DNC Rules Committee Decisions Make Mockery of "democratic" Party and Its "Systems"

The Olbermann-Obama hate machine.

Earlier photograph of DNC Rules co-chairs.

Now that they have voted, the "uncommitted" delegates showed how valued liars are in a "democratic" system that is designed falsely to provide "support" for the voters of Florida and Michigan. Indeed, after all is said and done, the "rules" have cemented the views of many lifelong Democrats that their party is one not only divided but hijacked by a group of individuals who contend they are responsible for "fairness" when in fact they are far from it. The best example of this is the way in which Michigan found itself with delegates no one voted for, imposed by someone who now gets to pick his own delegates from a state torn apart by a "rule" in which the only rules are Obama rules.

That they have now shown their true colors in this regard is no shock to any student of the "democratic" Party since it was hijacked by Obama and his supporters. This "new coalition," a term he quickly abandoned, is one that will result in such animosity that many of the strongest Democrats will abandon their party forever. This is no idle threat made by these lifelong Democrats. This is as certain as is their view that Obama is a loser in the Fall.

Our country cannot be and has never been run by or from the Left. The Left's views have become ever more aligned with totalitarian ideals as it has moved into this Century. And totalitarianism, including its unsavory threats and unacceptable social engineering, is unacceptable to a vast majority of Americans.

Obama's friends and allies tie him irrevocably to the Far Left, and will continue to assume this position throughout his entire lifetime. The threat such a position poses to our Nation is real and unacceptable to many if not most Democrats.

So many facts have caused these Democrats to reject their own party. From Obama's and the "democratic" Party's derision of popular votes to their destruction of the past in favor of a completely uncertain future, Obama and his virulent and violent supporters and party have run roughshod over everyone.

Obama's attacks on the media, Clinton and her supporters are but a part of this process. He has insisted that media and the Internet sites fight hard and with hate against Clinton and her supporters. The Democratic Party and the media has been purged by Obama. We are now faced with an unbelievable tyranny that will know no bounds if he is nominated and then elected.

Olbermann and his hate-filled diatribe was based on Obama's press release wholly improperly redefining Hillary Clinton's reference to Bobby Kennedy. Will longtime Democrats seize on this type of politics, laud Olbermann and his candidate as correct and proper in suggesting that Clinton and a man should enter a room and only the man come out, and vote for and support these sexist horrible men? This is the type of politics we have learned to admire in the 21st Century?

Older Democrats who have found themselves wiped off of the map in this disgusting milieu have only one alternative now: McCain. He will gain in support after the "democratic" Party's outrageous decision. Obama is no more the elected "nominee" for the Democratic Party than any self-elected and self-promoted demigod would be. His is a fate that may have to wait until November, assuming that the "democratic" Party carries through with its totalitarian control over what happens this year and chooses him as its presidential nominee.

Pelosi, with her threat to take things into her own hands if the superdelegates do not kowtow to her "Chairmanship" of the Convention (including no doubt arrests and abuse similar to that experienced in Chicago in 1968), and her henchmen are not enough. We now have a new group of fake "uncommitted" to thank.

Obama has twisted his way through caucuses in ways that are befitting the worst of totalitarian regimes. And his intimidation will not stop there, or with the media. His is a plan to dominate our country in ways we have never seen. And the "democratic" Party will see to it that they present him to the world as a "post-racial" god who will and can do no wrong.

Was it a part of the bargain that he would leave his church if he got what he wanted from the "rules" committee? Nothing is past Obama, nothing at all.

Will lifelong Democrats sit idly by while Obama and his "party" prevail, and still vote for him in November? A party that has nominated loser after loser and now kowtows to 12% of the population. Sit idly by while lifelong Democrats are hijacked by a campaign resembling the worst of Republican politics? Allow Massachusetts "democratic" Party politicians to dictate once again the Democratic Party's nominee despite Clinton having won the popular vote in Massachusetts by a huge margin? Continue to vote for Democratic Party candidates when the Party works with a totalitarian style that does not care who their voters really want?

Never, shouted opponents to the "rules" committee decision. And never will be decision made by many Democrat voters in November when voting for McCain.

Fears grow that Obama can't win	Guardian Unlimited	Sun Jun 1	132
Officials say Fla., Mich. delegates will get half-votes - Yahoo! News	Yahoo! News	Sat May 31	1
Clintons Balancing Act	The New York Times	Sun Jun 1	4
Obama's Need for a Healing Party Pageant	Wall Street Journal	Sun Jun 1	0
Land That I Love	contentions	Sun Jun 1	0

{"contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

politicalcenter's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: none
Regions: none

Public Discussion (58)

{"commentId":1870122,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

pc:

Was it a part of the bargain that he would leave his church if he got what he wanted from the "rules" committee?

More likely he was simply burying he lede.

Here are the relevant portions of the "fair reflection" rule, which was alluded to a few times yesterday but never outright debated:

13. FAIR REFLECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES

A. Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants. . . .

H. For the purpose of fairly reflecting the division of preferences, the non-binding advisory presidential preference portion of primaries shall not be considered a step in the delegate selection process and is considered detrimental. State parties must take steps to educate the public that a non-binding presidential preference event is meaningless, and state parties and presidential candidates should take all steps possible not to participate.

