digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at news.yahoo.com

Hillary Clinton Rejects Latest Michigan Delegate Plan

news.yahoo.com — Hillary on Thursday rejected a compromise plan to seat Michigan's delegates to the national convention that would give 69 delegates to her and 59 to Sen. Barack Obama. "This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted," Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker said.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dsmyre, on 05/09/2008, -4/+102What does Her Highness want now? A cherry on top?
    • wild, on 05/09/2008, -2/+23Her husband prefers a cherry on bottom.
    • qwerter, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1355% is waaaay more than generous; according to fivethirtyeight.com, Barack would take Michigan in November. Hillary would lose it.
    • MxM111, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1But at this point it could be 73/55 as she wants. I mean, whatever, it does not save her!
  • okokokok, on 05/09/2008, -4/+21Redo the entire thing, and then see how she does. Wait till the end though, then they won't even count if she gets all the delegates.
    • triplescoop, on 05/09/2008, -2/+11Sure, why don't you pay for it?
      • eclectro, on 05/09/2008, -0/+18Better yet, Clinton can pay for it.
        • Elliuotatar, on 05/09/2008, -0/+17Barak should offer her a deal. Have a revote, and whoever loses agrees to pick up the tab.
        • BrendanSheehan, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1I tired of responding to comments about this dishonest bitch.
  • OlivierNO, on 05/09/2008, -0/+108I don't understand... 69 delegates gives her the 55% she got without competition. What does she want? The whole 128 delegates?
    • CicurateGroup, on 05/09/2008, -0/+37It certainly appears that way!
    • wild, on 05/09/2008, -0/+40She wants Obama to not get the rest. She needs those to not count so she can get the total delegates closer.
    • BadseedJR, on 05/09/2008, -0/+28Yes. That is exactly what she wants.
    • soot, on 05/09/2008, -0/+12She just wants the remote possibility of being able to win the entire cluster or nothing.
    • scubaman5000, on 05/09/2008, -1/+30The ONLY thing that she wants is to be the next President. She doesn't care about anything else.
    • tsf5000, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10I think what she's doing is preventing him from having another 59 delegates. That would mean the end is even closer for her.
    • x0rcist, on 05/09/2008, -21/+3Uncommitted clearly means uncommitted, not Barack Obama. She deserves 100% of the delegates.


      lol.
      • nirav72, on 05/09/2008, -2/+12Are you retarded?
        The guy was not even on the ballot in MI and yet she is still being offered 55% of the delegates uncontested. Are Hillary supporters that delusional by believing that she deserves 100% of the delegates?

        Enough is enough!
    • fahrenheitlf, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4She wants the 600,000 votes added to her tally so she can claim that she has the majority support among voters. It would give her a case to fight with.
      • ssn697, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4And in true Hillary only double-speak, she wants everyone to believe Obama would have received zero votes in Michigan.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Actually it doesn't bring Obama closer to the finish. Because the finish line would be moved further away because it means more delegates being added to the total possible.
  • bitfreak, on 05/09/2008, -0/+99Jesus Lady, even when you get what you want you still cry about it.
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0MINE! MINE! MINE!

      ***snatches lollypop...ball...doll...jump rope....ect...****

      (rolling eyes)
  • CicurateGroup, on 05/09/2008, -1/+30Fairness dictates she receive less than 55% being that she was the only candidate on the ballot. This is the new "fuzzy logic" of the Clinton camp.
    • diamondbigdog, on 05/09/2008, -22/+5This is all about the fairness that the liberals have claimed is good for everyone.
      • smotpoker, on 05/09/2008, -2/+9Please stop equating us Liberals with Democrats. It is insulting to us and only very few Democrat representatives even come close to being Liberal
        • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -33/+2That's right, I'd rather just refer to you as the no balled ***** that you are.
          • petrodollar, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10Bitter much?
          • bjornski, on 05/09/2008, -0/+12@petrodollar

            Ever see a conservative that wasn't?

            And michael43. A quick scan of your comment history shows who the "*****" is here. Now go away. We don't need your type of ***** here. The adults are speaking. Go get an education, you moron.
          • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -14/+1Listen petrosheep& *****....Lift Obama's ball sack off your chin long enough to speak. I don't have to "scan" your profile to know you're a punk. Keep going with the crowd and think it means something to get a little "plus" sign beside your comment. I hope it makes you happy you little cum bucket. You might make manager at Walmart if you keep the vacuum up.
          • tsf5000, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7You fail at trolling.
    • TremorX, on 05/09/2008, -0/+20It's both hilarious and sad that even with no competition she lost 45%.
  • NoDrama, on 05/09/2008, -4/+36The Decline and Fall of the Clinton Empire.
    Witness it here first-hand, in real-time. Stranger than reality TV. Sadder than liberal and progressive thinkers ever anticipated. Uglier than a vice bust for a wide stance in a Minnesota airport, and going to get about the same amount of press coverage before fading into the annals under "Sad but true."
    • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -15/+2When Clinton was in the White House, the deficit was going down, jobs were plentiful and gas was a 1.25. Why would we want to go back to that???????
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/09/2008, -1/+11Yes, of course, when Hillary gets in the White House she'll magically solve the Oil problem, single handedly, and return us to the days of ol' where gas was $1.25. And trolls talk about Obama supporters being delusional. Look, Sparky, her last name doesn't mean jack. There is only one question, and one question only, you need to ask Hillary: will you, or will you not, do what is in the best interest of the country and not yourself? In fact, while you're at it, ask each candidate that question. Splurge! We don't need a Clinton, we need a politician that will help us just as much as they help themselves. Period. (Ideally the politician would help us and not help just themselves, but let's not go overboard here)
        • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -13/+1You need to ask your self if you're voting for a qualified candidate or just trying to prove you yourself and your neighbors that you aren't a racist. What you are doing is proving that you are a delusional idiot asshole.
        • jon30041, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5He answered your question intelligently, and you attempt a rebuttal by going ad hominem? Really? I'm not sure if HE'S the delusional idiot asshole, but YOU going on attacking everyone and insulting them without any foundation simply because they don't agree with you is lovely. What makes Hillary more qualified to be a Democratic nominee? Wasn't she the president of her school's Republican club? It seems that the only credentials people offer for her experience is eight years in the White House refusing to give Bill a blow job. So, she can't keep her marriage from going south, but she can run a country? She can't run a winning campaign, but she can be the leader of our nation?

