Clinton is disgusting. Nothing more need be said.

On this issue, the Democratic party reminds me of a parent who has tried to set a bad rule for his child (e.g., "You must eat all of your vegetables before you can leave the table") and is stuck with the fact that a)the child has a mind of his own b)the threat is essentially unenforceable and c)making the threat was therefore stupid. Sometimes, as in this case, the rule as was stupid. What one does when s/he finds out it was stupid is a test of character; do you find a way to correct the situation, or do you blindly follow its dictates?

In this case, what is the Democratic party going to do, try to win a national election by ignoring two major Democratic states just because it "broke" one if the parties rules? Good luck!

Further, Obama was on the Florida ballot and he and Hillary campaigned there about the same amount so they should get what they won. In Michigan, a reasonable solution is to give her all the delegates she won and give Obama the ones she did not. You cannot disenfranchise 2.3 million voters; not unless you think like the Supreme Court did in 2000. Is Obama and his supporters unwilling to head the decision of those voters?

The RULES allow for the DNC to seat MI and FL delegations.

Let's follow those, huh?

And what about all the voters in MI and FL that didn't vote, because they were told by both candidates, their vote wouldn't count. Hilary may have won FL, but Obama didn't have a chance to compete. What about Edwards? He would have his best chance in MI of the early states, but he obeyed party rules and took his name off the ballot. Hilary has the advantage of name recognition, and if Obama is not allowed to campaign, she would have won just about every state. At the end of last year, she was up in just about every state by over 20 points. Hilary had all the advantage going into Super Tuesday and couldn't close the deal. As a result, she lost the primary. I am pretty confident that if the CA primary was held again, she would lose. I know my dad regrets his vote. MI and FL broke the rules and to count the votes from both states is unfair. In addition, the primaries are run by the parties, and the DNC makes the final rules. If a state breaks them, then they face the consequences. The states knew what would happen. The DNC needs to keep its authority. And don't forget, MI and FL even voted for these rules.

I am glad Hilary is still in the race, as long as it stays positive. However, come June 10, it is time for the Super Delegates to make a decision.

The RULES say Michigan and Florida are stripped of their delegates.

On this issue, the Democratic party reminds me of a parent who has tried to set a bad rule for his child (e.g., "You must eat all of your vegetables before you can leave the table") and is stuck with the fact that a)the child has a mind of his own b)the threat is essentially unenforceable and c)making the threat was therefore stupid. Sometimes, as in this case, the rule as was stupid. What one does when s/he finds out it was stupid is a test of character; do you find a way to correct the situation, or do you blindly follow its dictates?

There might be a worse analogy than this, but I'm at a loss to come up with one at this time.

The rules were made by the DNC and shared with supposed adults in Florida and Michigan. They defied the party and must accept responsibility. Apparently, the other 48 states didn't think the rules were "stupid." The analogy above is almost as bad as saying we may as well scrap laws related to driving cars because kids are going to ignore them anyhow. As for Florida, the Mickey Mouse state needs to grow up and quit being a pain in the whats-it whenever we have a presidential election.

I might find Clinton supporters more persuasive if they came up with rational responses to criticisms leveled against her instead of going into denial and changing the subject.

I attended the Clinton event in Hillsboro...got there in what seemed to be plenty of time, had a long wait outside snaking through a line, and eventually wound up in an overflow area (cafeteria, I think) with a big screen video projection system on account of the auditorium being full. Sign.

Yup, Clinton called for seating the Michigan and Florida delegations with the usual rhetoric of alleged disenfranchisement. I tend to agree with the bad-parental-rule analogy above and hope the DNC works out something. Frankly, it's just a campaign talking point for Clinton right now and nothing else: the final disposition of those delegations is going to be decided in Denver unless Clinton drops out before the convention--something I think is highly unlikely.

Clinton is one smart, talented woman and she gave a rousing address with a lot of detailed proposals, or at least more than Obama puts forward in his stump speech. But I was not persuaded to switch my support from Obama to Clinton. Either one would get my vote in November. Talk about no-brainers: a Democrat vs. McBush?