The question at issue then becomes, "Were the results in Michigan a 'fair reflection of presidential preferences"?

{"commentId":1870122,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

4 votes

#1 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 12:58 PM EDT

{"commentId":1871832,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

jfx, a more interesting question is this:

State parties must take steps to educate the public that a non-binding presidential preference event is meaningless, and state parties and presidential candidates should take all steps possible not to participate.

It sure seems to me that, under the facts on the ground when the primary took place, both the state party and the presidential candidates understood that Michigan had been stripped of delegates and that Michigan, in Hillary's own words, "wouldn't count." So did Hillary violate DNC rules by not taking "all steps possible not to participate" in a meaningless primary?

{"commentId":1871832,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

3 votes

#1.1 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 6:26 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872123,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

spiff:

Oooooooooooh. Nice catch. That language seems to require active steps, not merely passive "non-participation."

{"commentId":1872123,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

2 votes

#1.2 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 7:24 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872382,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Not really. Neither Michigan or Florida were preference primaries.

{"commentId":1872382,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

#1.3 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:19 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872407,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

pc:

Indeed they were--they became advisory the instant the DNC stripped away the delegates. Which means it was not a step in the "delegate selection process."

{"commentId":1872407,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

3 votes

#1.4 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:24 PM EDT

{"commentId":1870197,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

They were touted to be such at the time, with the uncommitted voters undecided among all candidates. The spin developed by the networks was to create an atmosphere that Clinton actually lost. In the end, the critical issues for these rules (which are obviously more inclusive than you have quoted) is whether and how one can affect the delegate selection process for any given state. This was not a "preference" and cannot possibly be construed to be one. Washington State has such a "preference." The use of the rules to deny public acceptance or rejection of candidates through primaries in order to force a caucus decision on voters is itself unconstitutional, as we will find out.

{"commentId":1870197,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

4 votes

#2 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 1:10 PM EDT

{"commentId":1870522,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

pc:

They were touted to be such at the time ...

Actually, No, but that doesn't matter anyway since the delegates were ALL stripped PRIOR to the vote. On the day of the vote, ZERO delegates were set to be allocated by virtue of the results of the vote.

The use of the rules to deny public acceptance or rejection of candidates through primaries in order to force a caucus decision on voters is itself unconstitutional ....

Wrong. Why do you Hillary people keep brinigng up that false argument? There IS a constitutional right at stake, but it's not the franchise, it's the right of free association. The Supreme Court so ruled THIS YEAR citing precedents going back a century.

You can continue to repeat your false arguments, but that does not render them true.

{"commentId":1870522,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

5 votes

#2.1 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 2:21 PM EDT

{"commentId":1871196,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Sorry, but the basis of the argument you suggest from this very fractured opinion is not correct. Scalia's opinion states his position this way:

What constitutes a "fair shot" is a reasonable enough question for legislative judgment, which we will accept so long as it does not too much infringe upon the party's associational rights. But it is hardly a manageable constitutional question for judges—especially for judges in our
legal system, where traditional electoral practice gives no hint of even the existence, much less the content, of a constitutional requirement for a "fair shot" at party nomination.

There is a substantial legal basis to claim that there is no similarity at all to votes on a national basis for a national candidate. Indeed, the literature and recent opinions suggest something entirely different.

Moreover, as with many federal issues, the precise parameters of party rules designed to elect a president may place it directly in the space occupied by quasi-governmental bodies even if they choose to believe that democracy is immaterial to whatever it wants to decide. Many could find your cavalier rejection of democracy to be dangerous for our country. However, most if not all Obama supporters feel justified in referring to rules no matter how anti-democratic they prove to be.

Pity our poor country and those who follow its processes if we and it are to suffer from such totalitarian views.

{"commentId":1871196,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

#2.2 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 4:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":1871653,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

pc:

There is a substantial legal basis to claim that there is no similarity at all to votes on a national basis for a national candidate.

Wrong. It's actually a much stronger case at the national level. And what recent opinions? Both the NV and FL delegate-selection procedures were challenged in federal court and tossed on the very grounds I cite. THIS YEAR. Can't get more "recent" than that.

You do, I admit, have a point about quasi-governmental bodies, but that's a huge and complex problem that has existed for 100 years or so. We aren't going to solve that at the tail end of an excruciatingly close nomination process. Ironically, one of the cleanest way to solve it is to return to more caucuses, which are less of a drain on party coffers.

You also have a point about my cavalier dismissal of "democracy." It's just not my highest priority in contests like this. I'd prefer smoke-filled rooms, and not only because I smoke.

{"commentId":1871653,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

3 votes

#2.3 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 5:52 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872397,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

The fact of state management subject to federal review is apparent in the Washington state ruling that justifies the state eliminating all but two candidates on the Washington ballot. And more important, as stated, the right to associate for states is far different from the federal level. When parties effectively forclose candidates because of discrimination, such as occurred here, they are subject to lawsuits. Moreover, when a "party" institutes rules and is a part of the state presidential mechanics, their obligation is to federal not state law.

Many attacks are possible. I only hope that Hillary Clinton does not give up too early.

Much to do and see before then.

