his effort to run for the White House?
posted by:
|
Washington, D.C.
|
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 9:15 AMDonna Brazile, a committee member who was Vice President Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000, said Obama actually conceded delegates in Michigan. ``He had the votes for a 50-50 split,'' she said.
He has bent over backwards on this and still with his 2050.5 to Hillary's 1789 current and the pending 78 plus the 200 some odd supers that have not committed someone give me the math not too. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 9:22 AMThe 50-50 split was probably the more defensible position. I'm not sure how they justified adopting the Michigan Democratic Party's 69-59 split under the rules. I think most Clinton supporter's will swing behind this. It's a fair settlement. I would have actually gone further and gave Clinton the 73 delegates provided that Obama received the "uncommitted" vote. They probably rejected that solution because it opened up to many legal questions. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 9:29 AMThere are many pissed off HIllary supporters and i don't think all of them will back Obama. Lets just hope this while ruckus doesn't F things up for November. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 4:23 PM<There are many pissed off HIllary supporters and i don't think all of them will back Obama. Lets just hope this while ruckus doesn't F things up for November.>
If the tables were turned, can you imagine how many Obama supporters would not go for her for the good of the party? I wonder.
<Not that I expect any of the Clinton supporters to be gracious,....>
Yes, because Clinton supporters are really a stupid and ungracious lot. Surely NONE of them have any sense of how to be gracious. Only the Obama people have such manners, 'eh?
Yow. Talk about elitist.
<This is typical of both the arrogance and the ignorance of Obamicans. Your candidate still doesn't even have the nomination and already you want Clinton's supporters to submit to a loyalty test. There is only one proper response to such idiocy: bugger off.>
No, it's time. He's going to get the nod, and that's fait accompli - so it's time for the party to all agree that we need to beat the Reps this time and every time in the future.
That's the sensible thing to do.
-
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 7:33 PM>> No, it's time. He's going to get the nod, and that's fait accompli - so it's time for the party to all agree that we need to beat the Reps this time and every time in the future. <<
Actually it is absolutely not a fait accompli. There is no precedent for the situation we are in now - none. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 7:36 PMcornelius is right. . .it is a fait, but not accompli. . .more of a fait certainment. . .
or even perhaps a fait vraiment. ( too bad fait vrai wouldn't work )
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 12:34 AM<Actually it is absolutely not a fait accompli. There is no precedent for the situation we are in now - none.>
I'd disagree, Cornel. Yes - this is an odd primary, but I think that if you HAD to bet, you'd bet that Obama would get the nod. There's no chance for Hillary to get the nod unless something happens to Obama - you know, he's found making out with a young boy or worse... He's going to get the nod, and then he's going to have quite a fight on his hands.
And, again - I am a Hillary supporter, so it's not like I'm one of the Obamaites. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 6:43 AMObama's lead on Clinton is so narrow that there is really no reason for her to not take it to the convention. She obviously has the best case for doing so, in terms of support from within the party, that anyone has ever had in the history of the Democratic party. Period.
And Hillary Clinton cannot be blamed for the fact that Obama is on track to become the nominee with the least amount of support within the Democratic party in the history of that party.
If Obama and his DNC buddies are serious about party unity then maybe something can be worked out - providing that Obama actually manages to put together enough delegates, which he still hasn't done. The Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting made it pretty clear, though, that all the talk about party unity is just that: talk. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 10:17 AMWhat the democratic party did will go down in the history books as one of the most flagrant, obscene examples of favoritism and rigging an election in the history of the world.
Like something that would happen in Russia......
ummm your only a half a vote dude..?
Some serious minds at work there -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 11:19 AM>> What the democratic party did will go down in the history books as one of the most flagrant, obscene examples of favoritism and rigging an election in the history of the world. <<
The Democratic Party has made dumber choices. And the most flagrant "favoritism" obviously came from the media - including, we are increasingly finding, such paragons of the right as Rupert Murdoch and Matt Drudge (along with such paragons of Craven Stupidity as Tim Russert and Chris Matthews). I don't think the media's favoritism has been based primarily on race, though. They just see Obama as cute and cuddly and basically a very convenient blank screen.
