#1
Posted: 2/29/08 at 12:01pm
Clinton may challenge Texas vote rules
#2
Posted: 2/29/08 at 12:25pm
Funny how she wasn't questioning this yesterday when she had a one point lead in the polls. Now that some polls are showing her behind by up to six points, suddenly "Texas is unfair!" Did she just find out about this?!? This reminds me of her sudden "discovery" of the Obama pamphlets that had been around for a month. Either she's manipulative and opportunistic or she and her staff are incompetent. Either way, she smacks of old school politics as usual.
I've always said I would vote for her if she won the nomination. But she makes that option less palatable every day.
I've always said I would vote for her if she won the nomination. But she makes that option less palatable every day.
Art has a double face, of expression and illusion.
#3
Posted: 2/29/08 at 12:32pm
I don't think she could ever please either of you. Ever.
Speaking objectively, elections need to be fair for everyone. In the middle of the election makes for a very difficult time to address these issues. Caucuses should be abolished after 08 as they disenfranchise workers who can not take off work.
We can argue/speculate as to whether or not this primary would be different if all people had been able to vote, but that would be pointless. What is is.
Speaking objectively, elections need to be fair for everyone. In the middle of the election makes for a very difficult time to address these issues. Caucuses should be abolished after 08 as they disenfranchise workers who can not take off work.
We can argue/speculate as to whether or not this primary would be different if all people had been able to vote, but that would be pointless. What is is.
#4
Posted: 2/29/08 at 12:33pm
Its disgusting. She's a whiny and self important. Bitch doesn't make a sounds about this until OH suddenly she's trailing.
GIVE IT A REST YOU DESPERATE HAG
GIVE IT A REST YOU DESPERATE HAG
#5
Posted: 2/29/08 at 12:36pm
As nasty and vile as you post, I'd say you were the desperate hag.
#6
Posted: 2/29/08 at 12:53pm
"I don't think she could ever please either of you. Ever."
Yeah, yeah. And I don't think you could ever see a criticism of her without defending it, whether it's valid or not. Ever. And please stop defending her by criticizing me. Wasn't that the exact thing you were accusing Obama supporters of doing the other day?
Yeah, yeah. And I don't think you could ever see a criticism of her without defending it, whether it's valid or not. Ever. And please stop defending her by criticizing me. Wasn't that the exact thing you were accusing Obama supporters of doing the other day?
Art has a double face, of expression and illusion.
#7
Posted: 2/29/08 at 12:57pm
you really expect a hypocrite to acknowledge taht fact about themself arts? Him and PJ are the same.
#9
Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:25pm
Why can't we have just one primary day where everyone votes and then one election day where everyone votes?
If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
#10
Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:29pm
I don't blast Obama. Ever. I have raised my doubts about him. And I have certainly mocked his followers. But I also know that if he gets the nom, I will become one of his followers because we all need to.
I have this terrible feeling many of you won't be able to do the same.
And, Liverpool, my butt is ready for your lips except I wouldn't ever care to give you that pleasure.
I have this terrible feeling many of you won't be able to do the same.
And, Liverpool, my butt is ready for your lips except I wouldn't ever care to give you that pleasure.
#11
Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:32pm
"Why can't we have just one primary day where everyone votes and then one election day where everyone votes?"
the candidates need time to galavant countrywide pandering, oops, fundraising. primaries have become big business for the two parties.
seriously, the primary system allows many voters their first shot at vetting the candidates. imagine what it must have been like to campaign nationally prior to the advent of tv.
the candidates need time to galavant countrywide pandering, oops, fundraising. primaries have become big business for the two parties.
seriously, the primary system allows many voters their first shot at vetting the candidates. imagine what it must have been like to campaign nationally prior to the advent of tv.
#FactsMatter...your feelings not so much.
#12
Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:37pm
JRB - i agree that i can be very harsh on clinton, but that wasn't my intention with this post. i wanted to post this article because we all know how crucial OH and TX are at this point and the news is reporting that Clinton is considering challenging those rules... so i actually thought this was a very important article to post!
"The letter also noted that many of Clinton's senior campaign advisers in Texas had helped to develop the rules governing the state's caucus system. A Texas party official also noted that former President Clinton won the state's caucuses in 1992 and 1996 following the same rules."
criticism or not... as a Clinton supporter you have to be able to objectively look at this without being quick to defend her. I would if it was Obama...
I agree we should get rid of Caucus' after 08 but only if they also agree to get rid of these ridiculous superdelegates.
"The letter also noted that many of Clinton's senior campaign advisers in Texas had helped to develop the rules governing the state's caucus system. A Texas party official also noted that former President Clinton won the state's caucuses in 1992 and 1996 following the same rules."
criticism or not... as a Clinton supporter you have to be able to objectively look at this without being quick to defend her. I would if it was Obama...
I agree we should get rid of Caucus' after 08 but only if they also agree to get rid of these ridiculous superdelegates.
#13
Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:38pm
The old primary system made sense before the advance of TV, cable, internet, etc. Now, one could argue that a national primary, preceded by a series of debates broadcast over TV, radio, and the internet, is a realistic concept.
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
#14
Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:42pm
Suck it, fat boy!
For such an OLD man you certainly act like my little brother. Is this your attempt to rebel against your age grampa?
For such an OLD man you certainly act like my little brother. Is this your attempt to rebel against your age grampa?
#15
Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:50pm
bet the lobbyists for the broadcast tv, cable networks and radio outlets would fight tooth and nail against stopping the gravy train.
i'm confident ad revenues will experience a spike this year.
Campain Ad Revenue -- ca...ching!!!
i'm confident ad revenues will experience a spike this year.