          What kind of ***** have you been reading, Mike? What HAS she done, substantially, that can irrevocably be called "executive experience?" If she were the candidate we needed, then damn it I'd be going for her. But she isn't. She's petty, she's dishonest, and most of all she is not worthy of being entrusted with executive power. Her record stands against that. I don't think a ton of experience ***** up should get someone a Presidential desk. Though some individuals thought that that was perfect two elections in a row... You suggesting we go for a god damn streak?
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Michael, I hate to break this to you but I don't go around parading the fact I'm voting for Candidate A, B, or C. If I enter into a political discussion, starting it or joining it, I will put forward why I think A is better than B or C. I encourage people to vote for the person they feel is best for the position regardless of whether I agree with them. The fact that I am not parading around my choice should suggest that I am not looking for any sort of "redemption" from any particular issue by my peers. I don't care if you think I'm a racist, I happen to know--to a good extent, I won't vouch I'm perfect--I'm not. Believe what you want, my self-esteem isn't based on what you think of me.
      • sonstone, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6I'd love to go back to that. What's your plan for a replacement for the dot.com boom to allow the next president to do nothing and get a balanced budget?
        • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -9/+1I'm not running dumb ass. If I was, I'd pull out of Iraq and set back behind the desk and let your mother blow me while the war dollars went towards the deficit.
          • haydesigner, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2@michael43: "let your mother blow me while the war dollars went towards the deficit."

            Wow, michael43 must be the only guy in the world so ugly he has to pay $9.4 trillion for a blowjob from someone's mom.
            http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
          • Rendonsmug, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Ok haydesigner, I agree with you, but the debt and the deficit are NOT the same! "
            For 2007, the budget deficit totaled $162 billion, a five-year low."
            So it'd just be a $200b blowjob
          • FairDinkumMate, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3So your plan would be to pretty much copy what Bill Clinton did for 8 years?
      • bjornski, on 05/09/2008, -1/+12When BILL was running things.

        Are you claiming she has some kind of "experience" running things just because she was married to the star?

        Was Yoko Ono a great Beatle because she was married to John? Marrying someone impressive doesn't mean crap.

        "Hey, your heart doctor retired, but he's been married a long time. I'm sure his wife would do a GREAT job."
        • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -11/+1Bill ***** everybody in Washington and still had her following him, do you honestly think he won't have power in her Presidency? Go shoot yourself, you're not intelligent enough to live.
          • yournightmare, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4How does an incendiary moron such as yourself wind up with 46 friends on this site?
      • tsf5000, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5This michael43 fellow is obviously just mad at the world and needs something to complain about. It's kind of sad, really. Perhaps if he weren't such a loser, he'd have a perkier outlook.

        Buck up camper!
      • Kas70, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5The saying "you can't go back" applies here. The world and the country have changed dramatically since the 90's and you cannot push REWIND to fix it.
  • Bunnybutt, on 05/09/2008, -0/+19Hilary would be best to listen to the advice that mothers all over tell their toddlers... " You get what you get and you don't throw a fit! " (especially after the fact )
  • NyteStarNyne, on 05/09/2008, -0/+87I hope Michigan and Florida can see that Clinton doesn't give a ***** about honoring them. All she cares about is winning.
    • mikes1, on 05/09/2008, -2/+36HAW HAW. You misspelled "whining."
    • Nick2632, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11We do.
    • Franswahili, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11We do.
    • zydeco, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Um, back it up a sec. When Michigan and Florida were told that by moving their primaries up they would lose their seats, AND THEY DID IT ANYWAY, what were they expecting?
      Funny how we all want to play by the rules until they don't go in our favor.
  • aaronadms, on 05/09/2008, -1/+61I'm confused.. if FL or MI votes end up counting then what was their punishment for holding early primaries?
    • romistrub, on 05/09/2008, -0/+88Detroit and Miami
    • wild, on 05/09/2008, -1/+52I love the delicious irony that had those states stayed on their scheduled dates, they would probably have decided the nomination.
      • InvisibleMan, on 05/09/2008, -0/+17You know that has to be the most ironic thing that has ever happened in a primary.
      • dougmc, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2No, they probably wouldn't have.

        (And if you disagree, please explain why you feel that these two states would have decided the nomination. Keep in mind that the only way that Clinton would have gotten all of the delegates from both states would be if she got almost 100% of the vote, and that if the vote had happened when it was supposed to, that Obama would have been on the Michigan ballot.)
        • dougmc, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Ok, why am I being digged down? If you disagree, say why. Digg me down if you want, but also say why you disagree.

          If Michigan had had it's primary on the agreed-upon date, then Obama would have been on the ballot (or do people deny this?) Even assuming that Clinton took Michigan 73 to 55 (assuming that all those uncommitted votes were really for Obama, and only those votes, which is a huge assumption) and Florida 105 to 67, that doesn't give her enough delegates to pull ahead -- that only nets her 58 more delegates -- but she's currently trailing by 164.

