likearock 2 #1 January 30, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/29/fl.primary.dems/index.html Looks like she's grasping at straws after the big Kennedy endorsements for Obama. Pathetic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #2 January 30, 2008 Quotehttp://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/29/fl.primary.dems/index.html Looks like she's grasping at straws after the big Kennedy endorsements for Obama. Pathetic. I'm having a tough time figuring out what I think about this issue. The Democratic party said that if Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up that the D's wouldn't count their votes at the convention. All of the front runners agreed to the deal. Hillary showed up in for each State's primary which I thought was wrong considering the agreement. On the other hand, those States' votes should be counted. Disenfranchising the voters seems to be a bad idea so I want to applaud her effort to include them. In short, I think she's doing the right thing but a deal is a deal and it makes her look bad. As an aside, I'm wondering why no one mentions the real reason that the States started moving their primaries earlier. Hint: it has something to do with an election that will probably end up costing at least $5 billion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #3 January 30, 2008 Quote(CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton will win Florida's Democratic presidential primary Tuesday, CNN projects, although party sanctions have stripped the state of its convention delegates and no Democrats campaigned there Ah. Okay Hilary. You want to play that game? Well. I was just nominated for the republican party at the, um, Azrbuskdoeksiistan primary. So take that. We had infinity times infinity times infinity people who all voted for me. it's my own state, and they all want me. Me me me. So I won. So there. BTW, they all said you suck.=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #4 January 30, 2008 Quote Looks like she's grasping at straws after the big Kennedy endorsements for Obama. Pathetic. want to bet that Teddy's endorsement will do very little to the big Clinton margins in the CA and NY polls ? They didn't budge after the SC primaries or the Kerry endorsements either ... Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #5 January 31, 2008 Quote Disenfranchising the voters seems to be a bad idea so I want to applaud her effort to include them. Yeah, a real spirit of democracy flows through her. You think she'd be so keen to include those votes if Obama had the majority? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #6 January 31, 2008 Quote BTW, they all said you suck. Yes, but does she inhale swallow? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #7 January 31, 2008 Quote Quote Disenfranchising the voters seems to be a bad idea so I want to applaud her effort to include them. Yeah, a real spirit of democracy flows through her. You think she'd be so keen to include those votes if Obama had the majority? So what ... Obama didn't when he didn't get the majority ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #8 January 31, 2008 Quote Quote Disenfranchising the voters seems to be a bad idea so I want to applaud her effort to include them. Yeah, a real spirit of democracy flows through her. You think she'd be so keen to include those votes if Obama had the majority? Sorry, I didn't realize that this was a "bash only" thread and thinking wasn't welcome. Carry on, just clean up after you're done Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #9 January 31, 2008 Quote Quote Disenfranchising the voters seems to be a bad idea so I want to applaud her effort to include them. Yeah, a real spirit of democracy flows through her. You think she'd be so keen to include those votes if Obama had the majority? You mean like when she supported the lawsuit to shut down the Nevada caucuses after the service unions endorsed Obama? She wanted to disenfranchise those voters despite the plan having been well known in advance, and wants to "re-enfranchise" these voters, despite the plan having been well known in advance. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #10 February 1, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Disenfranchising the voters seems to be a bad idea so I want to applaud her effort to include them. Yeah, a real spirit of democracy flows through her. You think she'd be so keen to include those votes if Obama had the majority? You mean like when she supported the lawsuit to shut down the Nevada caucuses after the service unions endorsed Obama? She wanted to disenfranchise those voters despite the plan having been well known in advance, and wants to "re-enfranchise" these voters, despite the plan having been well known in advance. Thanks, I had forgotten about Nevada. To be honest, up until recently I was kind of sympathetic to Clinton. But this is just low class, blatant hypocrisy to the extreme. How can anyone trust a person who publicly agrees to the DNC ruling against Michigan and Florida and then acts as if it never happened? Did she think we wouldn't notice? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
