Obama--Do Rules Count or Not??

[CatnHat]

If rules are rules concerning the FL delegates being seated, why is Bill Richardson endorsing Obama?

It's a fact that Bill Richardson is a super-delegate, and by the RULES, super-delegates are supposed to vote according to their state's majority. Didn't Hillary win N. Mexico? Same with Kennedy and Kerry.

Whats really fair here. Obama camp made damn sure that the voters in FL and MI are not counted, and now he wants his "endorsed" super-delegates to vote for him while N. Mexico and Mass. went to Hillary.

Rules are rules, and why won't Obama and his "endorsed" super-delegates follow them? It's like GWB administration-guess rules only matter when it benefits Obama and his campaign.

I lost all respect for Obama, and his surrogates. The Obama camp just couldn't care less about the democratic process of fair play. :wtf:

[CreekDog]

1. what rule says supers are supposed to vote according to the winner of their state?

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

2. There's no rule that says any such thing

regarding how superdelegates should vote.

[CatnHat]

22. I suggested

the super delegates are SUPPOSED to go with the majority of their state. . . and same goes for pledged delegates--

It really looks bad for Richardson, I wonder how many voters in New Mexico are feeling dissed by Richardson, and in Mass. where Hillary won big--bet Kerry and Kennedy aren't winning many supporters there either; being they went against the wishes of their voters.

Obama is a politician who will stoop to levels that not only disenfranchise voters, but has super-delegates in his corner where the voters did not get their representation due them.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. And your suggestion is based on nothing

at all. There's no rule, suggestion, expectation or anything of the sort claiming superdelegates should vote the way their states voted.

[JVS]

The vote was 49% vs 50% with Clinton winning 3,000 more votes. Not exactly a HUGH mandate.

[verges]

35. No,

you said rules were actually broken. They weren't. Should the SD's respect the popular or delegate counts from their states? Perhaps. But there is no rule saying they have to. And that is the straw that Sen. Clinton's supporters are keeping a death-grip on.

[K Gardner]

3. Is this a joke? Satire? Can anybody possibly really believe this? Stay tuned..

[ingac70]

4. You are grossly misinformed about the rules. n/t

[stranger81]

5. how is it even remotely fair to count the MI ballots when Hillary was the only candidate to vote for

And you've got the nerve to say it's the Obama camp that doesn't respect the democratic process?!?

This isn't Pakistan, you know. If only one candidate is on your ballot, it's not an election.

[LisaL]

8. He took his name off the ballot.

[stranger81]

14. per the agreement all the candidates, including Hillary, had struck . . . .

The only candidate who reneged was HRC. And my point still stands -- an election with one and only one choice is no election at all.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. That's just wrong

first, Clinton was not the only candidate to stay on the ballot - Dodd, Gravel and Kucinich were also on it.

Second, the pledge di not in any way require the candidates to remove their names from the ballot. That's just a totally made up untruth.

[stranger81]

27. what does an agreement to "not participate" mean if not that? [n/t]

[MonkeyFunk]

31. to not campaign

Nobody at the time claimed the pledge meant they had to remove their names. Not the candidates, not the DNC, not Howard Dean... nobody.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. It's fair because the other candidates weren't supposed to REALLY pose a challenge, silly.

Sure, Hillary was the only one on the ballot- but at least there WAS a ballot. It was the perfect kind of primary- one where she was the pre-ordained winner.

Why she couldn't have just been given the damn thing 8 months ago, the minute her campaign started issuing proclamations about "inevitability", I really don't know.

:eyes:

[CatnHat]

25. Obama was on the ballot

in FL. Why did he and camp drag their feet in seating the delegates? When MI wanted to anything to rectify the problem there, Obama camp totally ignored the problem.

[anamandujano]

6. Supers being bound by their constituents was a rule Obama made

when it looked like it would work for him. When Hillary took Mass, it created a problem, so they changed the rules. It's hard to keep up.

[K Gardner]

18. Oh good.. I can add another 12-year-old to my ignore list. I absolutely despise willful

ignorance, lying and stupidity. Its hard to keep up with which one accounts for this, but it doesn't really matter. Buh bye.. and its after midnight. Aren't you supposed to be somewhere other than HERE?

[anamandujano]

23. Can you hear me noooooooooow?

[tammywammy]

7. There is no rule stating Super Delegates must vote as their state did

[Warren DeMontague]

9. There is no such "Rule" in the DNC.

Maybe the Rule is "Hillary's going to lose, we're desperate, let's make shit up".