Obama has obviously benefitted from what can only be called monolithic support in the African American community. But there is really nothing in the least bit surprising about that - nor is there really anything wrong with it. Obama isn't supported JUST BECAUSE he's Black. Most African Americans obviously wouldn't support Alan Keys.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 7:12 AMHello the level of hypocrisy just popped off the radar.
FYI the GOP did the same thing.....
DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 11:49 AM<<What the democratic party did will go down in the history books as one of the most flagrant, obscene examples of favoritism and rigging an election in the history of the world.
Jeeezus Glen, you should really read up on the fact that the GOP PENALIZED THOSE STATES THE SAME WAY, they gave them half votes for breaking the rules. Seriously, address you lack of education on the subject.
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 4:31 PM>> Like something that would happen in Russia...... <<
Or..... between your ears, haha
-
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 11:44 AM<<The Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting made it pretty clear, though, that all the talk about party unity is just that: talk.
Cornel, you do understand that the Rules and Bylaws Comitte passed the compromise that MICHIGAN proposed don't you? I thought you said the states should be able to decide.... Well, MI decided and you are still bitching.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 12:48 PMObama and the DNC seem to be going out of their way to piss of Clinton's supporters. Actually TAKING votes from Clinton in Michigan and GIVING them to His Presumptiveness doesn't exactly send a message of healing and togetherness.
Besides, Obama has generally a great deal of difficulty relating to people who don't automatically swoon over his empty rhetoric. When it comes to actually CONVINCING people to support him, he's pretty much got nothing. Which doesn't bode well for November. And if he doesn't know how to reach out to undecided voters - how likely is it that he will ever get through to people whom he has given good reason to despise him?
But if the Dems really have to elect a non-entity like Obama it's probably better to do it this year, when almost any Dem could win the White House. The sad thing is that he will, if he gets the nomination, drag down the party nationally and it will undercut the odds of getting a fillibuster proof Senate and a veto-proof Congress - which would be attainable if Clinton was at the top of the ticket. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 2:43 PMClinton is not on top of the ticket, and probably not the bottom of the ticket either.
So will you vote third party or will you vote for McCain? -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 3:05 PM>> So will you vote third party or will you vote for McCain? <<
This is typical of both the arrogance and the ignorance of Obamicans. Your candidate still doesn't even have the nomination and already you want Clinton's supporters to submit to a loyalty test. There is only one proper response to such idiocy: bugger off.
Howard Dean got blown out of the water before the first primary ever took place in 2004. Compared to Clinton he never really had a serious campaign. And yet the wounds went very deep among Deaniacs. Dean has stated quite often that he had to work for months to get his previous supporters to back Kerry. He has recently revealed that it took some serious convincing to get HIM to support Kerry! So blythely arrogant demands for automatic declarations of support for Obama from Clintonistas is just stupid. But nevertheless this is all too predictable coming from Obamicans. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 3:25 PMIm not even an Obamaican. Unlike you, I am not a flag waving Democrat. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 10:43 PMCan we kill the word "Obamican" now please? Its an audio horror.
Obamats? Obama-heads? Obamans? SOMETHING -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 10:45 PMI've got it: Obamacrats!
How good is that?
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 11:00 PM
<<Obamats? Obama-heads? Obamans? SOMETHING>>
dude. where have you been. it's Obamites (for the resonable ones) - and O-bots (for the less reasonables) ~
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 2:57 PM<<Obama and the DNC seem to be going out of their way to piss of Clinton's supporters. Actually TAKING votes from Clinton in Michigan and GIVING them to His Presumptiveness doesn't exactly send a message of healing and togetherness. >>
Not that I expect any of the Clinton supporters to be gracious, but all reports are that Obama had the votes for the 50-50 split but came behind the compromise position for party unity. That they supported putting this beauty contest on the official delegate roster at all is an attempt at party unity. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 10:41 PMYeah, it seems like fanatics like Corny wouldn't be happy with anything other than 100% of Michigan's delegates going to Clinton. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Sun, June 1, 2008 - 11:19 PM
Anyone who expects all of the Michigan and Florida vote to be counted as is should have made their case before the fact. I really thought both of their states parties failed when they didn't change the date or redo. Either way the only path to winning against a bush third term is through unity. I would vote for any Democratic candidate this November. I think its pretty cool the party actually had two candidates with a pulse this time.
