Clinton's Clear Path to the Nomination

by catchaz, Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST

Hillary Clinton has finally gotten a clear path to winning the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. There is no other path, she has only one road to victory.
It will take three-steps:

1) LIE
Lie by claiming that the election is not about pledged delegates, but popular votes.

(OK, so you've lied and changed the measurement to popular votes. unfortunately, she's still losing, BIGTIME. so you have to go to Step Two...)

2) CHEAT

Cheat by claiming you are ahead in popular votes. do this by NOT counting all the voters in caucus states, but DO count votes in noncontested primaries in Michigan and Florida.

(OK, you've lied and cheated, but there's still the pesky insurmountable pledged delegate lead to overcome. she does this in Step Three...)

3) STEAL

Steal the Democrtatic nomination for president by getting the Superdelegates to OVERTURN THE WILL OF VOTERS IN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND CAUSCUSES.  
Hey, the Superdelegates were put in place for EXACTLY this reason, to steal the nomination in case a non-establishment candidate was chosen by the voters.

Yep, it's that simple.
and it's her only path to victory. luckily for her, she is very good at all three tactics, so this should be a piece of cake.

All she needs now to make the plan work is a bunch of corrupt, dishonest, and shameful Democrats to follow her down her sordid path...

hmmmm...
i wonder where she'll find those...?


Poll
Do you support Clinton's efforts to lie, cheat, and steal her way to the nomination?
yes
no

Votes: 16
Results : Vote Link : Polls


Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Democratic primary, superdelegates, primaries, caucuses, pledged delegates, Democratic convention (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 70 Comments :: Post a Comment


Here's one! (2.00 / 1)

And, BTW,I am neither corrupt.  Dishonest.  Nor shameful!


by CoyoteCreek on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:59:06 PM EST

you're not corrupt or dishonest! (unless....) (none / 0)

you lie about the popular vote, you cheat and don't count caucus voters, and you advoctae stealing the nomination from the voters.

so i'm VERY glad to hear you don't suport any of those dishonest and corrupt practices. and i look forward to your scolding other Clinton supporters when they do these hideous things.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You read my comment wrong... (2.00 / 2)

I am a do-or-die HRC supporter.  So I don't consider her to have lied, cheated or stolen anything.

And I also am not corrupt, dishonest or anything else nasty that you can call her/me.


by CoyoteCreek on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for admission (none / 0)

"I am a do-or-die HRC supporter.  So I don't consider her to have lied, cheated or stolen anything."

so you are admitting that because you support her, do or die, NOTHING she does would be considered cheating by you.

sorry, but that is the definition of dishonest.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL. You are one sick puppy! (1.00 / 2)

Good luck in your life.  You will need it.


by CoyoteCreek on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're not corrupt or dishonest! (unless....) (none / 0)

Wow.  Such lofty, elevated, intelligent discourse.  Your rage is showing, and all this bile is not doing your guy any favors.  Calm down for a bit why dontcha?


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd vote yes.. because I do support her doing (2.00 / 1)

whatever it takes to ENSURE that a REAL Democrat (she is the only one left) gets the nomination of the DEMOCRATTIC party.

But I don't think she is lying, cheating or stealing.. sorry..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for honesty about favoring cheating (none / 0)

yep, whatever it takes to win, no matter the will of the voters.
at least you're more honest than she is...
the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thanks for honesty about favoring cheating (none / 0)

If you don't stop with the ugly accusations I will report you to the administrators.  Seriously, shut up.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"seriously, shut up" (none / 0)

be sure to out that bile you spit out in your report.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:38:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What would we do without you. (none / 0)

architek's unique ability to detect the REAL!1!! Democrat is the only thing that will save us from becoming FAKE!1! Democrats.  Thanks for your grace and wisdom architek.


by dystopianfuturetoday on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What would we do without you. (2.00 / 2)

Apparently a $100 million dollar fortune is the threshold for being a "real" Democrat. Former Wal-Mart board membership and partnership at a union-busting law firm are also key.
"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Clear Path to the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

If obama gets the nomination and loses the White House, I will laugh so hard in all of your faces. I can see the map look like 1988 all over again


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST

DiamondJay to clebrate ReThug victory! (none / 0)

THANK YOU!

you are one of the few Clinton supporters honest enough to admit you are rooting for the ReThugs.

you can laugh and clebrate with all your ReThug friends you've made in the campaign so far.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:04:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, you are saying our only choices are either (2.00 / 1)

the fake Democrat Rethug (Obama)

or the admitted Rethug (McCain) ?