{"commentId":1872397,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

#2.4 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:23 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872425,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

politcalcenter---well if we can surmise anything from the demeanor of Harold Ickes yesterday Ms. Clinton has no intentions of giving up too easily.

{"commentId":1872425,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

1 vote

#2.5 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:27 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872890,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

One Florida case was deemed not yet ripe. The other was just decided without analysis. The Nevada case was on another point. None found that the DP was without limitations on what they could do or say a best I remember. And none was from the supreme law of the land.

The Washington state case was a Supreme Court case. All three parties lost.

{"commentId":1872890,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

#2.6 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 10:06 PM EDT

{"commentId":1870385,"authorDomain":"headinthegame"}

headinthegame

The DNC is very UN-democratic

{"commentId":1870385,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"headinthegame"}

3 votes

#3 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 1:46 PM EDT

{"commentId":1871053,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

This is not limited to the DNC. Many states have perpetuated systems that cry for reform because they deny voters their preferred candidates. Nevada includes weighted systems that provide inordinate power to Republicans and those in the western part of the state. Nevada is one of many states where the majority of voters may be thwarted from selecting their choice as nominee. Washington actually found that cacuses were undemocratic and eliminated them, finding itself with the Democratic Party funding its own "caucuses" at great cost and rendering its primary meaningless, a potential violation of the intent of the law eliminating state funding of caucuses. In every instance, Clinton has done better or won the popular vote only to find herself losing delegate and Obama gaining a majority. This is but the last in a long string of disgusting methods used to ensure that the bigwig party bosses get their candidate. As disgusting a system as has ever been foisted on the US as "democratic."

Shame on the DNC and shame on a party which can act this way.

{"commentId":1871053,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

3 votes

#3.1 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 3:58 PM EDT

{"commentId":1870862,"authorDomain":"lynx55"}

lynx55

This is simply a comment...not very politically astute I am afraid, and probably a tad (?) emotional, but I can count on one hand the number of times I have felt the need to force my opinions on anyone else, this just happens to be the day. I am not going to argue this with anyone , as it is just my opinion, take it or leave it. But as you see I will explode, implode or something if I don't get this out in public somewhre!

I have finally completely had it with the Clinton whiners....and now we have to see them sniveling and crying on air! GET A GRIP!

Why, why , why isn't anyone pointing out, or asking the question: "Don't you think if Obama had more or less broken the unspoken Democratic Party rules also and had is name on the ballot in Michigan as Clinton that he would have had at least the same number of votes that they have given him?" When you consider how he did in Iowa, and neighboring Wisconsin, at that period of time, he may seriously have WON Michigan. Clinton should NOT be given any kind of reward for putting her name on a ballot in a state that HER own party stated unequivocally was not going to have it's ballots counted! Matter of fact, maybe she should be punished for encouraging the state to think they had a chance for their votes to be counted after breaking the rules.

Why should states next year fear breaking the rules? What does this teach our children about rules in our country? What is Clinton teaching children besides, lying about the popular vote and breaking rules? (Unless of course we all want to accept Clintonesque Math now....)

So, because Obama stuck by the rules he is now being penalized by not sharing equally in Michigan's ballots.....is this right? Moral ? Ethical? Politically correct? How can it possibly be any of those?

And while I am on a rant, what the blue blazes is happening when a candidate can make the claim that the caucus system in many states should not count? Excuse me??? Why do states have them if the vote in them shouldn't count?? I clearly remember her stating that the "Clinton's never do
well in the Caucus system"..., but never ( until she realized she didn't have the popular vote by counting the caucus vote) did we hear from her that they shouldn't count! Are we supposed to just roll our eyes, go tsk, tsk, and laugh while saying, "Oh those silly Clinton's!"

Well, NOT ME...NO, NO, NO!!

I am eternally grateful I made the decision early on to back Obama based on a friend's experience in New York with Clinton as a Senator. This campaign has made it dreadfully clear how right my friend was, and how crystal clear what kind of person Hillary Clinton is. Watching her in this campaign almost made me ashamed of being a woman. She pulled out the sexist card every chance she could! But you can bet it wouldn't have been heard of if she was winning! Obama could have easily pulled out the racism card. Oh come on, at the extreme risk of being completely politically incorrect,you all know that Hillary got the redneck/hillbilly/anti-muslim, and yes, the "what's left of the Clan" votes in W. VA, Kentucky and some other southern states! Do you honestly think that this isn't a perfect example of racism in this election and in our country, sad to say??

I wish everyone would just quit pandering to the Clinton's! And to be quite honest, the Media is the worst! (Wolf Blitzer. is so transparent in his support of Hillary it's laughable!) In one segment CNN shows clearly how Clinton cannot win...and in the very next segment, they ask the question " Can Hillary pull it off? " You make me want to tear my hair out!

And just to set the record straight, I WAS a fierce protector and backer of Bill Clinton. ( "was" being the operative word...what happened to him? (LOL... I have gone through all the scary scenarios in my head already..) And I started out this year with the intention of backing Hillary.

And, by the way, I AM a woman. I don't vote on the basis of "I want to see a woman in the oval office before I die." I vote on who I feel will do the better job. We all should. Not because of race, sex, or any other silly thing this generation of people can come up with.

Ok, I feel better now, I needed to rant up on a soapbox all day and honestly do not do this often. Thanks for at least bearing with me...if you did.(?) Now excuse me, but I have to go MUTE the TV, Clinton is on.....

{"commentId":1870862,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lynx55"}

#4 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 3:32 PM EDT

{"commentId":1871006,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Your comment is reflective of the disinformation disseminated by Obama supporters.

It has been variously falsely stated by Obama and his supporters and surrogates that Clinton advertised in Florida, that Obama did not, that Clinton violated rules by leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan and any number of other falsified statements which, after being repeated on blogs and other places, even the MSM, have taken on their own veracity without any factual support.

In fact, Obama advertised in Florida, and supported this by going to the South Carolina chair of that state's "democratic" Party (who is also on the "rules" committee) who said it was perfectly fine to do national advertisement that would violate the rules. Clinton never did any of the things you claim.

If you have proof of any active Klan members voting for Hillary Clinton, please produce it. Otherwise, your post merely adds to the many lies propounded by Obama supporters, something we have gotten very used to during the past year.

Whatever you are suggesting by your commentary on Bill Clinton is best left for you to clarify.

Finally, your sordid claim that racism motivates those of us who are fed up with the "democratic" Party is so well-worn and inappropriate it hardly bears mentioning. Going against Obama and his professional politicians and supporters almost always has this result. Just ask the Clintons and Ferraro. The many lobbyists working for Obama have redefined this term in order to continue on their merry way, happily claiming racism everywhere and redefining whatever that want to suit their purposes. Just as you have redefined racist to mean anyone who votes against Obama. Especially those in southern and central states. Sadly, this dispicable position and its necessarily dangerous ramifications are the heart and soul of Obama and his crowd. This bodes badly for our country, and hopefully will result in appropriate social opprobrium for those who continue to make this false and horribly ugly claim in the context of this year's presidential race.

{"commentId":1871006,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

3 votes

#4.1 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 3:52 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872086,"authorDomain":"eriqalan"}

eriq samson

The Michigan ballot was Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, and uncommitted. Biden, Edwards, Obama removed theirs as (1) They were going to lose anyway, getting off the ballot meant no loss, and (2) New Hampshire wanted the names off anybody else's ballots and was threatening actions that the party had to tell them were illegal. It was NOT the Party or the DNC who said to remove names from the ballot.

Polls showed that had all names been on the ballot the results were likely to be Clinton 46%, Obama 23%, Edwards 13%. Obama's wins came after Iowa when he had some "momentum".

The states that voted early; Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina all broke the rules - the DNC made an exception for them; but they would not make the same exception for Florida and Michigan.

And, re: your rant about the caucus system: In Texas Clinton won but they also have caucuses and in those caucuses (the process is not complete) Obama is ahead; in Washington the state has a primary but the national party brought in a caucus - results are that while the primary was 51% / 46% / 2% (Edwards) the Caucuses, which choose delegates are (so far) 68% / 31% (there is still one more step).

In both cases where there were public votes, the public voted for a candidate who did NOT get their delegates (and then the DNC steals delegates from Clinton in Michigan). The point is that the caucus system is not representative, and disenfranchises those who don't have the time to participate / or transportation or ... as opposed to those who can and do vote.

That you don't care that this system was designed to be unfair is your issue and an indication of why people are disgusted with the Obama campaign and it's supporters. That you call people racist, sexist, etc., use terms like "whining", refer to "what's left of the Clan" (SIC); simply exemplifies again why this disgust exists. You embarrass yourself and everything you stand for

{"commentId":1872086,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"eriqalan"}

1 vote

#4.2 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 7:17 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872133,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

As far as I know, Nevada and South Carolina did not violate the rules. The rules were re-written specifically to allow two additional states to hold early contests, and the DNC decided on NV and SC. Do you have a cite for rule-breaking by either state?

{"commentId":1872133,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

1 vote

#4.3 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 7:25 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872191,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

eriq:

The states that voted early; Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina all broke the rules -

False. NV and SC did not break the rules at all, ever. IA and NH did so only because the FL and MI laws triggered state laws in IA and NH, at which point, NH and IA followed the rules by applying to the DNC for a waiver, which was duly granted under the rules, thereby repairing the breach.

On the day the IA and NH selections took place, they were both in compliance. When MI and FL took place, they were not in compliance.

The point is that the caucus system is not representative, and disenfranchises those who don't have the time to participate / or transportation or ... as opposed to those who can and do vote.

The time to make that kind of argument was a year ago. Two years ago, actually.

That you don't care that this system was designed to be unfair ....

Well, you're right about "unfair" but wrong about "designed." It's an irrational and contradictory accretion of 150-years worth of custom, tradition, rules and laws. We ended up with an Industrial Revolution era nomination battle in the middle of the Information Age.

{"commentId":1872191,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

2 votes

#4.4 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 7:37 PM EDT

{"commentId":1871419,"authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}

JoulesBeef

LOLOL

That they have now shown their true colors in this regard is no shock to any student of the "democratic" Party since it was hijacked by Obama and his supporters

13/30 members of the rules committee had previously publically endorsed hilary for president.
NOT A SINGLE ONE HAD endorsed obama.
The vote on the comprimise was 19-8
do the math.. hijacked by obama supporter lolololol
yeah and how many obama protestors showed up, versus the hilary camp?
LOLOL hijacked by obama.
and he's a noob... amazing.

