If Clinton won't "accept caucuses" then logically...

[Obamaniac]

...isn't it justifiable for Obama not to "accept" the results of the Florida and Michigan primaries since it was agreed --- by all parties --- that they wouldn't count?

So what is Clinton both player and referee?

[bleowheels]

1. It just shows that she is afraid of caucuses. Her supporters have just ...

the same opportunity to show up and participate in caucuses. Yet they don't show up as a large voting black. The emperor (Hillary) has no clothes. Deal with it Clinton supporters.

[BeatleBoot]

5. How about a Caucus with only Democrats?

Since Obama has been pulling the Republican vote, let's keep it closed to just Democrats.

What do you say?

Just Democrats.

Since that's what we are. Democrats.

Sounds good to me.

How about you.?

Assuming you're Democrats and all.

[bleowheels]

8. She doesn't face any Republican's in the caucuses!

Seriously, I don't see or hear Hillay supporters complaining when republicans help her, as they did in Texas.

[BeatleBoot]

11. Obama's Republicans Came out in Full Force..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt_jnhsyqg0



http://republicansforobama.org/?q=node/359


E-mail to send to Texas Republicans


Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!

On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!

Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.

I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!

[bleowheels]

15. Sorry, I cannot write a transcript from Rush Limbaugh and other republican talk show hosts...

urging their supporters to vote in the Democratic primaries. Republicans have helped Hillary just as much, if not more, that Obama. In fact, one could argue that Hillary would be out of the race right now if it wasn't for the likes of Rush.

[BeatleBoot]

22. You don't trust what Rush Limbaugh says anyways, right?

I know everything coming out of his mouth is either a lie or extra OxyContin he couldn't swallow.

[bleowheels]

25. You're right about that. I don't trust a word he says.

Never have, never will. I'm happy you don't either.

[paperbag_ princess]

13. not true

working class, elderly and women (who are the predominate caretakers) do not have the same opportunity as students and the wealthy

[bleowheels]

14. Assuming your argument, how do these same people (of which you wrote) make it to the polls during...

a primary? The time of day dictates when they can vote? I think not. Nice try.

[paperbag_ princess]

20. for most primaries you can

vote early or by absentee if neccessary.
If run properly you shouldn't have to wait in a long line...

Here in TX the caucuses were running late and unorganized. It was unusually cold and rainy and people were having to stand outside in the dark. It was also the week of standardized testing for the public schools..who would put their kids in that situation? not too many

[bleowheels]

26. Okay. I see what you're saying. There are exceptions to every rule.

point taken.

[paperbag_ princess]

30. cool ....thanks...nt

[Liberal Veteran]

21. I BEG YOUR PARDON????

Me and my boyfriend are hardly wealthy and we are both full time workers and made a point of showing up for our caucuses.

[paperbag_ princess]

29. good for you

I am glad you were able to get off work. There were a lot of people who couldn't get off..my mil was covering the ICU unit....I had a sick baby at home...my husband was out of town on business.

We all are Hillary supporters who were able to make it to the primaries....but could not make our caucus.

[Liberal Veteran]

31. So your theory is that only lazy, irresponsible, indigent types support Obama?

Where is your evidence to support your assertion?

I could just as easily say that Voldemorticia's support must consist primarily among those who are too apathetic and lazy to involve themselves in the political process.

I don't think you want to go there.

[paperbag_ princess]

33. yes that is exactly my point...

You said it so much better than I did. Thank you for putting those words in my mouth for me.

[Liberal Veteran]

37. Think about it. It's a logical conclusion to the argument you proffer against caucuses.

I went to my caucus fully prepared to have my entire precinct overrule me and go with She-who-must-not-be-named.

What you are saying is there is Clinton supporters are so hard working and have so many responsibilities that the caucus system is just unfair to the toiling masses that support her. And you are saying that people who support Obama, are the kind of people that have all kinds of flexible idle time because they either have no responsibilities or are wealthy.

That is so condescending. And if you think on it, you will see why. First of all, there were CHILDREN at my caucus brought there by their parents. I'm sure they had responsibilities. And it's usually the younger, less affluent people that haven't the flexibility to leave work since they make up a good percentage of the service jobs that require working times when caucuses are generally held.

The only "type" that is more likely to participate in a caucus would be those people who are more tuned in to politics and place a certain importance on the democratic process. It is also just as likely that an Obama supporter who fit that type would have responsibilities that preempt him from attending the caucus as it would be a Clinton supporter. In that scenario, the people who are tuned in to politics and examined the candidates have chosen Obama over Clinton as often than not.

There is something about Obama campaign that inspires people to participate and do more than just show up at the polls (and really Obama has done fairly well in primaries as well). Don't we want someone who makes people want to go that little bit extra? Or do we just want someone who makes you feel like it's just too much of a bother to do more than just cast a ballot?

[paperbag_ princess]

38. no- you are just wanting to argue...

There is no logic to your conclusion unless the world only exists in the form of polar opposites.

I said that there are real people with real issues ...and the caucus system makes it more difficult to get out and vote than the primary system for many of those people.

In a democratic system we should be making it as easy as possible for everyone to participate if they choose.
Voting should not be a test of how "inspired" someone happens to be.

