Hillary trying to play CRAZY re-vote politics. PATHETIC !

[RBInMaine]

Hillary has either been unbalanced or greedy enough (or both) to actualy suggest that Michigan delegates be seated as is according to the original vote, even though SHE was the only one who refused to take her name off the ballot and there was no real campaign there. Can ANYONE in their right mind support someone who would say such a crazy thing? It's unreal. And in FL she wants the same thing even though there was no campaign. Almost as crazy ! Obama HAS NOT said he won't support
re-votes. He has said they must be fair and certified by the DNC. He IS NOT "suing" on any re-vote plan. He has simply stated some concerns about fairness on the current MI plan (and they are damn valid - i.e. going midstream into a closed primary rather than the traditional open primary thus disenfranchising many voters who voted the first time and NOT allowing them to re-vote as well - gee how democratic is that???).
IT IS THE MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE WHO SAYS IT DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS THE RE-VOTE PLAN THERE, AND IT IS FLORIDIANS WHO ARE SAYING THE SAME THERE. NOT OBAMA !! So let's quit the BS the here. All said, just settle down here. There WILL be FAIR plans drawn up to allow the FL and MI delegates. Other compromise plans are already in the works. So Hillary, stop trying to play politics with this, stop distorting the situation, and start playing FAIR and not CRAZY !

[LordJFT]

1. of course it's her last dangling hope

[ThatBozGuy]

8. The Michigan Legislature is on easter break for two weeks and Ms Clinton knew it and yet.....

She went before the public and insinuated any delay from here is Mr Obama.
Ms Clinton knows nothing can change for at least two weeks

Lies by omission of information that is known to you are still lies.

[hedgehog]

2. The worst part of this is that the cable networks cut away from Obama's

speech on Iraq and national security (He finished up by listing global warming as one of the major threats we are ignoring) just to cover her self serving demands on Michigan.

[DemzRock]

There was no agreement to take the candidate's names off the balot..

so far as I understand. The only agreement was to not campaign. Right?

Sounds like you want to toss out Michigan's votes because they didn't or may not go the way you want?

Don't like democracy, eh?

[lapfog_1]

9. No, the agreement, signed by Hillary and Obama

and most of the other major candidates, says "will not participate" in non sanctioned elections. The only reason that Edwards and Obama appeared on the Florida ballot is that it was too late to have their names removed. It wasn't too late for the Michigan election and they followed the agreement to "not participate". Hillary must have a different definition of "not participate" (I'm pretty sure she knew that the others were honoring the agreement by removing their names... and she chose to do something different).

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Still

there was no requirement that they remove their names from the ballot. None whatsoever. No matter how many times you tell a lie, it's still a lie.

[Exilednight]

21. Hmmm, let's take a look at the pledge..........

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _____________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

If you're going to argue about the definition of participate, then you might as well argue the definition of who what is, is.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. And you INTERPRET it to mean

they have to remove their names. Alas, you can't find any contemporary statement from Howard Dean or the DNC backing up your interpretation. In fact, you can't find any statement from them in the intervening months saying the candidates were obligated to remove their names.

[Exilednight]

24. So what does the word partcipate mean to you? .........

To those of us who well versed in the English language, it means that you do not take part in the activity. In this case, the activity was a primary, and leaving your name on the ballot is taking part in that activity.

For someone of so much intelligence, does Hillary really need the DNC to tell her that "do not participate" means "take your name off the ballot". It's kind of funny when you think about it, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, didn't need to be told what participate means. Every last one of them is just as intelligent as Hillary is.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Again

You're arguing interpretation. Nobody at the time said that the names had to be removed in order to comply with the pledge. Not Howard Dean, not the DNC, nobody. Not even the candidates.

[Exilednight]

27. It's not interpretation, it's common sense and understanding the English language. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Of course it's an interpretation

and why didn't anybody say Clinton (et. al.) say so at the time? Not the DNC, not Howard Dean, not the other candidates. How come nobody screamed "Hey! She's breaking the pledge!!" at that time?