THANKS!!!

I'm glad you clarified that...


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

our choices are: (none / 0)

1) let the voters in DEMOCRATIC primaries and caucuses pick our nominee.

2) let Superdelegates pick nominee

and if you choose #2, you are BY DEFINITION anti-democratic.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:16:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

architek - a human divining rod for REAL and FAKE! (2.00 / 1)

Once again, I bow before your political ESP.


by dystopianfuturetoday on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DiamondJay to clebrate ReThug victory! (1.33 / 3)

SO if this were 1988, before the election, and I were to forecast that Dukakis was gonna get raped by Bush, even tho I was gonna vote for Dukakis, I'd be a republican? No, I'd just be admitting the truth to myself, and not be engaging in the art of self-dilusion


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if you said you'd laugh when Dukakis lost (none / 0)

that would be just as shameful as what you did here, saying you'd laugh when McCain wins.

and it's almost as shameful as your use of "raped" in reference to the election, an insult to every rape victim on the face of the earth. shitty fucking remark.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if you said you'd laugh when Dukakis lost (1.00 / 1)

I will weep for this party, because WILL lose with Obama, but I will also thoroughly enjoy the exploding heads of his delusional supporters.  You guys crossed the line of reason a long time ago.  I try to be civilized, but you fanatics (yes I said it) keep picking fights with TRASH like this diary.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"thorougly enjoy" a ReThug win! (none / 0)

you will thoroughly enjoy a ReThug win because you get to watch the other DEMOCRATIC cnaidates supporters unhappy? that is TWISTED!

you have nothing to offer with your twisted version of "civilized." enjoy your new ReThug friends.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:43:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i wonder how these guys felt (none / 0)

when Mondale kinda dind't beat Reagan in 1984. Did they get angry at everyone who said hart would have been a better candidate?


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i guess we know how DiamondJay felt (none / 0)

you laughed and clebrated, didn't ya?

man you must love the ReThugs, putting those pesky Democrats in their place!


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i guess we know how DiamondJay felt (none / 0)

I never said I'd celebrate a loss. But when one looks back on it, the 1984 election, with Mondale's "he won't tell you, I just did" moment, one can't help but laugh. it didn't mean we were happy on election day. not everything is so monolithic.

If Obama loses, of course I'll be sad, even angry. But we'll look back on it, think about the elite and Wright moments, remind ourselves of how Hillary made few gaffes, and think "wow what a stupid move"


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:08:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

much better (none / 0)

only 6 posts before you could admit an Obama loss would be bad. better late than never...


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:10:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would have thought it'd have been assumed (none / 0)

but landslide losses to whichever side always have a comical aspect. As much as I'd rather McGovern have won 1972, thinking back on the "acid amnesty abortion" and his freaky hair, one can't help but laugh. Or Mondale's tax hike moment, or Dukakis and Willie Horton/debate/tank. HAHHAHAH the tank, common its slightly comical looking back. Being said, I'd rather all of those candidates have won, but they blew it themselves, and there is nothing wrong with admitting that


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What will you do if he wins? (2.00 / 1)

Beg for our forgiveness?


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:07:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Clear Path to the Nomination (2.00 / 3)

Why are Obama supporters so often taken by anger and bitterness?

Please cite the DNC rule which states that whichever candidate wins the most pledged delegates must be handed the nomination.

Please realize that Hillary Clinton has received more primary votes than any other Democrat in the history of the country, including Barack.  That is something we can be proud of.

As far as "stealing" - I don't see who is stealing anything.  I hear a lot of suggestions from Obama, his campaign and his supporters that superdelegates ought to shut the contest down without letting people vote.  I hear a lot of excuses for avoiding the issues and avoiding debates.  I see Obama lawyers stonewalling a plan that would have delivered a clear solution to MI - as a result of his short-sightedness, Clinton wins MI delegates by roughly a 60/40 split, it appears.