Hillary supporters always ignore this when I post it. This is Hillary on Fox and Friends on December 17, 2007:

MR. DOOCY: Would you be "the comeback senator"? Would you be "the comeback gal"? Have you thought about that yet? SEN. CLINTON: I'm going to leave that to you. You all have a great way with a turn of phrase. But what I'm going to do is to just keep working hard every day, knocking on doors, making phone calls, talking to people. I feel very good about where we were. This has always been a challenge. I'm going to start on January 3rd with the caucuses in Iowa and go all the way until February 5th, because at the end of the campaign what you need are enough delegates to actually get you the nomination. And I believe that I will get the nomination and that I will be the next president.

Much more here.

It was Hillary's plan from the start to "disenfranchise" all states with primaries after February 5. And it backfired on her.

The crocodile tears that are now being shed about Florida and Michigan are the latest and most disingenuous of the Clinton campaign. The fact is that the idea of drawing a line in the sand so that you would end up with a de facto national primary was from page one of the Clinton playbook.

Having twenty or thirty states vote on the same day, the theory went, would favor the candidate with the most money, the most experience and the most organizational support with connections with many local governors and mayors already on board.

This strategy would only work if, repeat if, there was a draconian line in the sand. If the line was too weak - like 50% representation then states would be tempted to be in the head of the line and settle for half of the delegates. Even with the draconian line two states called the bluff (and they did it laughing at the DNC.)

This is what their representatives wanted and Harold Ickes was on the committee and voted for it. Clinton's strongest base of support is not with the elected super delegates but the DNC delegates that control the party machinery where she locked up 140 early endorsements.

By November everything looked great for the Clintons. They got the ironclad rule with the draconian penalty that they needed. Twenty Four primaries and caucuses took the bait and jumped to the front of the line for Super Super Tuesday on Feb 5th. The other element that they hoped for was a big field of candidates. As long as there was a big field then the Clinton had a solid 40% the other candidates would split the rest and the Clintons would win big.

And then the plan began to unravel. The field ended up being only three candidates. In the first contest, Iowa Clinton finished third place. By the time Super Super Tuesday came that 40%+ ended up being not just a floor but also a ceiling. The Clinton campaign had banked everything on February 5th. They had no real plan for the caucus states and low on money. The junior senator from Illinois won in delegates and popular votes and then launched 12 straight victories.

Now as the last 15% of the primary season is upon us and being irretrievably behind the Clinton camp will bang the drum of injustice for the exclusion of Michigan and Florida. The big lie is that they are now painting themselves as having been absolutely against the injustice. The truth was having a draconian penalty was key to making sure that a huge number of states would line up one a single date. It looked like a good idea up to Feb 4th.

Setting aside how absurd counting an uncontested ballot is, it continues to amaze me that the Clinton campaign sees this as a winning issue in Oregon. Is a working parent in Hillsboro really expected to care about the Clinton campaign's fight to legitimize after-the-fact a one-sided vote fifteen hundred miles away? Can Democrats expect the same lack of message discipline from Clinton against a reinvigorated John McCain?

The Clintonites negotiated and signed the deal on the rules for MI and FL. Now the deal's off because it's inconvenient. There was no primary election in MI or FL according to the DNC, so no delegates. Clinton was the only name on the ballot so it's pretty lame to claim there was an election there. It's all sign of a sinking ship when the victimization card is all you can play. The only last hope is a coups with the credentials committee, and it's clear that won't happen from the probably make-up of the committee. In the end there will be some delegates seated but in a way that doesn't favor either campaign.

Could you imagine the outrage if it was the Obama campaign saying that a primary should count even though Hillary's name was not on the ballot? This is nuts.

Here's the Clinton tactic for trying to overturn the rules on MI and FL- threaten the funding for Congressional Campaigns, take back donations to the DNC. That will win friends and influence super-Ds in the party. "Give me what I want or I will harm the party in '08 elections."

This from Political Wire:

Democratic Donors Pull Funds Over Florida, Michigan A Democratic source tells The Hotline that the DNC "is returning as much as $175K to donors dismayed with the party's handling of the Florida and Michigan primaries. My source says the exact amount will be reported in the April 20 FEC filing."

For those interested in something other than the [Editor--Off-topic comment deleted.]

So how come she's making speeches about this IN OREGON? Are we supposed to care about how Michigan and Florida f___ed up their nominating process?

heck, all the more representation for states like Oregon whose governments have more brains than the average sweat sock and can follow directions.

