Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Clinton Considering Nuclear Option To Overtake Delegate Lead
huffingtonpost.com — With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations.
arbouler- 1584 diggs
- digg it
- thirdcoastborn, on 05/05/2008, -23/+186There won't be a black person in America that would vote for her in November if she pulls that crap.
- breadfred, on 05/05/2008, -5/+133I should sincerely hope the same foes for white, red and yellow people as well.
- masterm1nd, on 05/05/2008, -5/+92Ohh I see, so blue man group and smurfs aren't people now.
- Mononuclear, on 05/05/2008, -17/+9no.. no the aren't. Have you seen the smurf's show or the Blue Man group's show?
- Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -2/+22Gargamel, since when do you have internet?
- cquinnd, on 05/05/2008, -3/+7Yes, I have; and I would vote for Blue Man Group ahead of the current candidates.
- lex0nyc, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Homer is the fat one now, apparently.
- peligro18, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1dugg for the smart ass comment...keep up the good work
- Mononuclear, on 05/05/2008, -17/+9no.. no the aren't. Have you seen the smurf's show or the Blue Man group's show?
- masterm1nd, on 05/05/2008, -5/+92Ohh I see, so blue man group and smurfs aren't people now.
- OffPiste, on 05/05/2008, -31/+5Kufem.. CLinton FTW!!!!
- OffPiste, on 05/05/2008, -13/+29What about Bill Clinton? Wasn't he the first black president? Won't he vote for his wife?
- suprememilo, on 05/05/2008, -23/+10And that is the problem with both candidates, they have people who won't vote for them for silly reasons. Saying I won't vote for the otherone is childish and bad for your party and more importantly America. If you are a supporter of Clinton or Obama and dont vote the other one if they are the nominee your are a fool, and weither you vote or not, you will be the reason McCain gets elected.
If you want America better off vote whoever wins the democratic nomination. At this point hopefully Obama, but if not don't let another 4 years of Bush happen.- OffPiste, on 05/05/2008, -15/+9That's the kind of logic that got Hitler elected.
- irightthebook, on 05/05/2008, -6/+6That's the kind of logic that has "Expelled the Movie" including scenes of Nazis. Everything in some way deplorable logically leads to Nazism!
- lotsa1s, on 05/05/2008, -6/+3That's the kind of logic that got Hitler elected.
- sonofblacula, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8Hitler wasn't considered the less of two evils....he was runaway popular. Did you take European history in high school, or were you from one of those states where they teach you that America is the only country?
- chaosium, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1"were you from one of those states where they teach you that America is the only country?"
THIS AR ARE *****
- irightthebook, on 05/05/2008, -6/+6That's the kind of logic that has "Expelled the Movie" including scenes of Nazis. Everything in some way deplorable logically leads to Nazism!
- xceptionaly, on 05/05/2008, -2/+20I think sleezy underhanded tactics that ignore the will of the people so the candidate can continue on their own personal power trip is a pretty good reason not to vote for someone.
- chaosium, on 05/05/2008, -8/+1ron paul ron paul ron paul
- irightthebook, on 05/05/2008, -5/+25I'm an American, thank you, and an American first. Just because I'm a registered Democrat doesn't mean I have some blind allegiance to the party. In fact, I'm a registered Democrat almost solely so I could vote for Obama in my state's primary. I won't vote for Clinton come the general election because I don't want my vote to count in the election of someone who disparages economists as elitists and vows to obliterate Iran. I do that as an American, because I refuse to let my nation be sullied by some shadow of a woman. Nor will I vote for McCain.
Please check yourself before you go around calling fools those of us who won't blindly vote D straight down the ticket. You serve as an embarrassment to democratic values when you do.- maliath, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2Obama *chooses* to be a member and leader of the Democratic party. His political ideology is similar to that of Clinton's. Clinton would still have to uphold that ideology as President. If Obama encouraged voters to vote for Clinton in the general if she won, would you?
- youareretarded, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3If that were true we wouldn't be in the mess we are in with the Bush administration.
- AndrewDB, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2At least Obama has a history of being Democratic. The only time Hillary's changed to Democratic is after she met her husband.
She's a bandwagon jumper.
- suprememilo, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2I said more importantly American, and if you dont vote or vote Mccain you aren't doing this country a favor.
- sonofblacula, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2I don't like Clinton and in context her remarks were pretty bad, but c'mon - economists ARE elitists.
- maliath, on 05/05/2008, -6/+2Obama *chooses* to be a member and leader of the Democratic party. His political ideology is similar to that of Clinton's. Clinton would still have to uphold that ideology as President. If Obama encouraged voters to vote for Clinton in the general if she won, would you?
- netant, on 05/05/2008, -3/+5Can any Hillary supporter explain what she will do differently than McCain? Then can any Hillary supporter explain why anyone would believe a demonstrated liar?
- irightthebook, on 05/05/2008, -3/+7I am by no means a Hillary supporter, but it's fairly clear that her and McCain have serious policy differences. Hillary's platform is the standard Democratic party platform, while McCain's is the standard Republican party platform. The gap between them is the gap you see between the two parties.
Her tactics, however, have been underhanded, disgusted, and eerily similar to the Republican tactics under the tutelage of Rove and the administration of Bush. That's how you get some of her policy stances that are similar to McCain. She panders to poor and undereducated voters; she beats the drums of war; and she sides with lobbyists to ensure a well-greased path to victory.
And I certainly have no defense of her lying.- netant, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1No, apparently, you don't get it.
There is differences between their constituents, but there is no SIGNIFICANT difference between the candidates, in terms of policy.
The most significant issue the President can influence is the Iraq/Afghanistan policy. One candidate wants to stay the course. The other candidate claims she wants to get out, BUT she leaves the caveat that withdrawal cannot be done if it leaves us in a chaotic situation. That is effectively the SAME position, because you're talking about a woman that has pushed for the war, like Lieberman, until 2007, and is a demonstrated liar. Where are either parties outline as to what needs to be done in Iraq before we can leave?
I know you people are clueless, but even McCain has a national health insurance policy! What's the diff? Oh, Hillary's approach is slightly different. But its not single payer. McCain's plan will cover less people. Does it really matter when everyone knows whatever either people plans, it cannot survive radical modification in Congress? Does anyone realize business is FOR national health insurance, because it means it will get this crap off their backs, and onto the backs of taxpayers? And improve their competitive position for skilled workers against the rest of the world? "Oh, but Hillary MEANS it, and McCain doesn't". Hillary was QBing the effort in 1993-4 and she FAILED. Again, what's the difference???
Economic policy? Hillary will give out more pork to the middle class and poor. Really? She's promised the moon, what can the US taxpayer actually cover??? You got it, NOTHING. Its no different than what EVERY politician does. "A car in every garage, a chicken in every pot". Who's talking about FIXING the FINANCIAL system??? Oh, they all want to bail out the "sub-prime" borrower, but the reality is, we can't, because many of the loans are crap that never should have been made. It would be giving away homes to cleaning ladies who never could afford them, and greedy mini-Trumps, who bought mansions when they could barely afford a 2-bedroom ranch.
"Oh, Hillary's for GREENing the economy". Only an alfalfa-munching idiot thinks that's going to FIX things. Hey, you've got ethanol in the market now. It only means that the rest of the world starves while more energy is spent rending one of the worst crops for ethanol, corn. "Ooooh, everyone will have a hybrid". Who's going to take care of the heavy metals waste from the batteries after they are discarded? "We'll run on wind power!" Not in "my" backyard. Or scenic coast where I sail. Its a BS political pitch. It means nothing.
Are either candidate going to relinquish the Fascist powers accumulated by GWB? "Well, we have to look STRONG against terrorism and the Muslims." Is either one LESS likely to attack Iran on a manufactured pretext?
The only somewhat notable difference between the two is who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. That could end Roe vs Wade. But the kiddies don't seem to understand that when the Republicans accomplish that, they will have committed political suicide. The Republicans USE the abortion issue to galvanize their base. Once its illegal, they have nothing to rally the troops, and they piss off anyone else who isn't a Shiite Christian.
People call McCain McSame, but POLICYwise, there is no SIGNIFICANT difference between McSame and McLiar. Dammit, if you Hillary supporters actually have a BRAIN, you could actually, finally do something to SUPPORT your candidate. EXPLAIN what makes her different WHERE IT MATTERS. And don't give me crap about going to her website, I've already BEEN there.
- netant, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1No, apparently, you don't get it.
- RepubOperative, on 05/05/2008, -15/+6According to the 2008 Pig Book Summary, on Senators who took pork
Ron Paul received $22.7 million in pork projects,
Obama $97.4 million,
Clinton $296.2 million,
McCain $0, and has for twenty years.
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id ...- Marshalrusty, on 05/05/2008, -1/+7Just give up while your lack of decency has yet to cause a void in the Universe.
- Briandrews15, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3its our representatives job to get money to help their district, you would rather leave it to the executive branch to decide where to spend that money? in my experience they cant possibly know the needs of each community.
- SillyRabbits, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4"Can any Hillary supporter explain what she will do differently than McCain?"
Well, McCain will be going to bed at night with an attractive woman, and Hillary....oh....well....hmmm.....- PopcornDave, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Leftovers aren't that bad if they're not *that* old...
- irightthebook, on 05/05/2008, -3/+7I am by no means a Hillary supporter, but it's fairly clear that her and McCain have serious policy differences. Hillary's platform is the standard Democratic party platform, while McCain's is the standard Republican party platform. The gap between them is the gap you see between the two parties.
- lotsa1s, on 05/05/2008, -6/+9If you vote based on party your a ***** retard and are hurting America. I vote for who I want to win, and if Hilary wins the nomination I got several third party candidates who will take precedence over her.
I honestly could not possibly care less about the democratic party. I want Obama to win, not because hes a democrat, not because hes not a republican, but because he will make a good president. I cant say the same for Hilary or McCain. If it takes playing hardball to get him the nomination, so be it, because its all or nothing.- suprememilo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Its not a vote for the party, its a vote for better healthcare, and end to the war, and all everything that Obama and Hillary agree on. . .
- Laughsatyou, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2get a job and stop expecting society to provide you with better healthcare.
- lotsa1s, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Lots of people on Digg agree with Obama on health care and the war and they would make absolutely TERRIBLE presidents. Same principle applies to Hill-dog. Just because she's saying the right things doesn't change the fundamental fact that she's evil incarnate.