You seem to be the one saying that Hillary supports are too lazy to do that little extra something. The problem is actually much bigger than these two candidates...it doesn't matter who someone votes for...the process should be as easy as possible and as inclusive as possible.

[Liberal Veteran]

39. That's condescending. You are saying Obama supporters aren't "real people with real issues"

Now, I'll be the first to admit that many of the Clinton people I have met have "real issues" (real issues with math, the rules, the truth, etc), but if you are talking about everyday food on the table issues, Obama people are no more or less likely to have responsibilities that would prevent them to caucus. Now I'm flattered that you think I'm someone that is of the idle elite, but I live in the lower middle class area of my city and the people there ain't no rich people that were at my precinct meeting. We were all just people and the majority of us were in our 30-60's.

I know you want to make it out that the caucuses are somehow unfair to demographics. We had both a caucus and a primary in my state and Clinton lost BOTH.

[paperbag_ princess]

41. no you believe that the world only exists in polar opposites

you think if someone says that there are real people with real issues...then they mean that Hillary supporters are the only real people and Obama people are not.

If I say that wealthy people have an easier time getting to the polls..you get offended saying that you made it to the polls and you are not wealthy.

If I say some people can't take their kids to the polls..you argue that you saw people at the polls with kids and conclude everyone should be able to make it to the caucus as a result.

It is impossible to have a real discourse with someone using such poor reasoning. You either lack the neccessary reasoning skills or you are intentionally misrepresenting things to make your point, which is worse because it is dishonest. I suspect the latter.

I am done here.

[bleowheels]

40. "voting block" is what it should say. My bad.

"Yet they don't show up as a large voting black" should read: "Yet they don't show up as a large voting block." Maybe, I'm a BLOCKhead!

[Nia Zuri]

2. Is she won't "accept" caucuses, she should withdraw

[MercutioATC]

3. It's not up to Clinton or Obama to "accept"..

This is a matter to be dealt with between FL, MI, and the DNC.

End of discussion.


It IS really that simple.

[lligrd]

7. Your Wrong. The DNC Asked Them And They Agreed To

the rules. Therefore, they must agree to any new rules. Don't you have any basis sense of fairness?

[MercutioATC]

10. I'd need to see some verification of that.

Assuming it's true, and that their acceptance is binding, I think it's a horrible idea.

The candidates should have no part in this...this is between the DNC (that made the rules) and FL and MI (that broke them).


As far as my sense of fairness, I thought the goal was to give every Democrat a voice in the Democratic primaries. How do the views of the candidates have anything to do with "fairness"?

[lligrd]

16. Why Can't People Look Things Up Themselves? Oh Well, Here:

"The five candidates, as well as Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, had already agreed not to campaign in Michigan and Florida, both of which bucked party rules by scheduling their nominating contests before February 5."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html

[MercutioATC]

32. I don't see anything here that supports your arguement.

Just because the DNC made a ruling doesn't mean that the candidates themselves get to shape DNC policy or decisions.

Where does this give the candidates any voice in whee things go from here?

[lligrd]

34. I Said They Agreed To The Rules

and I posted the proof. To change the rules now without their agreement would be unfair. That is what I said.

[MercutioATC]

35. They may have agreed, but their acquiesence wasn't necessary.

Partisan primaries are governed by the parties...they're not a right.

The party dictated the rules and the candidates agreed, but their agreement wasn't a condition of the DNC being able to enforce its rules.


First, there's been no change of the rules. Second, even if there had been, there'd be no necessity to gain the approval of the candidates.

[rocktivity]

4. Hillary prefers primaries to caucuses for the same reason why

she prefers debates to speeches: she has a better chance of winning them than Obama.

:headbang:
rocknation

[BeatleBoot]

6. Couldn't agree more.

She wants Democrats voting, because it's a Democratic Primary

[eShirl]

9. you can tell she'd be another "above the rules" president

just like Bush

[Yael]

12. She doesn't get a say

[BeatleBoot]

17. She Kicked His Ass in Florida and He Decided to Not Show Up in Michigan

So I don't know why there's an issue.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. Oh, for fuck's sake! You twist words like your candidate Voldemorticia.

You know damn well there wasn't a fair contest in either state and you are just mad that power-hungry wretch of a DINO hasn't been crowned as she thinks she is due.

[BeatleBoot]

27. Nope. Just stating facts. Kicked his ass in FL. No one showed up in MI but Hillary

It is what it is.

"A" is "A".

"A" cannot be "A" and "non-A" at the same time.

[Liberal Veteran]

28. Yeah...after all the candidates agreed that MI and FL wouldn't count.

Don't try to parse words with me, sweetie. This ain't my first time at the rodeo.

[BeatleBoot]

36. OkeeDokee Sweetie!

Been around the block 2 or 3 times myself.

So here's my take:

1) Michigan, where I am sitting right now, he and Edwards were no shows. No ticky - no washy as they say.

2) Hillary kicked the kid's ass in Florida. Nothing more. Nothing less.


Leaders lead.

Leaders show up.

[Medusa]

18. Didn't you get the memo?

She's the "Queen" who thinks she can dictate the rules, hence her demanding that the rules be changed to suit her in the middle of the game.

[Little Star]

19. I pray he tries to disenfranchise FL & MI hahahahahaha

[Cha]

23. hilary is the hangin'

judge..by a slim thread.