Screw Hillary Clinton

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
User avatar
Xenu
Sellout
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:15 pm

Postby Xenu » Sat May 24, 2008 10:49 pm

Wait, that isn't a joke?
-------------
"Fuckin' Koreans" - Reno 911

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4589
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sat May 31, 2008 9:41 pm

Florida, Michigan get all delegates, but each gets half vote

"Today's results are a victory for the people of Florida, who will have a voice in selecting our party's nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party's convention," said a joint-statement from Clinton advisers Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy. "[But] we strongly object to the committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan."


WTF?

And, FYI:

With no Michigan or Florida delegates included, Obama led Clinton by 202 delegates.

The committee's ruling gave Clinton 105 pledged delegates from Florida and 69 from Michigan, with a total of 87 votes.

Obama received 67 pledged delegates from Florida and 59 from Michigan, casting a total of 63 votes.

That tally leaves Obama ahead by the equivalent of 178 delegates.

If each delegate had been granted a full vote, Clinton still would have trailed Obama.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:00 am

I believe the bottom line is that Clinton's team would have thrown a hissy under any result other than giving Clinton her full slate of delegates from MI and giving Obama nothing because his name is not "Uncommitted." (I think one of her people said that it's Obama's fault because he made the tactical mistake of taking his name off the ballot when the party asked him to.)

And since that was never going to happen, they are throwing a hissy.

Whether they continue to stamp their feet and hold their breath all the way to Denver remains to be seen. Nothing would surprise me at the point.

But like you say, even Clinton's wildest fantasy come true wouldn't have put her ahead. Under *any* scenario, she needs the superdelegates to break her way in large numbers. Good luck with that.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

LesPaul666
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 pm

Postby LesPaul666 » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:20 pm

Don't write her off just yet. This will be challenged at the convention. If she doesn't make it, It'll be the first time in 20 years that *I won't* vote at all. Sorry, I just don't see this the same way.

If Obama gets in as the Democratic candidate, you can count John McCain winning in November as your new president. :cry:

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4589
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:05 pm

LesPaul666 wrote:If Obama gets in as the Democratic candidate, you can count John McCain winning in November as your new president. :cry:


Why do you say that?
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:08 pm

If she doesn't make it, It'll be the first time in 20 years that *I won't* vote at all.


Funny, if she *does* manage to bend the rules enough to steal the nomination, then I won't be voting for President, either. So we cancel each other out and neither of our opinions matter. Oh, well.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

LesPaul666
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 pm

Postby LesPaul666 » Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:11 pm

lukpac wrote:
LesPaul666 wrote:If Obama gets in as the Democratic candidate, you can count John McCain winning in November as your new president. :cry:


Why do you say that?


I say that because, at least in my own opinion, Obama's not going to be able to carry enough votes in November. I think either one on the democratic side is much better than what we've had for the last 8 years. I just don't think he's going to be able to do it, and Clinton *would* be able to.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4589
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:46 pm

LesPaul666 wrote:I say that because, at least in my own opinion, Obama's not going to be able to carry enough votes in November. I think either one on the democratic side is much better than what we've had for the last 8 years. I just don't think he's going to be able to do it, and Clinton *would* be able to.


I don't know. On one hand I know a lot of folks aren't ready for a black president. On the other hand, a lot of those same folks aren't ready for a woman president either. Obama has energized a lot of folks, and Hillary brings with her a lot of Bill's baggage - that engulfing hatred of all things Clinton.

I'm not a big fan of either of them policy-wise. At this point I hope Obama gets the nod, but I wouldn't not vote for Hillary if she were the nominee.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

LesPaul666
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 pm

Postby LesPaul666 » Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:20 pm

lukpac wrote:
LesPaul666 wrote:I say that because, at least in my own opinion, Obama's not going to be able to carry enough votes in November. I think either one on the democratic side is much better than what we've had for the last 8 years. I just don't think he's going to be able to do it, and Clinton *would* be able to.


I don't know. On one hand I know a lot of folks aren't ready for a black president. On the other hand, a lot of those same folks aren't ready for a woman president either. Obama has energized a lot of folks, and Hillary brings with her a lot of Bill's baggage - that engulfing hatred of all things Clinton.