          It would help bring things closer, yes, but it hardly qualifies as `would have decided the nomination'.

          Unless you're arguing that the `momentum' from those `wins' would have made people in other states vote for her ...

          Alas, all we can do is guess what would have happened, but my guess is that it would not have made that big of a difference.
        • Ukonu, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3I'm thinking most people are just digging you down because they don't feel like explaining the obvious.
          In this election, everyone knows that neither candidate is going to get the required amount of delegates. So I'm pretty sure the original poster didn't mean they would have "decided the nomination" in any definitive terms. He meant that those two large, important states having later primaries would have been instrumental in controlling the momentum of the election. This isn't just an important factor to later voters but to super delegates also.
          • dougmc, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Thanks for actually taking the time to state that. As for what the original poster meant, I only know what he actually said -- and I disagree with it, strongly. (Though I do believe that the idea he's putting forth does appeal to people's sense of irony or something similar -- if you don't like Hillary, it's very appealing to think that a simple mistake cost her the nomination.)

            As for the `momentum', the votes did happen, and so much of the `momentum' that winning of these states did actually happen and did benefit Hillary, even if no actual delegates were at stake.
      • rblancarte, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3When were these primaries to be conducted?
        • klasikahl, on 05/09/2008, -2/+7It would take you about two seconds to find out for yourself using a new fangled Internets tool called Google.

          But since I'm a supporter of being educated, I'll answer myself: Super Tuesday.
      • twrife, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5They would have been on Super Tuesday or after, so it could have gone either way, to be honest.
      • johnpaul191, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3NJ was one of those states that, in hindsight, goofed too. They would have been some time after PA, and have a decent population (plenty of delegates). They just played by the "rules" when they pushed up their primary. Who would have guessed this would happen.
        As a PA resident, we were BLASTED with media attention for those few weeks. I bet a lot of states wished they waited another year to move up like they did.
    • soot, on 05/09/2008, -0/+27Nothing, there is no punishment and its a *****-poor precedent for the party to set for future primary contests by not enforcing the consequences of violating the rules.
      • rblancarte, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8But it isn't like their votes are being counted in a truly meaningful way. They are being allocated in a way that would not follow the outcome of the vote.
        That being said, after reading your post, it makes total sense to just say F-em and don't let the delegates get counted at all.
      • soot, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6I'd almost prefer that. :S

        Its disenfranchising a portion of voters from participating in the primary season, yes, but how long will this kind of crap continue if something isn't done about it? The states will keep trying to skirt the party rules by sliding their contests up before everyone else, and the DNC will be too afraid to do anything more than give them a slap on the wrist because "it would be unfair to the voters" if they unseated their delegates. Of course its unfair, but the state parties should have considered that and won't make the same mistake next time.

        Then again, maybe this gigantic Michigan-Florida ***** has already ensured that nobody will try that again.
    • smotpoker, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6I'm not completely sure Florida should be punished. I haven't researched it thoroughly but according to some interviews and news reports I saw weeks ago, republicans did a pretty good job trying to force the Democrats there to hold their primary at the same time as them (because holding two primaries separately would cost more and republicans wanted bigger impact?). I think to be fair the people of Florida should get a re-vote at the expense of Florida republican party if they really were forced into it due to republicans running the state and all...
      • 47f0, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8Yep. FL was absolutely a typical good-ole-boy Charlie Crist play. On the flip side, if we Floridians are stupid enough to keep ***** our votes away on the same assholes, we probably should be disenfranchised.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3I think this is a myth. Yes, the Republicans in Florida could have moved the primary without the Dem's support. Would they have? Who knows, but if the Dem's had voted AGAINST moving it Florida wouldn't have lost their votes because the DNC rules only care about how the Democratic Rep's vote, not about the ultimate result.
        So basically, Florida could have had their primary early & had it counted if the Republican majority state legislature voted to move it & the Democratic representatives had voted not to.
    • rblancarte, on 05/09/2008, -0/+12You know - to take Soot's mentality further, I don't think anything should be done with these states. The reason they moved their primaries was to increase their state's influence in the primary. At this point if you did hold a new election they would have a far stronger influence than ever. What kind of punishment would that be?
      • Schmapdi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5At this point their is no way they could change the outcome of the primary, that's 0 influence. I'm with Soot though - they shouldn't count at all. That's what you get because you want your primaries to get more attention.
    • MrTito, on 05/09/2008, -12/+3Voting for Clinton.
      • theviceroy, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1where? you live in west viriginia? (cause seriously, i feel bad for you if you do...)
        • MrTito, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2No, I meant that is Michigan and Florida's punishment for holding their primaries early.

          OP: "I'm confused.. if FL or MI votes end up counting then what was their punishment for holding early primaries?"
          Me: "Voting for Clinton."