Let us not forget that Bush ran on non-intervention back in 2000.
- suprememilo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Its not a vote for the party, its a vote for better healthcare, and end to the war, and all everything that Obama and Hillary agree on. . .
- jgzman, on 05/05/2008, -4/+5I will support Hillary if she wins fairly. If she violates what I consider to be the rules for a fair and democratic election, I will see no reason to vote for her over McCain; in fact, I would be MORE likely to vote for McCain. Given a choice between two lying scheming corrupt political types, I'd choose the one with service time.
- lotsa1s, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2If Hilary has to cheat to win the Democratic primary, there isn't a chance in hell she will win the general election.
- sonofblacula, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4If she pulls this, I'm setting up protests in my city.
- 11oops, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Violate the rules that YOU consider? There are rules set up for the Democratic party nomination, and both candidates agreed to those rules prior to campaigning.
- jgzman, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Yes, the rules that I consider. For example, there is nothing whatever in the rules to prevent Obama's 'pledged delegates' from siding with her. The rules allow it. The rules also allow the Super Delegates to elect Clinton even if the votes are clearly for Obama. I find these options unacceptable.
I would find them just as unacceptable the other way.
- jgzman, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Yes, the rules that I consider. For example, there is nothing whatever in the rules to prevent Obama's 'pledged delegates' from siding with her. The rules allow it. The rules also allow the Super Delegates to elect Clinton even if the votes are clearly for Obama. I find these options unacceptable.
- smacksaw, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3Some people vote with their brain and not just partisanship. There is no circumstance where I would vote for Hillary. Both she and McCain are going to screw the country up, but I'm certain that McCain won't get a 2nd term and maybe Obama might decide to run again. But if Hillary wins she will run again.
It's that simple.
- OffPiste, on 05/05/2008, -15/+9That's the kind of logic that got Hitler elected.
- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -9/+4And that should matter to her why? If they don't vote for McCain, what does it matter if they don't vote for her?
That's what you get for being a minority that usually votes so strongly with one party, you get taken for granted or ignored because no-one expects you to ever even think about supporting the other side no matter how you are treated.- cliffhanger407, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8Yes, because a huge proportion of the vote doesn't matter to candidates. People never say things like "they're trying to get the black vote out."
Dumbass. Each vote that one candidate gets increases the number of votes the other candidate must get by one. That makes 15% of the vote a pretty useful thing.- dougmc, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2> Each vote that one candidate gets increases the number of votes the other
> candidate must get by one
Unless your candidate got that vote by recruiting somebody who used to support
the other guy -- in that case, the other guy now needs *two* more votes. (Or recruit
*one* of the supporters of your guy, of course.)- cliffhanger407, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Ok sure. I was just replying to what superkendall said.
- dougmc, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2> Each vote that one candidate gets increases the number of votes the other
- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1But if polls already show her being ahead in polls even without the black vote, then it doesn't matter if she lacks those offsetting votes.
You strike me as the type of fellow who is so sure people hate Republicans there is no way a Democratic candidate can lose at this point. Why is that not so even without the black vote? Is it really so close a thing?
- cliffhanger407, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8Yes, because a huge proportion of the vote doesn't matter to candidates. People never say things like "they're trying to get the black vote out."
- barthook, on 05/05/2008, -4/+6But it's not about race. ;)
- Amazetbm, on 05/05/2008, -1/+20If she did that, there are a lot of people who wouldn't vote for her...period.
- bphicke, on 05/05/2008, -5/+4I agree. How does this effect blacks but not other races? I love how people have to break everything down to race and then claim they are not racist.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3If you haven't been paying attention, the Democratic party is splitting mostly (but not totally) along racial lines. And as long as the Democratic party continues to ignore this obvious fact, it will continue to spin out of control while the Republican party sits back and reaps the benefits.
- chaosium, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1"If you haven't been paying attention, the Democratic party is splitting mostly (but not totally) along racial lines."
It's not really as big a deal as Clinton claims will give her a shadow lead when all the polls say contrary.
- chaosium, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1"If you haven't been paying attention, the Democratic party is splitting mostly (but not totally) along racial lines."
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3If you haven't been paying attention, the Democratic party is splitting mostly (but not totally) along racial lines. And as long as the Democratic party continues to ignore this obvious fact, it will continue to spin out of control while the Republican party sits back and reaps the benefits.
- bphicke, on 05/05/2008, -5/+4I agree. How does this effect blacks but not other races? I love how people have to break everything down to race and then claim they are not racist.
- Yez70, on 05/05/2008, -24/+3As a Michigan resident, I'd like my voice to be heard. I did not vote for Obama in the Primary, but I did have a 'choice' available. We could vote 'uncommitted' if we chose to support an unlisted candidate. Uncommitted got 30% of the vote, those delegates would vote Obama at the convention - as he is the only choice left.
The fact that Obama, Edwards and Biden were not on the ballot had NOTHING to do with Michigan or myself as a voter. Unlike the way Obama and the media reports it HE REMOVED HIMSELF from the ballot. He had the same option of staying on the ballot as the other candidates, he decided our votes weren't worth it. Now he wants to deny our votes to support anyone? Is that fair?
All of them were on Florida's ballot. All of them campaigned nationally. Those votes are fair and should stand.
A fair compromise would be to follow the GOP lead (of all people!) and halve the delegates at the convention. Leave it up to the PEOPLE, not the PARTY or the CANDIDATES.- Archeologist, on 05/05/2008, -3/+15He decided to not put him name on the ballot because the democratic convention pledged to not campaign in Michigan and Florida.
- Yez70, on 05/05/2008, -14/+2Stop twisting words - he did not decide to not put his name on - he REMOVED HIS NAME from the ballot. It was HIS CHOICE. Do you enjoy spouting propaganda and lies? It's irrelevant who wins, the party will unite behind the candidate. I'd just like MY VOTE to have some say in the matter.
What makes you better than me, where you get to help choose the candidate and I don't?- smacksaw, on 05/05/2008, -2/+9You're the one who is twisting words. You know...Hillary removed herself from the ballot. It's just at the last possible moment she added herself back on and violated the understanding the other candidates had with her and the party.
I try to feel sorry for Michigan, I really do - but if the average voter is like you, look in the mirror - this is why your state is ***** up. People like you. - chaosium, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1"Stop twisting words - he did not decide to not put his name on - he REMOVED HIS NAME from the ballot. It was HIS CHOICE."
You have no clue what you're talking about and should probably shut up whenever in public so you look less like a horse's ass. People must go into convulsions to keep from chortling whenever you red-faced and tear-eyed bleat.
- smacksaw, on 05/05/2008, -2/+9You're the one who is twisting words. You know...Hillary removed herself from the ballot. It's just at the last possible moment she added herself back on and violated the understanding the other candidates had with her and the party.
- jgzman, on 05/05/2008, -2/+6Yez, while
A) I think it is criminal to remove the voice of MI and FL voters,
B) The current primary system is as ***** stupid as a screen door on a submarine,
it is nessecary for there to be SOME structure to the voting system. Whoever makes these decisions was warned clearly not to do what they did, and the concequences were spelled out, but they did it anyway. They were punished IAW the warning. Obama and 48 states played by the rules, foolish though those rules may be. Clinton, FL and Mi broke them.
Do I think all people from MI should be punished for the actions of their (semi-elected) leaders? Well, that's democracy.- yojiffyskippy, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Criminal? What should be criminal is the whole super delegate system. That must be the biggest farce the Dems have pulled on their constituents.
- jgzman, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1I concur with that statement as well.
- Yez70, on 05/05/2008, -14/+2Stop twisting words - he did not decide to not put his name on - he REMOVED HIS NAME from the ballot. It was HIS CHOICE. Do you enjoy spouting propaganda and lies? It's irrelevant who wins, the party will unite behind the candidate. I'd just like MY VOTE to have some say in the matter.
- gnuyen, on 05/05/2008, -2/+14Obama and Edwards took their name off the ballot. Hillary said she "forgot" to
- Asrrin29, on 05/05/2008, -2/+14I'm also a Michigan resident, and I say ***** it. we made our bed, we lie in it. We knew going in that our vote wouldn't count, we can't just change the rules now.
Oh, and Uncommitted got 45-46% of the vote.- Yez70, on 05/05/2008, -9/+1Then why did we vote? We were told that things 'could' change by the local media and to vote uncommitted if our choice was not on the ballot. The perception was that the DNC would fix it later....
And it was 31% - adding in the undecided's it would be 40% not 45-46% ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_p ... )
The results were as follows:
Hillary Clinton 56%
Uncommitted 31%
Undecided 9%
Dennis Kucinich 3%
Mike Gravel 1%- yojiffyskippy, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5LOL... the "DNC would fix it"... . that may be the understatement of the election. They'll fix it alright.
- Yez70, on 05/05/2008, -9/+1Then why did we vote? We were told that things 'could' change by the local media and to vote uncommitted if our choice was not on the ballot. The perception was that the DNC would fix it later....
- Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -2/+12Don't blame Obama or the DNC, blame your state Democratic leadership. It's not his fault that Michigan and Florida broke the rules.
- Yez70, on 05/05/2008, -9/+1The changes were actually pushed through by REPUBLICANS, in both states. Without the GOP support, NETHER state would be in this mess. I could easily be convinced this was their plan all along and they are laughing at the mess the Dems are in now.
- locojones, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6I can't wait to hear this. Yez, why don't you tell us how Republicans were responsible for the Michigan Democratic Party's decision to move up their primaries in violation of the DNC rules??
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3Michigan & Florida broke the DNC's rules because the DEMOCRATIC representatives of those states SUPPORTED moving up their respective primaries. The DNC's rules regarding this actually include a rider that as long as the DEMOCRATIC representatives in that state oppose any moves that break DNC rules(regardless of whether the moves are passed by a Republican majority or not) then NO PUNISHMENT will be applied!
So the issue has nothing to do with GOP support. Quite logically, the DNC applies punishment only when the DEMOCRATS vote in breach of the DNC rules.
- suprememilo, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2Too bad Dems need Florida to win a general electon, they should have WANTED Florida to vote first, so they would be more likely to vote for the Dem in November.
- Yez70, on 05/05/2008, -9/+1The changes were actually pushed through by REPUBLICANS, in both states. Without the GOP support, NETHER state would be in this mess. I could easily be convinced this was their plan all along and they are laughing at the mess the Dems are in now.
