Hillary Clinton cares nothing for democracy

Industrialsize

and since 1982 exactly ONE delegate has gone to the convention and changed their vote.....Pledged delegates are usually supporters of a candidate and highly motivated to vote for their candidate.......you wont see Obama delegates defecting to vote for Clinton..not in this lifetime

But not this year. Not this time. This year we can’t afford the same old politics. Obama 4/18/08

http://my.manhunt.net/Industrialsize

HazelGod

You're being a willfully dishonest douchebag. Again. It's just YOU who has created an indefensible postion re: Obama with your strawman argument.

Though I've already deconstructed it once, I'll quickly do it again:


This is a quintessential strawman tactic. You've fabricated an "indefensible" position of your own design and attributed it to the Obama campaign. The fact of the matter is that his campaign hasn't challenged the technical legality of DNC rules regarding pledged delegates.

What his campaign has rightfully pointed out is that Hillary's desperation tactics subvert the intent of the DNC rules (pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them") and notion of democratic process altogether...and of course that Mrs. Mendacity has shown herself to be a shameless liar willing to renege on her promises as soon as it might possibly benefit her:

A despicable lie exposed by the voice message on my answering machine right now.





The other prong of intellectual dishonesty is your presentation of this "conundrum" as such. In fact, the separate issues of pledged delegates voting the intent of their electorate in Denver, and the states of FL and MI working out a compromise with the party to have their delegation seated are not mutually exclusive propositions. The one actually has nothing to do with the other.

Get it through your head that the issues of the states is totally beyond the scope of the candidates and their campaign. That rules were violated is not in dispute...that's why they were sanctioned. Any agreement reached between the states and the party leadership to seat their delegation must be reached by those entities (FL, MI, DNC) alone...the campaigns are not involved. A more obvious conflict of interest would be difficult to imagine.

To their credit, Obama has repeatedly and consistently stated that he would like to see those states represented in the convention and his campaign will abide by any resolution decided upon by the DNC.

The only thing consistent coming from Camp Clinton is their willingness to disregard the rules when it's to their advantage...to wit, her repeated braying to have the states' delegations seated based on the results of the election as-is. Id est, in violation of the party rules that resulted in their sanction to begin with.

Regardless of any decision reached by the national party with regard to FL and MI, all candidates should respect the intent of the voters whose delegates have been selected through the electoral process. To flippantly disregard its intent as Hillary has done is both dishonest and disdainful of the entire democratic process. Hence the reason I opened this thread.

I'll reiterate how utterly unsurprising it is that one who so fervently supports such a disingenuous candidate routinely resorts to similar dishonesty himself.

In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about Hope.

Trinity

Hazel, you take exception and find appalling the very way in which your candidate Obama is playing the Democratic Primary. Don't believe the hype. Edwards delegates in Iowa switched because of a hard court press by Obama. Clinton is late getting to this...which has been her history with caucuses. But you better believe both candidates understand the process wasn't over on Round One. So put away your aversion and mischaracterization of anti-democracy. This is the nature of the Caucus System and your candidate seems willing to be a party to it...of course he is big on utilizing Machiavellian tactics - the appearance of goodness and purity while hiding dirty hands.

Caucus delegate system isn't good indicator of who gets what

February 13, 2008 6:00 AM
By JUNE KRONHOLZ

When Iowans caucused four years ago, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's share of the turnout should have earned him 21 of the state's 45 delegates to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards should have received 17 and former Vermont Gov. John Dean should have taken seven.

But when the Iowa delegates showed up at the convention in Boston six months later, 39 delegates were committed to Mr. Kerry, four to Mr. Edwards and two to Mr. Dean.

In Washington state, meanwhile, Mr. Kerry seemed to have earned 46 delegates to Mr. Dean's 30 in 2004. But Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich snagged six of Mr. Dean's delegates by convention time and added a seventh by the final floor vote.

The caucus system—which elects delegates only to local conventions, not the national convention—makes it nearly impossible to calculate who is ahead in the race for the Democratic nomination. That is why estimates by news organizations and campaign-related Web sites vary so widely.
In the latest count by the Associated Press, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has 1,136 delegates to 1,108 for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. CNN puts the count at 1,148 for Mrs. Clinton and 1,121 for Mr. Obama. And the Web site RealClearPolitics.com calculates 1,143 for Mrs. Clinton and 1,138 for Mr. Obama.

Caucus delegates are coming under scrutiny for another reason: They could swing the results in a tight race. Caucus states will elect 418 of the 4,049 delegates at this summer's convention; a candidate must secure 2,025 delegates to win the nomination. Unlike delegates elected through a primary, caucus delegates can "realign" their votes, or abandon them by not showing up for the next step in what can be a long selection process.
In Iowa, caucus goers elected 13,485 delegates to 99 county conventions that will meet on March 15. Those delegates will elect 2,500 delegates to five congressional-district conventions that will meet on April 26 to select 29 delegates to the national convention in August, according to TheGreenPapers.com, which tracks the selection process. Those same 2,500 delegates will meet again on June 14 to elect another 16 statewide delegates.

