HRC on FL, MI: "They clearly believed that their votes would count." No end to her dishonesty.

[jsmirman]

There are people who are asking for more compassion towards Hillary, but it's statements like this one that make that nearly impossible.

Is there any end to this woman's dishonesty???

The above statement is exactly what she said last night in her interview with Wolf Blitzer (btw, just exactly how freaking dumb is Blitzer? Good name, beard and glasses. Brain? Not so much. Way to call her out on this, Wolf.)

So that's what she says when discussing this travesty. Her statement is exactly the truth, if by the truth we suddenly mean the exact opposite of what actually happened.

People went to the polls knowing precisely that their votes would not count.

Has she become so divorced from reality that she is really making it up to suit whatever dream scenario she has concocted in her head?

It is staggering that she would utter such a non-truth with a straight face. The only explanation can be that this is yet another chapter in Clinton's courting of the ignorant and uninformed, in hopes that they will bear her pitchforks for her.

I think the statement I've quoted above was really off the cuff and conversational. So this is the unvarnished insanity that is bouncing around in her feverish brain. She may actually believe the outright lie that she delivered with a straight face.

Just what exactly is wrong with this woman???

[NightWatcher]

1. I think they will seat them

Obama will win the nom in the next two weeks and in a goodwill gesture will seat them in Denver. He will still win regardless of the crooked numbers from FL and MI where his name wasnt on the ballot and/or he and the rest of the candidates agreed not to campaign.

[northzax]

5. yes, remember in context?

this is what everyone thought. that the delegations would be seated as a unification gesture by whoever won.

[jsmirman]

9. What??? People were explicitly told "YOUR VOTES WILL NOT COUNT"

if you're using some kind of tortured logic to suggest that delegates would be seated en masse for whoever the national winner was- which is the exact opposite of actually counting- to support her statement that "people believed that their votes would count," then you're as divorced from reality as she is.

[northzax]

11. bullshit

everyone in the know was saying they would eventually be seated.

[jsmirman]

16. Seated how? I honestly suspect you just can't follow this conversation

are you so thickheaded here that you can't understand the enormous difference between being symbolically seated with no reference to the vote outcome and seated in accordance with the bogus outcome?

It seems like that distinction evades you like the slow kid in red rover red rover.

[northzax]

22. oh, sweetie-pie

how adorable. Hillary Clinton said, at the time, that she would fight to have the Michigan and Florida delegations seated. at the time she said that.

the other candidated chose to fellate Iowa and New Hampshire, crawling on their knees to beg a bunch of corn fed white folk, or quasi-republican flinty white frolk, to vote for them. the Party told Obama and Hillary "don't do Michigan and Florida, those people don't count" and Obama said "yessir, no Florida or Michigan, rules over voting is what matters" and that's somehow the moral high ground?

defend that.

[jsmirman]

23. What the heck are you talking about? She went against her pledge and her clearly stated words!!!

THAT, darling, is pure dishonesty and the moral swamp of this argument. All your weird ramblings don't change that one lick.

And as explained in this thread, she pulled these statements- IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF WHAT SHE AGREED TO AND WHAT SHE EXPLICITLY SAID- out to pander at the last moment.

You really seem unable to follow all of this.

And it doesn't matter one fig what she said- the voters were explictly told one thing and now Clinton claims the opposite. What? They were supposed to believe the opposite "because Hillary said so"??? So she makes the rules. I see. That actually makes perfect sense.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

79. You are not supposed to demean/insult people to that extent on this board

as someone who used to work with the disabled I find your comments insulting also.

[purji]

42. bullshit on your bullshit

in Michigan we knew it wouldn't count.The primary was declared unconstitutional.

[last1standing]

54. Here in Michigan we knew it didn't count, so who is "everyone"?

n/t

[sybylla]

64. Even if the delegates are seated as a unification gesture, the votes won't count

Because everyone knows they will likely be seated as delegates for the nominee (since that nominee so graciously agreed to seat them) or with a 50-50 no-harm-no-foul split, not by how the sham of a vote turned out.

