Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

There Is No 'Nuclear Option' for Hillary to Seize the Nomination at the Dem Convention

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted May 5, 2008.


The speculation that Hillary's campaign might try to override the voting process to get the nomination ignores DNC rules.
Advertisement

The presidential campaign has entered a new phase, where reports alleging how Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) could win the nomination -- apart from winning the delegates or the nationwide popular vote among Democrats -- are emerging in the national media.

Take the most recent example, from The Huffington Post, entitled, "Clinton Camp Says It Will Use The Nuclear Option." The website's headline is not referring to what Clinton may or may not do, if elected president, to Iran if it attacks Israel with nuclear weapons. It is referring to a report by Thomas B. Edsall, a very respected reporter, on the scenario involving the seating of Michigan and Florida delegations at the party's convention.

As most people know, those two states were stripped of their delegates after breaking party rules and holding early nominating contests.

Edsall writes, "with at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives."

The problems with this report -- and other speculative pieces like it -- is that the Rules and Bylaws Committee is not the last stop in the DNC committee process on the question of seating Florida and Michigan delegates. The DNC Credentials Committee is, and there, according to members interviewed throughout the nominating season, many delegates seem to believe following the party's rules -- i.e., winning delegates state by state -- is paramount, as is respecting the primary season's popular vote winner.

In other words, there is a bigger picture and more to the process than the next hurdle in the horse race coverage, namely, the Rules Committee's meeting on May 31.

"Any issues surrounding the seating of delegates will be addressed by the DNC's RBC (Rules and Bylaws Committee) and/or the Convention's Credentials Committee -- though no formal agenda has been set yet for the RBC meeting," said Natalie Wyeth, Democratic national Convention Committee press secretary, in an e-mail Monday. "Yes, RBC meets in late May and the Cred Cmte (Credentials Committee) won't meet until later in the summer."

In fact, some of the delegates on the Credential Committee -- including 25 appointed by DNC Chairman Howard Dean -- are growing tired of the Clinton campaign's efforts to create new goal posts by which to judge the candidate's fitness for the nomination.

"The Credentials Committee is going to be the final word," said a committee member who didn't want to be named. The committee is comprised of representatives from each state plus the DNC chairman's appointees.

"There are 186 people on the committee. That includes 25 appointees by Howard Dean," this super-delegate said. "The people who are loyal to Howard will vote on what is best for the country but you can't say what that is at this point."

When asked to explain what "best for the country" meant, they said, "It will depend on who honestly won this -- who has the most delegates and who has the most popular votes. That is who won the contest. That is what it will boil down to."

That sentiment is markedly different from the current standard being offered by the Clinton campaign -- that the nominee should be the candidate party elders judge as best-able to beat Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in the fall.

While it remains to be seen how the nomination will unfold, the Obama campaign is increasingly aware that their fate may not lie with the results of the primary season. At a meeting with national finance committee members in Indianapolis last Friday, Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe reportedly told his top donors their candidate had already won the nomination based on the delegate selection math. However, he also reportedly said they expected the Clinton campaign to not follow those party rules.

The DNC's Wyeth also cautioned against mischaracterizing what will unfold as the party's committees meet in the weeks and months before the convention.

"The DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee has yet to set their agenda for their May meeting," she said. "On the Credentials Committee question, the majority of the panel's membership has yet to be appointed, so it would be premature to speculate on how they may vote on any given issue."

But among those that already have been appointed, there is a feeling that the Credentials Committee should not go against the decisions of primary and caucus voters, the super-delegate on that panel said. That means what Clinton supporters envision for the Rules Committee in its May meeting could be undone by the Credentials Committee in June.

Meanwhile, there is another important scenario: the voters could decide. Either candidate could win decisively in the remaining primary contests and the other could withdraw for the good of their political party.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, hillary clinton, dnc, rules committee, credentials commitee

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of "What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election," with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's over
Posted by: PaulK on May 5, 2008 6:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary needs to win both Indiana and North Carolina by about 50 points each to have any chance of swaying enough superdelegates to win the nomination. I can read the polls today. It's not in the cards. A mere 5 point win in one of the two remaining states is like whipping the last place horse hard to come in second to last. Whoopie, but it doesn't change who won.

