The turning point

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think you are getting ahead of yourself by saying this is all groundwork for a lawsuit by Hillary. Nowhere in that letter does she say anything like that.

I completely agree with her (surprise). The voters in those states voted and their votes should be counted somehow. The Obama camp has fought against counting them, having a recount, or any other effort to give those voters a chance to be part of this primary campaign.

He is standing in the way of allowing Michigan and Florida democrats from being counted.

They went to the polls on the day they were told to. They voted. Because they didn't vote for him, he wants to use bad rules devised by party insiders as a weapon to obstruct their votes from being counted.

Why were the national democrats telling the voters of those two states when to vote? It is because they were trying to manipulate the process so that other states would get the media attention and the campaign spending in other areas. They were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire and other smaller states.

The rules were wrong from the beginning. The national party screwed up the process, the two state parties didn't play along, so now those votes don't count. A handful of party insiders have caused real damage to the process and to the party. Hillary is trying to undo this problem, albeit because it helps her. Obama refuses to budge, albeit because it hurts him.

If Florida voters (who are always about 50/50 on party) vote for McCain and it costs Obama the election, he can only blame himself.

I would think that he is far enough ahead in popular vote and delegate count now that he should back off and allow those votes to count. They are not enough to put Hillary ahead. He would be seen as a diplomat and the gesture would help his image.

I doubt it will happen. Any compromise will be negotiated between the two states and the national party will be fought by his supporters with the same lame arguments they have used ever since he did so poorly in the votes.

Let the votes count. The democrats need both of those states to win the Presidency.

Well there is no other reason for this letter.  None!  She is not stupid!  She uses her words well and the language in this letter has absolutely no value except to serve as documentation of her effort to persuade the opposing candidate (due diligence necessary to mount a legal claim) .  

She has already made all of these statements publicly. There is no news in this letter and it proposes no new strategy.  Therefore; respecting her intelligence, I can come to no other conclusion but to assume that she is taking the steps necessary to build a case.

Her next step is to formulate a formal letter to Howard Dean and make it public, just like this one.  When we see that, we will know for sure that she is preparing for battle.

Currently, Obama is delaying his public response to this letter.  He will eventually have to respond to it, and she knows that.  

There is already debate in the media this morning on the constitutionality of the Democrat primary process, so people are beginning to anticipate her strategy and fall in line for her.  

She's going to make this a "Crusade for Democracy" or some such nonsense and position herself as the champion for the disenfranchised.

Just watch!

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I like the part where they use the terms "racial and ethnic diversity" and then have Iowa and New Hampshire go first.

The DNC cannot get their act together and just make everything screwed up.

Look at how the election results are counted. The votes are porportioned crazily...and don't get me started as to why we have superdelegates counting for 25% of the vote.

Look how they break down...

The formal description (in Rule 9.A) is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates".[2]

19 Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL) (officially 22[3] less 2 Senators and 1 Governor here counted in those categories)
31 Democratic Governors (incl. the Mayor of DC and Governors of Territories)
48 members of the Senate (46 Senators and the 2 Shadow Senators from DC)
223 members of the House of Representatives (includes the 4 Congressional Delegates from DC and from the Territories)
398 Democratic National Committee Members (actually 402 delegates with 398 votes, considering the 8 Democrats Abroad delegates with ½ vote each).

Did you realize that DC has two "shadow" senators? How about that 55 of the superdelgates are not "assigned" yet?

Why do democrats outnumber republicans yet continually lose the presidency? See above.

Recycle Michael, My respect for you grows daily.  You are tireless.

Clinton can count some of the party's largest donors among her followers and I predict we will see Howard Dean's head roll.  I wish he would take his hog yell and his pursed lips back to where he came from.

Other Democrats we could do without.  Pelosi, Reid and Brad Henry (with his polling data).

Where is Ann Richards when we need her?  She knew how to win.  Where is Terry McAuliffe when our party needs him?  Where are the statesmen like Jesse Jackson?  Know one in our Leadership can hold a candle to Lyndon Johnson or Jim Wright.  Our party has been taken over by pusses that can win in San Francisco and Massachusetts (where they have no opposition) but don't even know where Kansas, Tennessee and Alabama are.

Pmcalk, I will be watching Obama very closely to see if he offers the vice-presidency to Clinton and for other signs of outreach to Clinton supporters.  This is a two-way street we are traveling and I want reciprocity.  My partner has declared he will not vote for Obama.  I would say my first concern is bringing home the service people in Iraq.  You could also say I've weathered a lot of storms with the Democrats.

