvert the will of the people (by campaigning for super delgates to vote for her even though she won fewer states, lost the popular vote and had few delegates) Presumably any way.

    So I guess it's ok to

    She wanted to wait till the convention and then ask the super delegates to do that very same thing by voting for her even though she was behind in the popular vote as well as the delegate vote.

    So I guess it is ok to subvert the peoples vote then?

    What pisses me off is that Hillary has made herself so unpopular because of her tactics, her lies --- err,,, mis-rememberings-- as well as the fact that she IS trying to subvert the people's vote that if god forbid she did win the nomination a lot of people wouldn't vote for her, and thats on top of the people who wouldn't vote for her because of all th baggage she brings with her.

    And if Obama wins a lot of her fans will not vote for him because they view him as trying to torpedo her campaign, subvert their vote etc etc, which is complete and utter HORSE *****, but there's no swaying some of these hillary supporters.

    I really do fear that because of the assholery on display here we will see McCain elected president in 6 months.

    Thanks a lot Hillary
  • teamgwho, on 04/06/2008, -1/+1I forgot to ad that Obama will be hurt as well by folks who think that the demorats are shysters one and all because of how these superdelegates are allowed to vote however they want. It's a pretty ***** up way of doing things and doesn't endear themselves to anyone. They should just give all the delegates to whoever wins or split them appropriately based on who won and by how much. I hate to say it, but the republican method is much simplier, more fair and less error prone.
    • azpat, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1I felt that way at first, but now I see that the caucus method is the more representative method. It was the winner take all electoral college system that got us George Bush even though the popular vote was for Al Gore. With the primary system you get a proportional number of delegates. In my neighborhood it was 4-2 Obama to Clinton. That represented about 50-60 people. There were about 20 people for Clinton and their votes counted. They got to seat two people at the District level. The Obama people got to seat 4. That's much more representative of the true voice of the people than if they had just called it for Obama and given him all 6.

      The caucus process is messy, sure, but that's because what it's representing is messy. Here's a picture of the red states and blue states in 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_electio ... you can see that it's really a lot more purple than the electoral college method would indicate.

      I wish the general were done in a caucus format. Granted, we're a long way from being able to do that efficiently or fairly. But it's an amazing process. Seeing in person the people who disagree with you, having to stand up and say "I'm willing to be a delegate for this candidate", listening to the other side, being prepared to defend your judgement. It reveals the people part of "of the people, by the people, for the people".
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.