I'm not a big fan of either of them policy-wise. At this point I hope Obama gets the nod, but I wouldn't not vote for Hillary if she were the nominee.



Hi Luke,

I have no problem whatsoever voting for a black *or* woman president. It's really all the same in my mind. The Clinton's baggage is personal things, that aren't anyone's business. I really fail to see how We The People have any opinion that matters in that regard.

Obama has really energized many. So has Clinton as well. She voted for the Iraq war under false pretenses. Obama voted against the war, Oops...I mean "opposed" the war. He wasn't in Washington holding a seat, at the time to vote at all. He had no say in the matter. Many people don't even realize this.

I could care what Barack Obama's former Reverend said. It's just crap. There's been lots of racism, as well as reverse racism back and forth. "The chickens come home to roost"? No offense, but the Obama phenomenon seems a little Pied Piper to me, like voting for him is in style.

He's very new to politics, and I think as president they would rip him apart. He talks very well, and a great character. I think where it really counts, though, many are going to be disappointed.

I dunno. I was raised to respect everyone of every race. My forefathers never had slaves, here or anywhere else. To me it would be like my country of decent complaining about what the Moors did hundreds of years ago. It's a huge mess, and it's just what the Republican Party wants to happen. Playing right into their hands. :cry:

Bennett Cerf
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Postby Bennett Cerf » Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:51 pm

If you believe that "either one on the democratic side is much better than what we've had for the last 8 years," then why on earth would you stay home in November rather than vote for Obama?

What would be the point of Hillary challenging this at the convention? No matter how you assign the Michigan and Florida delegates, she still trails Obama.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4589
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:43 pm

LesPaul666 wrote:I have no problem whatsoever voting for a black *or* woman president. It's really all the same in my mind. The Clinton's baggage is personal things, that aren't anyone's business. I really fail to see how We The People have any opinion that matters in that regard.


I wasn't suggesting anyone here wouldn't vote for a woman or a black person.

The baggage I'm talking about is the years and years of the right doing whatever they can to poison the Clinton name.

I don't know - we'll see how it plays out. It just seems like Hillary is getting more and more desperate, and I just don't see how she has much of a leg to stand on. This Michigan/Florida thing was pretty pathetic IMO.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

LesPaul666
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 pm

Postby LesPaul666 » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:03 am

Sorry, I didn't mean it in that regard towards anyone wouldn't vote for a black person, or woman. I guess it could have been misconstrued, the way I worded it.

The right have unjustly ruined the Clinton name, in a very calculated and unlawful manner, from the time he ran for president. The Clinton years were very good to many because of what he and his wife as well, accomplished.

It's crazy, I hear people around me, friends and acquaintances, saying how much they "hate" Bill and Hillary Clinton. I ask why, and the answer is usually the Monica Lewinski thing, or Whitewater, etc. Things that have no bearing on anything important.

We have a president in office presently, that should be in military prison along with his entire cabinet for whats been going on in the last 8 years...And people worry about Bill Clinton screwing around on his wife. I could care less if our president has an affair with Bozo The Clown, as long they're doing their job.

Like I said, in November, I will be staying home, because Obama hasn't a chance in hell to win. I think many people in this country are expecting some kind drastic revelation, and "change". Very unrealistic. Some others say Obama brings "Hope". Really now. Nice thought. We're in a hole right now that's going to years and years to recover, if *at all*.

Barack Obama is basically a kid, with very little experience beyond a very small scope. His intentions seem genuine, but like I said...I think that in November, you'll see many changes in the public's viewpoint, before this is all over, let alone what "Upper Management's" influence on the whole thing. I really do think that certain decisions are decided in this country with little regard to what we really choose as Americans. I'll always be proud to be one, but I can't deny the embarrassment I have for my country, for the recent past, and it's current state of affairs, as a whole.


You can hope for the best, but how realistic would that be? How in F'ing hell did we let this administration get away with these horrible things for 8 years now?


I don't hate anyone. When I hear people say they hate a candidate for no good reason, and in a *quite* rabid manner, it's like "you gotta be kidding me"! Too much television, I guess. Why should I vote for the alternative, when the candidate I chose is hated for entirely no good reason whatsoever?

