There’s a legitimate reason that Illinois even has the option to vote ‘Present’. It does serve a purpose besides your contention that it means he refused to take a stand one way or the other.
In fact, in the specific example cited in the link above, one of Obama’s ‘Present’ votes was on a bill that he sponsored. But when it came back around, a provision had been added that was problematic in that it potentially violated the First Amendment. As it happens, a version of that bill did pass the Legislature, but the Senate version that had the problematic language was vetoed by the Governor.
You’ll never accept the truth because you’ve already made up your mind to grasp the talking points your candidate is spewing. But thank you for giving me the opportunity to educate others reading here, who might not have understood the nuances that differ between the Illinois State Legislature and other states or that of our Federal Government, and who are open to making up their minds based on facts, not unfounded accusations.
I don’t have any problem with supporting Obama over Clinton on the strength of Clinton’s behavior in this campaign. I don’t have any great need to have everyone agree to a characterization of it as “cheating.”
I’m also keeping my eye on the ball. Which, in this case, is ensuring that a Republican is not the POTUS on January 21, 2009.
Believe me, I am not the one who is deluded. Is it a fact that she agreed not not count the delegates from Michigan and Florida? If so, then any attempt to now get them counted violates basic ethics of fair play. Why that’s so complicated that you can’t understand it, I’m not sure, but it’s really not hard for the rest of us to figure out.
Your complaint is *entirely * with the Powers That Be in that case, not the team. With the rulemakers’ changing the rules, not the requestors’ requesting it.
Unless, that is, you simply dislike that team and are looking for any reason you can find to bash them. In which case “whining” is the most that fits. cricetus, do learn to read your own links, would you? That one describes exactly what I said. Shayna, if you’re no longer interested in addressing anything I’ve actually said, then have a nice day.
Not if the requestor has undue influence on the “powers that be” that is not available to the other team, because of a longer history playng dirty politics.
Oh, whatever. Fine, forget the word “dirty.” Change my post to…
If you need a cite to tell you that Hillary has been in politics longer and is more politically connected than Obama, then maybe you shouldn’t even be having this conversation.
If you can’t provide any reason to show that Clinton has more “control” of the DNC than does Obama, then YOU shouldn’t be having a conversation that claims she does.
I honestly don’t see what you mean. The story suggests that Hillary winked at the rules and came as close as possible to campaigning in Florida – then staged a “victory” party, which all makes since now that she wants the delegates to be seated. I imagine her strategy was to confuse America about what happened, to make them think that Florida had an ordinary primary that won’t count for some reason. Quibbling over whether it’s “cheating” or “Calvinball” or anything else is so far beside the point, and going on attack mode because some people see it that way shows the rhetorical weaseling of a Clinton and the blame-the-critics lack of accountability of a Bush.
You know what Hillary did was cheap, and you know we have a right to be pissed about it. You know that winning that way casts a shadow over the legitimacy of a Hillary victory. The fact is, she fundamentally played dirty, and you know it. Your options are to forgive her or hold her accountable, but knock it off with the lawyering and deflection.
If you don’t get why she has more political clout than Obama, then you don’t know much about politics. I’m not going to attempt to “prove” she does, because I don’t care. I actually hope she wins the nomination, to be honest with you.
But I’ll say this. If Hillary DOES manage to get those delegates counted, that will be all the proof I need that she has more influence, because there is no sane reason that the DNC should want to help her get the nomination. Obama has a much better chance of beating McCain than she ever will.
No dog in this fight, but you do know that Obama broke the rules about campaigning in Florida first, right? Like Clinton, he was having private fundraisers in the state (which is within the rules) - but holding a presser across the street with cameras and microphones isn’t.
It doesn’t seem like he planned to do anything against the rules. And of course, the big difference here is that Obama didn’t try to get any delegates from his appearances there. I knew about Hillary’s appearances there and didn’t think anything of it until she staged her “victory party” and then the handwriting was on the wall – she was going try to get those delegates counted, and her fundraising appearances the days before the pseudo-primary were no coincidence.
You said she broke the rules. Now you say she didn’t really. Wha ev, dude. :rolleyes:
The facts be damned, burn the witch! :rolleyes:
You “don’t care” what the facts are, only about nursing your outrage and denouncing those who unaccountably don’t share it? This is *Great Debates * here, not the BBQ Pit. Try it over there instead, will you?
Your conduct has been more full of bile and blame than anyone else’s, I’m afraid. I seriously doubt there’s any progress to be made here. I think I’ll say my own “good day,” and grab lunch.
I dunno what “lawyering” means, but as you’ve mentioned, perception is reality in politics.
If the delegates from Florida (and especially Michigan) are seated, and it contributes (perhaps with the superdelegates) to a situation where the winner with them seated is different than the winner without them seated, there will be a load of message management to do, lest it be perceived as not-kosher.
I am sympathetic to arguments either way, but when it comes down to it, the delegates were sacrificed and they can’t come back. The fact that the voters knew that their democratic primary vote was not supposed to count influenced turnout for the democrats.
If it were Obama who was ahead in the two states, I am quite sure his people would be arguing that they should be seated. They would be just as wrong.
I bet the DNC is hoping that the March 4 primaries will settle things in some way, so that the orphan delegations become less critical and they can begin the work of patching things up. If March 4 settles nothing, which is looking likely, then the only really “fair” answer is a rerun of the primary elections. I don’t think caucuses quite do it- they would be a different election, not a do-over.
Oh, Oh, Oh, Mr. Kotter! Can I answer this one? OH, OH, PICK ME, PICK ME!
Of the currently known superdelegates who have publicly endorsed, Hillary has a substantial lead amongst DNC members over Obama. Hillary, 132; Obama, 66. That’s exactly 2:1.
She does NOT hold the same percentage lead over Obama in any other category of superdelegates.