{"commentId":1871419,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"JoulesBeef"}

5 votes

#5 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 5:05 PM EDT

{"commentId":1871681,"authorDomain":"SuperUnspecial"}

SuperUnspecial

Are politicalcenter and CliffPotter the same person?

{"commentId":1871681,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"SuperUnspecial"}

1 vote

#6 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 5:55 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872132,"authorDomain":"eriqalan"}

eriq samson

what is your problem with Cliff Potter and why are you soooooooo afraid of him?

What would happen if suddenly you found a reply to some comment that was just one word

Boo!

{"commentId":1872132,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"eriqalan"}

1 vote

#6.1 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 7:25 PM EDT

{"commentId":1894532,"authorDomain":"nearing"}

nearing

Are politicalcenter and CliffPotter the same person?

If he isn't then he is a clone.

{"commentId":1894532,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"nearing"}

1 vote

#6.2 - Wed Jun 4, 2008 5:04 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872265,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

The DNC made a fatal error yesterday in stealing away 4 of Hillary's MI delegates for Obama.....and why did Obama take his name off that ballot anyway? And don't tell me it's because he thought it didn't count. Obama is limping his way to the dem nomination---so don't tell me that the dem party is going to go all ga ga over him and unite behind him in just 5 short months. Hillary supporters from MI yesterday a the Bylaws committee seemed just a tad annoyed.

{"commentId":1872265,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

2 votes

#7 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 7:56 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872291,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

lisa:

See comment 1.

Obama took his name off the ballot because he believed his promise not to participate made it incumbent upon him to remove his name. They did not take away four delegates from Hillary. She started with zero, got 69, those were halved, leaving her with 34.5 delegate votes.

{"commentId":1872291,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

2 votes

#7.1 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:00 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872344,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Jack---I'm curious about why Obama took his name off the ballot in MI---some of the local dems from there chastised him for that yesterday----but left his name on in FLA....why?

{"commentId":1872344,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

2 votes

#7.2 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:12 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872446,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Jack will contend that Obama could not do so in Florida. But this is a pass rather than a real answer. Obama and the others knew they would be killed in a very Democatic state in the Midwest, something he could not afford. And this sent him into wonderland, including his claim that Hillary Clinton should also remove her name from the ballot there.

{"commentId":1872446,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

1 vote

#7.3 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:32 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872541,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

pc:

Of course I'll contend it, since it happens to be true.

Oddly enough, Hillary's MI advocate yesterday, Jim Blanchard, admitted as much.

{"commentId":1872541,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

2 votes

#7.4 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:48 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872560,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Jack---so if this poor little GOP girl is following all these crazy DNC rules correctly then am I correct to say---Obama did not remove his name from the ballot in FLA because rules would not allow it.....but he did in MI knowing full well that Hillary was going to kick his a@$ there rules or no rules?

{"commentId":1872560,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#7.5 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:52 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872585,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

Lisa, read the rule jfx posted in the comment 1 sub-thread again. Under the rules, the candidates were supposed to take all possible steps not to participate in meaningless primaries, which Michigan was once their delegates were stripped. Obama followed the rules, Clinton appears not to have.

In FL, state law prevented a candidate from removing his or her name from the ballot unless that candidate fully dropped out of the race for president. No candidate had any ability to withdraw their name from the ballot in FL (in other words, there was no possible step that could be taken to not participate).

{"commentId":1872585,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

1 vote

#7.6 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 8:59 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872640,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Spiffie---yes....I read the rules Jack posted for us-----it sounds like one of the following to my virgin (i.e. GOPer girl) ears:

1. a buncha gobble-dee-gook; OR
2. marxism where the will of the people does not matter and is trumped by DNC party rules

Seems to me for once....FLA had it right....no names drop from the ballot.

{"commentId":1872640,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#7.7 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 9:11 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872684,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

Marxism? You're making me giggle, Lisa.

There are rules candidates have to abide by at every level in order to be elected in this country. Want to vote for a 34-year old candidate for president? Sorry, you can't because of the "rule" in the US Constitution that says the president must be at least 35.

Attempting to say rules are Marxist is just silly, and, frankly, un-American. Clearly the American system makes rules of candidate selection a central part of selecting a president, and it always has.

{"commentId":1872684,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

2 votes

#7.8 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 9:20 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872714,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

lisa:

State law in FL wouldn't allow it.

And you're cofusing me with pc. The website fivethirtyeight ran the demographics and who won Michigan is almost entirely dependent on timing. If they'd run it on Super Tuesday before the core support on both sides kicked in, Hillary would've won probably, but it'd have been close. Had they run it on March 4 with TX and OH, Obama probably would've won close.

it sounds like one of the following to my virgin (i.e. GOPer girl) ears:

1. a buncha gobble-dee-gook; ....

Trust me, if you read the GOP rules it'd be similar. Do you know the rule that propelled McCain? It was Rule 15 on the "order of precedence."

{"commentId":1872714,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

3 votes

#7.9 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 9:27 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872765,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Do you know the rule that propelled McCain? It was Rule 15 on the "order of precedence."