But can we drop the pretense that Clinton's tactics have anything to do with democratic principles?

Hear, Hear!

Last Sunday Bill Clinton said to the crowd at NMHS, "Aren't you glad that your vote will count for a change?" Apparently he and Hillary got caught up in the FL and MI fiasco where they wanted to disenfranchise all primary voters after late February. The other candidates who lost out and are now not part of the debate should be heard from. John Edwards may still be in the race today had those two states follwed the rules of THEIR OWN PARTY.

Sorry for yelling, but Hillary just makes the case daily for the pure political animal she is. She is all about herself and not about the country.

THEREFORE, I ___, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge...

Her oath to uphold the Constitution wasn't worth anything either when she voted to approve Bush's blank check for war on Iraq.

On another thread Steve Novick supporters were called on his support for the death penalty. Some came back with responses defending their conflict with opposing the death penalty while continuing to support Novick. Has any Hillary supporter ever done something similar when opponents cited criticisms of Hillary?

I attended the Clinton event this morning and I cannot even begin to tell the blueoregon posters how affirming it was! So nice to be in a room full of fellow Clinton supporters, so nice to hear the crowd roar when she told us, in great detail, the things she plans to do when she becomes President. I tend to think those who are calling for her to drop out of the race or saying we should disenfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida are doing a much greater disservice to our Party than this long primary is. She needs to stay in this race and fight for those of us who believe so strongly in her campaign - and I don't know how we can afford to ignore the voters in Michigan and Florida as a national Party. Go Hillary!

Disenfranchising the voters in FL and MI? Can you not read what I posted above? Sheesh. I'm getting sick of these lies from Clinton supporters over and over again.

This issue has nothing to do with disenfranchising voters or our competitiveness in the general election. If this were really about the general election, why disenfranchise Independents and Republicans in Michigan? How does excluding them from a re-vote help us in November?

My father lives in Florida and works with actual voter disenfranchisement on behalf of the NAACP. As a civil rights lawyer, he's taken counties to federal court when they've closed African American voting places and is very sensitive to efforts to deny minority voting rights. This ain't one of them. Every time I've talked to him, he's told me what a joke he thinks Clinton's arguments are, and how blatantly transparent Clinton's self-interest is here.

I attended the Clinton event this morning and I cannot even begin to tell the blueoregon posters how affirming it was! So nice to be in a room full of fellow Clinton supporters, so nice to hear the crowd roar when she told us, in great detail, the things she plans to do when she becomes President.

Katy: I have a mountain-top retreat in the Florida Everglades with its own private ski slope. Guaranteed snow year-round. If you're interested, let me know. I'll give you a good deal on it.

I don't think people generally have thought through what the US Constitution says about our rights. In particular, we have two rights:

1. To cast our votes in the general election for the President of the United States through the process of the election of the Electoral College.

2. To have the right of free assembly which is inclusive to the right to organize political parties.

These rights do not include cross-over multiplication of rights. In organizing a political party, we have the right to determine however we like within our political party how we nominate candidates for office. A political party can hold a convention to nominate, can hold a caucus, and can have a primary election. It could hold a telephone conference, it could have a count of emails, it could base it's decision upon which way the wind was blowing at a given place at a given hour, it could flip a coin, or a test of physical strength such as arm wrestling could be used. -- The US Constitution in its right of free assembly does not tell us how a party is to conduct its business.

Between the point in time a party selects its candidate, and the general election, there are no Constitutional based rules. What has happened in that gap between a party and the election is "generally understood practices". In Oregon we have a primary election. That is to say, with the consent of the major political parties, the State has agreed to offer a primary election in which candidates are selected within their party affiliations, and precinct committee people are elected to conduct the business of the Party. But this was done with the consent and cooperation of the Parties. Only in the general election do we exercise our right to elect the Electoral College to elect the President.

So, what does this issue about Florida and Michigan involve? It involves a confusion of our different rights. The people of Michigan and Florida do not have the right to a primary election. Period. The way the "rights" are laid out, each political Party has the right to organize its nomination process however it likes. If the States cooperate and an election is held - fine. But if the States do something contrary to the wishes of the political parties - then the States are in violation of the US Constitution.