- mozert, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3You are angry.
- acroyear2, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3As someone outside of Michigan, looking at you: You are an idiot. You should've insisted that your state follow DNC rules. Take responsibility for your states actions.
- Archeologist, on 05/05/2008, -3/+15He decided to not put him name on the ballot because the democratic convention pledged to not campaign in Michigan and Florida.
- kingUssop, on 05/05/2008, -3/+13Or a white one under the age of 55...
- ljkelley, on 05/05/2008, -9/+3I'm glad Black people feel the need to be racist. It really is amazing, if 90% of whites voted exclusively for Hillary then we would surely be labeled racist.
And kingUssop you are wrong, I'm 23 Male and I support Hillary as does my BF. In fac that stastics show that MORE young males vote for Hillary then do blacks for Hillary. And you know, Florida (where my Mother in Law lives and voted) deserves to be heard. The Democrats in Florida had no choice since their hands were tied by a Republican Governer and Republican Legislature who voted on the primary date. But Hey, lets pretend we are for Democracy and yet go against it. Lets say we need to follow the party rules yet scream if Hillary takes those rules to her advantage. But most importantly lets support a man that races racial tensions thru his campaign and his pastor of 20 Years. I know I would take the Judgement to not support someone who has constantly vilified people especially Jews, Isrealis, and Whites. Taken out of context is a once or twice thing... not several speeches including written word.
I would rather have Bush, Jeb Bush than Obama. And I detest him, having lived in Florida. And you supporters made this easy for me, being the most elitist, condisending, a**holes and posting fake vidoes, lies, being extremely negative from the start against Clinton and YET having the balls to claim she is Negative. If Obama becomes the nominee I will do everything in my power to Protest, Pass Fliers, Donate etc to stop him from ever becoming President.- senatorpjt, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6Well, if Digg is an accurate representation of anything, it's young males - and everyone here seems to think that Hillary sucks.
- Quakes, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5I think your boyfriend is whipped.
- Bilabrin, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2"I'm glad Black people feel the need to be racist." No It's a compliment really. He's saying that most black people who vote are intellegent enough to see what a horrible c**t she is.
- jonfleck88, on 05/05/2008, -3/+4Sorry babe but your great party has turned on you, maybe it was the eight years of BJ Bill, or maybe because HIllary lies about everything, or maybe, just maybe, because she is a B.I. ITCH, but your probably right it's those damn racist blacks....
BTW, Clinton wouldn't be here if it weren't for crazy republicans crossing over and voting for her A.K.A. Operation Chaos - iainc, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Try it, Clinton. There are many who will vote, just to keep McSame out; there are many more who will say "***** you!" and not vote.
- franklymister, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3I am already bracing myself for a McCain presidency, now that Hillary has managed to do what no one thought possible - destroy the Democratic party's chances of winning after eight years of the most unpopular president in modern history.
- breadfred, on 05/05/2008, -5/+133I should sincerely hope the same foes for white, red and yellow people as well.
- soot, on 05/05/2008, -7/+251It takes a Clinton to raze a village.
- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -2/+18Clever and apt.
- Bilabrin, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2Nice use of the seldome seen word "raze."
- TyroPyro, on 05/05/2008, -8/+299"Clinton considering option to destroy Democratic party, assure McCain victory" also works as a title
- rhabd0mancer, on 05/05/2008, -2/+25I suspect that Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman would both be offered high-level positions in a McCain administration.
- netant, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4It would take out a Senator listed as a Democrat and an Senator listed as an Independent who is needed by the threadbare Democratic majority. Where does McCain lose?
- aukxsona, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Point taken!
- SillyRabbits, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Joe Lieberman maybe, Hillary Clinton...not a chance.
- PopcornDave, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't be surprised if McCain took Lieberman as a running mate. So we'd have the choice of two fossils on the republican ticket which, given their ages would put Pelosi in a good spot of ascending to the oval office. Boy would Hillary be spitting nails if that happened.
- netant, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4It would take out a Senator listed as a Democrat and an Senator listed as an Independent who is needed by the threadbare Democratic majority. Where does McCain lose?
- kymike, on 05/05/2008, -2/+14I just don't understand how any Democrat could vote for her. I mean, I'm an ashamed former Republican (thanks to Bush), and although I was hoping Ron Paul could pull a miracle, I'm going to vote for Obama because he is clearly a decent and intelligent person. We need that more than anything.
But I WILL NOT vote for Hillary. Democrats can either have this election, or they can give it to the Republicans by nominating Hillary. How hard is it? I WANT to give the Democrats my vote! My vote takes one from the Republicans, and gives it to the Democrats. (And there are lots more like me!) Please, LET me give you my vote - just nominate the best person you have: Obama!- poxonyou, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10Most of her voters are elderly or poorly educated whites, as well as some die-hards who supported her so strongly from the beginning, they continue to give her the benefit of the doubt rather than rethink their position and go against their past. As for the former, unfortunately, these are the types of people we can thank for electing people like Bush. They are easy to manipulate by playing against their fears and ignorance. Obama hasn't played that game, Clinton is playing it hard. Karl Rove is probably impressed.
- Gemfinder, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3What cracks me up about that "Hillary's demographic is white, middle-aged and older women" axiom is how inaccurate it is. Half the white, middle-aged and older women I know are involved in the Obama campaign, the rest stay away from politics in general. The field organizers GOTV meeting at our local Obama office looked like Girls' Night Out. Only three XY's present and two of them were trainers.
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8Well that's a real GEM of a statistic GEMFINDER. Why would anyone trust exit polls from EVERY primary held so far regarding voter patterns when they could just ask you about the white, middle-aged and older women you know!
- PopcornDave, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2What she seems to have is a number of older women who are pissed they never broke the glass ceiling themselves and are now going to live vicariously through Hillary should she win, which is about as sad as the parents of young athletes that do the same thing.
- poxonyou, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3That's true as well. A woman for president, no matter who it is or what they do to win. They are not feminists, just frustrated women who have experienced sexism during their life and think electing any woman will fix everything.
- Gemfinder, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3What cracks me up about that "Hillary's demographic is white, middle-aged and older women" axiom is how inaccurate it is. Half the white, middle-aged and older women I know are involved in the Obama campaign, the rest stay away from politics in general. The field organizers GOTV meeting at our local Obama office looked like Girls' Night Out. Only three XY's present and two of them were trainers.
- poxonyou, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10Most of her voters are elderly or poorly educated whites, as well as some die-hards who supported her so strongly from the beginning, they continue to give her the benefit of the doubt rather than rethink their position and go against their past. As for the former, unfortunately, these are the types of people we can thank for electing people like Bush. They are easy to manipulate by playing against their fears and ignorance. Obama hasn't played that game, Clinton is playing it hard. Karl Rove is probably impressed.
- rhabd0mancer, on 05/05/2008, -2/+25I suspect that Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman would both be offered high-level positions in a McCain administration.
- glibpaxman, on 05/05/2008, -14/+70Even the spineless Howard Dean wouldn't allow this to happen... I hope.
- smithchr, on 05/05/2008, -0/+11One hopes. Else myself and a large number of other "young, stupid, idealists" will find it unconscionable to vote for a "Democratic" candidate for a LONG time.
- headzoo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5I dunno. After some things he said on The Daily Show, I'm prepared to see some shenanigans taking place.
- johnlabmonkey, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Spineless? What planet are you living on?
- MommaKatz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I hate to say it, but he's been pushing the option of her taking it to the Ruels and Bylaws committee all along, and is well aware of the bias towards Sen. Clinton with the members therein.
- TheBogie, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0If Howard Dean even has a half a sack of stones in his pants he wouldn't allow this to happen in a million years.
Then again, if he had even one functioning testicle he would have ended this BS already and made Obama the candidate.
- vandernderyid, on 05/05/2008, -5/+37I think you misspelled "Nuclear Option." The correct spelling is "Putsch."
- PhillipJFry, on 05/05/2008, -21/+2I think you misspelled "misspelled," the correct spelling is "Shut up you ***** douchebag"
- twiztidsinz, on 05/05/2008, -8/+3stfu and go bang your grandma
- twiztidsinz, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3would "stfu and go do the nasty in the past-y" have been better?
- twiztidsinz, on 05/05/2008, -8/+3stfu and go bang your grandma
- manamizer, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2except for that whole not overthrowing a government and thus not being a putsch part
- PhillipJFry, on 05/05/2008, -21/+2I think you misspelled "misspelled," the correct spelling is "Shut up you ***** douchebag"
- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -5/+142Why, Hillary, I thought voters mattered to you! (Not)
They call this the nuclear option for good reason. If Hillary uses it, or even attempts to use it, she will obliterate the Democratic party. Whose side did she say she was on? Oh, that's right: hers.
All the more reason for the superdelegates to act now, commit to Sen. Obama, and seal this nomination away from Hillary's forthcoming nuclear war on the Democratic party.- gphalf, on 05/05/2008, -1/+34Instead of just leaving it to the superdelegates, go to the DNC website and tell them that you will campaign AND vote AGAINST CLINTON if she STEALS THE NOMINATION. The DNC, and Howard Dean are filled with politicians. Politicians need the appearance of a reason to do what they want to do in the first place. Give Dean a reason to reject any rule changes by Hillary. Write the DNC today at democrats(dot)org 'contact us' tab. Pass this on to 10 other Obama supporters. Help write the history you want to see, don't wait for someone else to write it for you.
- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Like they would ever believe that you were voting for the other side. The problem we have with polarizing and demonizing candidates today is that few people would seem to be willing to switch "sides". Thus such comments will simply be ignored, as anyone that hot for Obama would be very unlikely to actually do anything FOR anyone else.
- Wartz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3not if a few million did it at the same time.
- BradHAWK, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Not everyone who's voting are on a side. As insane as it seems to some that some Obama supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton, you have to remember that not all Obama supporters are Democrats.
- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2Like they would ever believe that you were voting for the other side. The problem we have with polarizing and demonizing candidates today is that few people would seem to be willing to switch "sides". Thus such comments will simply be ignored, as anyone that hot for Obama would be very unlikely to actually do anything FOR anyone else.
- tricks574, on 05/05/2008, -8/+0And the voters in Michigan and Florida matter to you?
- zeroduck, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8Their elected officials knew the consequences.