-
-
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Mon, June 2, 2008 - 12:58 AMmoney talks. last i checked, obama was outraising everybody.
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats suppor
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 11:46 AM<<Obama and the DNC seem to be going out of their way to piss of Clinton's supporters. Actually TAKING votes from Clinton in Michigan and GIVING them to His Presumptiveness doesn't exactly send a message of healing and togetherness.
More dishonestly from Cornel. Neither Obam nor the DNC are to blame for the compromise that was reached with the Rules and Bylaws Committe. They approved the proposal from MI, thus it was MI that took votes away from Clinton. Get it?
-
-
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 12:01 PMThe Michigan party accepted the compromise because they felt that the only other choices they were given were even worse. They were probably right in their realism - but that doesn't make the end result justifiable.
After all - Gore "accepted" the decision of the Supreme Court to hand the presidency to George Bush.
The 59-69 split idea has been floating around for months. And, quite obviously, Michigan Democrats did not support cutting their votes in half - although they probably preferred that to zero votes. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 12:22 PM<<The Michigan party accepted the compromise because they felt that the only other choices they were given were even worse.
Dude, you are not even close to paying proper attention. MI did not accept the compromise, they PROPOSED IT and are satisfied with the reults.
-
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 12:24 PM>> MI did not accept the compromise, they PROPOSED IT <<
Here's how it works. You put a gun to someone's head and hand them a blank piece of paper and a pen. Then you dictate what to write. That's how these things are done.
The amazing part is when idiots say, "but, look - they PROPOSED it!!" -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 12:27 PMYep. Obama muscled Carl Levin. The man who's been trying to reform the DNC primary process for decades. Maybe Obama is omnipotent. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 1:02 PMIn October of 2007 Levin threatened to hold Michigan's primary ON THE SAME DAY as the new Hampshire primary, in order to end NH's "cockamamie" first in the nation primary nonsense:
www.politico.com/news/stor.../6521.html
In March of 2008, Levin and Debbie Dingel wrote a guest editorial for the NYT in which they explained that Michigan Dems moved their primary up only after being told repeatedly that the DNC had no plans to penalize New Hampshire, which had already announced it's intention to violate the party's timing rules for primaries. The editorial was titled "Why Michigan is Fighting":
www.carllevin.com/news/2008...-fighting/
Excerpt from the editorial:
"Together with other Michigan Democrats, we are working to make sure our state’s voters are not disenfranchised by unfair enforcement of the rules. We are looking for a practical, secure and fair way to redo our primary vote. It is in everyone’s interest that the Michigan and Florida delegates be seated without a convention floor fight. But we are ready to take our strong case to the convention if need be." -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 1:30 PMActually Florida and Michigan were warned not to schedule their primaries prior to the four official early contests. hey were told their delegates would not count if they did it anyway. They did it anyway.
"National Democratic leaders have warned that states which seek to jump ahead in the primary calendar may be penalised."
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6959588.stm
Levin himself urged the splitting of Dem Delegates.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php
Florida was also warned......
"So the Democratic National Committee warned the Florida Legislature that if it held an early election in January they would not allow the delegates to take part in the convention... the Republican party warned they would take away half the delegates... but Florida decided to go ahead anyway with the early election as did the state of Michigan."
www.associatedcontent.com/artic...s.html
Now, show us this NYTs article that indicates your claim. -
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 4:26 PMCome on Cornel, you claimed that they were told they were not going to be penalized when in fact they were. Demonstrate your claim or else we will chalk it up to yet another lie by Cornel.
-
-
-
-
Re: Will ANTI obama democrats support
Tue, June 3, 2008 - 1:21 PM<<Here's how it works. You put a gun to someone's head and hand them a blank piece of paper and a pen. Then you dictate what to write. That's how these things are done.
The amazing part is when idiots say, "but, look - they PROPOSED it!!" >>
Can you demonstrate that is how it happened Cornel? Or is this like your false claim that the AP was copying Obama's words?
What you don't realize is that the state of MI understands it broke the rules and is accpeting of the penalty. Subsequently they came up with the solution, something you should respect being that MI is not protesting this decision. The only people protesting are those with sour grapes over their candidate losing, people like you that don't even live in that state.
There was no gun to MI head to put forth any proposal, you are just making unfounded excuses.
-
-
-