[ThatBozGuy]

20. Ms Clinton said that the other Democrats, Mr Edwards, Mr Obama and all are Anti American

Because they pulled their names off of the ballot, by inference she is implying that the Democratic party in the form of the DNC are anti American because of the sanctions for the failures to follow the rules, it doesn't get any clearer that she is abandoning the party unless she gets her way, it is time for the party to abandon her.

[ThatBozGuy]

12. Or participate , not just campaign.Im for a fair vote, legally sanctioned by the DNC. Unfortunately.

You cant get there from here.

Im for seating the delegates by caucus at the convention after the first vote.
Then the sanction of the DNC will have been upheld, the states would not have an unfair impact to either candidate,
and the people of both states will be represented.

[Usrename]

15. You sound as if you like good ol' Soviet style democracy.

With only one name on the ballot.

I don't understand why you want to play this as if you have the moral high ground. Six-year-olds know it isn't fair.

[DemzRock]

3. Sorry duplicate.

[FrenchieCat]

4. and calling it Anti-American as she attempts to

link it to being Obama's responsibility. Like we don't know what she's alluding to once again.

Samantha Power was correct in her assessment of Hillary Clinton.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Yep--she's awful.

[sniffa]

5. Her "win" in Michigan proves why she shouldn't be the nominee

She didn't even top 70% in a Communist, Cold War era election.

[TwilightGardener]

6. I just watched people blaming Obama on TV for not wanting a re-vote--WTF?

It's not totally UP to him, first off, and he certainly should be allowed to ensure that it's fair, if it does happen. But once again, the Monster lies her stupid ass off and the media buys her framing.

[phrigndumass]

10. If you look at "The Math" ... you'll see why Senator Clinton might want this

Out of all the scenarios, it's the only way possible to have a shot at winning the popular votes. It's the only one left where she might win. This effort is last-ditch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5158791



On Edit: Spelling

[riverdeep]

19. Oh, there's one more way she could 'win'.

It's the nuclear option. She could pull a Lieberman. Run as an Independent. She won't win the general, of course. But she would take away enough votes away from Obama to give it to McCain. She's counting on McCain to be a one-termer, giving her one more shot in 2012. Note that this would be HER thinking, not my assessment. Personally, if she did that, she would be as hated as Nader, and rightly so.

[phrigndumass]

22. Interesting

Just ... interesting. I hadn't "really" considered that yet. Afraid to think of it.

[riverdeep]

11. I've lost what little respect I had for the Clintons after the last three weeks.

They are power-hungry, and that's it. A good way to test the validity of an argument is to see what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. If this were Obama doing this, wouldn't everyone see right through this? Does she really think she 'won' when all the choices weren't available to the voters?

This is only the primary and she's already drunk on power. Frightening.

[The River]

14. I Don't Think She is Crazy

or greedy in a monetary sense. (Hell, if I had their money
I would be on hugh!1! yacht in the Caribbean.)

I think it goes to issues of ego.
She wants to prove how right she is,
how her vision is better than everyone else's.
Dare I say she wants to one-up her philandering spouse?
(They say payback is a bitch)
Mostly, she wants to go down in history as the FIRST woman President.
What is unforgivable is taking the Party down with her.

[EFerrari]

18. I think you are probably right. Too bad we have to pay for

her bad behavior.

[EFerrari]

16. She's a cheat that doesn't think rules matter.

Haven't we had ENOUGH of that?

[Life Long Dem]

17. She has to cheat.

For her to win she has to cheat.

What have we been working for since Bush stole the elections? Is Hillary wiping out all the progress by stealing an election?

[meow mix]

26. Can we agree now that she must go away from the party?

shes got to go.

[Scurrilous]

29. Kick

:kick:

[yuma300]

30. Polls show a majority of MI and FL dems. in favor of seating delegates

are they crazy too?