BS: Voting for Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 09:30 AM

It seems like the process was a lot more "rigged" on them Democratic side than on the Republican side. On the Republican side, and group of zealots got together and launched Mike Huckabee in Iowa, the the remaining primaries eliminated him.
                   On the Democratic side, a group of zealots launched Obama, but the following contests were rigged as well, and he was in the driver's seat from that point forward.
                   The next time the Democrats do this, if their smart, they will set up their primary schedule to match the general election as closely as possible, i.e. winner take all contests, primaries instead of caucuses, and etc.
                   As an example, if Kentucky and West Virginia had been caucus states, Obama probably would have won them as well, and the press and the general public would have had no idea of the huge groundswell that was rising against him.
                   As it is, they've got another McGovern, Dukakis candidate who will certainly be swept away in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 12:01 PM

And somewhere off in Puerto Rico, the flames of democracy danced brightly in the wind only to sputter and die as the rain came in from the west.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 12:06 PM

This is a complete crock, Rig and Jim.

1. The flames of democracy are well and alive, thanks. The process is working.

2. It is underhanded to assume that enthusiasm is soley an indication of zealotry.

3. Rig, which contests exactly do you think were "rigged" and by whom and in what way? Or ar you just waving your arms?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 12:10 PM

Speaking of waving one's arms around...

If only we could get Foghorn Leghorn's take on the American election process in 2008. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 12:21 PM

The DNC did not want MI and FL to have their primaries early. They told them so. MI and FL went ahead anyway. They have now been punished--and I would bet will not try that stunt again any time soon. The 69-59 MI split was the proposal by the MI Democratic party itself--it originated with the MI Democratic party, not the Obama campaign. The FL decision--which netted Clinton more delegates-- was agreed to by all parties.

Re: MI: the Obama side had the votes on the committee to have insisted on an even split--64-64, but in the interests of party unity did not insist on this, instead settling for the 69-59 split. We see by their reaction to this generosity how interested some Clinton supporters are in party unity.

Had the committee not halved the votes for both states, it's likely chaos would have erupted in 2012, as every state jockeyed to be first in the calendar.

As usual, the critics cited by Amos continue their willful ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 07:28 PM

Amos - I don't mean the process was "rigged" in the sense that anyone knew in advance who would win, and who would lose. It was set up so that a certain type of candidate would win.

                   The caucuses are not democratic. A very small number of people determine the winner of the entire delegation of a state. But these people are slanted to a "type" of candidate. These are people who work against traditional democrats and for the benefit of minorities and administrative types. They want to elect people who think just like they do.

                   Then there is the way the delegates are portioned out. That works against the stronger candidate and in favor of a weaker candidate. And then there is the way the primaries are scheduled. It seems funny to me that Obama won so many primaries early on, and then lost so many primaries in the later going, but the later going was too late to save Hillary.

                   What probably puzzles me more than anything is Howard Dean. He was a victim of just this kind of thing in Iowa in 2004, and he didn't seem to try to do anything about it from his position as party chairman. Although, it could be that the process was over so quickly in 2004 that it wasn't nearly as obvious that time around.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 07:51 PM

Tne causcuses are undemocratic??? Yeah, but Rush Limbaugh gettin' his followers to fu*k with the Dem primary is??? Okay... Take 2 minutes to vote and an entire night to caucus...

But the caucus is undemocratic??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???

Where Obama did well is where he out-organized Clinton "opn the ground"... Clinton thought that this thing was gonna be a push=over and by the time she figured out that it wasn't the Obama folks had organized at the grassroots level that Clinton just couldn't match which of course brought...

...Mighty Bill to say thaty Obama was living in a dream world, and Mighty Hillary sayin' that McCain was better prepeared to the be president, and then the Mighty Avalanche of typical Rwpub attacks by the Clintons (McClntons) and McCain and McMedia ever since Iowa...

Yet Obama is still standing???

Hmmmmmmmmmm, Part B....

You folks who still hate Obama??? Fine... Don't vote for him... Go vote for McCain, or Paul or Barr or write in Donald Q. Duck... I couldn't give a ratys posterior... That is your choice...

But to come here and lay this blah, blah, blah about how Obama doersn't deserve this or that??? Save yer typin'... There is not one Obama supporter who wants of needs to hear yer weepin'...

You tried to fu*k it up and you you failed... Get over it!!!

If you wanta weep and accuse, do it before a mirror if it makes you feel better... We Obama supporters have had it just about up to "here" with yer theaterics...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 08:37 PM

First of all, primaries are a party process. This nation is not a pure democrac but what is called a representative democracy. This primary was the method by which one party or another selects its representative candidate.

Second of all, the Dem method, while a lot less decisive, is more "democratic" you will plainly agree than the system in which whoever wins a state takes all its delegates to the party convention.

Third of all, when the Democratic primary process is allowed to run normally, it is not a small number but the larger number who determines which candidate gets the larger proportion of delegates. Hell, even with the MI and FL disqualifications broought on by their State parties, Barack bent over backwards to be accomodating; if he had been as hard over as Hill was, he would have insisted on the rules staying put, and both states' delegates being disqualified, because that was the deal that was laid out in the first place. A deal, I will add, that was VEHEMENTLY supported by Terry McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton when they believed it was their natural contest, a shoo-in for them, and to their advantage to require a well-ordered natonal party rule. It was only when those rules revealed themselves to be disadvantageous to them, because Of Obama's better organized grass-roots movement, that they decided they would like to change the rules.

Sheeshe. My daughter played fairer than that when she was thirteen.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 09:01 PM

Exactly, Amos...

Obama and his supporters have done everything to make the Clintons feel better about this thing and now it is time for the Clintons to reciprocate... The attacks and suggestions that Obama won by cheating is cheap... I've had enough of it... KIt seems that the only thing that would make the Clintons happy would for Obama to be assasinated...

From here on it on the Clintons to "change" their MO... I've had enough of their righteous indignation... They lost... They need to show some class here...

That's MO...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:27 AM

So Hillary wins again by 36%.
Shouldn't you be concerned?
These are huge majorities for her and very late in the game.
Notwithstanding that all of her victories are unimportant for whatever reason or that those who don't vote for your man are racists and those who do vote for him are enlightened.
I get all that.
Heard it over & over.
Because it's happened over & over.
Been a long time now since this man looked like a winner.
He's sitting on 92% of the Black vote and no matter what the media says, that's just not right.
Doesn't sound balanced.
Not for a candidate who preaches unity.
She now has the majority vote & the least pledged delegates.
I know. That's fine too because Obama is your choice but 36%?
Again?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:02 AM

Jesse Ventura said it right, and the same thing I've said for years..There should be a box below all the names of the candidates on the ballots that reads 'None of the Above'...That shows a willingness to participate, but a 'no confidence vote' for the propped up shills'..come on folks....they all suck square eggs! None of them represent any of you, do they??..Now be honest!! Year after year, we all tend to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'..but in fact, we're still voting for evil, and someone who does NOT have any of our best interests at heart. Everyone of them is so far away from our constitution, that if they spouted their trash, when it was fresh in our founding fathers minds, they would have all been tried for treason!! I could go on. from what I know, but why bother? You either know this to be true, or you don't!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:19 AM

This 'election' calls to mind the words of Adlai Stevenson(ran for President four times, Eisenhower-Kennedy era), whose words are surely prophetic, and obvious, before our very eyes!! "By the time a man is nominated for President, he is no longer fit for the job!"

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:32 AM

By the way, for what its worth, Jesse Ventura appeared on Larry King Live. about a week ago, and during the show they had a poll. The question was, 'If Jesse Ventura ran for president, would you vote for him?' The results were, 88% said yes. So, 'Guest from Sanity', you might be more right on, than you even imagined!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:51 AM

I still think we have three good candidates, and I'd be happy with any of them. The only credible negative information I've heard is that Hillary and McCain tend to be grouchy, and Obama can be a little too glib (or well-spoken, depending on how you "spin" that).

I can live with those faults. For once, I don't think it's the "lesser of two evils" - I think it's a choice among three good candidates.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 04:03 AM

Come on, Joe..Be healed!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:24 AM

I wonder why "Sanity" sounds like Janet.

Re: topic

We don't really need a presidential candidate who's staying in the race hoping her opponent is assassinated.

Or one who's incapable of admitting she made a mistake--on an absolutely crucial issue--like authorizing an unnecessary war--panicked by a despicable propaganda campaign. Others made the same mistake but she stubbornly refused to acknowledge it.

We've already had a so-called leader for almost 8 years who makes no mistakes.

Another helping? No thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:42 AM

Bobert suggests Hillary needs to show some class here. Class?   The Clintons? That threatens to compete with "judgment" and GWB in the category of oxymoron of the century.

Tom Vilsack (former Iowa governor and a national co-chairman of Hillary's campaign) said Sunday:

"It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee. After Tuesday's contests she needs to acknowledge he's going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him."

Her response: A somewhat questionable ad called "17 million" claiming she's received more primary votes than anybody else in a Democratic primary. I'm sure she and Rush are very proud of that. And of course she includes Michigan where her team alleges Obama received precisely zero votes.

It's Hillary Math in all its glory.

She has one more chance to start to redeem herself--to take Tom Vilsack's advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:04 AM

And of course Hillary Math also no doubt states that her campaign is now in great financial shape.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:34 AM

Well, she's right about Michigan! And I'd happily vote for Jesse Ventura too.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:49 AM

Janet, I believe, had some critical comments about Ventura as well while he was Governor of Minnesota.

Hillary will bow out with a final flourish after the Tuesday primaries, committing herself to helping elect Obama. She won't like it but she's a player, and Secretary of Health and Welfare might make a fine consolation prize.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 09:34 AM

She did not win the popular vote; the term is defined in its full meaning by those votes in which voters chose between equally presented candidates, which was not the case in FL or MI because of party machinations. Absent those two distortions the numbers for the popular vote seem to favor Obama. Counting votes where the other guy didn't win seems a bit screwy to me.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 09:54 AM

Adlai Stevenson is one of my heroes and since I didn't think that phrase sounded like him I looked it up. Unless he later 'refined' it, here is what he actually said:

"I'm not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning. "

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 10:56 AM

You're right, Charlie--it's time--actually past time--for Hillary to bow out with a gallant and generous concession speech.

We'll soon see if she cares at all about her own political future--which, if she doesn't do this, will be totally gone for anything beyond NY Senator.

Also, all the Hillary supporters moaning about the unfairness of the Michigan result over the weekend should note that the 69-59 settlement was proposed by a Clinton supporter and spoken for by another Clinton advocate.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:08 AM

"We'll soon see if she cares at all about her own political future--..."

                Unlike Barack Obama, she cares more about the country's future, which is why she is staying in.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:16 AM

So Obama now couldn't give a rat's posterior about the future of the country??? Hmmmmmmm??? I think it's a stretch to say that she cares more about the future of this country...

(But, Bobert, what about Rev. Wright???)

Oh yeah, I forgot that Rev. Wright = Braak Obama... lol...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:17 AM

She really looks like she will be your next president.
May as well start flinging mud at her now.
Note: The Rezko jury has used every stalling tactic they can think of before Obama gets the nod.
Last week they called a halt to the proceedings when one of them spilled coffee on the verdict sheet.
The judge agreed to give them time off until Tuesday.
I swear to God. It's true.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:26 AM

So Hillary cares more about the country's future than Obama does? Interesting. That's the same argument we've heard from GWB regarding anybody who criticizes the war in Iraq.

Nothing like the good old patriotism smear, I always say.

That must be a perennial hot seller at Smears R Us.

The CEO certainly likes it.

I wonder where the evidence might be that Hillary cares more for the future of the US than Obama does.

Oh, sorry, evidence and facts are never offered at Smears R Us. I should have known.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:28 AM

"She really looks like..." . So, willful--and still abysmal-- ignorance is still in fashion, I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:33 AM

As you've demonstrated!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:50 AM

The remark, attributed to Stevenson, is accurate, and unfortunately, he was(is)right. As for the other, Obama and Hillary, are both just politicians, who do NOT embrace the constitution, as their guide to their positions, or moral compass. Just read their positions. Sorry, that some of you get your info from your local high school paper. When any elected official, takes their oath of office, they swear to uphold the constitution, not change it to fit their own ideology, which, with media support, is rammed down our throats, and is destructive, to both our will, as a democracy, and to the founding principles on which this country was founded. GWB, in my opinion, has committed perjury, as well, by not upholding the oath he took. We need another party, that has some credibility. Both the republicans and democrats are both too corrupted, and are re-actionary to the others nonsense. When was the last time either of these parties represented you, or the will of the majority??? Instead, we get their latest notion of how to 'remedy' the ills pushed forth by the other party of crooks, and buffoons. We have the best system on the planet, as far as governing, but it has been far too corrupted by both parties, all the while, leading us to a form of government so far removed from what we had, fought and died for, and worked hard to live within!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 12:13 PM

Interesting that one person uses facts and logic and another can't seem to muster anything but smears.

Still waiting for any response, based on logic and evidence, please, that the MI compromise 69-59, was not based on a proposal by a Hillary supporter. ( And that the FL compromise was supported by both sides at the weekend negotiations.)

Not to take away the right of other Hillary supporters to whine, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 12:19 PM

But it's certainly true the patriotism smear is a tried and true approach. Usually   used against moderates, liberals and Democrats--but not by other moderates, liberals or Democrats.

Usually used, in fact, by desperate yahoos-- and Rove, etc.

But perhaps the poster has some evidence that Hillary is more patriotic than Obama. It would be interesting to hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 12:21 PM

Of course, the mustering of smears is why Hillary supporters whine.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 12:43 PM

Ron Davies:
          You are the last one left on this thread who still uses name calling, insults and trashing instead of sound arguments.
How about it Ron?
Cut the trash talk and join in with the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM

Now there's a sound bit of advice.

But will it be heeded?

