DISQUS

Congratulations B-Serious. You do "be serious"!

Angela,


You are feeling extremely optimistic, ey????? At this point, I don't know if I have that much faith in Hill/Bill. I hope your right though!

Truth,


It is clear to me that Barack knows how to source talent. It's an invaluable gift. Whereas Hillary said of the numerous economists who opposed her gas tax holiday they "don't understand it".



You know she's smarter than EVERYONE! LOL!

Well it's a good thing Joy and Whoopi woke up! From the quick clips that I saw of HRC's speech ruled out that small percent of a chance that might have been in the back of my mind b/c it was 100% clear that if he let her get away with it (holding the party hostange) one time she would always have the upperhand- he would always be a puppet with her pulling his strings. Delusional and narcissistic - yeah that's accurate!

d,


I wish yo had seem McCain's speech. He kept awkwardly smiling after his statements as if he was giving himself credit or something. I didn't quite get all the smiling. I didn't catch either speech in it's entirety but BHO didn't smile that much and he had finally just started being respected as the nominee. Well- no respect from HRC of course but from most of the MSM.

Truth,


If Carville and Hillary go crazy ( although I don't think they have far to go) then I think it will be worth it for that alone to have Richardson on the ticket!!! LOL!



Ms Martin,



You said Powell would be a good choice, Iraq aside. Do you really think some will be able to put Iraq aside, considering Obama is the "anti- war" (and I think you said it best 'anti stupid war' candidate)?

If he doesn't chose McCaskill ( a woman) as VP it should probably be a HRC supporter cuz she has some supporters as crazy as she is!!!!!


Texas girl has a good question ..wonder if HRC supporters would resent her but it's not like she is Pelosi or someone like that????????



I like Richardson as well but I wonder if it would be too much- with the Black/Brown..

May 22, 2008
Paterson Sees 'Desperation' By Clinton, Disagrees On Florida And Michigan

Gov. David Paterson, who is right now being interviewed by WAMC's Alan Chartock and taking calls from listeners on "Vox Pop," just disagreed sharply with his presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, on her last-ditch efforts to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.



While he stressed that he continues to support Clinton and will do so until "she makes a different determination," Paterson, a superdelegate, said he doesn't believe the DNC should change the rules after the fact on Florida and Michigan and added that he's not buying her claims about leading the popular vote if the ballots cast in those states were counted.



"I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support and I'll support until whatever time she makes a different determination," Paterson said, adding: "I thought she was the best candidate and I thought she had the best chance of winning."



Paterson, who is a DNC committee member and was present at the meeting when a vote was taken to penalize Florida and Michigan for moving their respective primaries ahead of the traditional starting contests in New Hampshire and Iowa, said he thought that decision was "a little unfair" and he "didn't agree with it at the time."



But he also noted "nobody was screaming" after that decision was made, although some people were unhappy with it, adding:



"There was a process. I thought at the time everybody agreed to it. I didn't hear any objections from the candidates...So I would think the Democratic National Committee would leave it where it is."



On Clinton's claims regarding the popular vote and likening the fight to set the Florida and Michigan delegates to the civil rights movement, Paterson said:



"You have to rule out the undecideds in Michigan. You have to assume she won 100 percent to nothing in Michigan. I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that, nor would they see it as a civil rights issue."



Paterson's comments came in response to the first question posed to him by a caller named "Casey," who sounded like a supporter of Barack Obama. She asked Paterson whether he would switch his support to Obama since his Oregon win and, if not, if he would "defend" Clinton's argument on Florida and Michigan.

Gov. David Paterson (HRC supporter), who is right now being interviewed by WAMC's Alan Chartock and taking calls from listeners on "Vox Pop," just disagreed sharply with his presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, on her last-ditch efforts to seat the Florida and Michigan...


While he stressed that he continues to support Clinton and will do so until "she makes a different determination," Paterson, a superdelegate, said he doesn't believe the DNC should change the rules after the fact on Florida and Michigan and added that he's not buying her claims about leading the popular vote if the ballots cast in those states were counted

From Freedom4um. If you have already read this last month then I apologize for the duplicate in advance. If this doesn't prove that all this Clinton BS is for political expediency then what does?!?!?!


Title: Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004

Source: ABC News

URL Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04... Apr 26, 2008

Author: Jake Tapper

Post Date: 2008-04-27 14:44:22 by nolu_chan

Keywords: None

Views: 25

Comments: 2





blogs.abcnews.com/politic...8/04/clinton-campa-1.html



Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004



Jake Tapper

ABC News Senior National Correspondent

April 26, 2008 5:33 PM



Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has staked her path to the Democratic nomination on the officially illegitimate contests held in Michigan and Florida somehow being recognized, in opposition to Democratic National Committee rules.



What's so remarkable about this is that two of the Clinton campaign's most important strategists have in the past taken the stand that these states should abide by the DNC's instructions -- even if that meant stripping them of their delegates.