[USRufnex]

I have far more respect for Howard Dean than I will ever have for the Clintons.  I went to one of his rallies in Chicago... too bad the country didn't get a better feel for the candidate back when he ran...

Do you know what Howard Dean stood for?
Did you understand his positions on the issues?

Or did you just fall for a buncha media gotcha games that doomed his campaign?

Once again, it doesn't matter who you or your boyfriend vote for, because we're in Oklahoma... your vote doesn't count and Hillary doesn't care about this state... maybe that's why both David Boren and Brad Henry have already endorsed Obama...

You sound like Obama should be kissing your ring or something... this ain't the Godfather, punkin'...

Hillary Clinton is POLARIZING her own supporters against Obama so she can run again in four years... truly disgusting.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I like the part where they use the terms "racial and ethnic diversity" and then have Iowa and New Hampshire go first.

Did Hillary Clinton speak up against this unfair practice that went on in 1992 and 1996 when her husband was president or did she say nothing?

How exactly did having Iowa and New Hampshire "go first" benefit the campaign of Barack Obama???

quote:
The DNC cannot get their act together and just make everything screwed up.

Look at how the election results are counted. The votes are porportioned crazily...and don't get me started as to why we have superdelegates counting for 25% of the vote.

Once again, Hillary's allies could have changed the rules BEFORE THE PRIMARIES BEGAN... they had far more pull than anyone else in the race...

quote:
Look how they break down...

The formal description (in Rule 9.A) is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates".[2]

19 Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL) (officially 22[3] less 2 Senators and 1 Governor here counted in those categories)
31 Democratic Governors (incl. the Mayor of DC and Governors of Territories)
48 members of the Senate (46 Senators and the 2 Shadow Senators from DC)
223 members of the House of Representatives (includes the 4 Congressional Delegates from DC and from the Territories)
398 Democratic National Committee Members (actually 402 delegates with 398 votes, considering the 8 Democrats Abroad delegates with ½ vote each).

Did you realize that DC has two "shadow" senators? How about that 55 of the superdelgates are not "assigned" yet?

Why do democrats outnumber republicans yet continually lose the presidency? See above.

You would feel completely the opposite if Hillary Clinton were winning.  Now that she's losing and has effectively lost, you do what the WORST dems do....... PLAY THE VICTIM.

Blame, blame, blame.... here's a thought... have your candidate try changing the rules BEFORE THE NEXT YEAR OF PRIMARIES... not after the race is already over.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
My concern with her continuing her campaign is what it will do to the Democratic party.  I don't think she is purposely trying to destroy the party.  But her only argument now is that the white, working class voter in certain states is the only one that matters.  We cannot embrace that idea as democrats and have any hope of winning in the fall.  It's offensive.  At some point, we have to have unity, and the longer it drags out, the harder it will be.  I understand that you think Hillary is a better candidate.  But, given everything at stake in prolonging this fight, can you not say that Obama is a good candidate?  A candidate that can defeat McCain?  Isn't it better to start looking to the fall then to prolong the inevitable?

Another casualty of this campaign may well be Bill Clinton's legacy.   Up until the last few months, Bill has been the closest thing to Ronald Reagan that the left has.  A lot of Democrats and Democratic Party supporters now have a lowered opinion of Bill, both by proxy because of Hillary, and by his own bizarre behavior over the last few months.  The actions of Hillary in 2007 may be the reason we never see a Bill Clinton $20 coin (20 dollars then will probably be worth what 50 cents is now.)

quote:
By the way, my second choice was always your first choice--Edwards.  Does it make any difference to you that the majority of Edwards's supporter, including his campaign manager, have now endorsed Obama?

From the beginning of the campaign, I wanted to see a ticket with both Edwards and Obama on it.  Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama, I didn't really care, although I slightly preferred Obama as president.  I'd still like for Barack to offer the VP job to Edwards.  He's highly intelligent, articulate, and he might help get the "white working class" vote with his Southern drawl and aw-shucks good old boy demeanor.  And their politics aren't too far apart.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

She's not done yet RM & Waterboy!  

She may challenge the constitutionality of the whole Democrat primary process in court before the convention.  

You may get to vote for her yet!


[}:)]

Love it when my uninformed "crazy" predictions come true.  Hillary just sent an open letter to the Obama campaign (12:00 today) urging them to agree to pursue seating Michigan and Florida.

Does anyone really think that Obama is going to say "Hmm, Ok Hillary. You're right.  We should let their votes (for you ) count"?

Does anyone think that a simple letter like this increases her chances of influencing super-delegates (if anything it damages her chances)?

Why would she do such a thing, formally and publicly?
What possible purpose could it serve?