So I see a whole lot of hypocrisy and anger here.

I don't see a discussion of important issues like universal healthcare or job creation.  I don't see any hope.  I don't see any optimism.  I see no spirit of unity or working together.

Just anger.


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM EST

It's over bob and we aren't angry anymore. (2.00 / 1)

Will you vote for Obama in November if he is our nominee?


by dystopianfuturetoday on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:17:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's over bob and we aren't angry anymore. (none / 0)

You may not be but chatchaz is virtually spitting with red-faced rage.  


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i'm angry and bitter (none / 0)

hell yes, what reasonable person wouldn't be angry and bitter when a supposed member of OUR party is trying to steal our nomination?

guess i'm an old fahioned believer that the VOTERS should decide.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

part 2, cheating (none / 0)

"Please realize that Hillary Clinton has received more primary votes than any other Democrat in the history of the country"

great use of cheating bobbank!

those people who live in caucus states don't deserve to have their votes counted!


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

censoring truthful responses (none / 0)

for the 3rd time:

"Please realize that Hillary Clinton has received more primary votes than any other Democrat in the history of the country"
this is a perfect example of cheating, not counting the votes of MILLIONS of DEMOCRATS who live in caucus states.

and the continued "hiding" of this obvious and accurate response to bobbanks post is a sign that you KNOW you are wrong, and thus want to censor any response.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: censoring truthful responses (none / 0)

I find it cute the way you got impatient and responded to me twice in a row - too much sugar today?


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, THEY ARE KILLING HOPE.. (none / 0)

Hillary at this point represents hope...

for me at least.. that the implicit social contract that seems to be disintegrating can be preserved.

What Obama seems to want to do is codify its dissapearance.

Maybe that makes sense on some levels. Younger people and black people may feel that there is no way for them to advance, if the people who make up today's America refuse to give up?

I don't know, I'm struggling for an explanation of why people whose interest seem to be hurt by his policies still support Obama???


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, THEY ARE KILLING HOPE.. (none / 0)

I'm still struggling with why she surrounds herself with people (and benefits from the money Bill earns) who lobby for the Colombian Trade Agreement while she is against it.....


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, THEY ARE KILLING HOPE.. (none / 0)

"surrounds herself with people"

Cute.  But false.


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:19:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, THEY ARE KILLING HOPE.. (none / 0)

By the way, how do you feel about the fact that Barack's foreign policy adviser has stated that we must maintain at least 80,000 troops in Iraq until at least 2010?


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:20:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Clear Path to the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Why are we angry?  Because this race has become nothing but a glorified orgy of "spin" and creative new "metric of the week" ways to identify who is "winning."

Because if the positions of the candidates were reversed, the pressure for Obama to drop out from the media and Clintons/surrogates would have been unbearable.  He would have been forced out of the race weeks ago for "party unity."

Because Obama can be hammered constantly for not being able to "close" out the race by Clinton and her surrogates, while in the same breath they praise Hillary for "refusing to back down" and "continuing to fight."  

Because until Hillary unleashed what her own campaign described as the "kitchen sink" approach, this race was somewhat dignified.

Because there is a growing concern that the Clintons seem to have a set of personal priorities that rank higher than our shared goals of a Democratic White House and Congressional majority.

All these reasons are why there is anger.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

censorship (none / 0)

keep censoring, it proves you KNOW YOU ARE WRONG!


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: censorship (none / 0)

Honestly, how old are you?


by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:20:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

censoring MyDDer, and all Dems in caucus states. (none / 0)

"Please realize that Hillary Clinton has received more primary votes than any other Democrat in the history of the country,"

perfect example of "cheating" step 2, don't count votes of DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAUCUSES, thus disenfranchising EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT who lives in caucus states.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Clear Path to the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Florida WAS contested.

You're right that she's not close in popular votes, even with Florida counted.