See, they lost the right for their vote to count when they moved their primary.

[jsmirman]

6. But can you believe that she could say this with a straight face?

It's a stone cold lie and she's an intelligent woman who should know that anyone listening with even the loosest grasp of the facts knows is a straight up untruth. And yet she delivers it without blinking. That type of behavior borders on sociopathic. Even I didn't expect to see that.

[ORDem]

37. "And that's exactly what happened" - in reference to the sniper fire.

Unfortunately, I've long ago come to be inured to her ridiculous lies and spin. :eyes:

[islandmkl]

2. lie often and quickly and keep talking so the 'listeners' don't have time to research the background

...plus, have no shame or conscience and it all comes easily...

[Oleladylib]

3. Just chalk it up to another stolen election...this time a democrat

steals from another democrat..So Bush won it dishonestly and so it will be when Fl. and Mich. are discounted...wake up DNC.

[cali]

8. please don't engage in pushing something so disgustingly false.

Hillary agreed to the DNC measures. One of her top people voted for them. Another devised those punative measures. And the DNC RBC and Credentials committee will ensure that FL and MI delegates are seated fairly. It's flat out wrong to make the false equivalence between the SC in 2000 and the perfectly legal measures taken by the DNC re the primary schedule. In addition, there is NO franchise when it comes to primaries. The parties are free to choose their candidates however they wish.

[Blondbostonian]

19. Do you live in Florida?

I do. There's no outrage here, save the 50 old ladies at the park in Miami last weekend that in reality was a Hillary event.

So many people I know didn't bother to vote because they told the primary DIDN"T MATTER!!!!

Jesus Christ you people are so desperate to win at any cost that you will say or do anything

[thunder rising]

24. I'm in Florida and I have yet to see anybody "give a shit". Our own state party manufactured

the problem. End of story. See you all in Nov. goooooObama

[jsmirman]

25. Precisely. I never thought I'd live to see a democrat pursue a strategy I find so repulsive

I've actually used this situation on the campaign trail to persuade against her, and it has resonated, believe it. I used it as ammo in both Pennsylvania and Indiana. People see how morally bankrupt a position it is.

[CindyKay]

48. I'm From Florida Too

I am an Indepndent & we were not allowed to Vote ( Closed Primary ) No one I know is Outraged , We need to Ignore all of this & focus on the General Election. It's Over People , Let's Work together & End all the BS. We need to Move On.:grouphug:

[DAGDA56]

59. I also live in Florida, I clearly understood that my vote would not be counted...

...because of the shenanigans of a Repub controlled legislature. As a homeowner, my concern about a property tax ammendment brought me to the polls. If I were a renter, I likely would have stayed home.

[Occam Bandage]

35. Here. Give a listen.

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=zydzt

[jsmirman]

43. Oh, what's a silly little thing like proof that told an outright lie last night worth

It has to be preferential to just throw down some rhetoric and gloss over the contradiction here...

:sarcasm:

[skipos]

4. See my sig

AS someone from MI, I don't know a single person who thought our votes would count. Why does Hillary think our turnout was so low?

[navarth]

7. I second that

This kind of stuff is what turns me off about Hillary. Even if she stole it from Obama I'd have to vote for her, but I'm not sure that I'll ever like her again.

We ALL KNEW what was up when we voted in the primary. This horse shit she's spewing is similar to the horse shit she spews when she tries to explain her Iraq War vote. Spread that on the crops, not on the voters.

[last1standing]

57. Gee, three Michiganders in a row who knew it didn't count.

We must have been the only ones who somehow heard it when EVERYONE stated that our vote wouldn't count. :shrug:

[jsmirman]

13. Your sig is the exact and perfect statement of what a lie she is spinning

it just says it all.

And yet we've got someone in this thread suggesting the nomination is stolen if those "results" are not honored- flying directly in the face of what her own candidate said!

She has the gall to compare this to Florida in 2000. I'm sorry, but I don't recall Gore ever saying, "Yes, I am ok with thousands of African-Americans being disenfranchised, I fully understand that votes will not count that clearly express a preference for me, and I am totally on board with the Supreme Court declaring that finding out the actual outcome is time prohibitive and too complicated, even though it totally is not!"

Because that would be the equivalence.

[4themind]

10. So she's a mind reader now?

It's as clear as mud, especially when it was codified, that they would not at the time of voting.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

12. In MI, it was pretty clear that the vote wouldn't count

especially with only one "serious contender" on the ballot. I voted anyway, but more out of habit, I always vote.

FL may have been less certain.

"Divorced from reality"? Yes, with her memory of being under sniper attack. That seemed a little pathological.

[shadowknows69]

14. So why'd you turn down the latest plan to have them count Hillary?

[CakeGrrl]

75. Because she's trying to force the count that gives NOTHING to Obama

A 10-delegate gain and any share of the popular vote won't cut it when she's trying to argue that she should be the better candidate.

But her near-pathological lying might just trump that, if only that would occur to her.

[Ganja Ninja]

15. I went to the polls in FL knowing she would pull this.

That's why I voted for Obama.

[jsmirman]

18. which was totally prescient and sensible of you. But you can understand the slew

of people who couldn't imagine the depravity and dishonesty this woman is capable of. You just knew better. Personally, I was hoping for better, but I *hope* I would have had the good sense you displayed.

[TahitiNut]

17. As a Michigan voter, I find that to be a particularly offensive lie.

Anyone with the brainpower to find their polling place knew damned well the Democrats were voiding the primary. The unique 'registration' required of voters to select either the Republican or Democratic ballot was unprecedented in Michigan elections. Activists were stationed at the required distance from polling places to 'inform' voters about the "Uncommitted" ballot option. The notable absence of Obama, Biden, and Edwards from the ballot couldn't be missed.

How fucking DARE she pretend to speak for me? She's an arrogant, hypocritical ass.

[jsmirman]

21. LOL, and yet, it may just be that she's a beacon of insanity

not that this is necessarily any better...

I was shocked when I heard her say this. However, my power to be continually shocked by people like her and Bush is starting to reflect poorly on me. I've got to get more cynical, it seems.

[pdxmom]

20. Her mouthpieces, after her WV win, were outright asked exactly when

the campaign decided that FL and MI should be included. Wolfson said that it was AFTER all those people came out and voted, despite being told their votes wouldn't count. He said that people who will vote, even after being told that it doesn't count, should have their votes counted.

Well, that is an outright lie. Clinton was calling for Floridas votes to be counted on the very eve of the primary, BEFORE anyone there had voted. I would go so far as to say that, though she technically didn't "campaign" there, the fact that she flip-flopped on her agreement and made a big announcement about it on the eve of voting was most definitely "campaigning". And her issue was changing the rules she had agreed to.

[Marie26]

26. If they didn't think it would count, why did they vote?

There was huge turnout in MI & FL; people thought their vote would mean something.

[jsmirman]

29. What a deeply dishonest exercise in ascribing meaning.

Just because some people felt like expressing their preference (and just, perhaps, because one candidate on the very eve indicated to her supporters her willingness to break the rules and contradict her stated words) can never be logically translated to an opinion one way or another as to whether they thought their votes would count or not.

I cheer for the Yankees when I'm watching a game in a bar. That doesn't mean I think it has a damn thing to do with the outcome.

[Marie26]

31. But you don't know

what people were thinking any more than Clinton does, or I do. Maybe people thought it would count in the end, or they'd half the delegates like the Republicans did, or the delegates would be seated proportionally, or they didn't care & just wanted to vote. She's making an argument that the massive turnout should indicate that people WANTED their votes to count. There's enough blatant lies to get pissed off on both sides; I just don't get why this argument is the one that inspires the vitriole. Seat the delegates, it doesn't make a difference anymore anyway.

[jsmirman]

40. What they want and what they explicitly were told are two completely different things

I do know that anyone with a functioning brain KNEW that they had been told that votes wouldn't count.

Anything beyond that is pure speculation. What is Hillary supporting here? The people too stupid to listen to what they were explicitly told or the people stubborn enough to believe that by wanting they would get their way in the end???

And when you don't know what people were thinking, making definitive statements about what they were thinking, which is WHAT SHE DID, is gross intellectual dishonesty.

I have a problem with honoring any kind of election that took place on such farcical terms. It is an affront to actual democracy. It's so very Republican.

[Marie26]

56. Supporting letting votes count

Letting MI & FL, two KEY swing states, having their delegates seated at the convention. I like the comment below, Clinton might be right for the wrong reasons, but she's still right. These delegates need to be seated somehow, & those voters have a right to have a voice in this election. And the DNC definitely doesn't need to alienate these voters before the general election. I just don't get the anger. Voting is such fundamental part of democracy & people did come out in droves to vote & participate. Obama has won already; seating the delegates won't change a thing. Except allowing people's votes to have SOME meaning.

[jsmirman]

62. You have to seat them somehow. And HRC is the one who can let that happen.

But to equate monopoly money with US currency weakens the dollar. Trust me on this.

[purji]

44. no we didn't

we knew it wouldn't count, but I voted because I always vote.

[DAGDA56]

60. In Florida, there was a property tax ammmendment on the ballot...

...if you are a homeowner, you were voting your pocketbook. If, on the other hand, you were a young renter (or college student) you had no reason to vote...even if you supported one of the candidates.

[Scout]

77. exactly.

my brother is a huge obama supporter, and he's being a real dick about the primary ... yet HE voted for Kucinich!

[Hepburn]

27. Just like the story of sniper fire in Bosnia....

...Hillary had to have known that what was coming out of her mouth was totally a bunch of bullshit.

JMHO

[cliffordu]

61. DING DING DING We have a winner!!!

Oh, yeah, and for extra Hillary goodness, it's really all about her, ya know: Win at any cost to be the choice of the working people....

[suston96]

28. What's wrong with her statement? All 50 states must be EQUALLY seated at the convention...

The DNC rules violated the Democratic Party Charter that states very clearly that ALL Democrats must be guaranteed full and equal participation in the nominating process.

Democrats denying 2.3 million members of the party full and equal participation because of a rule that violates the Democratic Party Charter?

That's not about Hillary Clinton. That's about a broken and shameful Democratic Party that deserves to lose in November.

[jsmirman]

30. What's wrong with her statement? Hmm. 1) It's an outright lie. 2) it contradicts the rules her

campaign agreed to. 3) It contradicts the statement her campaign released. 4) It contradicts her own words.

But you try to change the issue with some rhetorical blather when you can't. See a lie is a lie.

Deserves to lose in November? Enjoy the end of Roe v Wade because you're a whiny take my ball and go home baby. Enjoy more Iraq. Tell the dead soldiers' mothers that their kids died because you're an enormous child.

[suston96]

38. I'm a "whiny" what? I don't think so.....

Try this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5981902&mesg_id=5981902

Defending the voting rights of ALL Democrats is not whining. It is the basic dogma of the Democratic Party. ALL Democrats will be guaranteed full and equal participation in the nominating process.

The DNC cannot dare to change or modify that organic basis of the Party's Charter - ALL members means 50 states and the rest, without exception.

[jsmirman]

47. Oh, how dishonest and twisted. You DO defend the right of voters by refusing to honor

elections conducted under farcical conditions.

Honoring an "election" like the Michigan or Florida "primaries" and placing it equivalency with voting held in legitimate fashion under mutually agreed upon and longstanding party rules- that is a disenfrachisement.

It's callous and a threat to the sanctity of the vote. It's saying, "well it's expedient to take something complete illegitimate and equate to something totally legitimate."