Jack--clearly a rule I'm guessing Hillary wishes the DNC espoused?

{"commentId":1872765,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

2 votes

#7.10 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 9:40 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872846,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

lisa:

Funny you should say that. Rule 15 gives GOP State committees "precedence" over any conflicting state laws, so any states with primary laws mandating proportional representation in multi-seat districts (mostly Dem states, but I think there were a few others) no longer bound the GOP. Basically, it was to protect the GOP from being forced to play by Dem rules in those states where the rules were written into primary-election law.

Hence, the GOP committees in NY and NJ instantly and for the first time ever instituted winner-take-all rules in anticipation of benefiting Rudy.

Rule 15 also had an effect in CA, if you remember how screwed up that particular GOP primary was.

Wouldn't have helped Hillary much, though, because the DNC prohibits winner-take-all by charter.

{"commentId":1872846,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

3 votes

#7.11 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 10:00 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872896,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Jack---yuck....you've gone and made my head hurt....and now I'll sign off knowing I will no longer have sweet dreams dancing in my head of some day being a GOP party player when I grow up....

{"commentId":1872896,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

2 votes

#7.12 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 10:07 PM EDT

{"commentId":1895951,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

There is no basis for claiming that Obama would have won in March. None. Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania have roughly the same demographics, and many if not most would have voted for Hillary Clinton. Indeed, it is possible she would have won in the high sixties if only she and Obama had been running. Obama was not given just four delegates. He was given all of those he got, with absolutely no proof that his numbers would have gone up.

Moreover, what supporter are you talking about anyway. Certainly, no one who advocated giving all those delegates to Obama. That was pure totalitarianism. With no semblance of fairness or propriety.

Yes, another election would have worked. But Obama refused. He insisted on a share of Michigan and Florida delegates continually, if and only if the "rules" were not followed. It was essential to his overall plan, and ultimately proved to be a major reason I will not vote for him. His was a disgusting campaign, fraught with misdeads and ill-will.

Unlike you, Jack, who support a party's right merely to appoint the future king, I am very much against this. Much to my shock, I realized fairly early on that the Republicans had the more fair system, even to the point of counting half votes which may well have been the only sanction available under the rules for Michigan and Florida.

Some "democratic" Party.

{"commentId":1895951,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

1 vote

#7.13 - Wed Jun 4, 2008 8:17 PM EDT

{"commentId":1896163,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

pc:

I was talking about Don Fowler, although there were four other Hillary supporters on the committee who backed the Michigan compromise.

There is no basis for claiming that Obama would have won in March.

Yeah there is. It's a projection, but then, so is your argument.

Listen to me. I said months ago that the one thing the DNC would never, ever allow to happen was for the non-representive results in Michigan to alter the outcome of the nomination process. That was NEVER EVER NEVER EVER going to happen. What you saw was not totalitarian, it was a simple bit of ordinary political compromise reflective of the dictum I just stated.

Now, having said that. While what they did with Michigan was not totalitarian, it was total in the sense that the DNC has total control of the process, just like Vatican has total control of the Roman Catholic church. If you do not like the way the Vatican administers the church, you are free to leave the Church. You can go join the crazy Hagee's church in San Antonio. That's why the Church's control, while total, is not totalitarian (used to be centuries ago but not now).

Thus. If you do not approve of the DNC's ruling on Michigan, go join the Republican party. You are free to do so.

{"commentId":1896163,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

2 votes

#7.14 - Wed Jun 4, 2008 8:41 PM EDT

{"commentId":1906749,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Jack - Totalitarianism denies the will of the majority in favor of some higher person or entity. There are many definitions. This is one: "a totalitarian system of government; the political principle that the individual citizen should be under the complete control of a government or ruler."

In this case, we have a totalitarian system of government. The individual citizen is under complete control, at least in situations like this one. And they can reverse the decisions of their citizens, as with Massachusetts and their Kerrys and Kennedys, clans whose power has done what it wants with that state for years, irrespective of the state's citizens.

You act as if this is not only proper, but that anyone feeling otherwise can leave and good riddance. And you compare Obama and his party to the Vatican and religion. I guess that this is appropriate. Many have the view that this is a messianic approach and that this is good for the country.

Of course, I am free to do whatever I please in a free country. And I can fight inside or outside the "democratic" Party, join the Republican Party, or form my own, at least so far.

But there is a real sense that you and others feel that this will not be the situation for long. That it is appropriate to repress many thoughts and views, as if we should have no dissention and allow Obama and his party do whatever it wants.

Whatever course is taken, one thing is certain. The plans to educate children from zero to five, the plans to educate children during summers, the repression and pressure visited on our youth in public schools now and under Obama will be intolerable. We have and will have less control as Obama takes over if he has his way. Repression will be the word of the day. We have seen this in Obama's and his party's attitudes, from his supporters' words, and from his proposed legislation and reengineering of our country.

{"commentId":1906749,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

1 vote

#7.15 - Fri Jun 6, 2008 1:12 AM EDT

{"commentId":1906787,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

It's pretty loopy to argue against preschool, really.