A SuperD override would not be a "steal," since it's within the rules. (It would be a travesty, though.)


by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:04:39 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Clear Path to the Nomination (2.00 / 2)

You make fair arguments unfortunately your tone makes it hard to see the arguments through the rabidness.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:05:48 PM EST

thanks (none / 0)

for saying my arguments were fair.

i admit i don't know how to deal "properly" with a cndidate who tries to steal OUR nomination.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a stupid diary (2.00 / 2)

1. No one is claiming that popular votes will win the nomination. Everyone knows you need delegates. The popular vote  argument is being put forward to sway delegate to her side, which she needs.

2. It's not "Cheating" to note that there are various ways to count the popular vote.

3. It's not "Stealing" to use superdelegates to win teh nomination. Both candidates will need super Ds to do this. They are provided for in the rules.


by Mayor McCheese on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST

using Supers to OVERRIDE voters is stealing (none / 0)

sorry, but if the will of voters in DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES is overturned by party insiders, that is stealing. that's just common sense.

yes, its within the rules, which were created EXACTLY for this reason, to allow the party insiders to steal the nomination if they disagree with the will of the voters. the rules ALLOW the Supers to steal the election from the voters. so it's not cheating, that comes in Step 2, but it is still stealing.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why have super delegates then? (2.00 / 1)


by Rome890 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why have super delegates? to steal nomination! (none / 0)

simple: we have superdeleagtes for the express purpose of STEALING the nomination form the voters. they were put in after McGovern won in 1972. the party elders decided thhey should ahve veto power over the nominee.

that is TOTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC elitist bullshit. no one shoudl get to veto the choice of DEMOCRATIC VOTERS in our own nomination, not even Democratic elected officials or party insiders.

hopefully, the Supers will be cut out in future races.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why have super delegates? to steal nomination! (2.00 / 1)

that is TOTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC elitist bullshit.

You mean like a Caucus?


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

do away with caucuses and superdelegates! (none / 0)

but you can't punish DEMOCRATS who live in caucus states by not counting their votes.

but HELLYES! do away with caucuses and superdelegates, one person one vote!


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: do away with caucuses and superdelegates! (none / 0)

I actually think we need to abolish caucuses. But, I believe we should keep superdelegates, but limit them to ONLY seated elected officials. Governors, Senators and Representatives. Under this system, there would be "only" 311 superdelegates, about 40% of what it is today. Again, they will be free to choose whomever they want to endorse, but will go under an honor system and vote for the candidate who won their state or district.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why keep any? (none / 0)

thanks for your thoughtful comments.
i think that less SD's would be a great step in the right direction, but i wouldn't want just elected officials. and they could still change the results (i.e. steal) of the voters in a close race. so why keep any?

i think after 1988 more SD's were added to try to make it more Democratic, by adding community organizers & others to the list of elected officials. this was to pacify Jesse Jackson, who rightly complained that all the SD's were establishment types, mainly white, and didn't trepresent the Democratic community as a whole. so if there are ANY SD's, we need to make sure it doesn't go back to White Men only. the obvious answer is to do away with them, and let the voters decide. (or use RJEvans idea but MAKE the Sd's vote like their district.)


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: using Supers to OVERRIDE voters is stealing (none / 0)

I will attempt to answer you rationally, so please read slowly and carefully.

The superdelegate exist for one reason.  They represent the interest of the Democratic Party as an entity, not individual Democratic voters.  They are at-large delegates whose sole function is to prevent a disaster, namely, the elevation of an unelectable demogogue to the nomination.  If the SD's decide that one of the candidates is inherently unsuitable, then they prevent that candidate from ascending.  Quite simple really.

Them's the rules.  If you don't like it, change it next time, but that's how it's gonna go down.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

totally undemocratic and elitist (none / 0)

you have described the Superdelegate process PERFECTLY. thanks for that. and as anyone can see, it is INHERENTLY UNDEMOCRATIC.

we shouldn't support any candidate who says they will not follow the will of voters in DEMOCRATIC PARTY ELECTIONS!


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: totally undemocratic and elitist (2.00 / 1)

We're done here.  I'll be sure to remember your name, because I don't ever want to even think about trying to speak to you again.  