It's just a little more complex in Florida and Michigan, in that the State and National Democratic Parties were at odds. But even then, the State Parties have agreed in their by-laws to follow the rules of the National Party.

So, when Clinton argues that the votes in Michigan and Florida should count, she is making a moral argument, not a legal argument, as there is no legal argument to be made. The fact that Clinton and every candidate for the Party nomination agreed to abide by the rules of the Party should be thought of as a no-brainer. It is the Party’s nomination they sought, therefore they have to follow the Party rules. If they don’t want to follow the Party rules, then they should form their own Party with rules to their liking.

For candidate Clinton to argue that these votes should count, if she means this beyond a moral stance, should then be taken as evidence of her desire to leave the Democratic Party.

Since sports analogies have recently been popular (sort of) on Blue Oregon, another way to say this is that you can’t play football rules in a baseball game. Rules is rules, and if you want another game, go to another field to play in.

Clinton has no credibility, no firm ground to stand upon, no legal basis, no Constitutional basis, and really no moral basis to any part of an argument that the Michigan or Florida votes should count.

</u> Goodness gracious, this reminds me of the foot-races my little sister would challenge me to years and years ago.

We'd be walking, and if she was nearer some kind of landmark, she'd announce that she was racing me there: "First one to this lamppost wins -- I win!" Then I'd lurch forward and cry in defeat: "Oh no! That was close... I want a rematch!"

Okay, so I was way older than her, and pretty certain that I would have won if I knew we were racing... but I didn't mind because it was cute and there was nothing at stake and I love my kid sister.

But it's not cute when you're a mature adult trying the same crap and what's at stake is the most powerful position on earth.

I told myself that I would vote for anyone over McCain, but if this is a hallmark of a Hillary presidency, I'm worried. If she answers the Red Phone at 3:00am... is she going to count on being able to call "do-over" if she makes the wrong decision?

Based on the majority of comments above, it appears that Michigan's and Florida's delegations shouldn't be seated at the national convention and I am wrong (that is not unusual). It appears that this is an issue of such moral imperative that it trumps all other factors we might consider. But we probably all will agree that something needs to be done about a system of national primary elections to keep Iowa and Vermont from forever dominating the early primaries. After the election, we will have to see if President McCain is interested in dealing with this problem.

Dear Charlie Burr, instead of watching Hillary on TV you should attend her event, because counting votes in Michigan and Florida wasn’t the main topic of her speech. Hillary was great today. She was very articulate, up bit, talked about her plan to restore this country. I believe like many others who came to see her to Hillsboro, she will be our next president.

Katy,

You should take Bill B. up on his offer regarding the Everglades ski retreat.

As should be abundantly clear by now, there has been no "disenfranchisement" of voters in MI nor in Florida.

In MI, Clinton was the only name on the ballot! Everybody else played by agreed-upon rules. They didn't. Tough noodles.

Linley, I think we should find a way to seat the delegates somehow, but Clinton today rejected an even split of the Michigan delegates. Instead, Clinton argued she won the uncontested vote and therefore should get them all. Not too credible, really.

Vicki, liveblogging the event was a lot easier with the KATU live feed. But the Michigan thing was the main story. And the subsequent AP story, "Clinton Ramps Up Call to Count Fla, Mich" -- picked up by several hundred media outlets -- confirms this. I am, however, glad you had a good experience at a major presidential campaign event. Nothing quite like it.

.... regardless of what Obama supporters think about it.

That's part of the win-at-any-cost attitude we've come to expect from the Clinton campaign. What "democratic principle" demands that Republicans and Independents be excluded from participating in a Michigan re-vote, Chris?

Chris Corbell writes, "A re-vote would have gone forward if Obama hadn't obstructed it."

I follow the news closely. To be sure, there have been some times I have missed a thing or two due to attending meetings and such. I have heard your claim stated again and again, but never did see any news coverage on this. When and how did Obama obstruct a new election in Florida and Michigan? I was under the impression that those State parties had decided to not "redo".

Please fill me in with the date this happened and how it happened.

HELLO!!!

Who is not reading the quote above from Hillary on December 17, 2007 when she said that the race would be over on FEBRUARY 5, 2008 - THEREBY DISENFRANCHISING ALL STATES AFTER THAT DATE?????