- scallon, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10Obama wasn't on the ballot in one and didn't campaign in either. The states broke the rules to try and seem more important. So honestly, no I don't care about those voters. The elections they took part in were a sham and their votes are meaningless.
- balthisar, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Uh, not the "states," but rather the "state parties," thankyouverymuch.
- Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Agreed. I feel bad for the voters, but they have no just cause to be pissed at Obama or the DNC. Everyone knew the rules ahead of time and the democratic leaders in those 2 states decided to break those rules. If I was from Michigan or Florida I would be super pissed at them and kick them the ***** out of the party, but I don't see why people are blaming Obama.
- balthisar, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Uh, not the "states," but rather the "state parties," thankyouverymuch.
- Startemus, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6I live in Florida and yeah when it comes to voting we're pretty dumb. We don't get to count this time.
- lordno, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Are you saying that voter in Florida and Michigan did not know they were voting early? I didn't hear an outcry from the population of those states that they should play fair like every other state. They knew what was going to happen.
- adrianmonk, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Well, there is one scenario where she could attempt to use it and not obliterate the Democratic Party: she could set the wheels in motion, and then the Democratic Party could kind of collectively say, "Enough is enough." If she pulled this and large numbers of superdelegates shifted their votes away from her in protest, then that could end her campaign.
In other words, if she pushes the button on the nuclear option, that might be enough to discredit her and get her kicked out. - SillyRabbits, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5Maybe obliteration of the Democratic party wouldn't be the worst thing. Something is obvious very wrong in the party and maybe it's time to do a little rebuilding. They should have been able to win the election without even trying this time around. All they had to do was throw up a reasonable candidate. What did they do instead? They now have two candidates that are both fatally flawed for the general election. Not that I mind...
- PopcornDave, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2It is for one reason: somebody needs to keep the other side in check. If the Democrats suddenly implode and we have a wave of Republicans go in to office that's a very bad thing. Same would be if there were an implosion of the Republican party and a wave of Democrats got in to office. There needs to be some balance to keep each side, at least in appearance, honest even though there isn't much difference between the two anymore.
- senatorpjt, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Good. I'd love to see the Democrats replaced with a real center-left party.
- gphalf, on 05/05/2008, -1/+34Instead of just leaving it to the superdelegates, go to the DNC website and tell them that you will campaign AND vote AGAINST CLINTON if she STEALS THE NOMINATION. The DNC, and Howard Dean are filled with politicians. Politicians need the appearance of a reason to do what they want to do in the first place. Give Dean a reason to reject any rule changes by Hillary. Write the DNC today at democrats(dot)org 'contact us' tab. Pass this on to 10 other Obama supporters. Help write the history you want to see, don't wait for someone else to write it for you.
- dld0531, on 05/05/2008, -17/+92If the Clinton camp exercises this undemocratic option, I will be forced to vote for McCain...
- thirdcoastborn, on 05/05/2008, -5/+13I would have to do the same
- asauterChicago, on 05/05/2008, -3/+26Screw it, I'll vote for Nader.
- dollar0dot02, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Screw it, I'll vote for Kodos.
- Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Screw it, I'll right in Obama anyway. ***** McCain and quadruple ***** Clinton
- Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4ok, i won't spell correctly, but i'll do it anyway!
- mechnoch, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1President: Brock Obma
- orlyfactor, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Don't blame me, I voted for Kang.
- Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Screw it, I'll right in Obama anyway. ***** McCain and quadruple ***** Clinton
- dollar0dot02, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Screw it, I'll vote for Kodos.
- Identity4, on 05/05/2008, -1/+20***** McCain...I'll be writing in Mickey Mouse
- ralphodog, on 05/05/2008, -8/+0Counting votes is undemocratic... that's a first
- gnuyen, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0If you count it the way Castro does sure.
- Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Counting votes incorrectly is most definitely undemocratic
- chaosium, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3You guys are voting for McCain anyway, I don't think your opinion is of any value here.
- headzoo, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Agreed. I think it would be worth four years of McCain to set a precedence that won't be ignored by either party in the future.
- ralphodog, on 05/05/2008, -6/+0I'm in the same boat as you. I will definitely vote against the Democratic nominee if my vote from the primary is not counted.
- FrenchAnarchy, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3He's not talking about your Florida/ Michigan situation *****. We get it,you got pussy love for Hilary. Don't be a putz about it and pretend it's about being democratic.
- ralphodog, on 05/05/2008, -6/+0I'm in the same boat as you. I will definitely vote against the Democratic nominee if my vote from the primary is not counted.
- marabout40, on 05/05/2008, -3/+12How about Ron Paul? He's still in the race. I'd vote for him over McSame and HilLIARy anyday.
- gnimsh, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Me too!
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+13I can't vote for McCain, but if Hillary pulls this stunt, I'll write-in Obama.
- MrTito, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6I'd hope a lot of superdelegates would flip to obama to counter it.
- chaosium, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2The existing trickle would break into a flood.
- jonfleck88, on 05/05/2008, -5/+5if HIllary gets the nomination please don't vote for McCain take the time and write in a vote for Ron Paul or even vote Libertarian anything is better than McPoop
- Bilabrin, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3McPoop? Really, that's the best you could come up with? I mean, I'm with you about Ron Paul and all but can you try to represent a little better than that Jeez! I mean if we aren't getting the Troothers hung around our neck it's silly crap like this. C'MON!
- andbruno, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2If Hildog does this, I'm writing in a vote for Ron Paul or Zaphod Beeblebrox, depending on my mood at the time.
Two heads are better than one.
- thejoshuablog, on 05/05/2008, -9/+64LOL!!!
I dare her to try!
Like all the superdels would stand idly by if she even dared attempt this asinine move!
Even if she miraculously got what she wanted using this "option', the supers would crush her with their votes.
She's blowing whatever smoke she can find to see if something, anything sticks. Hillary is so pathetically desperate I almost feel bad for her.
OK, it passed.
The DLC is dead. Long live the Democratic Party.- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6Curious to ask, my friend: what's the DLC?
- asauterChicago, on 05/05/2008, -7/+6I think he meant the DNC, but he has a point. All of this is ruining the democratic party.
- TyroPyro, on 05/05/2008, -0/+14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership ...
- johnlabmonkey, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3The DLC was the right-wing of the Democratic Party in the 90s. Now largely irrelevant.
- Emnsta, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Download Center?
- BradHAWK, on 05/05/2008, -2/+3"Like all the superdels would stand idly by if she even dared attempt this asinine move!"
I'd like to agree, but they've already displayed a proclivity for standing idly by. - runCMD, on 05/05/2008, -3/+2My Joshua - how very undemocratic of you. Why don't you think the voices of those people who chose to get out and vote should be heard ... should be counted. ?
- ricree, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3I disagreed strongly when the Democratic party stripped Florida and Michigan of their voting rights, and I still think that they should have never had them taken away. Unfortunately, that is all in the past. The situation we currently have is that one candidate decided to campaign heavily in these states despite agreeing to their disenfranchisement and pledging not to take part in the election. If there had ever been a real primary campaign in either state, I would be all for including their votes. In fact, I might even be convinced that a new primary would be appropriate. Allowing the current results to count, however, would be nothing more than rewarding a blatant and underhanded cheat. To reward such an act is never good, but when the 'reward' is a very solid shot at serving as President of the United States, then rewarding this sort of behavior is madness.
- runCMD, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1ricree - you are mistaken. NEITHER candidate campaigned in either state. Hillary Clinton decided to leave her name on the ballot. Obama decided to take his off. We should not try to take away their choice to do that right ? To leave it on or take it off ? Then why should be disenfranchise the voter - who despite seeing no direct campaigning at all in their state decided to get up - get out - and VOTE. Don't we tell everyone how precious that right is ? Don't we tell everyone we have a duty to let our voices be heard ? EVEN if we disagree with them ? Then why would you want to supress the voices of all those people who DID choose to get out and vote ? Calling their efforts a cheat is demeaning to your argument. C'mon America ... Stand up and BE America. Let the voters voices be counted. Not discounted because Obama disagrees with the result.
- tomz17, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3@runCMD... The problem is that Florida and Michigan broke DNC rules regarding primaries. The people in charge of scheduling those primaries knew those rues very well! It is unfortunate that those states don't get to count this year, but sanctions like this are the ONLY way you can keep EVERY state from trying to outdo another in 2012 by moving up its primary date in a bid to become more relevant!
In either case, it was UNDERSTOOD BY EVERYONE that those votes would not count over a month BEFORE those primaries happened. There was no reason to campaign, and no reason to leave your name on any ballot in those states. This was PUBLIC knowledge. The rules were CLEARLY decided BEFORE any votes were cast, and it's silly to even contemplate reversing those rules now that the results are in and Hillary is losing. There's a word for this in sportsmanship. Any five year old that's been on a playground can tell you that it's called CHEATING!
- ricree, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3I disagreed strongly when the Democratic party stripped Florida and Michigan of their voting rights, and I still think that they should have never had them taken away. Unfortunately, that is all in the past. The situation we currently have is that one candidate decided to campaign heavily in these states despite agreeing to their disenfranchisement and pledging not to take part in the election. If there had ever been a real primary campaign in either state, I would be all for including their votes. In fact, I might even be convinced that a new primary would be appropriate. Allowing the current results to count, however, would be nothing more than rewarding a blatant and underhanded cheat. To reward such an act is never good, but when the 'reward' is a very solid shot at serving as President of the United States, then rewarding this sort of behavior is madness.
- nevermind13, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0Downloadable Content
- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6Curious to ask, my friend: what's the DLC?
- AtHomeBoy2000, on 05/05/2008, -8/+100Just proves she isnt in this for the voters. She's only in it for herself and her self-glory
- barfooz, on 05/05/2008, -11/+3I think she's in it for the 15 million people that voted for her in the primaries thus far too, actually.
- AtHomeBoy2000, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5no, when they talk about trying to steal the election and ripping the party in half, she is in it for herself.
- Kazaki, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3That's right, ***** all the Obama Michigan supporters! They don't exist in Clintonland!
- jforjools, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Well, she certainly doesn't give a ***** about me or any of the voters in my caucus state.
There is absolutely no way for her to catch up in the delegate count (even if they give her all of Michigan--and none to Obama). So, we can see that she is now pushing for the popular vote to count. Well, if that's the case, then caucus states will be COMPLETELY discounted--as caucuses (even though mine had about 25 times more participation than a typical year) raw-vote numbers are much lower than primary numbers. Counting by raw-vote means that caucus states will represent an extremely small portion of the vote.