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THANK YOU! (none / 0)

see, everyone agrees on something?


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: using Supers to OVERRIDE voters is stealing (2.00 / 1)

A rational question...

Do you believe that whoever the nominee is that they will have to carry at least 70%+ AA voters with average turnout, and 60%+ of young voters 30/under with average turnout?

If yes, If the SD's overturn (meaning they vote for the candidate who is behind in pledged delegates) the pledged delegate leader how will Clinton be able to court these voters who will think that the election was "stolen"?

If no, that nominee WILL NOT win the GE.


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: using Supers to OVERRIDE voters is stealing (none / 0)

I am uncomfortable with the implication that blacks want Obama or nothing, that if Hillary is the nominee they will protest by sitting on their hands.  Obama in that situation will do what he does best, which is to inspire people to participate in the process.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:15:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: using Supers to OVERRIDE voters is stealing (none / 0)

I am uncomfortable with the implication that blacks want Obama or nothing...

It's not all or nothing...My question was if the SD's overturn the pledged delegate leader may AA's and young voters will perceive the election was "stolen" from them (and they will validity to that argument).  How does Clinton win back the confidence of these voters??

It's a fair question being that Obama is always questioned about the white working middle class voters...


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:35:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: using Supers to OVERRIDE voters is stealing (none / 0)

"sorry, but if the will of voters in DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES is overturned by party insiders, that is stealing. that's just common sense."

Isn't this the same thing that happened in MI/FL


by NewCommer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If the super delegates give her the nomination (2.00 / 1)

she would have won by the rules, so how could she be stealing the democratic nomination? There's nothing "democratic" about the Democratic Primaries. For instance, Clinton won the popular vote in Texas, but Obama managed to win more of that state's delegates. This isn't about the "will of the people," but who gets more delegates depending on which phase of the competition they're in. Obama and Clinton failed to get the 2025 delegates needed to close the deal in phase one. Now, it's up to the super delegates to decide, and if Clinton comes out victorious, it's because your candidate simply lost. Given his resources, it was his to lose. Don't blame Clinton for making the stronger case.


by Rome890 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:26:59 PM EST

Cowards and censors (none / 0)

this thread has proven that the Clinton supporters know they are wrong, and don't want to be corrected. i have four hidden comments, all in response to bobanks dishonest use of primary votes only.

all they have left is censorship, because any open discussion proves them wrong. as does their use of dishonest statistics and hiding comments they can't argue with on the merits.

thanks for the admission you can't argue my points on the merits.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM EST

thanks to the anti-censors! (none / 0)

hey, sometimes hidden remarks reappear! i learn something new here everyday!


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:08:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Clear Path to the Nomination (none / 0)

Rules are rules, primaries or caucuses count this primary.

Let the voters vote, apply the delegates and lets see where we are.

If some undecided SD's want to wait, that's their decision.

If some SD's want to pledge their vote now that's their prerogative.

Just wait until someone reaches 2,025, it's not over until then.


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:10:20 PM EST

are you comfortable with SD's overturning voters? (none / 0)


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:14:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Clear Path to the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

Here's my take...They have the right to vote for whoever they want.

However, IMO if they overturn the pledged delegate leader I feel Clinton will have the undoable task of convincing AA and young voters that the election was not stolen.  Remember the Dem NEEDS to carry atleast 70%+ of AA voters with average turnout and 60%+ of young voters in order to be competitive in the GE.


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:21:05 PM EST

thanks for thoughtful response (none / 0)


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Clear Path to the Nomination (2.00 / 1)

No one is going to "steal" the nomination from Obama. He's going to lose it all on his own. He can't seem to appeal to traditional democrats nor expand his voting base past upper income whites and AA's.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:36:55 PM EST

if he loses via the voters, i'll support Clinton (none / 0)

maybe you are right Ga6thDem, maybe Clinton will pull a miracle, get 70 or 80% of the remaining vote, and win. and if so, i'll support her ENTHUSIASTICALLY.

but why are she and her supporters threatening to steal the nomination thru the SD's if they believe they can win through the will of the voters? i think you have more confidence than they do.


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: