Dar wrote:
The rule was to not campaign in those states. If Hillary left her name on in MI and Obama took his off, then we have another example of she being smarter than he.
Cute but irrelevant. I will agree with you, however, that anyone who thinks Hillary is below doing whatever is necessary to win win win, is at best a bit naive. Further, I would also agree that Machiavellians are quite clever, as you must be to maintian the pious devotion of so many faithful disciples even when you pull this kind of crap.
Dar wrote:
Let their votes count. These voters didn't make these stupid undemocratic rules. Seat them as they are or #2 is perfectly fine with me. #1 ain't gonna happen.
Well we can agree on #2 as the best possible option. Here's hoping that is what does happen. Leaving things as is, is still better, I maintain, then anything other then option #2. Why? First because it is just wrong to change the rules like that in midgame, unless it is a totally fair process. We are all concerned that voters were disfranchised. Yet that was made very clear before this action was taken. The DNC even sent out letters to voters telling them that their vote was not going to count. No doubt, many did not. So counting the votes that did take place will also desenfranchise voters, as well as being inherently unfair. Option #2 is the best possible solution.
Doug wrote
She can't steal anything. She doesn't make the rules. She can SUGGEST anything she wants.
Quite right. I worry that since most of the Party Machine supports Hillary, they will bend to her will. Yet suggesting such an outcome, as she did, is loathesome. Calling it "fair" is total bullshit, and loathesome. Would you not agree?
Doug
don't see how she is doing anything wrong. What do you expect her to say? That she wants them to hold caucuses?
I guess you don't agree. Like Darrel says, I am quite the purist. I'm also a fairly naive idealist in that, despite my growing cynicism, I expect some level of common decency and fair play from my politicians. I expect my democracy to be, well, democratic. Silly, I know.
I expect her AND Obama, to support option #2 and failing that, option #1. Obama sucks for not coming right out with that. But until he says something equivalent, oh like say, "I should get all the votes, just because, that's fair", then I still maintain, Hillary sucks way worse.
They should only have caucuses if that is what they have always done, and planned to do.
Doug wrote:
The rules say that superdelegates can vote for whomever they want. Obama says that the superdelegates should not decide the race. So is he "stealing" the election, on your view? He's doing exactly what Hillary is doing: suggesting a resolution that favors himself.
Yes, those are the rules. Un-democratic rules left over from a very un-democratic process, and it needs to be changed. They did not finish the job post-1968.
So obviously, I hate the superdelegate rule. But there is an inherent difference between saying: "superdelegates should go with the will of the majority in good democratic fashion" and saying we should change the rules midgame completely and seat delegates from an election where one candidate was not even on the ballot. The first position does not substantially change the rules, and it is, and this is most important to me, far more democratic.
Like I said earlier, Obama just might suck as bad as Hillary before all is said and done. He's not there yet. Few suck as much as Hillary. I'll pounce on him too if he goes anti-democracy on us. Especially if he tries to pull a Hillary. If he comes out and says, for instance, that he should get a majority of FL and MI delegates, just because he is winning, I'll kick.
Do you guys seriously think I am totally out of bounds here? I really am missing how this doesn't just piss everyone off.
Praise Jesus and pass the ammo.
