Should Clinton be stripped of the Texas delegates she won?

[Wizard777]

Texas would not allow Dennis kucinich on the ballot because he refused to sign the loyalty pledge to support the democrat nominee who ever it may be. I'm damned sure that Democrat nominee won't be John Mc Cain. If Texas can keep Kucinich off the ballot for refusing to sign the pledge. Hillary should be striped of all her Texas delegates for violating the loyalty oath she signed. In supporting John Mc Cain over Barack Obama. What say You?

Edit: At 4:00am I don't care about the difference between Stripped and striped. But to be nice to those that do.......

[Seeker30]

1. Why do you hate democracy?

[Wizard777]

7. LMAO! That's great freeper impersonation. So Yes or no should she lose the delegates?

[MadBadger]

2. Stripped maybe, but why do you want to stripe her? What kind of stripe? What Color?

[bunkerbuster1]

4. mmm... stripped Hillary...

sorry, having a Homer moment.

[Wizard777]

10. That's okay I think I was having a senior moment.

[Wizard777]

9. I think that was a subconscious aberration

To using the words Stripped and Hillary in the same sentence. I have them all the time. "Greedom isn't free." "The Presidebt." Etc. etc.

[rock]

47. LLOL

Literally LOLLed

[Ken Burch]

14. dark blue...to match the color of her campaign signs...

Tory blue, some call it.

[ingac70]

3. She has violated the pledge...

but I don't think they would follow through with stripping her of delegates.

[Wizard777]

17. So they only do that to Fla. and Mich. for not following the rules?

Now that sound like some kind of personal vendetta against Fla. and Mich. Hillary can break the rules without losing delegates. But Fla. and Mich can't. I think the last thing in the world we need in another "untouchable" President that can do no wrong even when they are violating every law ever written.

[doublethink]

35. I've been seeing a-lot of that 'untouchable' ....... personality trait .....

in Hillary Clinton lately. And personally I've had enough of it for the last 7+ years. No No No ... not another President who puts themselves above the law !!! Makes me wanna scream at times. Peace. :)

[MonkeyFunk]

38. She has not violated the pledge

and I guarantee you, she will support the nominee.

This whole "she endorsed McCain" bullshit is the saddest stupid attack I've seen here in a long time. You guys are wall-biting insane.

[earthlover]

46. No matter what word you call it, Hillary said McCain had a lifetime of experience and crossed

the threshold of commander in chief whereas Obama just had one speech. Whether that is an official endorsement or not, it is clear that she is saying McCain is better than Obama as a commander in chief and on experience. Never before has a Democratic candidate for president praised a Republican nominee over a Democratic candidate. EVer. Ever. Ever.

[bunkerbuster1]

5. "Should?" Yeah, probably.

Good luck with that.

[speedbird]

6. better idea, another vote .n/t

[New Dawn]

8. That is a great point.

It was BS how they kept Kucinich off the ballot. But Clinton has actually violated the pledge! She should definitely lose the delegates.

[Baby Snooks]

32. A very good point

The reality of Texas and Florida and Michigan is that Hillary Clinton likes the Republican way. Rules apply only when they benefit you. When they don't, well, fuck the rules.

Sheila Jackson Lee by the way is in a bit of a mess now that she has committed herself to Hillary Clinton. Her constituents voted for Barack Obama 2-1. I suspect Sheila Jackson Lee is not alone.

The reality is the Texas Democratic Party is funded and fueled by Hillary Clinton supporters. Most of them corrupt.

And as Nance Gregg put it in her post, well, Hillary Clinton intends to have the nomination by hook or by crook. In Texas, the latter is easy.

Someone actually asked the other day what Molly Ivins would say. She already said what she had to say. She would probably just rerun the same column. And perhaps add "ditto" at the end.

[JenniferH]

11. Hillary is a fighter, she was just fighting

Her statement was meant to win against Obama. She wants him to lose so she can go on to win against McCain, what she signs along the way is not of importance. The important thing is we have a fighter that will fight republicans on their terms. Obama is too saintly and goody two shoes for a general election against a republican.

[Wizard777]

12. Just what we need! Another damned President that thinks pledges and oaths don't mean a thing.

That Presidential oath is just a bullshit line that you have to say before they let you do the job. That Bush shit isn't any better with a (D)behind it. In fact it's far worse.