Don't like the rules? Fine, change them. But these are the rules both candidates signed on for.
- dafunkmonster, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3And naturally, Obama's only in it for the pretty house and well-kept lawn.
Give me a break. Every politician is only in it for himself.
- barfooz, on 05/05/2008, -11/+3I think she's in it for the 15 million people that voted for her in the primaries thus far too, actually.
- gphalf, on 05/05/2008, -5/+70To the people saying, "She would NEVER DO THAT!!!", instead of living in la-la land, you better BELIEVE she would do it. Why do you think she has spent the time and effort it took to stack the rules committee with her people? Look, take some action today: Go to the democrats(dot)org website and send them a 'contact us' note explaining that you will campaign AND vote against Clinton if she steals the nomination. Then, pass this note on to 10 other Obama supporters. The DNC needs to know that she is not electable even if SHE STEALS THE NOMINATION.
- Bamont, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8She will single-handedly win McCain the presidency if this continues.
- Laughsatyou, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1good
- plr4ever, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3"Then, pass this note on to 10 other Obama supporters."
But instead of me getting killed at midnight, i get stuck with McCain for 4 years. - SillyRabbits, on 05/05/2008, -4/+3"The DNC needs to know that she is not electable even if SHE STEALS THE NOMINATION."
But I think the DNC leadership is beginning to realize that Obama is now even less electable than her in the general election.- MommaKatz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2SillyRabbits, just where do you get those facts from? Meaningless polls still show both Obama and Clinton winning over McSame with approximately the same percentage. And for everyone talking about the DNC needing to know...., let's remember that her most avid supporters come from the DNC. This is as much about progressive grassroots Dean supporting dems against old school DNC dems that served under McAuliffe as it is about Obama vs. Clinton. What the career politician, Clinton backing DNCers don't get is that should they triumph, this party IS dead. It can't survive without the net-progressive, grassroot support they want to cut off at the nose to spite the party's face.
- Bamont, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8She will single-handedly win McCain the presidency if this continues.
- x0rcist, on 05/05/2008, -13/+17Rules are rules.
- thatwasawkward, on 05/05/2008, -4/+18Honestly, even if she did try this she would fail and would look even worse. This "plan", for it to work, would need the support of Howard Dean's personal appointees to the Rules and Bylaws Committee. It's inconceivable to me that he would allow her to pull this off.
- dmadzak, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Unless she pulls out North Carolina. All bets are off at that point. That will be the first state that someone won that they shouldn't have. Superdelegates will definitely reevaluate the situation. It may not matter in the end, but the cake walk to the nomination will be over for Obama at that point.
- Mejari, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Yeah, when Howard Dean came out and was all like 'One of the candidates needs to drop out' it was pretty obvious who he was talking to, so I also find it hard to believe that he would allow Hillary to pull this *****.
- vance1, on 05/05/2008, -4/+58Who does this woman think she is? Give up already, Hillary, and stop ripping the Democratic party apart! Sweet Jesus...
Seriously, if she gets the nomination, EVERYTHING is wrong.- Nilla32, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0If she gets the nomination it will be because the majority of us want her to, not just the elite mama's boys of the democratic party. It's about time the democratic party got remade, they keep shooting themselves by nominating a far left elitist that CAN'T WIN, and the people suffer. Remember the Democratic Party is suppose to be the "party of the people"!
- amfinkel, on 05/05/2008, -6/+34If Hilary is in any way successful with her outrageous and undemocratic plans, I am renouncing my membership in the Democratic Party. I implore everyone reading this to not only write your congressional representatives that you too will become an independent, but to truly follow through with the threat if she is successful.
- protogenxl, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8I will be doing the same. When you resign make sure it is a registered letter and send it to
Chairman of the Democratic National Committee
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003- Nilla32, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1If Obama is shoved up our butt there will be so many people leaving the party your heads will spin
- protogenxl, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8I will be doing the same. When you resign make sure it is a registered letter and send it to
- jogleby, on 05/05/2008, -5/+25I think that Hillary realizes that her chances of getting the nomination are small and she has now started a scorched earth campaign. She wants to weaken Obama enough that he will lose in the general election. The war and the economy problems aren't going to be over anytime soon, so this will leave a great opportunity in 2012 for her to step in for the Democratic nomination.
- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8A sad commentary indeed on the self-centered and twisted personality of Hillary Rodham Clinton. My fervent wish is that this is her political obituary, for if it is not, it will be the obituary of the Democratic party as it might have been, with an entire generation of voters lost.
- Nilla32, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0No Hillary hasn't weakened Obama, time has. He wasn't all that strong to begin with. That's what happens when you apply for a job you don't have the experience or temperament for.
- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Nope, she believes she can get the nomination - no more, no less. The only scorching she has interest in is burning rubber to the whitehouse.
I do not like her, but I do not underestimate her.- PopcornDave, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Then don't underestimate her backup plan. She's already campaigning for 2012 should she not get the nomination.
- cadmiumpaint, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6that could be her strategy, but it would be foolish. The Democratic party doesn't usually give losing candidates another shot at the nom.
- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8A sad commentary indeed on the self-centered and twisted personality of Hillary Rodham Clinton. My fervent wish is that this is her political obituary, for if it is not, it will be the obituary of the Democratic party as it might have been, with an entire generation of voters lost.
- redcolumbine, on 05/05/2008, -4/+89Shoot the donkey in the head
Wipe out Blue by acting Red
Little people follow rules
Voters are a pack of fools
Supers standing idly by
While I obfuscate and lie
Only one thing it could mean
Screw the ballots, crown me Queen!- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -12/+7As long as we're singing songs, how about:
Ding dong, the witch is dead
Which old witch?
The wicked witch!
Ding dong the wicked witch is dead!
Wake up - sleepy head,
rub your eyes,
get out of bed.
Wake up,
the Wicked Witch is dead!
She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below.
Yo-ho,
let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh,
sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!- azpat, on 05/05/2008, -5/+7I'm really hoping someone with good editing skills can make the
youtube video of my dreams. It features Hillary and all these
hypocritical, maddening, things she says and injects them into a
remade version of South Parks song about Kyle's mom.
weeeeeeeeeaaaaallllllll...
Hillary Clinton's a bitch, she's a big fat bitch,
She's the biggest bitch in the whole wide world,
She's a stupid bitch, if there ever was a bitch,
She's a bitch to all the boys and girls.
On Monday she's a bitch
Super Tuesday she's a bitch
On Wednesday thru Saturday she's a bitch
Then on Sunday just to be different,
Shes u super king kamehameha bitch
Have you ever met Bill Clinton's wife,
She's the biggest bitch in the whole wide world,
She's a mean old bitch, and she's bad at math,
She's a bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch
Bitch, bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch
She's a stupid bitch, Hillary's a bitch,
And she's such a lying bitch.
Talk to kids around the world,
It might go a little something like this...
[Sung in three different languages by other children]
Have you ever met Hillary Rhodam Clinton,
She's the biggest bitch in the whole wide world,
She's a mean old bitch, she has stupid hair,
She's a bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch
Bitch, bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch.
She's a stupid bitch, Hillary's a bitch,
And she's such a dirty bitch;
I really mean it,
Hillary Clinton, she's a big fat, stinking bitch
Big old fat *****' bitch, Hilllarryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Yeahhhhh, Chaaaaa - PhantomPhoenix, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1We can't start singing that yet...
She's still hanging for dear life, and clawing the hand that's holding her (the voters) violently.
- azpat, on 05/05/2008, -5/+7I'm really hoping someone with good editing skills can make the
- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Perhaps Blue was acting Red all along, and you've just woken up to it because the volume has gotten loud enough.
- runCMD, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2very juvenille.
- Plantagenet, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1OK. You're a queen.
- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -12/+7As long as we're singing songs, how about:
- cranium, on 05/05/2008, -3/+29I think the message that the DNC needs to hear is that, if Hillary steals the nomination, many democrats will not only vote for McCain, but vote a straight Republican ticket, which will throw several tight races. How's *that* for your "nuclear option"?
- darthjure, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4That's absolutely right! I'm a swing voter. If she won the democratic nomination like that I couldn't vote for her. I'd go McCain. I bet a lot of swing voters and even Dems would have the same attitude.
- Gemfinder, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5And sacrifice the country on the altar of revenge?
No. I refuse to go to war with Iran, full stop.
Obama '08.
- arbouler, on 05/05/2008, -3/+25somehow i feel like mitt romney is a much better person than hillary is. romney backed off for the sake of the party...hillary only wants to win the nomination. she should realize that voters who hate her but wont vote for mccain will only stay home to protest the general election...
- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4Let's say the situation was reversed, and Sen. Obama trailed in popular votes, states won and delegates, -- that there was no possibility of catching up in pledged delegates and that he was going all out in raising all manner of stuff certain to hurt Hillary in the general election - like Travelgate, Filegate, her Cattle Future Trading tip off scandals, the quid pro quo pardons of convicted felon Marc Rich and the 16 FALN terrorists for money and votes, her quasi lesbian relationships and drug use -- etc. etc. -- all on the flimsy excuse that the Republicans would use that against her in teh fall and that he is more electable -- and that Sen. Obama plans to use his influence on the rules committee to seat delegates in disallowed primaries where Sen. Clinton did not campaign and where her name wasn't even on the ballot. Is there any doubt that his attempt to do this and to conduct a campaign in exactly the maner that Clinton is conducting against him would not be immediately snuffed out by the superdelegates, who are supposed to actually care about the future and integrity of the Democratic party?
No doubt in my mind. How about yours?- UNCCEJ1010, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10That whole claim is based on Obama's attempting to have his cake and eat it to in Michigan /Florida like Hillary did.
Obama actually followed the rules and the obeyed the agreement they signed.
In other words, for the situation to be completely reversed, Obama would have to be like Clinton, which is just a stupid argument to make.- netant, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Or it could be sarcasm.
- otros, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Or that has nothing to do with the point.
He's talking about how weird is that the superdelegates let pass a lot of ***** from HRC, even when they wouldn't do it for someone else. (his example being Obama)
- arbouler, on 05/05/2008, -5/+1obama doesnt have any loyal colleagues in the rules committee. he's a ***** nobody to begin with. youre trying to compare an established clinton empire in the democratic party with obama who started from the bottom up. youre not making any sense.