Campain Ad Revenue -- ca...ching!!!
#FactsMatter...your feelings not so much.
#16
Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:51pm
I can't believe some of the naive comments I read on this (and other) threads. Either it's naivete or you're just too happy to find something else to complain about your choice's opponent in this race.
EVERY candidate from every party is going to do whatever they have to do to get every possible vote. They HAVE to. They owe it to the millions of people who have been donating their hard earned dollars to support their candidacy. If they weren't willing to get down and dirty in the fight then they shouldn't have ever entered the race.
If you honestly believe that your own candidate wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing if they had to then I have a lovely bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.
EVERY candidate from every party is going to do whatever they have to do to get every possible vote. They HAVE to. They owe it to the millions of people who have been donating their hard earned dollars to support their candidacy. If they weren't willing to get down and dirty in the fight then they shouldn't have ever entered the race.
If you honestly believe that your own candidate wouldn't be doing exactly the same thing if they had to then I have a lovely bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.
www.thebreastcancersite.com
A click for life.
mamie4 5/14/03
A click for life.
mamie4 5/14/03
#17
Posted: 2/29/08 at 2:55pm
Well, if you go back and read my initial post, cub (and arts), I wasn't exactly defending her with what I said. I was actually taking a stance against her actions--though I do believe that if everyone can agree on a fair change to the voting process in time, that would be a good thing.
I seek fairness in elections over what will get my team...I mean candidate the vote.
Though I do see Mamie's point. And I hardly doubt Obama would have refrained from some of the same tactics. In fact, it's the Obama folk who don't want the superdelegates to vote independently even though that is absolutely fair for them to do as the rules stand.
I seek fairness in elections over what will get my team...I mean candidate the vote.
Though I do see Mamie's point. And I hardly doubt Obama would have refrained from some of the same tactics. In fact, it's the Obama folk who don't want the superdelegates to vote independently even though that is absolutely fair for them to do as the rules stand.
#18
Posted: 2/29/08 at 3:08pm
Basically, the anti-Hillary zealots have adopted the tactic of ridiculing or being outraged by EVERY step the Clinton campaign makes, while Obama gets a free ride on everything.
Which is why I ignore them.
Texas and Ohio will either decide everything or it will still be too close to call. If that's the case, the anti-Hillary hatred will probably get even uglier.
Which is why I ignore them.
Texas and Ohio will either decide everything or it will still be too close to call. If that's the case, the anti-Hillary hatred will probably get even uglier.
#19
Posted: 2/29/08 at 3:27pm
Which is why I ignore them.
yeah thats what you do, RIIIIIGHT.
are you really so senile you've forgotten every post you've ever made in response to a negative comment about Hillary?
yeah thats what you do, RIIIIIGHT.
are you really so senile you've forgotten every post you've ever made in response to a negative comment about Hillary?
#21
Posted: 2/29/08 at 3:46pm
JRB i'm not against the superdelegates because they support hillary more... i'm against them because i dont like the idea that 800 people can vote regardless of what the people want... thats not an obama or hillary issue... i just dont like it.
and i have said many times i wouldnt want it changed till AFTER this election... because its part of the rules now and i want to make sure we play by the rules... even if it benefits the candidate i am not supporting.
mamie i agree with what you're saying but its one thing to fight hard for your campaign and its quite another to ask for rules that your advisors wrote (and benefited your husband) to be changed because it would benefit your campaign... i mean come on.
and i have said many times i wouldnt want it changed till AFTER this election... because its part of the rules now and i want to make sure we play by the rules... even if it benefits the candidate i am not supporting.
mamie i agree with what you're saying but its one thing to fight hard for your campaign and its quite another to ask for rules that your advisors wrote (and benefited your husband) to be changed because it would benefit your campaign... i mean come on.
#22
Posted: 2/29/08 at 3:51pm
Awww shaddup, Fenchurch.
oh yeah, the conspiracy theories really go a long way to make you look competent.
oh yeah, the conspiracy theories really go a long way to make you look competent.
#23
Posted: 2/29/08 at 4:34pm
and i have said many times i wouldnt want it changed till AFTER this election... because its part of the rules now and i want to make sure we play by the rules... even if it benefits the candidate i am not supporting.
I agree. It makes no sense to say that caucuses are totally unfair and should be abolished, but superdelegates are absolutely fair and shouldn't be questioned. Or vice versa. If it were truly about fairness, both policies would be altered for the next election, so that it was for the benefit of the system as a whole, not for the benefit of current candidates attempting to make up for their shortcomings. Both candidates knew the all rules going in, so they'll have to put up with it this time.
I agree. It makes no sense to say that caucuses are totally unfair and should be abolished, but superdelegates are absolutely fair and shouldn't be questioned. Or vice versa. If it were truly about fairness, both policies would be altered for the next election, so that it was for the benefit of the system as a whole, not for the benefit of current candidates attempting to make up for their shortcomings. Both candidates knew the all rules going in, so they'll have to put up with it this time.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never knowing how
Wanting life but never knowing how
Updated On: 2/29/08 at 04:34 PM
#24
Posted: 2/29/08 at 4:41pm
That you're Fenchurch is not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact.
That you were also Chanticleer and HDThoreau...now THAT'S a conspiracy theory!
That you were also Chanticleer and HDThoreau...now THAT'S a conspiracy theory!
Updated On: 2/29/08 at 04:41 PM
#25
Posted: 2/29/08 at 4:43pm
I agree, orangeskittles--both need to be done away with for next time. And no states should be left out next time.
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $77
Tickets From $106
Tickets From $133