[bunkerbuster1]

13. There are plenty of ways Hillary can fight Obama with honor for the remainder of this campaign.

I'm fine with that.

Problem is, I haven't seen that from her campaign. Attacking his inability to keep our babies safe at night is beyond the pale for a primary campaign, and that's why people are justifiably pissed off at her.

She could redeem herself in a lot of people's eyes if she'd switch to something substantive and, for God's sake, make McCain the focus of her attacks. Or at bare minimum, explain in a way that isn't totally corrosive to the party's chances in November how she's preferable to him in fighting McCain.

[SoCalDem]

48. Most of us are quite tired of FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

The problems we face, are best solved by cooperation and thoughtfulness..

If she wants to FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, perhaps it's a character flaw on her part.. Of course being married to WJC might bring out the "fight" in any woman :)

[Ken Burch]

15. I agree that Texas was wrong to bar Dennis...

But if you stripped HRC of her delegates, would you not also have to strip Obama of his?

Just to be fair and consistent?

(Of course, you could to that and make Texas send an ALL-Kucinich delegation to Denver...)

[Wizard777]

18. What did Obama do that would Merritt losing the delegates?

He's shown Mc Cain respect. But not support.

[Ken Burch]

30. I thought the issue in Texas was the decision to campaign there even though Kucinicn was excluded

Which is something both Clinton and Obamb did.

[Wizard777]

40. If it was. It isn't anymore after Hillary endorsement of Mc Cain over Obama.

[man4allcats]

16. I agree. Stripe her.

If she were 20 or 30 years younger, I'd say her strip her too. Then again, I'm not 20 or 30 years younger either so who am I to talk?

[musicblind]

19. Though I have been nice to most Obama supporters on here

I hate to break it to you. Obama is not the nominee. Not yet. If he BECOMES the nominee and she no longer supports them... anyone who thinks she should be stripped is not in touch with reality and is blinded by hate for her. The reason being ... Obama is not the nominee. Geesh.


However, I have admitted that Hillary should have been more wise with her words as they could come back to haunt us in the GE. It ISN'T, however, breaking any rules because we HAVE no nominee as of yet.

You guys talk about Hillary wanting to change the rules mid-stream ...

you want to change the rules from "don't insult the nominee" to "don't insult any democrat running. Right ...

[Wizard777]

22. You lost me at blinded by hate for her. Do you guys really think that blind hate crap is going to

get her anywhere? Why should I vote for Hillary? Well from what I've heard from her supporters is that everyone hates her. That why do you hate Hillary crap is no better than the freepers saying why do hate America. They run that into the ground. Now you might as well just be saying Hillary has nothing of real substance and what ever country she wants to invade will not have the WMD's. Because of the freepers that's all anyone hears when you say that. Hillary has nothing of real substance and what ever country she wants to invade will not have the WMD's.

[musicblind]

23. you just went on a rant that mentioned hate, wmds, freepers, hillary

and made no sense at all. I say "blinded by hate" because that is what hate does to people. If you hate something you make irrational arguments against it. I do not hate Obama at all. I think he seems like a really nice guy and if he is the nominee that will kick butt. I also do not hate Hillary, she rocks and if she is the nominee that too will kick butt. I have a pretty clear head about all of this, and can therefore see that your argument that she be stripped of delegates makes no sense. So you are either not very bright (which I'm sure that you are or you wouldn't be on a political messageboard), or you are filled with hate. Why else would you make an irrational arguement?

:shrug:


You stated in your OP that she made an agreement to support the democratic nominee. Well Obama is NOT the democratic nominee, and very well may not even END UP the democratic nominee. You never know... Since she made a negative statement (one that I agree, she shouldn't have made. It is doing more harm than good.) about someone who was NOT the democratic nominee... how does this have anything to do with her statement to support the democratic nominee. It doesn't. So you made an irrational arguement. If the reason for making this irrational arguement isn't hatered then what is it? There seems to be only one other option, and I do not think you yourself are irrational by nature, something must be clouding judgement.

[Wizard777]

24. I don't think It's an irrational arguement considering its a loyalty pledge.

How was that loyal to the democrats in any way? The full implication of her statement is that there are only two people qualified to be president. Her and Mc Cain. So if she doesn't get the nomination that only leaves Mc Cain to vote for. The loyalty pledge from what I understand is that you will support the nominee whoever that may be. You think the operative word is nominee and I think it's the words may be. I'm damned sure that the Democrat nominee will not be Mc Cain. Mc Cain as a democrat nominee. Now there is an irrational arguement.