(Also -Hillary's cheating to win constitutes disenfranchisement on a massive scale.)

Katy? Chris? How do you respond?

Well, well, well - talk about disenfranchisement. Hillary is trying to steal Obama's pledged delegates in North Dakota! >>>> ABC News

Hillary Clinton acts more like Jr.High candidate for Student Council than someone seeking the office of presidency of the U.S. Is it any wonder after she tells these stories about her heroics in Bosnia, the phony story about the woman who died, not receiving healthcare, about her imagined national security experience as first lady, and this attempted sleight of hand about Fl. and MI. after negotiating and signing the agreement, that she is the most unpopular politician on the national stage today. The more she campaigns the more her favorability ratings decrease. And it is no wonder that the bad blood will continue in this forum, and throughout the remainder of this nomination process within the party, and beyond. But it's increasingly clear to me that's the whole point, since she can't win, is sabotage and clear the way for 2012.

"But it's increasingly clear to me that's the whole point, since she can't win, is sabotage and clear the way for 2012."

<hr/>

Addendum: Some might say this is an over-the-top cynical accusation. I just happened now to click on the Chris Mathew's Show and his panel of pundits, (flipping over from a pause in the UNC/Kansas game). He asked that question, "Is Hillary sabotaging the campaign so she can run in 2012?" Three out of four of the panel said "yes." Fits with the whole cynical campaign of entitlement she has run from the beginning and a good reason why she is losing. Bottom line, she is losing and she deserves to lose. A pox on that brand of politics!

This whole thing is getting increasingly embarassing.

Someone tell me if I have this wrong. The reason Michigan and Florida were penalized was because they planned to move their primaries up ahead of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. When Iowa and New Hampshire, in turn, moved their dates up ahead of all other states, one of two things should have happened: 1) Iowa and New Hampshire should be penalized for holding illegal votes as well on the theory that the important thing is to hold votes later in the year; or 2) Michigan and Florida should be ruled as being in compliance, since the important thing is to have the "retail politics" of Iowa and New Hampshire before the other states -- which they turned out to be.

Given the way the calendar worked out, I can't see why everyone is so upset about the dates on which Michigan and Florida held their primaries. They weren't ahead of the "traditional two" and the weren't substantially before any of 20 or so other states. Or are they supposed to arrange their primaries so that their votes would be largely inconsequential, coming after the "Super Tuesday" by which many people thought someone would have sewn up the nomination?

It's nice to fight for a principle, but are the Dems willing to give up the Presidency for the next four years to enforce this? Because telling the people of Michigan and Florida that the party doesn't really care if they're involved in the nominating process or not may well result in that happening.

</u>underline offfffffff

Clinton supporters - 2 questions. Answer without spin.

If she goes back on this pledge (that we having in writing - no "I misspoke"), how can we trust her.

How it is fair to count an election where she was the only candidate on the ballot (what we criticize in Egypt, Cuba, etc...)?

</u>Hillary Clinton indeed was upbeat today and detailed in her remarks; the Michigan/Florida bit was a very brief interlude. She didn't convince me to switch my vote from Obama, but that's OK; she did convince me (not that I actually needed convincing) that she will get my vote in November if she is the nominee. And geez louise, I've had the chance to take my kid to see two presidential candidates in a two-week period. Talk about real-life civics lessons....</u>

This is so much nonsense. All of the primaries for every state should be on the same day of the year, period. Forget all this BS.

I also had the chance to see Hillary today. Yes she spoke passionately and intelligently about issues many of us care about like energy independence, green collar jobs and universal health care. Yes she made the remark about MI and FLA that I agree is at best disingenuous if not repellent (in that it repelled me from hearing her next 3 points clearly)

I think both more and less highly of her than before I walked in People are complex

I'm still strongly for Obama Still missing Edwards And still ready to support Hillary if she somehow pulls this out, however distastefully

I find it interesting that so many Obama supporters are willing to vote for Hillary in November. But what would be more interesting is whether Hillary herself would vote for Obama. If McCain passes the Commander and Chief test and not Obama, shouldn't Hillary support McCain if she loses the nomination?

Personally, I'm hoping Obama wins so that I can keep my string alive of always voting Democrat in every election on every level since 1978.