- PopcornDave, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1It would be an interesting point if Obama had actually acted like Clinton with the mudslinging, but you're comparing apples and oranges with your scenario.
- Nilla32, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0OH like he hasn't, or he hasn't had his elitist attack dogs on CNN and MSNBC running one long boring Obama commercial?? What is wrong with you people?? Did you have Mama problems? Wow you make no sense. You want to piss off how many million people in Florida and Michigan for something that wasn't their fault? Wow what a bunch of smart damn fools you are!
- UNCCEJ1010, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10That whole claim is based on Obama's attempting to have his cake and eat it to in Michigan /Florida like Hillary did.
- gnuyen, on 05/05/2008, -1/+3I think the fact that HIllary is spending supporters money and Romney was spending his own has a lot to do with his decision to back off. Plus the fact that he had actually basically lost given the winner take all system the republicans have.
- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -4/+4Let's say the situation was reversed, and Sen. Obama trailed in popular votes, states won and delegates, -- that there was no possibility of catching up in pledged delegates and that he was going all out in raising all manner of stuff certain to hurt Hillary in the general election - like Travelgate, Filegate, her Cattle Future Trading tip off scandals, the quid pro quo pardons of convicted felon Marc Rich and the 16 FALN terrorists for money and votes, her quasi lesbian relationships and drug use -- etc. etc. -- all on the flimsy excuse that the Republicans would use that against her in teh fall and that he is more electable -- and that Sen. Obama plans to use his influence on the rules committee to seat delegates in disallowed primaries where Sen. Clinton did not campaign and where her name wasn't even on the ballot. Is there any doubt that his attempt to do this and to conduct a campaign in exactly the maner that Clinton is conducting against him would not be immediately snuffed out by the superdelegates, who are supposed to actually care about the future and integrity of the Democratic party?
- thirdcoastborn, on 05/05/2008, -13/+7I think we need the CIA to come in and restore balance by taking the clintons out...
...to eat.- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6Nice save.
- consoneo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Tell em to bring their CIA Napkins to hold all that yellow cake. (Chappelle..)
- mozert, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I lol'd.
- castlecraver, on 05/05/2008, -4/+31If this were to happen, Rush would get his riots in Denver.
- jcm267, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Those aren't Rush's riots, those are the extreme far left's riots.
- lhbaker, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I'm not extreme far left, but I'd burn a car or two. Hillary's tactics are what made me hate the current Republicans. Why she thinks that a scorched earth policy will benefit this nation is beyond comprehension.
- kmom5, on 05/05/2008, -3/+37I don't know which one bothers me most- that she is actually considering this, or that there are lots of people out there that see absolutely nothing wrong with usurping democracy...
- brokenspatula, on 05/05/2008, -58/+12YOU OBAMA LOVERS LOVE SPAM
YOU OBAMA LOVERS LOVE SPAM
YOU OBAMA LOVERS LOVE SPAM
YOU OBAMA LOVERS LOVE SPAM
YOU OBAMA LOVERS LOVE SPAM- imdandman, on 05/05/2008, -9/+2I dugg you up. There's so many Obama sluts on Digg that the admins might as well just redirect to the Obama website when you get here.
- StarlessKnight, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2You know, I've never actually had spam. Is it good?
- rationalist, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1If you cube it, stir-fry it with some onions, and then scramble some eggs with it, it's....still awful.
- Bilabrin, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Apparently not.
- kaoru777, on 05/05/2008, -2/+26For some reason the democratic establishment seems to imagine that just because we voted Democratic in the primary they've got us for life, but if Hillary won by doing this and the supers-party establishment let it go through then not only won't I vote for Hill, I will unregister as a democrat. They'd loose the youth vote, some of it for good.
- edjenkins234, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4Defiantly I have been a registered dem but if either obama or clinton gets the nomination without the majority vote then I really misunderstood what I was signing up for with these guys and would be re registered very quickly.
...and im white!- petrodollar, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6"and im white!"
Relevance? - mozert, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Wow, you are white!
- darkciti2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Way to be American, *****. Instead of voting for the ISSUES THAT MATTER, you're going to vote based on NONSENSICAL ***** THAT DOESN'T MATTER. You probably are a Republican, so please switch now. McCain/Bush feed off of dolts like you.
- petrodollar, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6"and im white!"
- edjenkins234, on 05/05/2008, -2/+4Defiantly I have been a registered dem but if either obama or clinton gets the nomination without the majority vote then I really misunderstood what I was signing up for with these guys and would be re registered very quickly.
- reggie88, on 05/05/2008, -49/+3Barack Hussein Obama is 2008's version of George McGovern. Hillary is the only hope for the Democrat Party.
- hinchb, on 05/05/2008, -2/+18Clearly the voters agree with you, which is why hilary is leading this race, right?
- sgtpppr, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5Just ignore him. Robert here is some neocon troll.
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+8I love it when people use his middle name- it's like they're wearing a name tag that says "I'm an *****!"
- Bilabrin, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Oh, I see, Huessien. Damn, thanks for highlighting that over and over. I guess he must be a Terrist! I mean First Rev Wright, Now Hussein as his middle name, what an *****!
Thanks for reminding me about that, I almost let him charm me into forgetting about it! - lhbaker, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1His middle name is Hussein? Are you kidding me? How could I have missed that?
- tcbishop12, on 05/05/2008, -18/+16Let's say the situation was reversed.
In other words, imagine that it is Sen. Obama who trailed in popular votes, states won and delegates.
Imagine that there was no possibility of Sen. Obama catching up in pledged delegates in thge remaining contests, but that he was going all out in raising all manner of wicked negative attack stuff certain to hurt Hillary in the general election - like Travelgate, Filegate, her Cattle Future Trading tip off scandals, leftist writings, the quid pro quo pardons of convicted felon Marc Rich and the 16 FALN terrorists for money and votes, her quasi lesbian relationships and drug use -- etc. etc. -- all on the flimsy excuse that the Republicans would use that against her in teh fall and that he is more electable -- and that Sen. Obama plans to use his influence on the rules committee to seat delegates in disallowed primaries where Sen. Clinton did not campaign and where her name wasn't even on the ballot. Is there any doubt that his attempt to do this and to conduct a campaign in exactly the maner that Clinton is conducting against him would not be immediately snuffed out by the superdelegates, who are supposed to actually care about the future and integrity of the Democratic party?
No doubt in my mind. How about yours?- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2All sorts of doubt. The whole thing s too close for anyone to be acting differently if the cases were reversed. Each candidate is a minority member after all, something you seem to have forgotten in your rush to proclaim this a race issue.
- RebeL5K, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1In the todem pole of rights, women come before blacks, historically speaking.
- ZenMojo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Let's see...30 female governors, 30 female Senators (half of them in office RIGHT NOW). Compared to 3 black governors and 3 black Senators (one in office right now, BARACK OBAMA). Yeah, it's so hard being a woman politician in this country.
- Kazaki, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Race issue? I thought this was an insinuation that the only reason Clinton hasn't been violently crushed by the DNC yet was because she's a Clinton, not because she's a woman.
- fanclerks, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Repeat yourself much?
- jgzman, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1.
- Aslan72, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7It's a strawman argument there chief. It doesn't matter if the roles were reversed, the sad reality is that your canidate is single handedly guaranteeing a republican win in November with antics like this.
- Gemfinder, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4But that's exactly it: Obama wouldn't do that. He'd thank everyone that voted for him and bow out.
But nihil desperandum, the GOP would *happily* do it in the general election. And they will — count on it, if she gets the nomination.- MommaKatz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2I agree completely!! He wouldn't do it, but it's a valid argument b/c if the roles were reversed the public and party outcry would be deafening!!
- lhbaker, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1What is a quasi-lesbian?
- paigeinphilly, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0First off...if the tables were turned and it was Hillary with all those wins and whatnot...YOU had better BELIEVE the Dem Party heads would have ALREADY given Obama his hat...and opened the door.
dont fool yourself on that one..AT ALL.
- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -5/+2All sorts of doubt. The whole thing s too close for anyone to be acting differently if the cases were reversed. Each candidate is a minority member after all, something you seem to have forgotten in your rush to proclaim this a race issue.
- yourpalOZ, on 05/05/2008, -4/+11Nothing new here. The Clintons pardoned the FALN Puerto rican Terrorists that bombed LaGuardia airport and Faunces tavern in Wall st. area NYC ( Wiki this story)so Hillary could get the Puerto Rican vote in NY. Why didn't the Clintons go home to Arkansas after retiring?? NY $$$$$$$$$
- clippypog, on 05/05/2008, -34/+6so what are you worried about Diggers?
Afraid poor misunderstood Obama isn't your best candidate after all?- RetlawST, on 05/05/2008, -3/+7Clippy, I feel sorry for you.
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4What are we worried about? We're worried that Hillary is going to subvert the will of the majority of democrats to put herself on the ballot.
Was that so hard to follow?
- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -3/+11And just the other day so many people were saying there's no way she can possibly get the nomination...
Now you know ONE way. - momsshizzle, on 05/05/2008, -23/+6Obama must be dizzy and hanging on the ropes if the misinformed Digg is posting so many stories the next Democratic nominee, Clinton.
- Aensland, on 05/05/2008, -3/+3What are you smoking, pass it around.
- FrenchAnarchy, on 05/05/2008, -4/+2Vote with your brain, not with your vagina. OBAMA '08
- timla, on 05/05/2008, -3/+12While I doubt manny Obama supporters would support McCain. I think manny of them would just chose not to vote.
This is truly a case of not being able to see the forest through the trees.- ...---..., on 05/05/2008, -0/+9Or they would vote for an independant or a write in
- docbob84, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Not only would I vote for McCain, I would actively campaign for him. I know one person doesn't do much, especially in my state (Illinois) but I don't vote on party lines, I vote for the candidate with whom I agree most. At the moment, my order is Obama > McCain > Clinton. One of the strongest reasons I put Clinton below McCain is her pandering to FL and MI. I'm NOT going to sit at home in November, I'm voting for the person I think is best for the job. If that means voting for McCain over Clinton, so be it.
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Dude, McCain would be another 4 years of Bush policies. The country can't afford it.
Hillary would make a fine president if she were elected. I think she has no charm, she fights dirty, and frankly I don't think she can beat any republican in a general election- BUT, she would be a MUCH better President than any Republican if by some miracle she could actually get in.