I am bored with any story that says Hillary has a chance. These chances are media fabrications created to be "fair" to a losing candidate. They do the American public a disservice.

Miss Sweetie Poo is bored. She's bored. She's bored. She's still bored. She wants something else that's not boring. She's bored, ok? You wouldn't bore a cute little girl, would you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hardly Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Project Limbaugh (13)? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Project Limbaugh Posted by: westomoon
Obama's Money Cartel
Posted by: Mystery Solver on May 5, 2008 7:03 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why is the “yes, we can” candidate in bed with this cartel? How can “we”, the people, make change if Obama’s money backers block our ability to be heard?"

http://www.counterpunch.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama's Money Cartel Posted by: drsoft
» They all accept dirty money Posted by: fanny666
» Project Limbaugh? (12) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Hillary Gets a Free Ride
Posted by: AlexLawyer on May 5, 2008 7:08 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary would do literally anything to become president, so don't count her out yet. It's instructive that so many people who know her well and have long ties to the Clintons have publicly come out for Obama. She's a narcissist, a shameless liar and a flake, although this is hidden. So much is made of a few provocative sound bites from Reverend Wright's 40 year career and Obama's 20 years as a member of his parish, but nothing is said of Hillary's White House necromancy attempting to contact Eleanor Roosevelt or her long, deep involvement with a secretive, invitation-only cult, the Fellowship, consisting of rich, powerful, far right wing fundamentalist Christians.

Obama's service on a community organization's board with a former student radical was much tutted, but no one pointed out that Bill Clinton had pardoned the man's fellow radical wife. Hillary does get a free ride from the corporate media, and that alone should tell you to support Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Project Limbaugh? (11) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Numbers don't lie people.
Posted by: Nozka on May 5, 2008 8:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't take much math to figure out that HC can't win. She needs 67% of the remaining popular vote to beat out Obama in pledged delagates - that's something she couldn't even do in New York. Meanwhile, the gap in superdelagates is closing. Please Hillary, give it up and step aside. You are losing the last shred of respect I had for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hope the DNC and super Ds will take this into consideration...
Posted by: foreverhope on May 5, 2008 8:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the "Pledge" that all Dem candidates signed where they agreeed not to campaign or "particpate" in the Michigan and Florida primaries?

Lying and pandering are not a sign of 'toughness' or 'electability', they are signs of a lack of integrity and character. Senator Clinton has shown herself to be unworthy of the office that she seeks with the tactics that she employs.

Even if she gets the apportioned delegates from Florida and Michigan, and delegates from landslide victories in the remaining states, she STILL loses.

It's a special characteristic of the Clintons that they think that just because they are delusional, the rest of the world must think exactly the same way.

Do Clinton supporters realize that the reason she hasn't been booted out of the nomination process is ONLY because she's a Clinton? It's not because she has a chance of winning. Deal with it.

By 1998 under the Clinton co-presidency, the GOP gained 48 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, 11 governorships, and 1,254 seats in state legislatures, and that during their tenure, 439 (out of 1,998 Democrats) became Republicans as opposed to 3 Republicans who became Democrats.

Clinton destroyed the Party in the 90s and they are doing it again.

1. Which campaign has demonstrated the organization, leadership, inspirational motivation, overwhelming grassroots growth, and consistency of message since Iowa?

2. With content of character being at the very core of Democratic values, which campaign is truly committed to genuine transparency, advocating full disclosure of any and all monetary sources (ie. where did a spare $5,000,000 come from?)

3. Which candidate is truly less polarizing and has the greatest ability to reach across party lines in Congress to actually get things done in Washington?

4. As a Democratic voter, does it matter if one campaign destroys another with all out negativity, essentially arming Republicans with damaging political ammo and a more likely victory for Republicans in November? (While it may be fair, is it ethical?)

5. Which candidate offers the clearest contrast to the current administration appealing to the overwhelming sentiment that where we are is not where we want to be?

6. While it doesn't necessarily affect the political process here in the U.S. - does it matter to you that there is overwhelming International support for one of these candidates and do you think that this support might ultimately strengthen the U.S. alliances worldwide?

Hillary's claim that the Michigan and Florida primaries were "fair" and should be validated by the DNC is yet another example of the "do anything, say anything" candidate's pursuit of a return engagement to the White House regardless of merit.