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Do you know the rules?

[IndependentDem]

11. i agree with what you are saying regarding the super-delegates but...

i disagree with you regarding the Obama camp making sure that the "voters" in FL and MI are not counted. The Obama camp made sure there was not an unfair or paid for election in FL and MI-- there is a difference in my opinion.

[SunsetDreams]

12. I think maybe they are going by Hillarys' rules

she said that Superdelegates are put in place to make their own judgement, independent of everything else.

or they could be going by the assumed rules that's been in place for a long time, that the pledged delegates takes it.

Obama didn't make sure that Fl and Mi wouldn't count. Fl and Mi did that. They broke the rules, DNC has rightfully sanctioned them.

It's FL and MI fault, well party leaders there anyway.

[lligrd]

13. Do Untruths Count As Lies?

Because you have managed to beat even Hillary in both.

[culacano]

15. Some rules count, some rules don't

It depends on whether or not they favor Obama.

Superdelegates, for example, should not be allowed to vote, as the rules state.
States, however, cannot move the primary to an earlier date, because the states that did so favor Clinton over our candidate.
Capisce?

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Yeah. Some are actual rules, and some are shit people just make up because

their candidate is about to lose.

[K Gardner]

20. I thought the trollish ones were leaving.. did they send in replacements?

[anamandujano]

24. You act more like a troll than anyone. The slightest bit of back talk

and you're off to the races.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. I think they must have a few sockies going. n/t

[tammywammy]

21. You're so uninformed it's hilarious!

:rofl:

[CatnHat]

32. Save your comments for yourself

when SD are finally counted. Clinton has the lead in SD; and that's who is going to decide this primary.

And as far as Richardson goes--he says he don't want to get in the "gutter" after James Carville make the "Judas" remark; and the next words out of his mouth was slamming Clinton advisor's and surrogates. Obama can have him. His judgment is as good as Obama's. :sarcasm:

[NanceGreggs]

34. I'm trying to convince myself ...

... that you can't possibly be as stupid as you sound.

[yewberry]

28. Rules count.

There is no rule about who the SDs must support. Richardson can endorse whoever he wants.

Obama has no say in whether the FL & MI delegations are counted. The DNC made the rule and FL & MI broke it (after they agreed to it). That has NOTHING (repeat for the chronically ignorant: NOTHING) to do with either of the candidates.

[CatnHat]

33. You're right

Obama did nothing to rectify the problem either. He had a chance in MI and didn't even bother to cooperate.

[yewberry]

36. I'm trying hard to remain cordial here.

The states were given plenty of opportunities to meet the rules that they agreed to. The DNC offered to help, but FL & MI chose to flout the DNC rules. Clinton and Obama had nothing whatsoever to do with what those state parties did to their constituencies.

At this point, we have to deal with what those state parties did. They willfully decided to have their delegates invalidated. The candidates shouldn't have to pay for what the state parties did to their voters. The candidates are (at least on some level) responsible to the rules of the DNC and the voters in the vast majority of states that did follow the rules and would see the seating of the FL & MI delegations as a huge slap in the face.

[40ozDonkey]

41. What a worthless, long-shot talking point.

Florida and Michigan Democrats failed their voters and are the only ones responsible for not voting.

Nobody wanted to pay for re-votes. Nobody wanted to abide by the rules.

It had nothing to do with Obama. The ONLY people pushing this bullshit are Hillary supporters. Ever wonder why nobody else is stepping into the echo chamber?

You don't give a shit about Florida and Michigan voters, you just want some excuse to be outraged. Your "disenfranchisement" lie is easily bunked and reeks of desperation.

I live in Florida, stop pretending to speak for me.

[Life Long Dem]

30. Of course rules count.

Just imagine the chaos if we didn't have rules. Just look at Florida. And if we let them get away with breaking a rule then every state can point their finger at this incident and call it unfair if they don't get the same treatment when they cheat.

[cooolandrew]

37. This is why Dems have NOT taken it to superdelegates to avoid conflict of intrests.

[boppers]

38. Rules are rules, and SD's should endorse the person who can win.

This is not complex.

[johnnydrama]

39. Bill Clinton is a superdelegate

Because he was President of The United States, and he lived in Washington DC.

By either of these factors, voters in the United States, and voters in Washington DC, Bill Clinton should cast his superdelegate vote for Barack Obama.

[intaglio]

40. If this is a rule then Hillary has just lost

because her strategy depends on superdelegates ignoring delegate and popular votes