[musicblind]

26. IF Obama gets the nomination and IF she does not then support him

for the nomination once he has received that then she will be breaking her oath. However, I expect her to endorse and support him should he win.

He is not the nominee now so she has done nothing wrong. You cannot try someone for a crime you think they might commit in the future. Let's say I met a man on the street, he bumped into me and I was rude to him. Then... two years down the line... that man turns out to be my teacher in a class room. Could he randomly give me detention on the first day of class because I was "rude to my teacher". No he could not because he was not A TEACHER WHEN THE INCIDENT TOOK PLACE.

Therefore, no, it makes no sense to say Hillary should be punished because Obama is NOT the nominee, and she did not endorse McCain. She spoke the glaring obvious about McCain. She said he has a buttload of experience. Which ever person in America is already aware of. Maybe her statements did, somehow, reach that .04% of America that currently resides in a coma... but I somehow doubt it. She did not say she endorsed McCain. She simply said that McCain brought a lifetime of experience to the table. It was a stupid statement to make and made me shake my head when I found out she made it, and then continued to make it. I think she will make a good president, but she needs to be careful how she gets there. I do not think she is trying to hurt the Dem party on purpose, I think she is in a very tough spot right now and is trying to find a way out. If Obama is the nominee and she does NOT endorse him... feel free to kick this post and laugh at me, but I believe that if he is the nominee she will support him and will endorse is candidacy, he will have earned it.

[Wizard777]

36. This is what it actually says.

"I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."

If it said this instead I would agree with you 110%.

I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President.

But that's not what it says. It's followed by the words "whoever that shall be." It shall not be John Mc Cain and I say that constitutes a violation of the loyalty oath. If only because he's on the other freakin team and it's a loyalty oath.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. Yes

that's the pledge. And since we don't have a nominee yet, she couldn't possibly have violated it.

Running against Obama is not the sin you people make it out to be.

[PetraPooh]

20. YES

[judaspriestess]

21. jesus christ almighty

wtf is up with these throw the kitchen sink threads. I will say they are HIGHlarious

[Wizard777]

25. This is the actual text from the Texas loyalty oath.

"I, ______________ of __________________, __________ County/Parish, _____________, being a candidate for the Office of President of the United States, swear that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."

[Eric J in MN]

39. OK, so it refers to the nominee and not a person who might...

...eventually be the nominee.

Seems like Hillary Clinton is in the clear on this one.

[Wizard777]

41. An experienced politician might say this oath has some language problems.

The problem is, "whoever that shall be." It shall not be John Mc Cain at any time for any reason. That constitutes a violation.

[Arkansas Granny]

27. You are basing your argument on a false premise. Hillary does not

support John McCain. Comparing her experience and Obama's experience to John McCain's does not constitute support for McCain. She did not violate any loyalty oath.

[Wizard777]

34. That's not what she did.

She compared her and John Mc Cains experience to Obama's. That was not a Hillary & Obama vs. Mc Cain statement. That was a Hillary and Mc Cain vs. Obama statement. Yes there is a difference. Her statement was supportive of Mc Cain and disparaging to Obama.

[Arkansas Granny]

42. She was comparing experience, not giving support. There's a big difference.

[indimuse]

28. ???

???

[backscatter712]

29. I LIKE THAT IDEA!!!

Yeah, if Shrillary's going to endorse McCain over Obama, and Kucinich didn't get on the ballot for refusing to sign a loyalty pledge to support the Democratic nominee, and Hillary did sign that pledge, yeah, let's strip her delegates.

[sabbat hunter]

31. yes she should

if it is found by the DNC chair that she indeed did violate the pledge.

[DemVet]

33. Geez, where do people come up with this crap? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

37. very stupid.

Very, very very stupid.

[maddiejoan]

44. This has to be one of the most

ass biting ridiculous posts I've read this week.

[Vinca]

45. She shouldn't be stripped of anything, but it would be nice if MSM

would leave the Hillary love fest for a few moments to report the actual delegate count.

[Dinger]

49. Yeah, Right After

she's "roughed up" a bit, right?

[Bake]

50. I think you should strip of ALL her delgates, and give them to BHO

Just on general principles. Isn't that all that matters to the O-bots?

:sarcasm:

Bake