There's no happy medium with the democrats. I don't even consider myself a member of either party. I registered as an Independent when I was 18. His backers speak of broken rules by the Clinton camp. Truth is, there aren't any real rules. If that were the case, We'd be most likely wishing Al Gore or John Kerry, a fond farewell as our previous president.

Why would anyone *not* vote if Hillary Clinton was the candidate? We know for a fact she would most likely win the general election. Hatred? Hatred of what? The way she talks? Media influence? Of course. A big percentage of the general public has their heads up their cans. They just love romantic seduction in politics. The golden age of materialistic atheism, and I don't mean this in a religious context whatsoever, but in human spirit, and mental rationale.

It's really sickening when you hear women talk about George W. as being sexy. Totally serious. I've heard this comment several times. People dying everyday for no good reason. That's really sexy. Huge corporations stealing loads of our hard-earned money, and putting us in unrecoverable debt. Super sexy. Destroying hundreds of years of hard working middle class dignity. Absolutely delightful.


They keep talking about how groundbreaking this election is, because of a woman and a black man having a good chance as being elected. Could we vote in Wendy Carlos??? How groundbreaking would that be? My point is that even the stereotype crap is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. I think it's very selfish to use these as selling points for a candidate, due to color or gender. It doesn't matter.

I just have this gut feeling this is just the intermission before the next horror movie in the double feature.

"Stupidity has a bad habit of getting it's own way" :wink:

Bennett Cerf
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Postby Bennett Cerf » Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:43 am

LesPaul666 wrote:Like I said, in November, I will be staying home, because Obama hasn't a chance in hell to win.


So a self-fulfilling prophecy is your excuse?

Hypothetically speaking, let's say the polls just before election day showed a dead heat between Obama and McCain. Would you still be staying home?

In which state do you live?

LesPaul666
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:11 pm

Postby LesPaul666 » Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:47 am

Bennett Cerf wrote:
LesPaul666 wrote:Like I said, in November, I will be staying home, because Obama hasn't a chance in hell to win.


So a self-fulfilling prophecy is your excuse?

Hypothetically speaking, let's say the polls just before election day showed a dead heat between Obama and McCain. Would you still be staying home?

In which state do you live?


Bennett,

If that was the case, it would be an entirely different story. I highly doubt it's going to go in that direction. If it does wind up that way, I'm sure I would be inclined to vote.

I'm not superstitious, or interested in filling any kind of prophecy. I'm very adamant of admitting when I'm wrong about something, as well.

I'll make a friendly bet that this isn't going to be the case, though. Like I said, If I'm incorrect on this projection, I'll be happy to accept a good blasting for it.

:wink:

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:15 am

Why would anyone *not* vote if Hillary Clinton was the candidate?


Because she would have achieved the nomination through subverting the process and putting her own sense of personal entitlement above the rules set forth for "lesser" candidates? Because she's disingenuously cloaking a naked attempt to game the system into some sort of civil rights crusade, as if tweaking the rules to nominate Hillary Clinton was the moral equivalent of abolition? Because she thinks an election in which she was only named candidate is a "fair" election? (Brezhnev would agree.) Because she eagerly enlists the help of the Karl Rove right-wing attack machine to weaken the legitimate nominee?

I was all ready to vote for Clinton in the fall until she started pulling this stuff. My disinclination to vote for her has nothing to do with anything ginned up by the right or any weird "hatred" of the Clintons. It's 100% based on her actions. I do not wish to reward her actions with my vote. My fear of a McCain administration is less than my disgust with the Clinton campaign. If her actions during the campaign are any indication, a Clinton presidency would be just as narcissistic and extra-legal as the Bush administration. Why should I vote for that?

I'm no starry-eyed Obama disciple, either. I have a higher opinion of him now than I did last year, but you're correct in that his actual track record is small. Frankly, I'd rather have Gore. Or Dodd. Or Feingold. But if he's the nominee, I'll vote for him happily.

I freely admit that my vote is largely meaningless as I live in the most conservative state in the country (according to MSNBC) and either Democratic candidate will lose here in November unless McCain is caught on film in October giving Osama a reacharound while handing a black welfare mother a bag full of cash and kicking a small child. (And even then it would be close enough for a recount.)
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney