The DNC decided yesterday to give half the delegates of Florida and Michigan to Hillary and half to Obama. On the surface it looks like a good deal, but Hillary and her supporters are ticked off and I can understand why. The problem lay with Michigan where Obama did not even campaign. Of the 128 delegates, 73 were committed to Hillary and 55 were uncommitted. But the DNC decided to give Obama 59 and Hillary 69. Not only did Obama get almost half of the delegates in a state were he was not even on the ballot, but it took 4 delegates who had committed to Hillary away from her and gave them to Obama. This has infuriated Hillary's supporters. The Democratic Party is self-destructing.
It's giving them another reason to take it to the convention. Right now its all about Obama having to compromise with Hillary on building the democratic platform. He needs her 50% of the voters to beat McCain and it's going to cost him a pile of Clintonian policies that he must support. Hillary is going to replace Teddy as the Bull Senator of the democratic party and she's going to get support from the White House. Hillary is making a a statement that she is smart, determined, tough, and assertive for future political capital. She knows that she has stepped up a tier. She's either going to be President or Queen of the Hill. You're dreaming, Bud. This is just politics. And you can't help but notice how much more seriously the Democrats are taking this election than the GOP. You can't help but notice the democratic vote getting out in the primaries and in the interim Congressional elections, which they swept. You can't help but notice the disenchantment and apathy on the right, the activism and determination to change on the left, and the lean of the moderates to the left side of center. The Democrats seem to be quite alive and kicking, . . . and evolving and progressing.
Neither Florida nor Michigan held true democratic primaries and the results from those primaries can't be fairly taken at face value. I think the only fair method would be to split the votes, hold a revote, or not count the votes as originally discussed. I think Clinton is terrible for wanting to claim all of those votes - her desperate attempts to win the majority of those votes seems politically dishonest with her only goal to win. It really turns me off of her, especially hearing that she has compared not counting those votes with elections in some African nation and with Jim Crowe laws. That tells me a lot about Clinton. I don't believe she cares about doing the right thing; I feel sickened by her political maneuvering.
You think Clinton is terrible because you support Obama. Attempting to win the majority of delegates in an election is the whole point of running! Making that out to be "politically dishonest" is quite absurd. :insane: Disenfranchisement does have its parallels doesn't it? You can't wish it away. :grin: Not like your political spin, which is saintly, wise, and virtuous. :rolleye33:
First of all, Obama cannot make Hillary queen of anything - much less the Senate. Secondly, don't think the Republicans are not taking this election seriously. In my opinion, they would have been better off nominating someone else. But McCain is the one who won because it was felt he has the best chance on beating the Democrats. If you look at all the polls, McCain is in a dead heat with Obama and Hillery.
Hillary is doing it herself, Obama be damned. Lets see if they actually turn out like the democrats are. Hillary and Obama EACH have gotten more primary votes than any candidate in history.
Nah, I think she is terrible because what she is doing is dishonest. I know that the point of running for president is to win, but I don't like how she has taken a "by any means necessary" approach. Honesty and striving to do things the right way is very important to me. You may see her actions as politically astute, I see them as an attempt to win by manipulating the situation. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I like his new book quite a bit, but of the rest I am leaning toward Obama. Sheesh, I can't believe you'd condone that. What Clinton is trying to do more closely resembles disenfranchisement, IMO. A reasonable person wouldn't believe that Obama wouldn't have approached half or better in Michigan and Florida. It seems you're heavily favoring Clinton and can overlook her dubious tactics. I don't think I was putting any spin on the situation. I am seriously offended by Clinton's tactics. I do realize politics can be dirty, but I still respond to honesty, straight-forwardness, and genuine attempts to do what seems to be the right thing. I guess you've grown out of naivety and into cynicism.
That's awfully naive, amigo. All is fair in love, war, and politics. How long have you been watching elections? What has she done that Obama hasn't? You're just wearing Obama shades. So why are you surprised that the whole matter is being compared to other disenfranchisements in the press? Geez. I'm undecided and I have issues with all three candidates. But I can't believe you're crying because big, bad Hillary is playing hardball. This is the Big One. It's not a game for sissies. If Obama can't take hard politics from Hillary, how is he going to take it on the international stage? If you're proud of your hero, then let him deal with it. Gosh, Beaver, you haven't lived! :grin: Very commendable. If only your perception of reality was better balanced. Fear not, this will improve over time. Hallelujah! You'll get there, my friend. Cynicism is a valuable by-product of experience, age, and wisdom. It serves us well.
She is trying to take all of Florida and Michigan though she didn't legitimately earn them; she is perfectly happy disenfranchising voters who would vote for Obama. She isn't trying to win the right way, she is just trying to win. I haven't seen the same from Obama. Because Clinton is trying to compare the electoral process in Florida and Michigan to that of a third world country. There were rules which were broken, I don't see the problem with applying penalties when warranted. And Clinton is hypocritical considering that she would gladly disenfranchise all who wouldn't vote for her. I don't respect anyone who puts their own well being ahead of the well being of the US. This has nothing to do with Obama (and again, Ron Paul is my hero, not Obama). This has to do with how Clinton carries herself and how distasteful I find her ambition. It really reminds me of Bush; the mindset that respecting the rules of the game is for suckers - all that matters is results. That is not what I aspire to; that is not what I believe in. I believe in rising above the fray. In the meantime, Obama seems the closest to that of the rest. Are you a proponent of no holds barred - it seems thats what you condone.
It's what I recognize. Political elections are not a gentleman's game and never were. It's an unforgiving contest for the votes. There are limits, of course. Go over the line and it can cost one votes. Fail to go for it seriously and one can be left behind. Obamatrons seem to think that they have some sort of entitlement to the crown. But this is a very close race against the Clintons, who have owned the party since 1992. Obama has to take the prize, he won't be simply anointed. Respect can't be demanded, it must be earned. Hillary is giving Obama an opportunity to earn some respect and show that he's got the stuff to get it done versus dogged opposition. Your outrage is misplaced, I think. A hard-fought race that is this close is a good thing. The winner will be finely tempered for the general election campaign.