Those delegates can be any registered Democrat who steps forward, but usually they are campaign or party activists who are known to the candidates' state officers.

The Obama campaign plans in the next few days to begin approaching the 4,207 delegates to county conventions that Mr. Edwards earned during the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses in hopes of swinging them to the Illinois senator's side. "It's a soft ask. It's not edgy" or high pressure, says Jackie Norris, who is coordinating the Obama delegate process in Iowa.

Turning out Mr. Obama's 4,707 delegates will be just as important. The state Democratic party estimates that only about two-thirds of the delegates chosen on caucus night typically show up at county caucuses, which are the next level in the delegate-selection process in Iowa. Under local rules, those no-show votes could be up for grabs.

In states that hold primaries, delegate selection is fairly straightforward. Three-quarters of a state's delegates to the national convention are awarded to the candidates based on how well they did in each congressional district. The other 25% is awarded based on how well they did in the state at large. Of Georgia's 76 elected delegates, for example, 57 are awarded at the district level and 19 at the state level.
Those so-called pledged delegates can change their minds and vote for another candidate but seldom do.

Delegate selection is less straightforward in a caucus. Under Iowa party rules, delegates to the county convention are twice invited to realign themselves, or switch sides, before a final vote is taken. Delegates to the district level also can switch sides. A delegate who doesn't show up can be replaced by an alternate who favors the same candidate. But if, for example, a Clinton delegate and that delegate's alternate both are absent, an Obama alternate could claim the seat.

That has never before been an issue, says Norm Sterzenbach, the party's political director. The Democratic nominee was usually decided by the time the convention was held, and any shifts were either to the side of the winner or, as in the case of Mr. Kucinich, were protest votes.

But a shift of even a few votes could be pivotal if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are in a dead heat after today's primaries in Maryland and Virginia and the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas. At that point, the contest could turn into a delegate hunt, with caucus delegates among the quarry.
That will put pressure on both candidates to turn out their own county delegates and to woo those elected on behalf of other candidates. In Iowa, in addition to Mr. Edwards's delegates, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson won 301 county delegates, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware took 147, and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut won three.

The Obama and Clinton campaigns still have staffers in Iowa for the county conventions, but with the national attention high, the state party says it hasn't yet put together a list of delegates elected at the caucuses.

HazelGod

In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about Hope.

Trinity

Hazel, there are several debates being waged on poaching of pledged delegates (let's not even get into superdelegates). Iowa and Texas are caucuses with a very complicated system for getting the final pledged delegates to the convention. Your OP was in regards to the Texas Caucus process.

Now, you need to be consistent if you want your argument to have value. You bring up intent of the DNC rules (pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them") and notion of democratic process altogether but in fact that is an implied spirit of what pledged delegates are obligated to do because one of the DNC rules state that pledged delegates can realign to any candidate.

You then confuse your position by stating that Edwards delegates are up for grabs. The delegates pledged to Edwards in the spirit of the process have not been released by Edwards and many in Iowa chose not to switch to either Clinton or Obama for that very reason. If you are going to base your argument on that then be consistent when following it through.

Did you read the article on how the process works? What Sen.Clinton is stating is true. Pledged delegates can choose to switch...several times in the caucus process and in the convention.

"...delegates to the county convention are twice invited to realign themselves, or switch sides, before a final vote is taken."

At this stage of the game and with the Caucus System being what it is, Sen. Clinton isn't poaching anything. I don't feel that Obama would have made it this far had more of his record been scrutinized before the Democrats became mired in this close race. Many people in America have had second thoughts about Obama and are seeing him without rose colored glasses. At this stage, it isn't improper to approach Obama's delegates it is irresponsible for Sen. Clinton not to.

In order to turn out the vote to successfully complete the Caucus process Methods should include getting your delegates to show up and in the case your delegate doesn't show up, that an alternate is there and if that alternate is not there, that you have made an effort to appeal to all delegates on behalf of your candidate.

Both sides have pledged not to poach. Despite that, we hear about cards sent to Clinton supporters by Obama's campaign and calls to Obama supporters by Clinton's campaign. Obama claims it was an error.

In any case, the DNC rules state that pledged delegates can realign no matter the intent of their pledge.

HazelGod

In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about Hope.

jack99821

I'm headed out to campaign (yes, for Obama, I'm biased) now so I haven't seen if there are any responses to this in particular, but...

Florida and Michigan moved their primaries up because the Republicans moved theirs up. The DNC stated that this would result in their disenfranchisement. It did. Barack and Hillary both agreed not to campaign in either state, and neither did (with a few exceptions on both sides).