In direct contrast to the positions they hold now.



Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007 voted -- along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member committee -- to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.



Ickes now is a leader of the "count Michigan and Florida" rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign, despite his previous position.



Now comes this curious find, on Daily Kos.



It turns out that irrepressible Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe once -- when he was DNC chairman -- threatened to strip Michigan of delegates if that state's Democrats carried out their long-time goal of disobeying the DNC calendar.



In his lively book, "What A Party!: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals," McAuliffe tells the tale. If you're an Amazon.com member, you can read the passage for yourself on pages 324 and 325.



McAuliffe at the time had been pushing for early contests for South Carolina and a Western state with a large Latino population, perhaps Arizona or New Mexico.



"Our plan became very controversial," McAuliffe writes. "Some people thought any change was bad. Others thought we were not shaking things up enough. Leading the charge for more radical alterations in the primary calendar was Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who thought Iowa and New Hampshire should not have exclusive rights on voting first and that it was time for other states to have a turn. He had pushed unsuccessfully for change before the 2000 elections and was back in full force this election cycle. He made it very clear on the telephone that if I allowed Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, then Michigan was going to act on its own and put its primary first."



McAuliffe invited Levin to make his argument before the full DNC meeting on Jan. 19, 2002. Levin did, and his motion was defeated by a unanimous vote.



"After the vote, the issue was settled in my mind -- however, not in Carl's," McAuliffe writes.



On Feb. 1, 2003, Levin, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Dingell's wife Debbie (a DNC member and power broker unto herself) called McAuliffe.



"They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New Hampshire's," McAuliffe writes, "which would have led to complete chaos since New Hampshire has a law stating that it must hold the first primary and the DNC had already voted on this issue and settled it.



"'If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,' I told him.



"They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority...The whole primary calendar was in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack. Finally I'd had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl's Senate office for April 2 to settle this once and for all...



"Soon Carl and I were going at it.



"'I'm going outside the primary window,' he told me definitively.



"'If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses,' I said. 'We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost.'



"He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.



"'You won't deny us seats at the convention,' he said.



"'Carl, take it to the bank,' I said. 'They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.'



"We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it."



Clinton herself said, in October 2007, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." She said she was keeping her name on the ballot (unlike her competitors) just so when it came time for the general election she could argue she had not ignored the state.



It wasn't until Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses in January that she acted as if the Florida and Michigan contests had any meaning at all. As Tallahassee political journalist S.V. Dáte recently wrote in Slate, "Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it."



As for Ickes and McAuliffe -- they have exercised a great deal of clout. But it has been in the name of preserving order, even if that meant stripping recalcitrant state Democrats of their delegates.



As McAuliffe said then -- "the rules are the rules."



Why? "For the good of the party," he wrote (then).



- jpt

What I want to know is why is the N word different that the B word. If the N word was originally used to put Blacks down then the B word was originally used to put women down but according to SNL B is the new Black!!!! So apparently being a B is not only OK but superior!

Title: Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004
Source: ABC News

URL Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04... Apr 26, 2008

Author: Jake Tapper

Post Date: 2008-04-27 14:44:22 by nolu_chan

Keywords: None

Views: 25

Comments: 2





blogs.abcnews.com/politic...8/04/clinton-campa-1.html



Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004



Jake Tapper

ABC News Senior National Correspondent

April 26, 2008 5:33 PM



Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has staked her path to the Democratic nomination on the officially illegitimate contests held in Michigan and Florida somehow being recognized, in opposition to Democratic National Committee rules.



What's so remarkable about this is that two of the Clinton campaign's most important strategists have in the past taken the stand that these states should abide by the DNC's instructions -- even if that meant stripping them of their delegates.



In direct contrast to the positions they hold now.



Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007 voted -- along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member committee -- to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.



Ickes now is a leader of the "count Michigan and Florida" rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign, despite his previous position.



Now comes this curious find, on Daily Kos.



It turns out that irrepressible Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe once -- when he was DNC chairman -- threatened to strip Michigan of delegates if that state's Democrats carried out their long-time goal of disobeying the DNC calendar.



In his lively book, "What A Party!: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals," McAuliffe tells the tale. If you're an Amazon.com member, you can read the passage for yourself on pages 324 and 325.



McAuliffe at the time had been pushing for early contests for South Carolina and a Western state with a large Latino population, perhaps Arizona or New Mexico.



"Our plan became very controversial," McAuliffe writes. "Some people thought any change was bad. Others thought we were not shaking things up enough. Leading the charge for more radical alterations in the primary calendar was Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who thought Iowa and New Hampshire should not have exclusive rights on voting first and that it was time for other states to have a turn. He had pushed unsuccessfully for change before the 2000 elections and was back in full force this election cycle. He made it very clear on the telephone that if I allowed Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, then Michigan was going to act on its own and put its primary first."



McAuliffe invited Levin to make his argument before the full DNC meeting on Jan. 19, 2002. Levin did, and his motion was defeated by a unanimous vote.