That being said- I would have a very very difficult time voting for her if she pulled this kind of crap to get the nomination. But dear god, we CANNOT let the republican pick any more supreme court justices or this country really will go to absolute *****. We need a democrat in the oval office, no matter what.- FairDinkumMate, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4I guess the question a lot of people would have is -
Is she really a Democrat if she is prepared to ignore the majority of Democratic voters & put herself on the ticket?
And if she is prepared to ignore this most fundamental of Democratic values, which other Democratic values would she be prepared to ignore as President if it was more convenient for her?- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1The answer is, that she would be a centrist in most respects. She'll get us universal health care, though- and that alone is reason enough to pick her over McCain. Her presidency will be a lot like Bills, most of the same players giving advice and whatnot.
It would be a good presidency. I'm not worried about her being Bush-lite.
Pragmatically speaking, my only real beef with her is that she can't beat any Republican in a general election, because there is such a large anti-hillary crowd out there.
The fact that i think she's just completely lacking in charm is just peripheral.
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1The answer is, that she would be a centrist in most respects. She'll get us universal health care, though- and that alone is reason enough to pick her over McCain. Her presidency will be a lot like Bills, most of the same players giving advice and whatnot.
- FairDinkumMate, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4I guess the question a lot of people would have is -
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Dude, McCain would be another 4 years of Bush policies. The country can't afford it.
- gregorypierce, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4I personally don't have a significant problem with McCain.
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3I'll give you three problems with McCain:
1) 100 years in Iraq
2) Permanent tax breaks for the rich (because the temporary tax breaks REALLY helped the economy, lol), while the middle and lower classes watch their wages keep sinking, and jobs getting outsourced. Oh, and NO FREAKIN HEALTH CARE PLAN WHATSOEVER.
3) He'll pick the next couple of supreme court justices- and then the conservatives will have an overwhelming majority. You can say bye-bye to Women's rights (including the right to choose to have an abortion), you can say hello to prayer in school, and creationism in the classroom, oh, and homosexuality will be illegal again because they'll overturn Lawrence v. Texas in a heartbeat. The list goes on and on and on....
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3I'll give you three problems with McCain:
- azpat, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5Clinton has told us all year long how great McCain is! And as far as I can tell, he's running a clean campaign. He's condemned the 527 ads. He hasn't brought up Rev. Wright. Granted, he hasn't had to thanks to Clinton, nevertheless, if your stand is against the style of campaigning and against the politics that Clinton would have used to become the dem nominee, then so far McCain hasn't violated that (so far). So people voting against the same-old-bull-***** karl rove tactics would be able to vote for McCain against Clinton.
If McCain is smart, and Clinton does steal the nomination, he'll run as high-ground as Obama has been. So far McCain has done just that.
personally I'm so sick of black love child, gay marriage, swift boating, rev. wright, "elitist", etc. that I won't vote for Clinton no matter what. If McCain stays clean, I'll vote for him over Clinton. If not, I'll vote for Paul or Nader, or write in Obama.
I refuse to reward this type of politics. My country deserves better.
The gamble I'm taking is that McCain is playing to the right for the election, and once he wins he'll be the independent leaning maverick he used to be. The other gamble is that Clinton is playing to the right for the election and once she won she'd be the democrat she claims to be. Either way I have to hope one is selling too hard to Fox news. If I'm left with that choice I might as well send a message to Clinton/Rove and whoever would follow in that style of politics.
Both McCain and Clinton want gas tax holiday. Both want war in Iran. Both wanted war in Iraq. Ones using every dirty trick in the book and the other isn't (so far). Seems like an easy decision to me.- paigeinphilly, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0I sure would vote I would WRITE IN
Obama.
- paigeinphilly, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0I sure would vote I would WRITE IN
- T8erT0T, on 05/05/2008, -3/+18If Hillary pulls the trigger on this, I predict a blowback of sheer animosity that Obama supporters will have and they will vote against her out of spite. Hillary will burn any chance the Democrats have at regaining anything after this happens. It's one thing for the GOP and Bush cronies to disenfranchise democratic voters, but for a candidate to do this to their own paty?! How could she expect to gain any support after this?
Howard Dean needs to grow a pair and law down the law, or else this will be the black eye he caused for the party for years to come.- runCMD, on 05/05/2008, -8/+1Obama supporters here on Digg are very spiteful anway. nothing they do here will suprise me. They eagerly attack .. personally attack, anyone dissenting with their opinion. So - LOL - go ahead and pitch your hissy fit. I believe those floridians and chicagoans who took the effort to vote should have their votes counted.
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6Obama wasn't even on the ballot in one of those states- and no one even campaigned in those states- so the vote was a beauty contest. The will of the people is NOT represented by including those voters.
There will be SOME representation of delegates as a peace offering, but to give them the full weight would be ridiculously unfair.
Don't forget, those delegates were excluded because those two states told the democratic national party to go ***** themselves when they were trying to set up a primary schedule that was going to be best for the party.- runCMD, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1To me it's all about choice. We have a choice in America in everything we do. Do we eat at McDonald's today or Burger King. Do we go to work or sit on our butts. Do we run for political office or do we get a job. Obama and Hillary chose not to campaign in Florida or Michigan. Obama chose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. Hillary chose to leave her name on. They both chose to leave their names on the ballot in Florida. Voters (BY THE MILLIONS) got out of bed, brushed their teeth, cranked their cars, made their way through traffic, stood in line at the polling locations, and exercised their right to vote for the candidate of their choice. This wasn't an accident, a cheat, or a fluke. Soooo - the Democratic party officials of the state get stupid and do something naughty. Should the voices ... the right to have their vote counted be stomped on because YOU think it should. I disagree, voraciously. The fact that Obama would agree with you on this point shows very clearly the unethical nature of the candidate of your choice. CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN ? sorry, doesn't hold water.
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1#1) Florida and Michigan knew the consequences of acting against the national party's best interest BEFORE they acted.
#2) The voters of Florida and Michigan will get their say- in the general election.
#3) You can bash Obama all you want, but Hillary also pledged in writing not to campaign in those states. All the candidates agreed to this, and the only reason Hillary is changer her tune, is because she will lose if she plays by the rules.
#4) I'm sure Obama would welcome the inclusion of Florida and Michigan delegates if a fair way could be devised to include them- but I have yet to see anyone offer a fair way. - runCMD, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1ahh flossdaily, there's the rub. Neither candidate campaigned in either state. Still the voters turned out for Hillary. Why silence their voices - take away their choice because the party made the stupid mistake in the first place. ?
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1#1) Florida and Michigan knew the consequences of acting against the national party's best interest BEFORE they acted.
- Kazaki, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1You make it sound like it was an epic mission of great proportion here in Florida to vote, everyone stumbling over themselves to rush to the polls, when in fact I was able to do it with 15 minutes of spare time and a whole bunch of boredom.
Your statement that the votes already cast should be counted to represent the will of the people is contradictory because Obama supporters are also people, whom were unable to cast their vote in Michigan. If you state it was Obama's choice to remove his name from the ballot and therefore the people who wanted to vote for him should be ***** because of him, you can no longer reasonably state that the people should have their votes counted under the defense that it wasn't their fault.
EDIT: I'm sorry, I missed the reply button. This is in response to runCMD.- runCMD, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Sure I can. It's all about personal responsibility. And freedom of Choice. In both states, Both candidates chose their own actions - as did each voter who chose to vote or not vote. If people really wanted Obama's name on the ballot where he chose to pull out - then couldn't that have written it in ? Own your own mistakes. Don't blame others for them.
- runCMD, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1To me it's all about choice. We have a choice in America in everything we do. Do we eat at McDonald's today or Burger King. Do we go to work or sit on our butts. Do we run for political office or do we get a job. Obama and Hillary chose not to campaign in Florida or Michigan. Obama chose to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. Hillary chose to leave her name on. They both chose to leave their names on the ballot in Florida. Voters (BY THE MILLIONS) got out of bed, brushed their teeth, cranked their cars, made their way through traffic, stood in line at the polling locations, and exercised their right to vote for the candidate of their choice. This wasn't an accident, a cheat, or a fluke. Soooo - the Democratic party officials of the state get stupid and do something naughty. Should the voices ... the right to have their vote counted be stomped on because YOU think it should. I disagree, voraciously. The fact that Obama would agree with you on this point shows very clearly the unethical nature of the candidate of your choice. CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN ? sorry, doesn't hold water.
- MommaKatz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1As an Obama supporter I speak only to issues, which include negative and dirty political gimmicks. I find the Clinton supporters attack my character for doing so; however, I continually refrain for attacking in return. I find the generalized characteristics of Obama supporters suggested by you on this and other blogs repulsive, but that is a characterization of your action, not you personally.
One question, though, Floridian and Michigonian (NOT Chicagoan as that's IL) voters who've taken the time to research what went down with their vote aren't decrying Obama, so why are you? He isn't the source behind the disenfranchisement, their state legislatures are, and for very differing reasons. Did you take the time to research what happened and why, or are you simply pointing the finger of blame at Obama b/c that's what HRC told you to do?
I ask, because I find it odd that so many HRC supporters attack those of us who look up, research and discuss the issues. In what world is it ethically and morally reasonable to count an election where all but one candidate was removed from the ballot and voters were told their vote didn't matter? The only places I can think of are the old Soviet Union and those dictatorship that our government is so concerned with taking down. Can you explain to me why dems would find that even remotely palatable, b/c I've yet to hear an explanation.- runCMD, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1MommaKatz - you describe exactly my feelings about Digg's Obama supporters with their hate filled rhetoric toward other conscientious objectors to following the crowd in support of Senator Obama.
Following what Hillary TOLD me to DO ? You don't know me MommaKatz. I am disgusted by Obama's past and now apparently his hidden present - thanks to the revelation by the equally repugnant beliefs of Rev Wright. The difference between the two of us, is that I cannot and will not apologize for Senator Clintons or Senator Obama's bad prior acts. The this end. He is damaged goods as far as the whitehouse goes. She is not. Thanks for the great response. - And for correcting me getting the state wrong : ( I was typing in a hurry and my mind was 3 posts ahead. : ) Please forgive.
We have a right to vote in this country. If we exercise it, then it should be counted. This is America right ? Not the old Soviet Union where votes did not count.