What Hillary is doing now is a slap in the face to the party. I don't see why she doesn't just change her political affiliation and run as an independent. All Barack has done is accept the party's decision. He made the choice not to go against the party. That's it.

Now, referring to pledged delegates, I personally think it's an extremely dirty tactic and is a good example of how archaic our electoral process is, but she is definitely allowed to do that. When you get right down to it the popular vote is a formality.

Who is John Galt?

Industrialsize

Then why is he rising head to head against Hillary in all the daily tracking polls? Why does he beat Mccain by more than Hillary? Why is Hillary's Favorability rating 37% and his in the high 50's?Why do the polls show him to be more Honest than Clinton? Why is he favored in polls to "unite the country" over Hillary? And all these numbers AFTER the Wright flap has had chance to enter the electorate's minds. In my opinion the voters have looked at BOTH Obama and Clinton and simply prefer Obama.

But not this year. Not this time. This year we can’t afford the same old politics. Obama 4/18/08

http://my.manhunt.net/Industrialsize

faceking

Easy le tigre... we've had enough bannings these days....

My now classic 11 shot 8 foot cumshot on XTube, and other assorted featurettes: http://x02.xtube.com/community/profi...?user=faceking(XTube)

faceking

Interestingly, it's too late to make a difference in the nomination.... but not to late for the actual general election.

Obama's record of ultra-liberal stances haven't been taken out to task yet (and for good reason, as Hillary doesn't want to come over as a centrist)...

Add to that Howard Dean running the show...

McCain has to be loving it....

My now classic 11 shot 8 foot cumshot on XTube, and other assorted featurettes: http://x02.xtube.com/community/profi...?user=faceking(XTube)

Industrialsize

All the dem has to do to win against MCcain is to keep repeating 2 words.....IRAQ BUSH....over and over and over......

But not this year. Not this time. This year we can’t afford the same old politics. Obama 4/18/08

http://my.manhunt.net/Industrialsize

faceking

A> never trust polls
B> but since you are counting.... "beat McCain"???? the two most recent polls...Rasmussen currently has McCain over Obama by 7%, Gallup has McCain over Obama by 2%... the latter with a tremendous sample size of 4,400. Those two polls for McCain v. Clinton are 8% and 4% respectively. So not much of a difference between the two IMHO.

Once Barack Obama gets pressed for specifics on his stance... he's going to come over as a loon. Take it to the bank, this guy is frightening liberal... he's like a Pat Robertson of Democrats.

It's fun to ask most Obama supporters why they are gung-ho on him... and they know little about what he stands for. Yes, there are exceptions...

My now classic 11 shot 8 foot cumshot on XTube, and other assorted featurettes: http://x02.xtube.com/community/profi...?user=faceking(XTube)

midlifebear

Hazelgod:

You're scarin' me, man! Yeah, it very well might be the Hilliary camp is afoot as you say, but I recently learned about the Rush Limbaugh "disguise yourself as a Democrat" movement and their divide and conquer thingy. Having met the junior devil-in-carnate once or twice (Rush, not Hillary), I believe the seas of fear are choppy enough to be that you and your wife's recent experience may also be related to non-Hillary nefariousness. I say "may" for I really have no fucking idea. I'm thousands and thousands and thousands of miles away from the USA. Trust me, the rest of the world has its own problems. Still, it's obvious there's a big motion in the ocean to divide the Dems -- whether it's just the Fourth Estate stirring the waters for Nielsen cookies or actual Republican Evil (there's a copyright mark on that term, I'm certain) is creeping into the dreams of honest and civil 'Mericuhns; not unlike Freddy Kruger.

Seriously, we may not agree on loads of crap, but I always am interested in hearing what you and other alarmists have to write. For, the sighting of smoke, no matter how faraway, still is an indication of something burning. Someone has to yell, "Fire!" Whether it be you or Industrialsize.

CODA: Then again. Consider the source of this post (me). I had the honor of sitting next to former John Connelly (sp?) at a Headliners Club dinner back in 1984 in Austin, Texas. During our boring meal of chicken and greasy farmed catfish he was happy to answer my question regarding the "official" single bullet theory. To quote the former Governor verbatim, "Single bullet theory, my ass!" And then our table's waiter refilled our glasses with more bourbon and water. So, I'm all for conspiracy theories.

• "If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised." Dorothy Parker
• "If you haven't anything nice to say, please come sit next to me." Alice Roosevelt Longworth
• "Food is always, more or less, in demand." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Symphonic

Hillary seems like a winner. After all, the risk of being hated, if it can also offer you extreme support, is worth it. Better to not play it safe when you're losing and have little else to lose.

People who do not have penises should have no say; this is the opinion of the Tribune.

- Declaration of the Tribune, release 7-20-2005

gjorg

This is a dumb reason for wanting Hillary to win,but I hope she does just to piss off some of the ardent Obama supporter's here. I can just see some of them frothing at the mouth and pounding on their keyboards it's kind of funny.