DC Area Voters

Originally posted by callat703:
The Obama campaign has NOT ONCE argued that the superdelegates shouldn't be included. They've argued that the superdelegates should respect the will of the people in the popular vote and in the pledged delegate count.

Just like he's willing to let Michigan and Florida seat delegates "as long as it doesn't change the outcome." Hilarious. They had elections like that in Russia – you can vote, as long as you vote for the right guy.

You know darn well if the superdelegates go for Hillary in mass, the Obama supporters will call for rule changes. There's absolutely no doubt. But if I call for an end to archaic caucuses or, gasp, people in battleground states actually having their votes count, I'm being self-serving?

When was the last time we told an entire state of people their vote didn't count because of something a few politicians in their state did? Reconstruction?

As I said, 703, you hit the nail on the head earlier: Obama needs to bow out and be pleased with a VP spot.

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:

Originally posted by callat703:
The Obama campaign has NOT ONCE argued that the superdelegates shouldn't be included. They've argued that the superdelegates should respect the will of the people in the popular vote and in the pledged delegate count.

Just like he's willing to let Michigan and Florida seat delegates "as long as it doesn't change the outcome." Hilarious. They had elections like that in Russia – you can vote, as long as you vote for the right guy.

You know darn well if the superdelegates go for Hillary in mass, the Obama supporters will call for rule changes. There's absolutely no doubt. But if I call for an end to archaic caucuses or, gasp, people in battleground states actually having their votes count, I'm being self-serving?

When was the last time we told an entire state of people their vote didn't count because of something a few politicians in their state did? Reconstruction?

I haven't read that quote from the Obama camp - show it to me. Source please?

And no, I think if the superdelegates go for Hillary in mass, it'll destroy the party and everybody loses.

And as I said earlier - you're crazy if you really believe the line of bullshit you're touting now.

Originally posted by callat703:
I haven't read that quote from the Obama camp - show it to me. Source please?

I heard Obama himself say it on TV upwards of a month ago, that he had no problems seating the Michigan and Florida delegates "at some point during the convention," as long as doing so didn't affect the outcome. No joke.

Originally posted by callat703:
And as I said earlier - you're crazy if you really believe the line of bullshit you're touting now.

Yep, I truly believe the bullshit that Michigan and Florida's voters should have their votes count even though their state leaders held the primaries too early. And I truly believe that caucuses are the worst system in this day and age, and patently undemocratic.

What continues to surprise me with this debate, which seems to mirror the national debate, is the level of vitriol and anger from the Clinton camp. Julien, you seem SO entitled - that no matter what, Clinton must win, even if it means changing the rules and switching things around.

Not to pat myself on the back - but the same holds true of most of the other Obama supporters on this board - I feel as though our critiques of Clinton have been informed and reasonable, and that most of us would still respect her as a candidate.

You seem hell bent on destroying Obama and denigrating everything that he and his supporters stand for. I just completely fail to understand why.

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:

Originally posted by callat703:
I haven't read that quote from the Obama camp - show it to me. Source please?

I heard Obama himself say it on TV upwards of a month ago, that he had no problems seating the Michigan and Florida delegates "at some point during the convention," as long as doing so didn't affect the outcome. No joke.

Show it to me.

Originally posted by callat703:
Julien, you seem SO entitled - that no matter what, Clinton must win, even if it means changing the rules and switching things around.

The only "rule" I have proposed changing immediately is the refusal to allow Michigan and Florida access to the democratic process. I've long been a supporter of other changes to the nominating process, but I don't think you can change horses mid-stream. As terrible and undemocratic as caucuses are, that was the system and you have to go with it, at least for 2008.

That said, I absolutely think the superdelegates can (and, in fact, have a responsibility to) take the inequities of the current system into account when voting.

Originally posted by callat703:
Show it to me.

How am I supposed to "show you" something I saw on TV? I can't show you on command last week's episode of Lost, but that doesn't mean the show doesn't exist. I'm not just making stuff up.

I might have a word in the quote wrong, but the gist of what Obama said was that if Michigan and Florida delegates wouldn't change the result, he didn't think you could disenfranchise their people and not seat anyone from their state at the national convention because Florida and Michigan were key battleground states in November.