- runCMD, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1MommaKatz - you describe exactly my feelings about Digg's Obama supporters with their hate filled rhetoric toward other conscientious objectors to following the crowd in support of Senator Obama.
- flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -1/+6Obama wasn't even on the ballot in one of those states- and no one even campaigned in those states- so the vote was a beauty contest. The will of the people is NOT represented by including those voters.
- inkswamp, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2> Howard Dean needs to grow a pair and law down the law,
Do you even follow the news or Howard Dean's statements on these events or are you just assuming he's doing nothing? During the PA primaries, he was on a few talk shows and radio talking about upcoming plans to get the superdelegates to declare and put this nonsense to an end. That's not something that will happen overnight, but it will happen sooner than people expect. - Desidarius, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I don't recall which interview it was, but I do remember catching some interview highlights a couple weeks ago which quoted Dean putting the end of June as a deadline. So if that interview is to be believed we have about two more months of this crap to look forward to.
- runCMD, on 05/05/2008, -8/+1Obama supporters here on Digg are very spiteful anway. nothing they do here will suprise me. They eagerly attack .. personally attack, anyone dissenting with their opinion. So - LOL - go ahead and pitch your hissy fit. I believe those floridians and chicagoans who took the effort to vote should have their votes counted.
- Luv5, on 05/05/2008, -16/+3Hillary is not going to win. America is not mature enough for a woman President. Like it or not, America never had nor will have a woman President. Trash the Clintons and vote for Obama now and McCain later.
- twiztidsinz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9The candidates race, gender and family's nationality mean nothing to me.
What -does- matter is a psychotic, backpeddling, lying, cheating, stealing, underhanded, conniving and an emotionally unstable person like HILLARY who will tear apart her own party to get what she wants.
She's demonstrated many times that she will do whatever it takes to get what she wants and to hell with the rest.
This has NOTHING to do with maturity or discrimination of any sorts. - gullydwarf, on 05/05/2008, -0/+7Reasons I don't like Hillary.
1) Should would be a nobody if her husband wasn't a former governor and president.
2) She was a board member for Wal-Mart (not a really strong reason, but it contributes).
3) She's a poor sport. This reason has grown to a point where I don't think I could vote for here if she won the nomination.
I'll admit I'm a bit biased. I'm from Illinois and I'm male. I don't think gender makes any difference, but then again there might be some unconscious bias. I didn't decide to vote for Obama because of his policies, they're pretty much the same as Hillary's. I voted for Obama because he has incredible charisma. He is the most "every man" out of all of the potential canidates. Obama earned his presidential bid, and has shown, time and time again, his character. - gullydwarf, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3After looking at your comment history it's pretty clear your just trolling. It's not all spam though, your first sentence is the truth.
- twiztidsinz, on 05/05/2008, -0/+9The candidates race, gender and family's nationality mean nothing to me.
- TheInformer, on 05/05/2008, -11/+9I think this is all so funny. The democratic party now is the new SNL.
- nevermind13, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4It can't be, you said its funny.
- lhbaker, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The current administration is going to be a tough act to follow.
- Plantagenet, on 05/05/2008, -23/+1So now Obama thinks voters in Florida and WIsconsin don't count? How is he any different then Bush in 2000? COUNT ALL THE VOTES!!! COUNT ALL THE VOTES!!!! COUNT ALL THE VOTES!!!!
- fadeout, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10Wisconsin did vote and Obama kicked Hillary's ass.
If you're going to make a strawman argument at least get your facts straight.- Plantagenet, on 05/05/2008, -13/+0 Obama wants to disenfranchise millions of poor people who voted in Florida and Michigan, and you are kvetching over the details of the strawman argument? Why don't you care about black people and poor people whose votes aren't going to count because Obama won't seat the Florida and Michigan delegatations elected in their respective primaries?
- Plantagenet, on 05/05/2008, -7/+0What kind of an idiot says he doesn't want his vote to count? Oh....I get it. You are an Obama supporter and you want the FLorida vote suppressed and the Florida voters disenfranchised so Obama can steal the nomination using the same kind of tactics against Florida voters that Bush used in 2000.
- verifex, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4You are full of it, Obama hasn't said one-way-or-another what he thinks should happen with the votes cast in Michigan and Florida, this has nothing to do with Obama (other then the fact that he wasn't even ON the ballot in Michigan). This is all about the Democratic party, and their rules they set up. Florida and Michigan were warned what would happen if they held their primaries early, and this is exactly the result.
If states can break the rules, then everyone will attempt to change their rules in order to be "first" in the election season, causing all kinds of chaos into the already disorganized process. I'm positive this has nothing to do with Clinton or Obama, this is the Florida and Michigan democratic parties doing something stupid, and then reaping the results of that stupidity. - Startemus, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4What kind of idiot goes to vote when they're told their vote won't count? What about the people who stayed home because these Primaries were referred to as 'Beauty Pageants'?
- 4bit, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3What about the 48 states that played by the rules?
And the moment you can show me where Obama suggested they should vote early and loose their seats, I'll agree with you. But they made this brilliant move on their own. So, who wouldn't want their votes to count? Obviously the people who scheduled FL and MI votes.
- Plantagenet, on 05/05/2008, -13/+0 Obama wants to disenfranchise millions of poor people who voted in Florida and Michigan, and you are kvetching over the details of the strawman argument? Why don't you care about black people and poor people whose votes aren't going to count because Obama won't seat the Florida and Michigan delegatations elected in their respective primaries?
- Startemus, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4I live in Florida and love it here. So I'm proud to say that we Floridian's are effing dumb when it comes to the concept of voting.
- ordig, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3yeah, Florida shouldn't be allowed to run their own elections anymore.
- tyderian, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4No. The DNC thinks they don't count and they are correct. Being a Florida resident, I tend to agree. Why should they be counted when Florida moved up their primary anyways with months of warning from the DNC? Blame the state.
- Plantagenet, on 05/05/2008, -4/+0What kind of an idiot says he doesn't want his vote to count? Oh....I get it. You are an Obama supporter and you want the FLorida vote suppressed and the Florida voters disenfranchised so Obama can steal the nomination using the same kind of tactics against Florida voters that Bush used in 2000.
- tyderian, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0It has nothing to do with who I support. And I don't remember saying whether or not I voted. I didn't vote because I knew it wouldn't be counted.
- rationalist, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1You are confused. The right to vote only applies to the general election. A political party can nominate candidates any way they choose - the don't have to have primaries or caucuses at all. Some allow all to vote, some allow only members of the party to vote. Hell, they could only allow one-armed paper hangers to select a party nominee if they so chose. The Constitution only applies to the general election.
- Plantagenet, on 05/05/2008, -4/+0What kind of an idiot says he doesn't want his vote to count? Oh....I get it. You are an Obama supporter and you want the FLorida vote suppressed and the Florida voters disenfranchised so Obama can steal the nomination using the same kind of tactics against Florida voters that Bush used in 2000.
- headzoo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Are you 8 years old?
- lhbaker, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Wisconsin? Are you literate?
- fadeout, on 05/05/2008, -0/+10Wisconsin did vote and Obama kicked Hillary's ass.
- 4bit, on 05/05/2008, -3/+15Ahem.
Dean already said they will be seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan. He said so on the Daily Show. He just wants to do so in a way that is fair for, Mi and FL, for the delegates, and for the 48 states that played by the rules.
I fully suspect that's why he's trying to call in the Supers early. That way he can seat them in the way that does as little change to their vote while still not actually having them make the difference.
Just relax.- ColonelJessup, on 05/05/2008, -2/+9How dare you! This is Digg.com, we have no need for these "facts" and this "logic" that you speak of! Take it somewhere else sir!
- 3leggedHorse, on 05/05/2008, -17/+4 Buried because there is too much politics ***** on digg. Remember the tech thing.
- jcm267, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5You can just set your preferences to ignore political news...
- cadmiumpaint, on 05/05/2008, -3/+7Hillary is on this phyrric crusade to single handedly destroy any chance of getting a Liberal voice into the white house to fix the neocons destruction of what used to be America. Let the voters decide. Stop trying to cheat your way in.
- Nilla32, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0What planet are you people on?? Remember John Karry? Ah he lost, and so will Obama!
- lhbaker, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1We're on Earth, where it's spelled Kerry. What planet are you on?
- Nilla32, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0What planet are you people on?? Remember John Karry? Ah he lost, and so will Obama!
- jellygraph, on 05/05/2008, -6/+4Barf barf barf
- YodaJones, on 05/05/2008, -12/+3Hillary likes vagina more than dick.
- drunkjack, on 05/05/2008, -3/+23Wow, the Clintons' thinking of doing something dirty and underhanded, I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say.
No more Clintons, no more Bushes. End this sick farce.- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Do you say the same thing when someone plays the Sorry card on you?
Clinton is just adapt at working within the rules that exist to get what she wants. There is no cheating in what she's doing, it's how the rules are laid out.- kmom5, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Hillary Clinton is picking and choosing which rules she wants to go by. I don't know about you, but I was raised to go by all the rules-even the ones that I didn't like.
- superkendall, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1Do you say the same thing when someone plays the Sorry card on you?
- shyboy2008, on 05/05/2008, -17/+4If we dont count Flordia and Michigan, than this process has failed. I will be let down big time. Let all the votes be counted.
- rjwisniewski, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5The process has already failed. It's old and outdated.
- coup, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3how should they be counted?
- Plantagenet, on 05/05/2008, -10/+0They should be counted just as the people voted. Where do Obama and the DNC get the crazy idea they have a right to disenfranchise millions of poor and black people who voted in good faith in these states because of a minor technicality?
- balthisar, on 05/05/2008, -0/+6You sound like you're being ironic, but just in case, consider the 40% of the poor and black people in Michigan that voted for "no preference" given that Hillary was the only substantial candidate on the ballot. Would you give her her delegates without any credit for the 40% that rejected the witch?
- dn11, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Florida and Michigan should have followed the rules. They knew what the consequences were long before the first vote was counted. They screwed their voters over, not the DNC. In the end almost every state has had their moment in the spotlight this primary season, not matter when they got to vote - and they followed the rules. Florida and Michigan don't deserve to even be mentioned again, let alone have any sort of decisive role.
- Plantagenet, on 05/05/2008, -10/+0They should be counted just as the people voted. Where do Obama and the DNC get the crazy idea they have a right to disenfranchise millions of poor and black people who voted in good faith in these states because of a minor technicality?