          Sad that I have to explain that. Thought that's what threaded comments were for. And if you looked at my profile you'd seem I'm for Obama and from Alabama, a state he won.
    • mikelist, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8i am a democrat-aligned michigan voter who sat out the primary because it was wrong. candidate obama was not the only dem hopeful who didn't participate, which is how candidate clinton wound up getting the most votes.
      michigan and florida delegates should be disqualified no matter who they support(ed). rule of law, not of hissy-fit.
    • taradisiac, on 05/09/2008, -6/+1Yeah, punishing a swing state like Florida would be a REALLY smart move for november.
  • redcolumbine, on 05/09/2008, -0/+31That was more than generous. She has no clue.
  • reuscel, on 05/09/2008, -0/+49This is as good a deal as the DNC is going to give Hillary. She should take it and shut up. She doesn''t deserve one single delegate from these states, but the DNC is trying to extend an olive branch to her and her ill-conceived campaign. She should take it and STFU!
  • TonyStark, on 05/09/2008, -0/+21It will be funny to hear how she justifies this since all she could talk about is that we should not disenfranchising these voters.
    • mozert, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6Beautiful comment. I reepeat for clarity: So now that the voters are not disenfranchised, what eklese does she wants?
  • Nekura20x6, on 05/09/2008, -1/+37She is sounding more and more like Veruca Salt:
    "I WANT IT NOW!"
  • PhireN, on 05/09/2008, -0/+14Thats the best deal she would probably get. A re vote (which would mean the delegates are reseated automatically) would probably have a slim margin (less than 5%).
    • trizzlelv, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7I agree that this is the best deal she will get. I disagree with your second point though. Theres a huge African-American population in Michigan, so much so, it was one of the only states Jesse Jackson won when he ran for president in the 80s.
      • 47f0, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Over 40% of Michigan voters dragged themselves out to vote for one candidate - "Not Hillary". I'm sure she wouldn't want to disenfranchise those voters.
  • FukUrCouch, on 05/09/2008, -0/+28WTF!!! How about obama not even being on the ballot! She wants it both ways!!
  • soot, on 05/09/2008, -0/+69"This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary."

    Well, I'd say this is a pretty generous proposal considering, you know, your opponent's names weren't even on the ***** ballot.
    • nevermind13, on 05/09/2008, -10/+6You are trying to disenfranchise the voters. They could have written Obama in if the really wanted him. I think that is how the rest of the primaries should be held, Clinton on the ballot and Obama not. The only way we won't disenfranchise voters is by giving them every single opportunity to vote for Hillary instead of Obama, like the constitution says we should.
      • ClawBlade, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1In primaries, there is no spot to just "write in" you have to actually vote uncommitted, it does make it kind of hard to tell who voted for Obama and who voted for Edwards by voting "Uncommitted" but that's how it works. Because of that, and the fact that we were told that the vote wouldn't even matter anyway, all of my friends who supported Obama and I decided to stay home. No one I work with took time off to go in and vote, and no one I talked to at work had plans to stop by a polling place after work. Those who did go to vote, voted in the republican primary, even if they were going to vote Democrat in November. It's not as simple as just "writing in your candidate" when your understanding is that your vote isn't going to be counted.
        • staffa, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Woosh

          Honestly, it might not have been entirely clear by the first two sentences, but by the end of his post it was clear he was being sarcastic.

          So either you stopped reading after the first line or you are just really really dense.
          • ClawBlade, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Actually, it didn't register in my brain the first time I read it, I reviewed what I said, and then re-read nevermind's post. I then tried to edit my post, by appending that after re-reading I saw that the post was being facetious, but by then it was too late, and digg's comment system had locked me out of fixing it. Thankfully, I did not digg down Nevermind's comment, and will be giving it a big thumbs up to make up for my stupidity, however, I would ask that I not be dug down in that post except by people who agree with the first line of neverminds post, but do what you want to it, it was a dumb comment in context.
          • nevermind13, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1And I thought dumb sarcastic comments were what digg is all about. Sigh....
    • loveandrockets, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Obama filed paperwork to remove his name from the ballot. So did others. Thems was the rules. Obama was following the rules. Hillary kept her name on probably expecting some sort of benefit down the road.
  • jabberwolf, on 05/09/2008, -8/+1And are they ignoring the FLORIDA vote that had both of them on the ballot ?
    • waitingtoderail, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Yes, just like all the candidates did - until Mrs. Entitled here didn't get what she wanted.
    • RebeL5K, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9Doesn't matter that their names were on the Florida ballot. The fact is they both agreed to boycott that primary and both said it couldn't count for anything. Since neither campaigned, Hillary had the inherent advantage in Florida because of her name alone, which Obama did not have. If yo look at all the other states, he went into them trailing hugely and made a comeback only after being allowed to campaign in those states; there is no reason to think Florida would not have turned out differently had he been allowed to campaign here.
    • theviceroy, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2jesus christ... ***** YOU FLORIDA!!! Seriously, you are the worst state in the union -- no one gives a ***** about you even if you have a lot of old people who vote. I am so ***** sick of hearing WHAT ABOUT FLORIDA?!? America's wang indeed.
  • abszint, on 05/09/2008, -10/+5***** the mpaa
  • markp93, on 05/09/2008, -5/+7please stop.
  • asancho, on 05/09/2008, -2/+20Hillary Clinton is a puppy eating baby-shaker. She needs to give up, quit whining and bitching, and go back to counting her and Bills money. She lost, save some ***** dignity already you cold hearted party splitting BITCH! There i said it.
    • RebeL5K, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8Well she's already lost abou $12 million of that money on her failed campaign and has not ruled out the possibility of lending her campaign more. If she keeps this up, she's gonna end up being more blue collar than she bargained for.
      • 47f0, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I hate the Web/SMS shorthand, but... damn, man, LOL - repeatedly.
  • novenator, on 05/09/2008, -6/+3The best solution would be for Michigan and Florida to hold a second primary that is for real this time (even with the MILLIONS that this would cost and with advertising). This is the next best thing.
    • Naieve, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6I agree.
      I want to spend a full week laughing my arse off when she gets LESS delegates from a recount.
      LOL
      • wrxpert, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5I have a real feeling she would get spanked in a recount. There has to be a good number of people who had voted for her that wish to change there vote so this can end. There was also a great number of undecided in Michigan that I assume really beling to Obama. I would also think that most of the Edwards votes in Florida would go Obamas direction as well.
    • RebeL5K, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Sure. And who's paying for them? Hillary is $20 million in the hole, Obama should certainly not have to pay for them out of his pocket just because the states broke the rules and knowing he will likely lose them both, and both the Florida party and the DNC have said they cannot afford to pay for them. So, I ask again, who will pay for them?
      • taradisiac, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1The states themselves. durr hurr
        • yournightmare, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2You know what's stupid? The Florida legislature is who voted to move the primaries up to January. The Florida legislature is overwhelmingly Republican. In the Senate, there's 26 Republicans and 14 Democrats. In the House, there's 77 Republicans and 43 Democrats. So that means all the Democrats and almost a quarter of the Republicans could have voted against moving the primary up, and it still would have been moved. I'm not aware of how many Dems voted for the bill, but if a majority of Dems didn't, I think the state Republican party should have to pay IF another election is allowed to be held. I don't know why the Florida Democratic party should be punished if they didn't even want the primaries moved up since they knew it went against party rules (that's hypothetical, I'm unaware if they actually wanted it or not).
    • bjornski, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Can you just imagine how ***** the Limbuagh "Operation Chaos" crowd would be if re-votes were held in those two states?

      The dirty campaigning would be thicker than anything we've seen yet. I'd have to say it would be interesting just to record the political commercials for future reflection.

      "Obama? He's not a Muslim! He's a Satan-worshiping demon from the bowels of hell, who dines on the blood of innocent Jewish babies and then forces old nuns to eat his waste! And the puppies! Oh lord, think of the puppies!"
    • taradisiac, on 05/09/2008, -6/+1The real reason people oppose this idea (I was buried just like you for suggesting it) is that they know Obama would lose those states.
    • johnpaul191, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5It might not be fair to let them have a revote. hear me out.... they are being punished for breaking the rules. ironically at that time in the contest, their results would not matter so much anymore. if they were brought back in for a revote, they would be pretty important to the delegate counts. they would also get all the financial gains of the candidates and media. in a sense they would still be profiting off breaking the rules.
      • bjornski, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Their delegate counts would count EVEN MORE if they were re-voted. They'd be getting REWARDED for breaking the rules.

        Nope. Punish the elected officials who moved the dates. Those were the agreed upon rules, by everyone, before it even happened. And now that one candidate needs a few extra votes, she wants to go back and re-write the rules to give her the numbers?

        Nope. No way. And a re-vote would be so tainted at this point that it would never be accurate. "Hey! Open voting! I don't belong to their party, but Rush said......".

        Nope. No way. It's over, it's been done, and it's been decided. Anything from this point on would be pandering and rigging.
        • taradisiac, on 05/10/2008, -1/+0Saying "Nope, no way" so much makes you look like you have a stick up your ass.
    • Charbax, on 05/10/2008, -6/+1Do a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. Or give all the delegates to Clinton in Michigan (based on the primary held in January) and distribute +38 delegates to Clinton for Florida (based on the primary held in January).
  • obamayomama, on 05/09/2008, -23/+6As a Florida resident, I remember the Democrats shrieking to "count every vote" back in 2000. Listening to them now reminds me of Orwell's Animal Farm... "All votes are equal, but some are more equal than others." The hypocrisy knows no bounds.
    • waitingtoderail, on 05/09/2008, -1/+19In 2000, they wanted the proper rules to be followed.

      In 2008, they wanted the proper rules to be followed.
      • Surefly, on 05/09/2008, -2/+4Rules? Where we're going we don't need... rules.
    • richardstaboner, on 05/09/2008, -1/+9All votes are equal if you play by the rules. These states did not. Florida and Michigan ***** up. Is it the voters fault? No. The voters should take it up with their state's party leaders, the ones who made the decision to violate the DNC's rules about primary/caucus dates.
      • bjornski, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5Exactly. If the voters are that ***** off about this, they should be taking their fury out on the elected officials who moved the date in the first place.
    • CrackyJSquirrel, on 05/09/2008, -1/+8Because you don't really grasp the concept of either situation, its a good thing your vote doesn't count.
  • PamalaLauren, on 05/09/2008, -1/+14I'm a bit surprised she'd ask for them to be seated but not recognize how utterly unfair it would be to not give Obama the rest when her wasn't even on the ballot. Guess what Mrs. Clinton you weren't supposed to be on it either.
    • cyberprunes, on 05/09/2008, -1/+11Why would you be surprised? She doesn't care about fairness! This isn't about democracy. She agreed to the DNC rules at the beginning of the primary to bar these states. SHE ***** AGREED!!!!!! Now she's on her high horse about how disingenuous it is. How undemocratic this is. This just proves her manipulative duplicitous ways. Unbelievable. To have the audacity to try and claim MI as it stands as legitimate when she was the only one on the ballot is beyond reason! Oh the anger that burns inside my soul!!!!! rofl Damn her.
      • klasikahl, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Wow that has a hilarious post. "Oh the anger that burns inside my soul!!!!" I never saw the point of being someone else's fan. Until now.
  • NelsonR, on 05/09/2008, -11/+5Hillary needs to dine with Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Bay Buchanan, Hannity, Cheney and their ilk and think of new strategies to abase Obama. Racist bigots who will ***** any and all who attempt to change a corrupt cronyism way of life in America. Hillary is quite pathetic and she will never be President.
    Even foreigners of every nationality would like to see Obama elected over Hillary and McCain, Why you ask? Since many Americans think they are the righteous of the world while attempting to police the world as they see fit. It's called Nationalism, the same Nationalism that Hitler used to his advantage with the German people in the 1930s. Are many Americans, illiterate Nationalist, you bet they are while thinking they are the pious. As just one American who served in Vietnam, you know the other lying war America started, screw the nationalist of every nation. One more point,
    Joe Lieberman is a traitor having Israel's interest paramount over America's, Go to HELL JOE LIEBERMAN. America should always be on the side of fairness but now with Joe and AIPAC the Arabs have every right to hate America. WE ARE BIASED ON THE SIDE OF ISRAEL SO PEACE WILL NEVER OCCUR. If I were an Arab or citizen of another nation I would also despise America for their ignorant, holier than thou attitude.
    • Surefly, on 05/09/2008, -5/+1blahblahbigblockoframblingtextwithsomeCAPITALSinthereforemphasisandarhetoricalquestionduggdown
    • Naieve, on 05/09/2008, -4/+0Ohh, that's why peace will never occur. We are pro Israeli.
      Go open a history book, there hasn't been peace there, ever. With Israel, or with Israeli slaves. Makes no difference. Maybe you should step up to the plate and realize they have a cultural problem. Their culture perpetuates the violence. The Israelis are merely a convenient thing to blame. That doesn't stop one sect from killing another. Sunni vs Shia vs Kurd vs Arab vs Persian vs Israeli. Makes no difference you fool. They don't want peace they want it all their way and no one elses. Which sort of takes the whole peace thing out of the equation. There will be peace in the Middle East when only when there are no humans left there.
      • NelsonR, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Your comment exemplifies why Peace will never prevail in the Middle East. First we have a biased attitude with the peace process, how would you like your land be taken from you while having to endure checkpoints initiated, that require your wife to be physically searched.
        Carter was speaking the truth when he used the phrase, Apartheid. Never has their been a more truer statement made. Put yourself in the clothes of a Palestinians and if cannot see the injustice I feel sorry for you. Tit for tat, IDIOT.
        • yournightmare, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1"how would you like your land be taken from you while having to endure checkpoints initiated, that require your wife to be physically searched."