{"commentId":1906787,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

1 vote

#7.16 - Fri Jun 6, 2008 1:23 AM EDT

{"commentId":1906894,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

The question is what is preschool teaching and why? And what about this point from age zero? Do you have children? Has the state made any decision about preschool for you? Many children are not ready for preschool, and can be permanently damaged by it. And he is going to age Zero?

{"commentId":1906894,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

#7.17 - Fri Jun 6, 2008 1:46 AM EDT

{"commentId":1907013,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

The question is what is preschool teaching and why?

Let's see, in preschool I learned my letters, some basic arithmetic, and a smattering of Spanish. Sounds pretty sinister, eh?

The why is because children who have attended pre-school on average do better in school later than children who did not, even when controlled for other factors.

And what about this point from age zero?

What about it? I'm not willing to take your word for it, or the word of some anti-Obama site. What proposal specifically are you talking about?

Do you have children?

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but no. I was a child for many years though. I speak from experience. :-P

Has the state made any decision about preschool for you?

I was lucky enough to attend pre-school for three years.

Many children are not ready for preschool, and can be permanently damaged by it. And he is going to age Zero?

"Permanently damaged"? I think that requires you back it up with some data. I also find it difficult to believe that he is going to make it mandatory for "age Zero". If I had to guess, I suspect he was discussing childcare for every family who needed it and pre-school in the same speech, and some warped mind conflated the two, posted it to the Internet, and here we are.

Again, point to an actual proposal, and be specific.

{"commentId":1907013,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

1 vote

#7.18 - Fri Jun 6, 2008 2:26 AM EDT

{"commentId":1909154,"authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

Of course you are not willing to take my word for it. And probably not Obama's either. He is your candidate. Are you unaware of this Children's First Agenda? You can find it in his "Blueprint for Change."

The fact is that Obama has no idea what he is talking about. No clue about damage by or from preschool. No consideration of the child herself.

You do not believe having children is relevant. You claim you are entitled to support for these views, that what is said is wrong and unsupported, many continual claims of superiority, knowledge and wrongful actions, without the basic knowledge required to make judgments and without any consideration of the children or parents.

This is what totalitarian regimes are famous for. Taking children at a young age, being ignorant and unconcerned about the children, moving them in ways that benefit the "state" above all, substituting judgment for that of the parents. We saw this in action in Texas where children were removed from their homes by the state due to what the state knew was a fraudulent phone call.

And only the Republican judges stood in the way of the state and its righteous purposes.

By the way, you be specific. Do not lecture me. This is your trick, with no specifics of your own.

{"commentId":1909154,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"politicalcenter"}

#7.19 - Fri Jun 6, 2008 12:15 PM EDT

{"commentId":1909873,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

Are you unaware of this Children's First Agenda? You can find it in his "Blueprint for Change."

That was actually helpful. Apparently you didn't read it, though, because you're asking questions that are answered in the plan (p. 21).

Zero to Five Plan: Obama's comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, Obama's plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state "zero to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school.

Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.

State grants to increase pre-school attendance, which will remain voluntary and increases to the Head Start programs. Why is this plan objectionable, and why do you feel to the need to insert sinister sounding motives when it's clear there are none?

No clue about damage by or from preschool. No consideration of the child herself.

Absolutely destroyed by the fact that the plan calls for voluntary participation. You also never backed up the assertion that preschool "harms" children. It seems you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

You claim you are entitled to support for these views, that what is said is wrong and unsupported, many continual claims of superiority, knowledge and wrongful actions, without the basic knowledge required to make judgments and without any consideration of the children or parents.

Uh, yes. I'm entitled to an opinion, even without kids. Funny how that works.

Point to anything I've said that was incorrect, and back it up with something more than "Nyah nyah you're wrong."

By the way, you be specific.

I have been. Time to put up or shut up, Cliff.

{"commentId":1909873,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

1 vote

#7.20 - Fri Jun 6, 2008 2:00 PM EDT

{"commentId":1913091,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

jfxgillis-7.14- Thus. If you do not approve of the DNC's ruling on Michigan, go join the Republican party.

PC---come on in....though this GOP Girl will not lie to you and tell you the water is fine....

{"commentId":1913091,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#7.21 - Fri Jun 6, 2008 10:45 PM EDT

{"commentId":1913927,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

lisa:

I'm making recruits for you by the hour.

:^{)>

{"commentId":1913927,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

1 vote

#7.22 - Sat Jun 7, 2008 1:37 AM EDT

{"commentId":1917979,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

Jack -7.22----thanks! I---no we--can use all the help we can get!

{"commentId":1917979,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

1 vote

#7.23 - Sat Jun 7, 2008 7:52 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872815,"authorDomain":"dbe928"}

DBE928

Basic fact: The DNC will do what the party leaders want. The party leaders want Obama because they think he can win, and because George Soros and other heavyweights are throwing a lot of money into the ring. The matter of votes and winning and who won what primary is just a technicality at this stage. The Democratic convention will do what the party leaders want it to do.

{"commentId":1872815,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"dbe928"}

1 vote

#8 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 9:53 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872829,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

And so I must ask does America really want the choice of George Soros in our White House?

{"commentId":1872829,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#8.1 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 9:57 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872853,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

The matter of votes and winning and who won what primary is just a technicality at this stage.