The Clintons' refusal to release their tax returns, Clinton Library contributors and other important financial information for fair vetting by the press and the voters is at the very least questionable. And do it now before another round of primary voting rather than later; but that won't happen. The Clintons will continue to stonewall the issue and shift the focus by attacking Obama.

This entire Clinton campaign, a low, nasty exercise of "win at all cost" that will surely hurt the Democratic prospects in the general election and in particular all the down-ticket Democrats who are running for Congress. Not that the Clintons care about the Democratic Party or its prospects for controlling both houses of Congress. After all first and foremost its a family business to them and they are Clintoncrats way before they are Democrats.

ENOUGH NONSENSE, TIME TO TAKE ON THE GOP, SUPER Ds, BARACK YOUR VOTES!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Project Limbaugh (14)? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Who exactly would do anything to win? Posted by: sallythewally
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on May 6, 2008 12:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton/Lieberman in '08

(kidding)


Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She Can't Win
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 6, 2008 2:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clintonistas have forgotten a very important fact of political life: a Democratic candidate seeking the presidency cannot possibly win without a huge turn out of African Americans. Come election day, many people will remember the vicious race baiting of Hillary and her cohoarts and many of them will end up staying home - or voting for Ralph Nader.

Hillary Clinton is never going to be president of the United States. Get used to the idea. Come to think about it, as a resident of New York state, I don't even want her to be renominated for the senate four years from now. I'm sick of her.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» McKinney, not Nader Posted by: westomoon
» Project Limbaugh? (14) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: She Can't Win Posted by: CatDad
Now that Super Delegates Matter Even More…
Posted by: KathyNicholas on May 6, 2008 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LobbyDelegates.com Lets Ordinary Voices Be Heard

The unconstrained votes of some 800 top Democratic Party officials, known as Super Delegates, now matter even more following the Pennsylvania Primary, which continued to leave both Presidential candidates short of the 2,024 primary-pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Those believing these Party insiders (who include governors, mayors, state and Congressional lawmakers) should be more accountable to rank-and-file Democrats, can now have their voices heard through www.LobbyDelegates.com. This one-stop portal is the first and only one empowering grassroots Democrats to directly communicate with their state’s Super Delegates – via email, fax or postal letters.

LobbyDelegates.com maintains lists of Super Delegates who have endorsed Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or are still uncommitted. Users can, with one click, target all uncommitted Super Delegates and urge them to publicly endorse a certain candidate, or remain uncommitted. Users can similarly lobby Super Delegates to keep an existing commitment, or switch to the other candidate.

Although Sen. Obama leads with 1,490 pledged delegates to 1,336 for Sen. Clinton, neither would attain 2,024 even if one or the other won two-thirds of the remaining primary delegates. While Clinton leads among Super Delegates, 259 to 235, Obama has narrowed this gap steadily over the past six weeks. Over 300 Super Delegates remain uncommitted.

The LobbyDelegates.com website is strictly independent, and is not aligned with any political party, candidate, campaign or advocacy group. LobbyDelegates.com was created as a public service under the auspices of the nonprofit StateDemocracy Foundation, whose similar civic engagement website, www.StateDemocracy.com, is dedicated to delivering democracy to your desktop by connecting citizens and lawmakers.

Thousands have visited LobbyDelegates.com since it was launched on April 3. Since then, the website has been upgraded by adding a blog, the ability to invite friends, and free email delivery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She will use Nukes to steal the election and Begin 'Armegeddon'
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 6, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a 2 time Bill voter in the '90's adn an Avid Defender of Both. I Apologize, Not for Bill but Becaue of this Psychotic woman who has Ridden his Coattail into a Postion of Power.
I Began to dislike her with the Iraq vote, began to Blame her for the loss of Constituional Rights and The Corps Fleecing of US.I have begun to HATE her on the Campagin Trail- Neo con tactics, Cheney Style Rhetoric. BUT NOW I FEAR HER! She tipped her Theological hand with the proclaimation she would "Obliterate Iran" if they attacked Isreal, the saudis or the UAE. This is PURE HAGEE DOCTRINE AND AGENDA. Ithought she was 'just' a Corportionist wlling to place Mankind on the Auction Block for the Greed of Multinationals. NOW I SEE she intends to begin the 'End of Days' which HAGEE has laid out so that SHE may Be One of the 'RAPTURD' she is a Sociopath like the rest of the Political 'leaders' who support and Praise this meglomaniac.
Go ahead TRY to Use Rev Wright- We'll Lay you out with HAGEE et al- Insane 'White Evangelicals' who are no longer willing to kill themselves and their followers- but willing and ABLE to kill the Rest of Mankind to Provoke this self fulfilling Prophecy.
If Bush & Cheney Can't get this Ball Rolling SHE WILL- that statemnet was a Head Nod & Wink to That Dangerous Theology!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Project Limbaugh (10)? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
What Democrats Really Want
Posted by: operatordude on May 6, 2008 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama once said that it makes a real difference if he gets the top of the ticket, but many people beg to differ. Most democrats want Bill Clinton back as president and would like Obama to be the second black president. Perhaps the most likely way that can happen is if Obama proves he is the better person, by excepting the vice presidential spot, allowing Hillary to win in a landslide, but taking a lot of crap doing so. Thereby allowing Obama to waltz into the presidency after Hillary.

Finally, nip the growing popularity of Nader in the bud, by publicly offering him a position in the Clinton & Obama Administration. Game over, McCain looses!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rn
Posted by: mnatra on May 6, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this whole subject is so painful to the average voter.Every time i read about the Democratic race i get sick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What are the rules?
Posted by: jcleland on May 6, 2008 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mass media continues to try to influence how this contest should turn out. The reality is that they have no plan for covering a convention that elects a nominee at 4:00 AM. That wouldn't fit into their best interest. I think the rules are clear. If you dom't have enough delegate votes to win, then it is up to the delegates to decide what arguements make sense and which don't. To say that the popular vote accumulated by some less than fair means should be the deciding factor ignores many other valid considerations. As a Michigan Democrat I am aware of the fact our delegates are being disciplined, but I have read very little about how New Hampshire broke the rules and didn't get disciplined. Spend less effort telling us what might happen and more reminding us of what happened in the past when no nominee had sufficient delegates to win before the convention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Project Limbaugh? (9) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Imagine if it was Edwards vs. Kucinich, instead of Obama vs. Clinton
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 6, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it not just a little bit odd that those two white male candidates are both more progressive and far less beholden to Wall Street corporate interests than either of the "historic" candidates?

It was historic when women and minorities entered public office and mainstream political life - gosh, didn't that start in the 60s and 70s?

A historic president would be one whose ass wasn't already owned by their corporate donors before the election ever began. Christ, have you heard all three of them sucking up to the energy barons that run this country? "Clean Coal"? Ye gods. They also seem unable to mention the constitution.

This is precisely the situation that corporate media hatchet artists wanted to produce, on the orders of their controlling shareholders, who are also major shareholders in Exxon, etc.

Look at Disney, who owns ABC: Top ten shareholders:

FMR LLC (Fidelity)
STATE STREET CORPORATION
Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd
VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE)
SOUTHEASTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
Clearbridge Advisors, LLC
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
JENNISON ASSOCIATES LLC
AXA

Or look at CNN, owned by TimeWarner:

DODGE & COX INC
Capital Research Global Investors
Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd
FMR LLC
FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC
STATE STREET CORPORATION
AXA
VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE)
MORGAN STANLEY
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC

These guys have made untold billions due to the fact that a gang of corrupt criminals (i.e. the Republican Party) has taken over the White House, started a war, hacked all government regulations to pieces, all while breaking laws and trampling on the constitution - and getting away with it because our lying, slimy, dishonest bootlicking American media, staffed by drunken bitter editors, sneering powerlusting executives and timid ass-kissing reporters, bends over backwards to please their corporate owners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Think of November
Posted by: robchapman on May 6, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats have had a great run so far in 08.

Although NYS Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace, his successor, David Patterson has shown aplomb and acumen in dealing with the state's daunting governmental challenges.

The Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives won special elections in two solidly Republican districts- one in the Chicago suburbs and the other in Louisiana.

The Democratic victories in the Congressional special elections indicate that the public has rejected the GOP, its culture of corruption, its incompetence and its disregard for the well being of the citizenry.

It is important to bear in mind that the objective of the Democratic nomination process is to choose the candidate who will be the best President and TO UNITE BEHIND THE NOMINEE.

There are two parts to the small d democratic process. Part one is advocating for one's position and making the best possible case for its acceptance.

Part two is accepting the decision of the majority and working to implement it in the most fair and effective manner possible.

The Democratic Party will require BOTH of its wings if it is to fly in the general election.

Hillary supporters and Obama supporters alike are good Democrats. We need to stay focussed on January 09 and assuring that the country get the best President.

Either Hillary or Barak will be better for the people than the Paladin of the Privileged, John McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course there's a nuclear option
Posted by: JohnJlws on May 6, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To suggest Hillary has no nuclear option is to take the last 16 years and discard them. Of course there’s a nuclear option. What is it? Is it effective? Will it work?

Who knows?

I can see Bill standing up at the convention, working some of her supporters into a lather and a third of the convention walking out parading behind this “leader.” I can see her, after much “soul searching,” “contemplation,” “discussion with unnamed advisors” and “prayer” (of course “prayer” as when you’re pandering you can’t have enough of this crap) deciding an independent run for the White House is really the only way to save the Democratic Party and “yes” America.

There’s a nuclear option. There are machines in primarily Obama supportive areas that are not working (in droves) today. There are anomalies in these same areas that are disenfranchising hosts of Obama voters. How do I know this? Because it has happened in every single state where there has been a primary since Obama became the presumptive nominee. He’s not only been fighting the Clintons, but he’s been fighting the manipulation and blatant disregard for what is right for months and months. I caught a glimpse of a nuclear option in my precinct, in my caucus and when the spread wasn't enough supporters manipulated, twisted or broke the rules at the convention and gained more delegates to the state where they'll gain a few more. By the time any complaints work their way through the system, we’ll be reelecting the next president.

The Swift Boat Clowns for Innuendo and Half-Truths were fined for violation of election rules a number of years after GW took office. They came out and said they had elected a president, so essentially who cares? The Clintons taught that lesson to them.

With the Clintons it’s all about the Clintons, so to suggest that there’s no nuclear option because a logical path does not exist to one doesn’t come close to understanding their myopic vision for themselves. This thing, from the outset, has never been about what’s best for the country, what’s best for the middle class, what’s best for the working class or the working poor. For the Clintons this thing has been about the Clintons. In their minds what is best for the Clintons has always been what is best for America.

Of course Hillary has a nuclear option to steal the nomination; it’s what the Clintons do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Project Limbaugh? (8) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Beautiful post Posted by: westomoon
» What is also disturbing Posted by: JohnJlws
Young and Innocent
Posted by: dockboy on May 6, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're all quite naive, if you believe Obama will change anything. Sure Obama hasn't taken contributions from oil companies. That's illegal, and he'd get nailed for it. But he'll gladly take contributions from individuals who are on the boards of these oil companies. Ah, the folly of the young and innocent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Young and Innocent Posted by: helenwheels
» Limbaugh's Project Chaos? (7) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Young and Innocent Posted by: Tom Tele
Conspiracy theory #9
Posted by: solrev on May 6, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before this process began the demons knew Clinton would be the next president. The repuks were campaigning against Clinton before they even had a candidate. Even today Rove is backing Clinton. This election was supposed to be a throw the bums out election and bring in some other bums, a good old purple pinky democratic election like in Iraq. Something happened on the way to the inaugural ball; Obama and the young people got in the way. Don’t those children know that they should be seen and not heard and the audacity of a black man to run for the president of the United States. If by some hook or crook Clinton ends up the nominee, I hope Obama will do the right thing and run as an independent. If he really is a candidate of change, which I would not bet my last dollar on, then he needs to act like it. Obama needs to run as an independent and make a statement to the future. This may make McCain the winner but that might not be as bad as everyone thinks. They did not expect him to be there either. We would at least get a change from their complete control of the process, better McCain than Clinton. I keep hearing that the party needs to win this election. How does it benefit a party when their person gets elected? Are we the people electing a party or a president?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It is all the same conspiracy Posted by: 23skidoo
» Limbaugh's Project Chaos? (6) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Steven Rosenfeld gives new meaning to the word "naive"
Posted by: HughScott on May 6, 2008 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course the Clintons have a "nuclear option." And they will use it with a vengeance to steal the nomination from Obama.

Mrs. Sniper Fire has everything to gain, nothing to lose. If the nuclear option fails and McCain beats Barack in November, she will have a second, uncontested chance in 2012 to win the Democratic nomination, God forbid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Limbaugh's Project Chaos (5) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
LAWS ARE LAWS -- RULES ARE RULES
Posted by: Bob Graham Las Vegas on May 6, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMO The status of Florida and Michigan are the result of the Democrat Party leaders in each state and the people of the states themselves . Are citizens so blind they can not see the similarity between illegal immigrants and illegal Democratic Party works ? If the votes do come into play in regards to the primary , then why have rules at all ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All These Scenarios
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 6, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of these wicked Hillary scenarios serve the purposes to keep the Obama flock rightous and fired up about potential injustices to their candidate. It's a political campaign, the rest of the primaries will be held, delegates will be awarded, superdelegates will make up their minds and there will be a decision made. This is the process that the Democrats set up to select their presidential candidate. It allows for the process to go to convention. There is a tremendous amount of pressure being applied to super delegates and a lot of money being put out there to influence people. Democrats have to come together and put aside their differences, support the candidate selected, work their neighborhoods and state to insure that the Democrat gets elected in the November election. I'm in the minority here, but I'd like to see a ticket that includes both of these candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What?
Posted by: RobNLA on May 6, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've heard this argument over and over, that somehow Obama should just take a VP slot to Hillary even though he has been chosen by more voters, has won more primaries and has more delegates.

Sorry but just because Hillary is not a graceful loser doesn't mean everyone else should just step aside and annoint her president. The primary process is based on what the voters want and they want Obama more than Hillary. If she was so concerned about what voters want she would be the one to step down for the good of the Dem party and support Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Love it! Posted by: westomoon
» Limbaugh's Project Chaos? (4) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Playing a losing hand
Posted by: jebpgh on May 6, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clintons (yes, both of them) lost this race in Virginia. When she got stomped after twelve or thirteen successive primaries, she should have acknowledged that Obama was the party's logical pick and supported him. She and her husband knew well that what they were doing could very well destroy a party that needed to unite and focus on the November races - all of them. They chose not to for mostly selfish reasons as far as I can see.

I once said that had she stepped down then it would have been regarded as an act of political courage and grace. Unity trumped ambition. As it continues to play out, the risk of losing the presidency to a man who will continue the Bush legacies on issues of national security and foreign affairs is very, very real. We will need a veto-proof majority in the Congress to survive the next four years if that turns out to be the case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Limbaugh's Project Chaos? (3) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
She will win Indina with Limbaugh republicans, Anti-black Democrats
Posted by: aamer923 on May 6, 2008 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and Corrupt Clinton Loyalists. That is why she is still in the race.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Limbaugh's Project Chaos? (2) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
elephantitis
Posted by: Quasar on May 6, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could it be that the campaign has actually turned Clinton into a Republican? Could it be that she isn't just pandering with the gas tax or isn't simply spouting rhetorical bluster when it comes to obliterating Iran or merely misspeaking when it comes to her diplomatic experience or . . . could it be?

Could it be that she has realized the one political truth that Republicans have known for a long time: that lying is power?

She has looked into the abyss. And she likes what she sees.

I think McCain had better watch his back because the race for the Republican ticket is closer than he thinks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Limbaugh's Project Chaos? (1) Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Another Turdblossom masterpiece
Posted by: willymack on May 6, 2008 11:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats are naturally quarrelsome and have been historically so. This is a made-to-order situation for the likes of karl rove to work his evil magic. Keeping the Clinton and Obama camps at each other's throats plays right into the hands of the rovian fascists as it diverts attention from a rethug candidate whose position(s) are weak to say the least, and insane in several aspects. The aim here is to create so much animosity among Democrats that if Clinton gets the nomination, enough Obama supporters will vote for mcsame, out of pure spite, to put him over the top. Same thing if Obama gets the nod. If this election is even close, the bushie goon squad will falsify the results as thay did in 2000 & 2004, with the "supreme" court acting as backup, if needed. Turdblossom & co. win. We lose, again.

[« Reply to