Answer:
She is laying groundwork.  She is performing due diligence work necessary so that she can mount a legal case against the DNC.  

Because the media is involved, Obama will have to respond.  His answer will have to be NO.  The moment that happens her legal case will begin. She IS going to challenge the constitutionality of not seating FL and MI in a presidential primary.  She's going to fight the Whole Democrat Party!

You go girl!

Come on Lawyer types, am I wrong?  []

If she does go along with this, and I truly believe she would do absolutely anything to become President (watch out Bill, a widow running for President would get a lot of the sympathy vote) this would absolutely be the end of the Democratic Party.  There's no way it could survive.  

And if she does sue her own party, who on earth would nominate her anyway?  I would imagine that all the supes would turn on her, and probably a large number of the pledged delegates.  There would be a few holdouts who support her with zeal, but the Clintons would quickly become persona non grata within the party.

And, in this day and age, I'm not even sure something would come along to replace the Democratic Party.  The trend today in almost anything is to have one main entrant, and a bunch of small ones.  This could very well happen if the Democratic Party is destroyed, with the Republican Party becoming the majority party and eventually the only party.  Hillary Clinton could go down in history as the person who brought down democracy!

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Let the votes count. The democrats need both of those states to win the Presidency.

First off, those states should not be counted, because the rules were in place before the campaign even started.  If Hillary had a problem with those rules, she should have spoken up then.

Second, I agree these rules are unfair and should be changed.  ALL primaries and caucuses should be held on the same day.  Democratic and Republican.  And get rid of delegates and superdelegates alltogether, as the winner of the popular vote would become the nominee.  There would likely be a runoff in most cases.  If we all vote on the same day, the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire won't have influence that voters in other states don't, and Montana and South Dakota have virtually no say in the matter unless the election is extremely close (this one isn't close enough for them to matter).  And the practice of closed primaries should be eliminated.  I wasn't allowed to vote in the primary because of the letters IND on my voter card.

Get rid of the electoral college, mandate paper trails for all voting machines, and make the changes to the nomination process and we might have a fairly decent electoral process in this country.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by bugo

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Let the votes count. The democrats need both of those states to win the Presidency.

First off, those states should not be counted, because the rules were in place before the campaign even started.  If Hillary had a problem with those rules, she should have spoken up then.

Second, I agree these rules are unfair and should be changed.  ALL primaries and caucuses should be held on the same day.  Democratic and Republican.  And get rid of delegates and superdelegates alltogether, as the winner of the popular vote would become the nominee.  There would likely be a runoff in most cases.  If we all vote on the same day, the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire won't have influence that voters in other states don't, and Montana and South Dakota have virtually no say in the matter unless the election is extremely close (this one isn't close enough for them to matter).  And the practice of closed primaries should be eliminated.  I wasn't allowed to vote in the primary because of the letters IND on my voter card.

Get rid of the electoral college, mandate paper trails for all voting machines, and make the changes to the nomination process and we might have a fairly decent electoral process in this country.

Makes it sort of hard to campaign if its all on one day. Mistakes magnified and no real chance to see the competitive process unfurl the personalities. And different states use different methods of primaries, some caucuses, some not. The system needs tweeked, not junked. Just like your registration. Tweek it by making a committment and changing those letters to DEM.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
Makes it sort of hard to campaign if its all on one day.

The general election is held on one day, and nobody seems to have any problems with campaigning.  They could start campaigning a month earlier if need be.

quote:
Mistakes magnified and no real chance to see the competitive process unfurl the personalities. And different states use different methods of primaries, some caucuses, some not. The system needs tweeked, not junked. Just like your registration. Tweek it by making a committment and changing those letters to DEM.

I cannot become a member of the Democratic Party.  They do not match my views on many issues.  I do usually vote Dem (95%+ of the time) but I refuse to join a party that has several views (gun control, immigration) that are the near polar opposite from mine.  And I don't like to join groups that try to tell you how to think.  I'm more than capable of deciding on those issues myself.  That's why I'm an independent.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by bugo



And, in this day and age, I'm not even sure something would come along to replace the Democratic Party.  The trend today in almost anything is to have one main entrant, and a bunch of small ones.  This could very well happen if the Democratic Party is destroyed, with the Republican Party becoming the majority party and eventually the only party.  Hillary Clinton could go down in history as the person who brought down democracy!

With all due respect, get a grip. Both parties have endured far greater setbacks and have come back. This notion that one person, or anything else, can "destroy" a party is pure hyperbole.

Politics is a flexible thing, and candidates can and do change with the times and the voters.