          --A city meter reader who happened to be an amateur entomologist noticed the endangered Smith's wax beetle living in my yard, the EPA investigated and deemed my yard a habitat for endangered species and took my own property. We decided to move to Oregon, and on the way to the airport we got stopped at a DUI/drug checkpoint. When we got to the airport, two TSA employees decided my wife was one of the random people that needed to be strip searched. Apparently I should be declaring jihad or something, huh? Tit for tat, right IDIOT?
  • cliffdonovan, on 05/09/2008, -33/+1If Obama wins the nomination, I am voting for McCain. Go Hillary!
    • waitingtoderail, on 05/09/2008, -1/+22Oooh, how scary.

      Anyone who would support clinton and then vote for MCCAIN is a stupid ***** douchebag loser.
    • CrackyJSquirrel, on 05/09/2008, -1/+8Don't go home yet, you forgot your ball...
    • qwerter, on 05/09/2008, -2/+15Yeah...that'll show us. Go ahead and overturn Roe v. Wade, keep us in Iraq indefinitely, and make that deficit even bigger. All just to prove a "point." Fine. It'll be on your head.
      • yournightmare, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2I'm all for abortion rights, but I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. That's because I'm for the Constitution even more. Having studied the Constitution extensively in law school, it's pretty clear to me that Roe v. Wade is out of line with the power of the federal government under the Constitution.

        I'm not sure if you're aware, but contrary to popular opinion overturning Roe v. Wade will not outlaw abortion. It simply takes the federal government out of the equation and leaves it up to the states. Of course there will be states that outlaw abortion, that is part of the risk that goes along with our system of government. The federal government has far more power over the states than intended or allowed under the Constitution.

        Don't get me wrong, I agree with Roe v. Wade in principle. I just don't agree that the Constitution should be liberally interpreted so that the government gets the desired outcome. The states used to have MUCH more power over themselves than they do today. The slow erosion of the states' ability to govern themselves freely is quite frankly appalling to me and very much against what the majority of our founding fathers wanted and certainly against the idea of a Jeffersonian democracy.

        I was always behind Roe v. Wade until I went to law school and realized what an abuse of federal power it really is. Sorry for the rant.
        • likesoy, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2I can't imagine why anyone would dig this down ... now more than ever, we should allow states rights to flourish. It's obvious that most Americans agree on many issues while sharply disagreeing on others. If I, as a libertarian, want to live in a very libertarian state, New Hampshire could ideally be that state. If a very liberal person wants to live in a very liberal state, maybe California's the place they oughtta be. The contribution and distribution of federal taxes could be adjusted accordingly, and yes, things like abortion (and assisted suicide, gay marriage, polygamy, marijuana etc.) could be decided on a purely state-by-state basis. The federal govt could concentrate on the stuff we all agree on ...
          • qwerter, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1What about slavery? For a long time that was a "state-by-state" issue as well. Not to play devil's advocate, but there seem to be major problems with either scenario.
    • RebeL5K, on 05/09/2008, -1/+11YAY! Then you can brag about how you backed TWO losing candidates!! WOOHOO!!!!

      And P.S. I agree, Hillary does, in fact, need to go.
    • MrTito, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Your vote, your choice. My vote, my choice.
    • bjornski, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3So you're voting "pro-war" either way, then?

      I hope you've enlisted, kid.
    • OaklandNative, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6I totally agree with you, clifdonovan! ***** the issues!! It's all about spite! Who cares that Hillary and Obama have very similar views on the issues and McCain has almost totally opposite views? Who cares that the next president will likely be able to choose two new supreme court justices who will affect this country forever?

