I’m trying to abide, tom, I really am…
You said the party leaders did not want a redo. That quote mentioned thousands of people, who could not be anything but voters. Someone upthread already provided a far more substantive rebuttal than you could care to give, though, so let’s let that drop.
Florida’s Democratic chairwoman isn’t substantive enough for you? She’s the HEAD of the Democratic Party in Florida, for heaven’s sake!
I’m tired of you waging this false claim. In fact, it is the CLINTON campaign, digging in their heels and demanding that either the delegates are seated ‘as is’ or complete re-votes are the only 2 options, while Obama’s campaign has offered to negotiate a compromise, which they have ceremoniously shot down, while tarring him with accusations of putting the future of this country at risk. How brazen!
But typical of them, it’s their way or the highway. THAT is why Hillary Clinton would SUCK as a President, and Barack Obama would shine. He’s willing to negotiate compromise, and she is NOT.
Quit saying he is advocating disenfranchising people! It is NOT true!
Hey Shayna, it’s not “NOT true” … it’s a misspeak.
When Hillary misspeaks, she really makes a job of it. This from the Air Force colonel who was the flight commander on Hillary’s trip to Bosnia. I posted it in the Bosnia thread but I think it bears repeating here.
(Essentially, he says that nothing she said actually happened. There was no evasive landing, no one was told to sit on their bulletproof vests (apparently this only happens in the movies; Apocalypse Now to be exact 
); no bullets were flying (the commander on the ground had things sewn up so tightly that “not even a bumblebee” was flying around); no order was given to run for the cars; etc., etc.)
She made that entire story up out of whole cloth.
I can’t believe it isn’t all over the news, but it’s already dropped off Drudge and I’ve seen nothing on it in the MSM. 
Gah, check this out:
Then scroll down to the comments. The rabid Obama supporters are the ones being divisive in the party. For the most part, in every debate I’ve read or seen between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters it’s been Clinton’s who’ve been – at the least – tactful. Why can’t the aggressive Obama supporters realize that by gnashing their teeth in apoplectic rage they are distancing themselves from the Dems who are on the fence between Obama and Clinton?
I genuinely liked Obama before I started to see his supporters. That fanboy fanaticism that his followers often have has completely turned me off to his possible nomination, though.
How very odd. Since after reading and listening to many of the same events, blogs, newspaper articles, etc., my opinion is exactly opposite. This thread provides a perfect example.
But I’m a definite outsider. Interested, but an outsider.
I’m sorry but I am an Obama supporter and have been for a long while, for you to say you are turned off to a candidate because of their supporters and not because of their personal integrity is … silly. I guess that’s about as negative as I should go in Great Debates. I’m not even sure why I responded to this post, Crocodiles And Boulevards appears to be baiting Obama supporters - guess I took the bait.
BTW - I see no reference that the kid who asked the question in the linked article was an Obamacon…
I always see this said at least once per election, and it never ceases to amaze me. It’s an even weaker form of guilt by association than the Jeremiah Wright stuff. You’re going to base your opinion of the man by the words of the lowest common denominator of his supporters, people whom he has no control over?
Would it be surprising that Tonya Harding fans liked Nancy Kerrigan more than Kerrigan fans liked Harding? When the campaign is overwhelmingly dirty in one direction, those are exactly the results you should expect. Obama supporters despise Hillary for the filthy campaign she has run. If she had stayed on the high road, I could have lived with her although she was my #8 Democratic choice from the start. Now she almost makes Cheney look cuddly.
Apparently Clinton has hit a new low, her personal ratings are the lowest recorded by NBC-WJS Polls in 7 years. Yes, it’s true, people think Clinton sucks. Finally, some confirmation. 
This puzzles me, too. And yet Joe Scarborough (for one) is still replaying the Wright speeches for his morning viewers. Methinks he is playing saboteur for the Republicans, and also trying to keep Hillary alive. He keeps saying he doesn’t think the Bosnia remarks are as big a deal as the Wright speeches. Whaz…huh? You mean factual misrepresentations by an actual candidate are less important than inflammatory remarks by one of the other candidate’s supporters? How’s that work?
I don’t get it. I don’t see anything so bad in the comments. Regardless it makes little sense to judge a candidate because of a few distasteful or overzealous supporters. They all have them.
So, Obama gets to vote over and over until he gets the results he wants, then we count them. Great.
**
Spiny Norman Generally, things in the Dem Convention are handled by votes, delagets being the voters. Obama has a slight majority of said delegate, thus votes, thus more or less, he gets what he wants. Unless the SuperDelegates decide they really want to win the general election, thus they need MI & Fla, thus they over-rule him.
Shayna Your “cite” (that Clinton is the one refusing to compromise, while we all know it’s Obama) is a blog. :rolleyes: Got a reliable, unbiased cite? :dubious:
Underlining mine. I’m just makig sure we’re on the same page - If supers decide they want to win the general election in november they should overrule Obama and vote Clinton???
This makes no sense to me, not because I am an Obama supporter but because you think Clinton would beat McCain - and that you appear to infer the supers should supercede popular opinion and vote against Obama. Sounds foolish to me if they actually did do that.
What on earth are you talking about?
Kinda funny since a couple of months ago you said that none of the voters were disenfranchised. What changed your mind?
No, they should over-rule Obama and vote to let Fla & MI in (with maybe some penalty). This should not be enough to overcome Obama’s lead.
Bosstone: In reply to "
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
Why should they want a RE-vote? They voted, but your candidate is making sure their votes aren’t counted. Why should they need to revote? Why not just use the vote they already cast?
*Because the results are tainted by the knowledge that the votes wouldn’t count.
*"
They voted, we shoudl count their votes. It is the will of the people, right? :dubious:
No, I didn’t say that I wouldn’t vote for him. I said that it killed my enthusiasm.
Do you prefer cake or death?
It wasn’t a contest conducted fairly. If Florida had played by the rules and still turned out overwhelmingly for Clinton, that’s life. If they did a revote and turned out for Clinton, fine. But the circumstances in which the votes were taken as they stand are illegitimate by the DNC’s rules. You can call it disenfranchising the voters, but it’s as much disenfranchisement as is not registering to vote until after the cutoff date and thus being unable to participate in the election.
Dude, wait - what? Has Obama voted more than once? Where? When? Halp!
Cool. I’ll remember that for when the convention begins. Does it have anything to do with a Florida/Miami do-over?
Or are you saying that at the convention, the Dems will be forced to throw the voters in those states a bone to prevent them from voting McCain in the general election? I can see how that could be sorta logical, but that would mean adding to the delegate count in the middle of the convention, I guess. Does Robert’s Rules of Order cover that eventuality? Would it work?