Not exactly, since Obama has still won more contests and more delegates. His lead in winning states is only a "technicality" if you buy Hillary's argument that some states don't "count" (because they didn't vote for her).

And so I must ask does America really want the choice of George Soros in our White House?

It could hardly be as bad as what we have now when Ken Lay got his man in the White House. Yay for the Enron White House.

{"commentId":1872853,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

1 vote

#8.2 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 10:01 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872872,"authorDomain":"dbe928"}

DBE928

Read about Soros if you want to worry. He's pretty rich and pretty crazy.

{"commentId":1872872,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"dbe928"}

2 votes

#9 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 10:02 PM EDT

{"commentId":1872916,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}

DBE---George Soros ---has reaped millions and millions of dollars from America---but yet he hates her and wants to use those millions and millions of dollars that he got from her to destroy her---and he supports Barack Obama....not a big plus in my book.

{"commentId":1872916,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"lisaed"}

3 votes

#9.1 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 10:10 PM EDT

{"commentId":1876934,"authorDomain":"dbe928"}

DBE928

I agree with you 100 percent. That's why I said he is pretty crazy.
Newsmax did a report on Soros, before the 2004 election, that said, among other things:

The true story behind Soros' shocking threat to defeat George Bush at any cost Soros' involvement in the shadowy 527s helping John Kerry

Why Soros so hates America and why he vows to "puncture the bubble of American supremacy"

His eerie delusion of being a New Age Messiah

The real story of Soros' philanthropy and how it funds abortion, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, gay marriage, globalization and other radical causes

The dark purpose behind Soros' $200-million "Project on Death" program

How Soros' friendship with the Clintons made him a global power

Why Soros, a Jew, has shown such disdain for Israel and Jewish groups

Soros' British professor and mentor who decried America's founding ideals

How Soros really made his fortune and why even governments of mighty nations fear him

Why the Russians raided and closed down Soros' Moscow offices with armed paramilitary units

The Soros Cult: the new semi-secret establishment he has built to take over many East European countries

Why he says he will force "regime change" in the U.S. if he has to, and blames President Bush's alleged failings on his Christianity

Soros' efforts to realize his vision of a world without God.

{"commentId":1876934,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"dbe928"}

1 vote

#9.2 - Mon Jun 2, 2008 3:51 PM EDT

{"commentId":1877268,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}

Newsmax? *Snicker*

And really if we're going to discuss crazy, rich financiers, no discussion would be complete without mention of Sun Myung Moon, and his influence on Republican politicians.

{"commentId":1877268,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"spiffie"}

1 vote

#9.3 - Mon Jun 2, 2008 4:41 PM EDT

{"commentId":1894573,"authorDomain":"nearing"}

nearing

Man, DBE you really let Soros bother you.

Do have any links to these allegations you've alleged?

{"commentId":1894573,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"nearing"}

1 vote

#9.4 - Wed Jun 4, 2008 5:09 PM EDT

{"commentId":1873093,"authorDomain":"ccumm512"}

Claudette

I can't understand why clinton supporters can't understand the meaning of the term "invalid". They seem to miss the point that for days, the Michigan governor told voters the election would not count. Just because people voted, doesn't make the primary valid, once the DNC said so, and once the Governor and Michigan Democratic leaders verified they violated the rules of the DNC. Some voters, like me, who comprehended that my vote would mean nothing, decided not to go vote. What happened yesterday was also a remedy for me and others like me who understood voting in the primary was a waste of time. You cannot possibly make a winner out of something that isn't. You cannot claim your vote was not counted because you went to the mock election and voted. You could have stayed home and the result was the same. Hillary had more votes only based on the fact more of her supporters wanted to play in the mock election. The uncommitted votes can't be determined to be owned by Obama or Edwards, or any other Democrat who was still in the running. Even Hillary admitted the electio nwasn't valid..until she started losing. This is a no-brainer being used as a tool for someone to divide the party, and lay blame on her opponent for something he had no control of. He also had nothing to do with the state refusing a do-over. That was our state legisture that decided that. Get real people. We can't make a habit of redoing election because the person we want to win, isn't. Once you all calm down and ralize a mock election is just that, mock, you will see no one's vote was discarded. The state was punished per DNC guidelines. The bottom line is, hilalry will accept nothing short of having it her way, and you all praise her. but, when Obama fights back, you condemn him. Come November, no one will be surprised to see McCain win. I've already read all the sour grapes who will jump ship and vote for him. Just remember, you get what you ask for, even if it means cutting off your nose to spite your face.

{"commentId":1873093,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"ccumm512"}

#10 - Sun Jun 1, 2008 10:43 PM EDT

{"commentId":1874542,"authorDomain":"sharonbullardaskew"}

sharon in CT

It surprises me that the media has put so much emphasis on Mr. Ickes's comments and paid no attention to the gentlemen who responded. I apologize for not remembering his name however his comments were so moving in opposition to the Clinton camp. I feel they merit attention.

{"commentId":1874542,"threadId":"275159","contentId":"1528754","authorDomain":"sharonbullardaskew"}

1 vote

#11 - Mon Jun 2, 2008 9:01 AM EDT

{"commentId":1876015,"authorDomain":"spiffie"}