      /asshat
      • PopcornDave, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1Forever? Did I miss them finding the fountain of youth?
        Court decisions can be overturned by the court itself, so nothing is forever in that case.
    • likesoy, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6How ... the ***** ... can anyone support her?
      • bjornski, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Because the option would be supporting John W. McCain.

        And even if Hillary is a underhanded, self-serving deceitful bitch, McCain would be a disaster who would ***** things up much worse than Hillary.

        At least with Hillary, on top of the world maybe cutting us some slack and rebuilding some of our lost reputation, we MIGHT pull back on some of our military pushes. We'd still be Israels bitch, but we might not do something so MONUMENTALLY stupid as attack Iran. Something we know McCain and his advisers are just ITCHING to do, as they refuse to pay for it, add it to the debt, and issue more tax cuts which will never trickle down to be useful.

        Hillary would suck in office. But McCain would be a nightmare.
    • PopcornDave, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2I hate to break it to you cliffdonovan, but nobody really cares how you're voting one way or the other.
  • awolcfh5150, on 05/09/2008, -2/+13Hillary Clinton is a giant douchebag. She should be tied up and forced to listen to someone scratch fingernails down a chalkboard for hours on end. I hope that NY state kicks her ass out too. Oh and one other thing. This whole thing being thrown around her campaign about so and so is an elitist. If Webster's dictionary put a picture of an elitist beside the definition, her picture should be the one chosen
  • Naieve, on 05/09/2008, -1/+20She's always for it before she's against it.
    Pure Clinton.
  • DiggityCarl, on 05/09/2008, -1/+32OK, it's my recollection that Michigan and Florida chose to move their primaries ahead of New Hampshire and were TOLD that if they did , their primaries would NOT count. So, here we are......why is she bitching and complaining. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.
  • jjb123, on 05/09/2008, -1/+11Why won't she just go away already?
  • Deanblackoak, on 05/09/2008, -2/+9She's like the relative that comes to visit and stays and stays, ignoring all hints to leave. Patheticc. She need a lesson in how to lose gracefully.
  • rjn17960, on 05/09/2008, -1/+18As one other eloquent poster put it, "I hope that NY state kicks her ass out too."

    I'm really wondering how her recent behavior will play for her in the next NY Senate election.
    • x0rcist, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7I'm not voting for that whore.
    • Railz, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6We're not voting for her again. She only won because of one of the ***** voter turn outs ever.
    • fani, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4She knows she's gone too far. There's no turning back now. She has no chance in NY anymore and she knows it now. So, shes not backing down and its "full speed ahead onto her oblivion"
  • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -25/+1obamayomama is absolutely correct. You're all a bunch of hypocritical Obama ass kissing mother ***** and I hope you all choke on his dick.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7Stop. Sit. Think. You'll figure it out eventually.
      • 47f0, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Nope - when he sits it cuts off the blood to his brain.
    • bjornski, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7Who peed in your corn flakes this morning?

      Again, after reading your comment history, you're nothing more than a ***** off little kid with no clue behind a keyboard. You seriously need medication, counseling and a hug.

      I've seen people being assholes for the sake of being assholes, but you seriously push even that concept. I assume your attitude is all an act, because if you mouthed off and acted like that in real company, you'd be getting punched in the face on a frequent basis.

      Take a ***** pill. Go outside. But holy *****, lighten up, moron. Maybe you'll chill out once you move out and you don't have to put up with you mom's yelling at you anymore. Good god, grow up.
      • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -7/+1I'll come tell you in person, send me your address. While I'm there, I'll ***** your mother and sister, then pull out and cum in your face. I wish a little geek ***** like you would try and "punch" me. I'd bend you over and shove a Obama poster up your ass (which you'd like).
        • bjornski, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4You seriously need help.
          • 47f0, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5What he seriously needs is a retroactive abortion.
        • PopcornDave, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4You're assuming his mother and sister wouldn't ***** you with a plunger first.
          • bjornski, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3I dunno about my mom, but my sister would ***** him up pretty badly.
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Michael, if the person that gives you their address lives in a Castle state you might not make it back home if you set foot on their property with that mindset. Choose your battleground carefully.
    • tsf5000, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Why do you hate America?
  • username484767, on 05/09/2008, -6/+14What a *****.
    • BTime, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Normally I find that word offensive, but in her case I'll make an exception
  • Stevanoski, on 05/09/2008, -22/+2She won it fair and square. If they don't give her the delegates then she should pull a Lieberman and run as an independent insuring a split party.
    • Dimensio, on 05/09/2008, -1/+18Please explain how she won the state of Michigan "fairly".
      • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -5/+2She ran, the people voted, she won. Since when did the Democrats care about the law or rules?
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Again, how does a candidate getting ZERO votes in a state suggest that the election was "fair." I do not think that words means what you think it means.
    • lizlemoncello, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this without it coming off as such, but did you actually read the article? Michigan was told by the DNC that if they held their primary early their delegates wouldn't count. They ended up going ahead with it, and Clinton is crying foul over it, even though she knew that this is what was going to happen.
      • Stevanoski, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2ah, the vote nazi's, since when did the law or rules mean anything to a democrat?
  • yammy1688, on 05/09/2008, -2/+20I like how Obama is just staying out of the whole MI/FL thing. She's doing a perfectly good job of coming off as a whiny, self-serving sore loser all on her own. The focus of his campaign is on the general now - she's not even a blip on his radar, and she can't stand it. hahaha!
    • PopcornDave, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Sometimes the best statement is silence.
  • mozert, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7So, now who is out of touch from the reality?
  • dagamer34, on 05/09/2008, -1/+8Her not complaining last winter but doing so now is pretty clear flip-flopping when it works in your best interest. I don't what else she could do to show that "she's in it for herself"
  • JasonCox, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10Hillary W. Bush
    • bjornski, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Which also gives us George Clinton.

