Hmmm.. Didn't hear a lot of people complaining about Caucuses before Clinton started loosing all of them.
Sure we heard complaining - only what we heard then was that is was the Obama people complaining about the caucus process in Nevada! How quickly you forget.
I think they were complaining about the Clintons trying to disenfranchise people. They were complaining about voting irregularites, not the EXISTENCE of the Caucuses themselves.
Anytime anyone is the least bit assertive with an Obama it's "DISENFRANCHISEMENT". But you guys can bully anybody you want "for the sake of the party".
It's people like Obamas that have ensured that if he wins the nod, I vote for McCain. He's a better choice, not a Dan Quayle wanna-be like Obama is.
I am starting to dislike Obama, but, he is not going to appoint anti-choice judges. So, I will vote for him, even if I have to walk into the polls wearing a clothespin on my nose.
Not to be too argumentative, but I seriously question what kind of judges he would appoint after closely reading his materials. His obssessive focus on "reaching across the aisle" and "coming together" makes me question if he would in fact appoint anyone that the Republicans would absolutely detest and fight him on it. Plus, given the extreme diversity of his constiuency, those on the right in his camp are going to want their due for their support. I really wonder if he would throw progressives under the bus if it meant avoiding a fight with the republicans.
I agree with your first part but I TOTALLY Disagree with your mccain comment. Anybody who would vote for ANY Democrat and then say they would vote for mccain is an idiot!
Sorry but it is the truth. mccain? Get real! How does mccain compare to Clinton, Edwards or Obama.... NOT EVEN CLOSE!
I rated your comment a "1" because I think that calling someone an "idiot" because they would consider voting for someone in another party before voting for the Dem candidate is completely unfair. I may or may not agree with them, but foisting Obama as a litmus test is unfair.
foist Obama as a litmus test?
hm.
Hey...she is calling like she sees it...and so am I.
Guess you should troll rate me too.
I do think there was a lot of grumbling about Iowa before any results came. I do agree with you, this clamoring for primaries instead of caucuses is very opportunistic-looking, it doesn't mean that they're wrong though.
Nobody is advocating changing anything about this year's results, so it's not really opportunistic.
I think a lot of us haven't really ever seen the nominating process go this far before, and are only now realizing how screwed up it is. So we want to fix it, is all.
You should have been paying more attention then. People have been saying this very same thing about caucuses for years. I continue to doubt that Howard Dean would have come in third in an Iowa primary.
It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or with Barack Obama. It has to do with an inherently unfair process that can't be scrutinized because of it's very nature. No one expected Hillary Clinton to win any of these caucuses - it's entirely irrelevant.
I notice that of all the posts I've read about caucuses, not a single Obama supporter has been able to rebut the objections that we are making. All you have is exactly what you wrote:
There are rules that apply to primaries that clearly don't in a caucus. You can't have supporters of Candidate X cheering, jeering and intimidating other voters in the election, with good reason. But that's exactly what a caucus is.
Here's a news flash for you: there will be no caucuses in November. If Barack Obama is the nominee, that means trouble. His supporters won't be able to silence McCain voters by cheering and jeering.