Hillary:

"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

"...not going to count for anything."

Here is a video of her saying that on youtube.

This tells me that Hillary cannot be trusted to keep her word. Words don't matter to Hillary - especially her word. It means nothing.

You know what's funny? In every election since I have been old enough to vote, my primary vote has not had any influence over who would eventually be nominated, because the date at which our state holds its primary. However, when MI and FL move their primary to a date that causes their votes to not have that influence (albeit for different reasons), everyone makes it out to be a major crisis. I guess I find it hard to feel too sorry for MI and FL voters.

The way I see it, when FL and MI moved their primaries against the rules, they we're taking a risk that their delegates would be stripped, in exchange for possibly having more influence in the nominating process. It was a gamble, and they lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH6jjj2YfEI

I'm sure she gave a great speech full of details about what she would do if President. But, I can't help but think "Senator Miss-Go-Along-to-Get-Along" just has her finger in the air to see which way it's blowing so she can tell us exactly what we want to hear.

I swear I never heard her give anywhere as much flack to the Preznit or any of the republicans in the Senate in the last seven years as she has given to Barack Obama in the past month.

Katy won't respond to my question regarding Hillary's December 17, 2007 statement on Fox and Friends that Super Tuesday is the "end of the campaign", quote unquote. Therefore, Hillary intended all along to disenfranchise a large number of states. This is indisputable.

I can see why no Hillary supporter can defend that statement - it shows Hillary to be the lying hypocrite she is, and there is no defense (other than another lie).

“Clinton Ramps Up Call to Count Fla, Mich" -- picked up by several hundred media outlets -- confirms this.”

Charley, you just confirm media bias gains Hillary Clinton. Media is “reporting” only half-truth! Somebody who didn’t went to event and don’t follow campaign closely would say “wow she came to my state to discuss only that?” By the way, somebody on this blog already did: “Admiral Naismith | Apr 5, 2008 1:34:55 PM

So how come she's making speeches about this IN OREGON? Are we supposed to care about how Michigan and Florida f___ed up their nominating process? “

It is just shows how media is trying to influence people’s decision, including your post.

Yes, we are progressive, democratic nation. Just like Russia.

Chris Corbell writes: If you were a Democrat in Michigan, you'd want your vote counted.

First, let me say that I may be the only person in Oregon who genuinely likes both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama as candidates. That being said...

If I were a Michigan (or Florida) Democrat, I would be furious with my state party leadership. I would only vote for PCPs who promised to remove the current state chair, co-chairs, etc. I'd do everything I could to reclaim my party from the people who were either too careless or too cavalier to safeguard my vote.

Leading a state party that conducts business in accordance with its own rules and the rules of the DNC is not easy. It takes work, commitment, brains, creativity -- in Oregon we're lucky to have the party leadership we have. When the Michigan state party leadership failed at that job, they failed at their most important duty.

The Sabotage Strategy- I find the fact that we are even having this heated discussion bodes ill for the Dem. party. The DNC and the campaigns made an agreement that there are no contests in MI and FL if those states try to muscle their way to the front. Now that that one contender finds herself behind, she and her supporters want to play a game of "let's pretend" that there were actual contests and actual primary campaigns. They promote the phony idea of disenfranchisement, and that the GE is doomed unless we pretend there was a primary election in these two states. Furthermore, a high profile list of Clinton supporters write to Nancy Pelosi and threaten to deprive Congressional candidates of their funding, and they threaten and then follow through with their threats to withdraw donated funds from the DNC because it hasn't capitulated to Hillary on the MI and FL question.

Don't anyone tell me this isn't a deliberate strategy of sabotage of the '08 election being waged by the Clinton campaign. Lacking the power to win, the Clinton imperium replaces it with the power to harm, so that the way is clear for 2012. The Dem. party is a party that is a wholly owned Clinton subsidiary or there will be no party at all. That is to be expected. But it is discouraging that some well-meaning supporters are willing to participate in it.

This tells me that Hillary cannot be trusted to keep her word. Words don't matter to Hillary - especially her word. It means nothing.

When Hillary and 76 other senators voted for the war on Iraq, they all proved that their oaths to uphold the Constitution were meaningless. Now fast forward to inauguration day with that in mind and visualize Hillary taking that oath again as president. You would have to be mindless to not be disgusted by such a spectacle.