It's like allowing someone to buy up a bunch of monopoly boardgames and then compete with me at an auction. THAT is how dishonest it is.

And she is the one completely crapping on the charter, duh.

[suston96]

49. This isn't about Obama and Clinton. It's about the rights of the members of the Democratic Party...

There are numerous amendments to the US Constitution regarding voting rights that were passed because states - I repeat: states violated the voting rights of individuals.

Because the nominating process involves the constitutional offices of President and Vice-President, and members of Congress, and because the major political parties have entrusted the major part of this nominating process to the individual members of their parties, then ALL the protections of constitutional voting rights apply. One person, one vote - and it must be counted.

The states are mandated to guarantee and protect individuals in all phases of these election processes, especially and including the primary nominations of the candidates for the offices of President, Vice-President, and members of Congress.

[jsmirman]

55. You could not be more delusional and ill-informed

you also haven't listened to a thing I said.

My analogy about bringing monopoly money to an auction is an excellent approximation of what counting illegitimate results along with legitimate results does.

The little transference you try to make between "constitutional offices" (wha? ha ha) and the primary process is just flat out wrong. Parties control their nominating processes.

What are you, 12, that you think you can just make this stuff up and everyone will think you're a constitutional scholar and not recognize that what you just said is complete bullshit?

Enough. Go join Hillary in imaginary land.

Now I'm off to get an expensive haircut, so good bye.

[jsmirman]

50. And yes, you are being a whiny baby who would rather let the world go to hell

than accept not getting your way.

Great citizen.

[mohc]

41. It does not violate the charter

"Section 4.
Establish standards and rules of procedure to afford all members of the Democratic Party
full, timely and equal opportunities to participate in decisions concerning the selection of candidates..."

That is exactly what they did. The DNC gave Florida and Michigan full and timely opportunity to participate in the nominating process, that being between February 5th and June 10th. The state parties chose not to participate and only looked into a possible valid contest once they knew it was too late to be logistically feasible.

[suston96]

46. Not exactly what it says.....

"The DNC gave Florida and Michigan full and timely opportunity to participate in the nominating process....."

Not what it says....

"Establish standards and rules of procedure to afford ALL MEMBERS of the Democratic Party....."

Get it? Not "all states". "All members" - individuals - NOT states.

Their 2.3 million votes MUST be counted.

[mohc]

52. With that interpretation

It would mean the DNC would have to run elections in states when the state refused to do so. For all intents and purposes, there has not been a "First Determining Step" run in either Florida or Michigan. The primaries they held were no different than the non-binding primaries held in Nebraska and Washington, an no one is clamoring to have the votes in NE or WA "counted". Regardless, the rules established by the DNC do in fact afford all Democrats a chance to participate in the process, they do so by giving each state/territory party the ability to establish a "Delegate Selection Plan". Neither Florida or Michigan had their plans approved, and they had plenty of time to construct new plans, even if they could not move the primaries dates they could have established an alternate selection method.

While in the future it may in fact by a good idea for the DNC to step in and provide a Delegate Selection Plan for states that refuse to do so, it certainly is not something demanded by the current charter.

[suston96]

58. The Charter is like the US Constitution.....

...where Congress makes laws that clarify and expand and explicitly codify the dogma contained in the Constitution. Congress can expand or specify that dogma but it cannot diminish what the Constitution mandates.

The Democratic Party Charter says explicitly that all members must be guaranteed full and equal participation in the nominating process. That means exactly what it says.

Neither the DNC nor the individual states can violate that basic dogma that protects the rights of individuals to fully and fairly participate in the nominating process.

Trashing the rights of 2.3 million Democrats by not counting their votes is violative of the organic dogma of both the Democratic Party and the US Constitionally guaranteed right of full and equal participation in the election processes.

[mohc]

67. The DNC is not the one violating the charter

The 2.3 million votes are not being counted because they were not votes towards the Democratic nomination, only contests within the construct of an approved DNC Delegate Selection Plan are counted. It would be like Republicans complaining their votes in Republican primaries do not count towards the Democratic nomination. I reiterate, there is no difference between the FL/MI primaries and the NE/WA primaries, they were all non-binding primaries. The FDP and MDP did in fact violate the charter by never providing the Democrats in their respective states with a binding contest, but the DNC is not "compelled to compel" the states to hold such contests.

[suston96]

68. Sorry, don't agree. Or rather, cannot follow what you are saying.

The so called "violations" of the dates of the primaries have no merit. Fact is, they were held and the Democrats came and voted in spite of being told their votes wouldn't count.

The message from those Democratic voters is clear: We voted because we had to. Count our votes! That's why we voted.

The DNC cannot ignore the rights of the members of the party as mandated in the Charter. The Charter trumps the chagrin and hurt feelings of the pompous asses in the DNC.

[mohc]

70. And why did voters in WA and NE vote?

Because they "had to"? The FL and MI votes were no different than an extremely expensive opinion poll, one with 0% MoE, but still an opinion poll. What separates straw polls, opinion polls, etc from actual elections is that they are sanctioned by the body for which those elections are for. The FL and MI primaries, like the WA and NE primaries, were never a part of the nominating process. Yes many of the people that voted in those primaries would have done exactly the same in an actual election, but there were certainly many that did not feel the need to participate in a glorified opinion poll. Because of the property tax amendment I did in fact vote in the primary, but because I knew it was simply a poll and not an election where I needed to vote strategically, I voted for Edwards instead of Obama.

The only way one could legally argue that the DNC is violating its charter is if you argued the rules it setup were in violation of some part of the charter. Here you would have to argue that the "equal and timely" clause meant that the "timeliness" of the rule must be "equal". In the end that argument would have a better chance of throwing out the votes of IA, NH, NV, and SC than it would have in forcing the inclusion of FL and MI. There is actually case law and precedent in this area, and courts have upheld the national party's ability to refuse delegations because of internal rule violations. The ability for the parties to disqualify elections is clear, only the rules themselves have potential vulnerability.

[suston96]

71. The Charter says specifically that all members must be guaranteed full and equal participation.....

...the DNC cannot make rules that invalidate that dogmatic mandate. Every rule and procedure must protect and secure that mandate and not diminish or abridge it.

If political parties want to make rules when nominating candidates for non-constitutional offices they may, I say they may have reasonably unfettered access to do so.

But when the nominations are for offices under the federal and state constitutions then the equality mandates and guarantees under those constitutions as specifically pronounced in party charters must be followed.

[mohc]

72. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree

In my opinion, and in the opinion of previous court rulings, the parties may place enforce reasonable rules regarding their nomination process. No state can force a party to accept arbitrary delegations. What if Florida decided to send a delegation of 10,000 delegates, would the DNC have to seat them or else violate its charter? Those that challenge the DNC on this issue are doing so from the reverse point of view when it comes to burden. Were the Florida and Michigan primaries structured reasonably in a fair manor? Yes they were. But the rules and Florida and Michigan are not the ones that the law would be deciding on. The question is only if the DNC's rules were fair. It does not matter than FL and MI had reasonable alternatives if the DNC rules for when a state could hold its contest are deemed reasonable. Can a state hold its 2012 nominating contest in December of this year? I think all would agree clearly they can not. Same would apply for allowing a state to hold its contest one day before the convention. Because the party has a compelling interest in the timeliness of its nominating process it is allowed to enforce rules regarding when the elections can be held. As I stated in the previous post, if one were going to mount a serious legal challenge that would not simply be thrown out, you would have to go after whether rules that give different states different date ranges to hold their elections were reasonable.

This really is not much different than federal rules regarding the general election date. While states have been allowed to have early voting and mail in ballots, states are not allowed to hold their election day and results announcements on an early date. If a state held their general election a week earlier and announced their results, would the federal government be compelled to honor those results? You might argue that this is different because here all the states had the same rule, but that is irrelevant. All the states have to have the same election day because that is the what rule happens to be, the government could change the rules to have different states voting on different days and then those states would have to follow those rules.

--edit--
By the way, thank you for the civil, albeit contentious, debate.

[suston96]

74. You want to talk about rules, I am talking about basic dogma which govern rules....

....those rules cannot obstruct or abridge the right of every member of the Democratic Party to fully and fairly participate in the nominating process.

As to what ifs.......what if the DNC decided that only blonde haired, blue eyed males can be nominated by the party? Ridiculous? Sure.

So is saying that 2.3 million Democratic members cannot vote and if they vote their votes will not be counted. That is worse than ridiculous. That is an outrage.

[Occam Bandage]

32. "You know, it's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=zydzt

[DarienComp]

39. Interesting how Hillary supporters have no response to this.

I don't blame them though. Kinda hard to refute such concrete evidence of her dishonesty.

[Occam Bandage]

45. I'm sure most have me on Ignore.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[JTFrog]

34. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

So which is it? It was obvious that they would count or not count?

I guess it all depends on which answer is most advantage at the time given.

[workinclasszero]

36. Hillary Clinton is a shameless LIAR! Check the link:

Flashback: Michigan election not going to count



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. A person can be right for the wrong reasons.

But at the end of the day, they are still right.

[last1standing]

53. I live in Michigan and I knew my vote wouldn't count.

All my friends knew their votes wouldn't count, so who is this great mass of people who thought that the DNC was just playing footsies under the table after the state Dems tried to highjack the system and create complete chaos?

[Enrique]

63. I didn't think my vote would count

I voted for her in FL, but I was under the impression that it wouldn't count.

But you're overreacting.

[pompano]

65. Being called a liar....

and getting speaking up about it is not an overreaction. To her it might be. She gets called a liar all the time because her and Bill are first class liars. They do it for a living. They are Veterans. They both have calloused ethics. I was under the assumption my vote WOULD NOT count.

Look, this is Florida. With all these Republicans we are not too damn sure our votes will count even if cast fair and square within the rules.

We are seeing the end of a horrifyingly pitiful desperate campaign. I would like to say I expect better, sadly, with her, I don't.

[jsmirman]

73. Great post -

some people just don't see why the divisive crap she's pulling on this issue in pandering to the uninformed voters is contemptible.

[redqueen]

66. Yeah but really... does this measure up to the scandal that is SWEETIEGATE?

I think not!

[Vinca]

69. And they might have counted if she had protested when it mattered

and not signed the agreement that disenfranchised them. She only gave a damn when she, personally, needed the votes added to her tally.

[Scout]

76. many Michigan voters did NOT know "their vote wouldn't count"...

i live here, and it wasn't widely publicized unless you're a political junkie.

lots of people did what they always do, they knew there was a primary, so they went and voted.

that's the reality

[kerry-is-my-prez]

78. I'm from FL and I did. The fact we had huge numbers vote says others did too.

You assume that the Dem. Party would not be crazy enough to piss off the voters of one of the largest swing states. We are also pissed at our elected officials too.

I think that this whole issue should have been worked out a long time ago. The Dem leaders in this state and in the National Party are incompetent...

[glitternotgold]

80. I am embarrased for Hillary.

How does she make all her insincere innuendos with a straight face? Just how? Are the clintons willing to bet on their entire legacy just like that? Can't somebody that loves this woman talk honestly to her? I really feel sad for them. Look at Bill Clinton; just look at him. Quite embarrassing and very sad.

She can stay on the race till next year or next century, as long as it is within her rights. But by now she should be taken the high road. It is not too late. She should know that American's generally have short memories and forgive easily. She should do about turn. Hillary, preserve whatever goodwill and legacy you and hubby has left, please.

[TheDonkey]

81. Queen of Lies at it again.