Tune in shortly for the answer...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 01:56 PM

Jim:

I dunno about name calling but your unfdounded assertions are slanderous and ill-conceived, absent facts in demonstration. That's awful close to name calling.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:29 PM

When any elected official, takes their oath of office, they swear to uphold the constitution, not change it to fit their own ideology...

With the implication that any attempt to change that constition must always have been subversive and shouldn't have been alloqwed to happen. Which would of course mean that neihter Obama nor Clinton could have even been candidates for election...

Interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

It's a double-edged sword. On the one hand, tradition and precedent demand that the incoming president mouth his loyalty to the Constituion as a matter of formality (whether he really means it or not). It's a ceremonial act.

On the other hand, the Constitution is a valid set of safeguards to prevent the society being turned into some kind of dictatorship...providing the entire apparatus of the government at every level is genuinely serious and genuinely determined to honor the Constitution and apply it exactly as it was meant to be applied...

But are they? It would be naive to assume that they are. Once in government most people set about doing the various things they always wanted to do if in power...plus they have an eye on maintaining their job, getting approval of their higher-ups, making money, not getting in trouble, etc...

So self-interest gets in the way of total honesty and responsibility. That happens in any government.

The intentions of the people at the top of the hierarchy are vital, because those intentions filter down through all the other levels. If governmental leaders are acting in such a way as to betray the Constitution, then the rot will set in and it will work its way down level by level and the whole system will soon be badly compromised.

That is what has happened under a series of American administrations, but most notably of all under the Bush administration. The Bush administration has radically and fundamentally betrayed the American Constitution, so the President is in violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

(I might add, though, that the majority of American presidents have very probably at some time and in some way violated their sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. It's just that Mr Bush and Mr Cheney have been the worst yet in that respect, as far as I can see.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:13 PM

" ..majority of American presidents have very probably at some time and in some way violated their sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution" LH

Breaking that vow is not that different from the vows we all make- and break. Intent beset by weakness is the operative word here. Making a vow in the full knowledge that deception and manipulation and plans are in opposition is cynical beyond any weakness.

"With the implication that any attempt to change that constition must always have been subversive and shouldn't have been alloqwed to happen. Which would of course mean that neihter Obama nor Clinton could have even been candidates for election..." McGrath

Kevin, I don't understand the statement. Would you elucidate?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 06:30 PM

Amos: If I could read your post and understand it, I'd answer it.
Migraine hangover, day 1.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:05 PM

Yes, you're quite right, Ebbie. It's like the vows we all make and break. "To err is human." It's only when our errors in that respect get to a really serious level that something has definitely got to be done about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:34 PM

Yeah, it's been more than a few years since I studied the Constitution but I can guarentee everyone that attacking Iraq ain't in there... So it is possible to uphold the Constitution without such an attack, unless of course, Iraq attacked us first... Then things get turned around...

(But, Bobert, Condi Rice said that if we didn't attack Iraq then Iraq would have mushroom clouds over US in 45 days... Like what was that all about???)

Danged if I know... Go ask her...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:54 PM

Constitution for the United States of America

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(Click for the rest).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:30 PM

And this part:

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:31 PM

What I meant was that the Constitution was written for a country in which there was no question of women or black people being able to stand for election. It needed a great deal of adjustment, and there's no reason to think that that process is finished. Not necessarily for the good, of course.

Changing the constitution, and seeking to change it is part of the constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:45 PM

I named nobody. But some posters feel addressed, evidently.

It's interesting that none of the Hillary supporters have managed to come up with any evidence that Hillary is more patriotic than Obama. As I noted, that sort of accusation is usually made by desperate yahoos or members of the Rove team. I don't really think Mudcat posters are employed by Mr. Rove or his associates.

However, anybody who feels my statement is unfair can still provide the requested evidence that Obama is less patriotic than Hillary.

It should be easy--after all, I'm sure nobody on Mudcat would have made that charge without having solid evidence.

Waiting in eager anticipation.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:55 PM

The headline was about Sharapova at the French Open but would be perfect for Hillary too:

"Star Blows Huge Lead"

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 09:27 PM

To suggest that any candidate is less patriotic than another is asinine. It's mere innuendo and posturing of the most cynical sort. But that doesn't stop people in politics from doing so when they are pandering for votes. The Republicans, in particular, have been pulling that scam for as long as I can remember (they as if they had copyrighted the concept of patriotism!), although the Democrats also employ the same cynical tactic within their own ranks when they are infighting amongst one another.

Anyone who stoops to such a tactic would not get my vote if I were there to vote for him or her.

It's a contemptible way of scrounging for votes and disingenuously attacking the character of other candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:31 PM

True patriotism...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:31 PM

Ahh nevermind.

500