Katy won't respond to my question regarding Hillary's ...

Katy and her fellow Hillary supporters never respond to questions for which they can't reply for lack of countering facts or vivid imagination. They just go into denial mode and take another tack.

More less-than-complete honesty from Hillary.

Hillary in Eugene on Iraq and Obama.n

Chris Corbell - or anyone - I'm still waiting to hear the answer to my question ....

Exactly how did Obama obstruct the process to have second elections in Michigan and Florida? What did he do, when did he do it, how can I find out about it?

Or - is this just another Rovian spin put out by the Clinton campaign?

Steve, Since no candidate has any say about how a state complies with DNC rules, there's no answer to be given. I sincerely hope the DNC "supers" remember who has behaved just exactly how and to what effect on the DNC.

Chris Corbell - or anyone - I'm still waiting to hear the answer to my question ....

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer, Steve. These Hillary trolls never answer questions that expose their detachment from the facts.

I find it interesting that so many Obama supporters are willing to vote for Hillary in November. But what would be more interesting is whether Hillary herself would vote for Obama. If McCain passes the Commander and Chief test and not Obama, shouldn't Hillary support McCain if she loses the nomination?

Oh wow...

Here is 1 very good reason. We have a 2 party system. A 3rd party is not, nor ever will, win a general election for the Presidency unless there is some sort of sea change. So if you really feel like throwing your vote away on a Nader or someone else I can't stop you. I can call you a jerk for wasting your vote on a 3rd party and then crying 2 years later when President McCain appoints an anti-choice, anti-civil rights, anti-constitution supreme court justice who swings the court towards the hard right. What you think Ginsberg is going to live forever?

Come on all you anti-Dems. Do you really think your vote for Nader (if your candidate loses) will actually be worth anything other than a vote for McCain?

A 3rd party is not, nor ever will, win a general election for the Presidency unless there is some sort of sea change. So if you really feel like throwing your vote away on a Nader or someone else I can't stop you.

You're right about the third party and sea change, but voting for a third party candidate is not necessarily throwing a vote away. Such votes would be a way of saying that people are tired of choosing between what they see as the lesser of two evils and giving a signal they want a third and better choice. At the present time that statement would most likely just be a whisper, but it may some day be the beginning of a call for a sea change. Without it we will be doomed to continuing business as flawed usual, and the majority of American people will continue to get the kind of government they deserve.

If there were no third choice and people only voted for one of the candidates from the existing duopoly, then we could indulge the delusion we are happy with our lot.

You're right about the third party and sea change, but voting for a third party candidate is not necessarily throwing a vote away. Such votes would be a way of saying that people are tired of choosing between what they see as the lesser of two evils and giving a signal they want a third and better choice.

That's a nice thought. I wonder if that's what Roosevelt thought when he created the Bull Moose party and swung the election to Wilson in 1912 or what Ross Perot was thinking when he reentered the 92 race and immediately the lead went to Clinton or any other point in history when a 3rd party did nothing but play spoiler. The fact is that we have a two party system. Everyone can either get on a high horse and proclaim how they want another choice and how they're sick of voting for the lesser of two evils or they can get off their butts and work within the party to change their preferred party for the better. In this election there isn't much of a lesser of two evils. You'd think that after 8 years of Bush and 12 years of a Republican controlled Congress people would start to understand there aren't two evils here.

We have a winner take all system in the US. This isn't Britan or France and we don't have a parliamentary system. We don't have coalition governments. You win or you don't. 3rd parties are not viable and unless you feel like writing a new constitution your argument is nothing more than a very nice idea that has very little chance of reality in it.

You win or you don't. 3rd parties are not viable and unless you feel like writing a new constitution your argument is nothing more than a very nice idea that has very little chance of reality in it.

I didn't realize the Constitution specified a two-party system. This is from Wikipedia: "When the Republican Party was created, the two major parties in the United States were the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. The Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas." This to me suggests that a third party can move into the mainstream and replace one of the entrenched parties.

There is also the point made by the astute Walter Karp some time ago about the Democratic and Republican parties being the two wings on the corporate bird of prey.

