• comment on a post why I resent Obama(Mosley Braun for example) over 6 years ago

    I think that's the major fallacy of your argument; quite revealing too.

    Your resentment of Obama is, more or less, rooted in anger at him for taking away what Hillary deserved.

    But she doesn't deserve it; no one does.

    And here's something else I don't get - why is 35 years of experience sufficient but not 31 years?

    There are only 3 requirements to becoming President - natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, resident of the US for at least 14 years.

    Any other "threshholds" are highly subjective.

  • comment on a post 11-year-old gives $440 to Clinton campaign over 6 years ago

    Jesus christ...how could you take that kid's money?  I'm sorry, I respect him for wanting to do that but I just couldn't in good conscious take money from a kid.

    I don't fault former President Clinton for accepting it as I think it would be very hard to refus without absolutely devestating the kid.

    You folks should find out who the kid was and buy him a bike.

  • comment on a post Stay if You Must, but Don't Campaign? over 6 years ago

    It's Democratic leaders who said that it should play out so long as she doesn't restort, again, to trying to absolute destroy him.

  • comment on a post New Poll West Va: Clinton Up 43 [Updated] over 6 years ago

    It's a red state we're not likely to carry in the fall.

  • comment on a post Democracy or Selfish Ambition? over 6 years ago

    yet it was you're candidate who rejected the most recent proposal by the MI Democratic party.

    Hillary is trying to bully the party into getting what she wants.

    But if you believe those delegations should be sat based on the current results, you're fucking insane and I really don't care if you vote for Obama if he's the nominee or if you ever vote Democatic again.  Frankly, I wouldn't want the vote of people who are trying to force bullshit elections on the rest of their party.

    Sorry if you don't see those as two junk elections.

    And it's interesting how this is being reframed as a "resolution."

    Look, MI and FL are settled - they moved up their primaries, they lost their delegates.

    What remains is the possiblity of negotiating circumstances by which they could be sat, but if you think that it's going to be on Hillary's terms, fuck off.

    She agreed to the party's rules, she stood by the other candidates.

    Only after her campaign of inevitability fizzled and her December prediction that it would all be over on Feb. 5th went "poof!" did she care about MI and FL.

    MI and FL only mattered when she needed them, not because this is some issue of defending voters' rights(which its not btw - party's have jurisdiction on their nominating contests and no rights have been violated).

    I think everyone is open to discussing seating MI & FL and would like to see it happen, but it's not going to happen if the Clinton camp insists that it's according to the current results.

    Sorry.  That's nuts.

    And I really don't think you're going to have much success in bullying the party on this matter.  What's more likely is that a resolution is achieved whether Hillary likes it or not.

    I mean, she's rejecting the proposal of MI's own Democratic party.  She's standing by the results, calling them fair elections(elections that don't count for anything aren't fair - their meaningless), in an attempt to screw over her opponent.

    No reasonable person would look at FL and MI and say that they were genuine contests - not w/ one candidate on the ballot(Obama took his name off, as did Edwards and others, to support the party's rules, though I believe Kucinich kept his name on too), not w/o campaigning.  And saying that Obama ran ads in FL is tit-for-tat nonsense that gets us no where.

    I even support giving Hillary an advantage in the allocations, but no fucking way would I take 70 delegates to nothing out of MI.

    There isn't just one side at the table and nothing is going to be resolved so long as the Clinton camp attempts to bully the party and the Obama camp into bending to its will.

    If the Clinton camp continues to push in this manner, I'm pretty certain we'll reach the point where they can take or leave what they're given on May 31st.  At this point, I would like nothing more than for the Clinton camp to have to ask elected officials of the party to go back on their own rules and reward states for breaking those rules.

    Let me say in closing that just a few years ago Terry McAuliffe, still DNC chair, told Carl Levin that if MI moved up its primary, he(McAuliffe) would strip it of its delegates.

    The Clintons do not control this party any more.

  • comment on a post How my Health Care Changed my Mind About Obama over 6 years ago

    That's hysterical...I mean, clearly the Clintons have an argument because there are certainly no unsavory characters around them.

  • comment on a post HRC v. BHO: The Popular Vote over 6 years ago

    where we select based on the popular vote...

    I guess all these contests to get delegates is just meaningless...

  • comment on a post Obama's May 20 Strategy over 6 years ago

    Even Hillary's own advisors are on record as saying that it's 2,025, so if you want to talk about changing the rules, well, this new number of 2209 seems to fit the bill.

    So, maybe call them out for going back on what they have said within the last few months?

    I liked MI's current proposal - a 69-59 split - but it's pretty apparent that the Clinton folks will only accept what they want, which isn't exactly the way that negotiations work.

    Of course, you could point out the complete lack of credibility w/ the Clinton position - she should have spoken up about MI and FL much sooner, instead of saying the race would be over on 2/5; she never should have agreed to abide by the DNC's rules if she wanted MI and FL to count(even McCauliffe(sp?) is on record saying in 04 that he would deny MI delegates if they moved up).

    Hardly seems reasonable to turn this all back on Obama.

  • comment on a post GE and Clinton - I told you so?!? over 6 years ago

    Yes, George McGovern lost, but there's no need to call him a loser.

    Let's remember that in the late 60's and 70's the Democratic party was reeling from the exodus of conservative southern Dems who joined the Republicans over Civil Rights.

    It's not as simple as pinning it all on McGovern.

  • on a comment on Why Did Obama LOSE Indiana? over 6 years ago

    and she'll still be behind 92 delegates and about 100,000 votes.

  • on a comment on Why Did Obama LOSE Indiana? over 6 years ago

    ...back up what he said to Carl Levin in 2004, that if MI moved up its primary, he would have no choice as DNC chairman but to NOT SEAT MI's DELEGATES?

  • on a comment on Why Did Obama LOSE Indiana? over 6 years ago

    Or are do you feel it's a good thing to propagate baseless rumors?

  • comment on a post Why Did Obama LOSE Indiana? over 6 years ago

    over the last 2 or 3 weeks.  It looked like a pretty safe Clinton point.

    Using expectations from February is a major fallcy in your reasoning.

    See, it's not February any more, so what you're saying really doesn't make much sense.

  • comment on a post More on what happened over 6 years ago

    Sorry, just nitpicking but I see this mistake so often and it drives me nuts:

    "So, why did Obama do much better then, among women in Indiana, then he did among women in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio?"

    You want:

    "So, why did Obama do much better among women in Indiana than he did among women in places like PA and OH?"

  • comment on a post Thank you, Hillary Clinton over 6 years ago

    And thank you for sharing.


Advertise Blogads