      But he kicks ass....
  • wizzroom, on 05/09/2008, -1/+23wait a second...Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, Clinton defied party rules, yet she still gets 10 more delegates than he does? Does anyone else see something seriously wrong here??
    • jon30041, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6They want her to shut up about it. It wouldn't help her much.
  • sdub74, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9She doesn't want the delegates, she wants the votes which help her in the popular vote count and helps her case to the super delegates.

    And giving 59 delegates to Obama gets him that much closer to 2025.
    • OSXpert, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7I agree with you that its mostly about getting popular votes (since she can't win the delegate contest even with florida and michigan), but the magic number isn't 2025 if Michigan's votes count. 2025 is only the number if Florida and Michigan are left out. Apparently Hillary isn't going to concede later this month if Obama passes 2025 because of that reason. ::eye roll::
      • paigeinphilly, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0who gives a hot dog damn about her crying her way to a popular vote..only after the fact of her getting these sham votes from the 2 states?...are you kidding me?
        damn...i really cannot stand the clintons anymore...wow never thought i would say that.

        crazy a&^%# broad.
  • jakeoooh, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7Hillary Clinton is like Larry David in that episode of Curb at the doctor's office. The one where the fat lady gets to see the doctor before him. The policy that he wants instated is the 'me first' policy, where no matter what time his appointment is, he gets seen by the doctor right away. That's sort of like Hillary Clinton. She wants the 'I'm President' policy, where no matter how people vote, or anything as trivial as that- she's president. Wake up- she wants to be president, and in her world that's all that matters.
  • dotjones, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2Geeez. She is starting to remind me of this Australian bitch named Paula that runs a dive shop on Guam.
  • VileTimes, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4The reason why she refused this compromise is quite obvious. Even if she would gain 10 more delegates in the 69/59 plan endorsed by the DNC in April, the benefit is meaningless when one considers that it would bring Obama 59 delegates closer to clinching the nomination.

    Hillary will lose this race, but she most certainly isn't going to make it easy for Obama to declare victory.
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0and some folks are actually talking about a silly ass joint ticket?...Obama would have to watch his back with those leeches watchin his every move, rubbing hands together, waiting for him to keel over...too tempting.

      get real.
  • AnarchoGoth, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7If she really wants the voters of Michigan and Florida to be counted, she should insist on another election being held, as the previous elections can not be considered legitimate. Of course that would cost a lot of money, and so if Clinton wants to show fiscal responsibility she should offer to pay for it with her campaign funds.

    But don't hold your breath.
    • OSXpert, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4"campaign funds" should actual read "campaign deficit"
    • hackiavelli, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1She' can't even pay for her campaign with her campaign funds.
  • taradisiac, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Obama's name wasn't in the ballot. If the people don't get a say, then Michigan shouldn't count at all.
  • Rubuntu, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3She's done, all she is trying to do is get the best deal she can get for all the favors she owes in Washington and to sponsors.
  • scotticus, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5She doesn't want what's fair... she wants what will let her win.

    Total lack of character, and not behavior becoming of a president, much less vice president. The Senate is where she belongs.
  • Sidzilla, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5Michigan was told that if they held their primary early it wouldn't count. ***** 'em. If the citizens don't like it they can either remove the weasels in their local party or move. Changing the rules three quarters of the way through the election would invalidate it.
  • nirav72, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5I think Hillary's plan is to draw this out as long as possible. Thereby ruining any chance for the democratic party winning the whitehouse. If she can't win, then no one else should have the chance. She doesn't care about her party. All she just cares about herself. Even in the face of absolute logic, she's being stubborn and defiant.

    She has seriously lost it in the head.
    • Neiby, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1This is what she has wanted since she was young. This is the goal her entire life has been about. She's going to do absolutely everything she can to win because this will be her only shot and she knows it. We'll probably get eight years of Obama, followed by four or eight years of a Republican. By then, no one will care about Hillary.

      Getting this close to her dream only to see it slip away truly is her worst nightmare.
  • likesoy, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7OMFG, where are the superdelegates who can end this thing? This woman has gone off the deep end.

    I'm a fairly conservative libertarian who will vote for Obama in November, but Hillary has re-affirmed my original distaste for the Democratic party and what it has stood for since I've been old enough to vote. With any luck, this really will be the end of an era.
    • Neiby, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Very interesting. I'm also a libertarian who will be voting for Obama. I also agree that this whole episode definitely affirms how much of a ***** the Democratic Party is. The whole superdelegate thing is ridiculous. It's there to help make sure that the people who vote don't have too much of a say. They want the party elite to have more control, so they devised this absurd system. This entire process is mind-numbingly idiotic.

      Regardless, Obama will win and I will be voting for him, not for his policies, but because I think he is a genuinely good person who cares about this country. He will help undo the damage done to America's reputation by the last two presidents (but mostly Bush, of course.) We need leaders who can make us feel good about our country again and, just as important, can make the rest of the world feel good about us again. Obama can do that. McCain and Clinton cannot.
    • Hodr, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0I'm a registered libertarian, who would consider himself a "conservative libertarian", and as such It struck me as funny that you make the same claim while stating that you will vote for Obama. I like Obama's character, and would probably prefer him (marginally) to Hillary or McCain (my own Senator), but he is very nearly the antithesis of a "conservative libertarian". It seems much more likely that you are either confused about your party affiliations, the libertarian philosophy, or Senator Obama's voting record (with regards to social programs and government spending, not the war / civil liberties).
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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