Bill, Please read the 12th amendment on the establishment of the electoral college. The Constitution does not say there has to be a 2 party system. The electoral college and the winner take all stipulation makes a 3rd party non-viable. Sure you can start a 3rd party. In the 200+ years we've had a few...I wouldn't be surprised if we have another one pop up out of this election with the evangelical right wingers breaking out of the Republican party and forming their own thing.

I'm not going to get into details. If you can't figure out what I'm trying to say by now Bill there really isn't any more point in trying to explain it further. I choose to work within the Democratic party to fix what is wrong with the party. I'm not going to go vote for a 3rd party in an election that means this much.

If you can't figure out what I'm trying to say by now Bill there really isn't any more point in trying to explain it further.

The problem is more that you are not clear in what you are saying: "The electoral college and the winner take all stipulation makes a 3rd party non-viable. Sure you can start a 3rd party. In the 200+ years we've had a few..." You say the system makes a third party non-viable when history has shown a third party (Republican) became viable. And that happened in 1854 after the 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804. You can believe all you want in a two-party system and the odds may be stacked against a viable third party, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of one evolving.

Bill,

The Republican party came out when the Whigs collapsed with Henry Clay's death along with the SLAVERY issue dividing the party between the Northern and Southern factions. The Whigs were done for years before the Republican's emerged. The major sea change was the slavery issue. The only issue I see being big enough to justify a 3rd party would be on the Republican side between the evangelicals and neo-cons. No point in abandoning the Democratic party over our two great candidates when the Repubs are on the ropes.

The only issue I see being big enough to justify a 3rd party would be on the Republican side between the evangelicals and neo-cons.

Could be, but I'm more inclined to believe it will take a massive downturn in the economy to get enough people to rise up from their apathy that will have been a contributing factor to such an economic failure.

Hillary Clinton believes that the voices of 600,000 Michigan primary voters and 1.75 million Florida primary voters should be heard at the Democratic convention. In the 2004 presidential race, the turnout in Michigan was only a quarter of what it was this year - and the 2004 turnout in Florida was less than half of what it was this year. With such dramatically increased turnout, Hillary won those two states and she did it with all candidates on an equal footing. In Florida, all presidential candidates were on the primary ballot and all followed the rules (except for Sen. Obama who broke the rules by running television ads in violation of his pledge to the early states and to the other presidential candidates). In Michigan, Sen. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the primary ballot to curry favor with Iowa. He was under no obligation to do so. However, his supporters organized a substantial vote for 'uncommitted' on the ballot, thus he is represented in the delegation. Hillary Clinton obeyed all the rules in Florida and Michigan and came out ahead. She had no intrinsic advantage over her opponents other than the will of the voters. The voters of Florida and Michigan should be heard and the delegates from Florida and Michigan should count.

We had 8 years of Bush and Cheny manipulating the truth to get what they wanted. Hillary is showing us that she is no different. I am a Michigan voter and I would love to be heard at the convention. Will Hillary let me get up and tell the delegates how disgusted I am with her?

Ok, you've once agian taken Senator Clinton's words totally out of context here. If you actually read the entire transcript of the New Hampshire PR interview you'd see that she's been pretty consitent right from the start. She recognized back in October 2007 that the Dem Party could not disenfranchise all those voters in MI (and FL) because it would not bode well for the Dem nominee come November. Read it in it's entirity here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html Oh, and by the way, Obama DID campaign in MI. I have family there that have confirmed that fact. He had supporters hitting the streets and campaigning on his behalf day and night over the airwaves, prompting people to go out and vote "uncommitted". So in a very clever manner he broke the rules. He also willingly removed his name from the ballot in MI, but when he realized it may be a mistake (per Clinton's lead) he tried to get it put back on but did not meet the paperwork deadline. And as for FL, he certainly campigned there as well because he had bought a national ad that was all over the airwaves in Florida for weeks, to the point people down there were getting sick of seeing him over and over. So, all this considered, and the fact that the Party absolutely needs the voters from MI and FL to actually vote in November, they must find a fair resolution to this issue as promptly and equitably as possible. If they do not, and the voters who came out in the millions to cast their votes in their respective primaries feel that their votes are not counting, polling has shown that these voters will either stay home or vote for the Republican nominee in November.