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:

Originally posted by callat703:
Show it to me.

How am I supposed to "show you" something I saw on TV?

You're an enterprising young internet user, no? Surely you recognize said quotes don't exist in a bubble - if Obama said as much, I'm sure you can find it in another article, or perhaps on this mysterious "YouTube" thing…

Originally posted by vansmack:

That being said, there's no doubt in my mind that the Clintons will file a law suit around the time of the PA primary.

Looks like they're calling for it sooner. From today's Mark Penn memo…

11. Florida. There is an additional reality that must be considered â?? the 1.75 million voters in Florida whose votes will not be represented at the Democratic convention. How we handle this swing state will affect our Partyâ??s potential of carrying it in November (Democrats lost Florida in 2004). This is a state where the playing field was level â?? all of the candidates had their names on the ballot and none campaigned in the state.


12. Michigan. Nearly 600,000 Democrats voted in Michigan, but right now their votes are not being counted. Democrats barely carried Michigan in 2004 (by only 3% – 51 to 48). If our party refuses to let them participate in the convention, we will provide a political opportunity for the Republicans to win both Florida and Michigan. Recognizing their importance to Democratic success in November, Hillary has called for the delegates of both states to be seated at the convention.

Did they forget about This Memo?

I still think there may be a strong possibility that the superdelegates defect to Obama en masse over the next couple of weeks. The pressure to end the race before it gets incredibly negative is only going to mount, and I think it is clear that the only way Hillary has a chance of winning is going far more negative than she has gone before - which will only lead Obama to respond in kind.

I think only the US Senate has a shot at getting Hillary to quit, by offering her the top job in the Senate. And even then, I think it's closer to no shot in hell.

the clinton machine is going to find a way to win..dont even think for a second she will drop out of this.. especially after yesterday.

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
It's absolutely unconscionable to withhold millions of people's right to have a say in who the Democratic nominee is simply to punish their state. George W. Bush thinks that's messed up.

I missed this while I was in transit. Did you site GWB to back your argument? And he has absolutely no outside interests. You're becoming laughable.

Originally posted by manimtired:
the clinton machine is going to find a way to win..dont even think for a second she will drop out of this.. especially after yesterday.

They will defintiely win a knife fight if it comes down to that.

This "debate" illustrates exactly why Rush Limbaugh urged Republicnas to go out and vote for Hillary yesterday. Why try to beat the Democrats in the general election when the Democrats can beat themselves before September.

This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).

But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??

im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).

But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??

im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.

I wish both parties would splinter and we could have

Huckabee - The Evangelical Party
McCain - Republican
Clinton - The DLC
Obama - Progressive Party (not left enough for me, but better than the options)

I really don't see much to support in the current dem leadership. If I thought that enough people staying home would send a message and be good for the party in the long run I am all for it.

The fact that the Clinton campaign seems so opposed to a 50 state strategy is probably the most frustrating thing about them. They seem to ignore the good it can do down-ballot. If she had wrapped up the nomination early, apparently they were planning on circumventing the DNC and Dean's 50 state strategy by building their own DLC centric party infrastructure. Why should Dems be loyal to her.

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).

But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??

im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.

If she gets the nomination, it'll mean the superdelegates upended the pledged delegates and (most likely) the popular vote. If the Democratic Party allows that to happen, as I've said before on here, I'll not support the party again.

However, if Obama were to step down voluntarily, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton…I think.

I'm waiting for Doctor Doom to prescribe you to an afterlife in hell for making these comments.

Originally posted by xneverwherex:
This is merely a question of curiosity for Obama supporters (ie most of us on here).

But can you honestly say you'd vote for Hillary at this point in time if Obama stepped down? The longer this goes on, the more Hillary is going to tear him apart. Personally, Ill throw a vote to Nader (or not vote) before supporting her. Im really disgusted with how we are attacking our own nominees in our party. Shouldnt we be saving this vitriol for McCain??

im amazed how democrats seem to fuck it all up every year. even when something should go so smoothly, it never does.