"After the vote, the issue was settled in my mind -- however, not in Carl's," McAuliffe writes.



On Feb. 1, 2003, Levin, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Dingell's wife Debbie (a DNC member and power broker unto herself) called McAuliffe.



"They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New Hampshire's," McAuliffe writes, "which would have led to complete chaos since New Hampshire has a law stating that it must hold the first primary and the DNC had already voted on this issue and settled it.



"'If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,' I told him.



"They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority...The whole primary calendar was in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack. Finally I'd had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl's Senate office for April 2 to settle this once and for all...



"Soon Carl and I were going at it.



"'I'm going outside the primary window,' he told me definitively.



"'If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses,' I said. 'We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost.'



"He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.



"'You won't deny us seats at the convention,' he said.



"'Carl, take it to the bank,' I said. 'They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.'



"We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it."



Clinton herself said, in October 2007, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." She said she was keeping her name on the ballot (unlike her competitors) just so when it came time for the general election she could argue she had not ignored the state.



It wasn't until Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses in January that she acted as if the Florida and Michigan contests had any meaning at all. As Tallahassee political journalist S.V. Dáte recently wrote in Slate, "Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it."



As for Ickes and McAuliffe -- they have exercised a great deal of clout. But it has been in the name of preserving order, even if that meant stripping recalcitrant state Democrats of their delegates.



As McAuliffe said then -- "the rules are the rules."



Why? "For the good of the party," he wrote (then).



- jpt

b-serious,


She actually raised the question, "Why vote Democrat when the party abandoned you during the primary season?" First, only she and McCain have met the imaginary threshold she invented to become Commander in Chief on DAY one, then we will surely rally behind whoever the Democratic nominee is, now this. She is CONFUSED and I don't know how much more I can take!

One more ting S,


If "one thinks Obama is an Affirmative action candidate" they don't have to be racist but they sure are ill-informed!!! I won't even get into how ..hmm I'm trying to be nice here. Oh forget it, I can't do it w/o being nice so I will just say if this - if anyone thinks BHO magically propelled to the Democratic Presidential Nominee via his African American heritage ...nevermind I can't do it! Not today!

S,


I haven't heard Webb's comments yet but whatever they are I don't think the comments are revelant with the self described racist -people that said RACE was a factor and voted for HRC rather AGAINST BHO because of RACE only. ("Uhm I just can't for'em. I don't agree with'em" and can't explain why!!)Whatever they feel about affirmative action (right or wrong) is irrelevant in this particular case.



S,



Are you picking on me b/c I'm a girl?! LOL!

Rikyrah,


I understand how you feel. I just HAD to ask (Black female) County Commissioner Hillary supporter who has her own radio show how she could support HRC with all of the race baiting and she replied, "That's politics"! I was like are you serious? Then I went on to site certain examples and she either joked it off (b/c I was livid day day) and/or misiformed her listeners by coming b/h me when I hung up saying that Ohioans did not say race was a factor in their votes etc. Her listeners were calling in either repeating her ill informed "facts" oh shoot I will just say it LIES and ignorant things that has gotten from talking heads like...Pat Buchanon! That's when I had to take a "break" from politics!

Truth,


Are you serious? You can't be! Is she actually crusading against AA's votes being disenfranchised! LOL!

I don't know how much more I can take about the FL and MI "disenfranchising" the voters nonsense! I hope my head doesn't explode! Again this is another issue that makes you wonder what you missed- why is this so confusing??????


Didn't HRC pledge (before she realized she wouldn't be crowned the Dem nominee) that the votes would not count (as well as Edwards and Obama??? Didn't she? I mean I could ahve sworn I saw a video of her saying this.



If my sight and hearing are not deceiving me, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? Why is she now trying to convince people that BHO is duping them out of having their votes counted??? Further, how is it Howard Dean's fault? What is so hard about following the rules. If we didn't have to then there sure are a lot of things I would and would not do!! Not that seating FL as is would be fair, don't let me get started on seating MI as is. My head might explode!!!!

S,


I was referring to the actual racists. As far as the others, doesn't HRC often mention that her record is virtually the same as Obama (outside of the war vote)? I don't see how it will be a severe problem to unite the party (especially with HRC's "help") UNLESS the reason they will not vote for BHO is due to race.



Anon 10:09,



Even Andrea Mitchell ( an obvious earlier Clinton supporter and contributor to her campaign) said last night that Clinton can't keep saying she is a fighter and uniter- it's contradictory!

Craig,


I feel no more sorry for her (as a woman) than I do for Kwame Kilpatrick crying racism! A sham is a sham!! Poeple not to stop crying wolf! They make it harder for those of us with legitimate issues!

S,


The way I see it, the racist HRC supporter's labled THEMSELVES as racist NOT BHO supporters!



They are the ones that said that race played a part in their vote and HRC is the one that played it up. So once again racism is BHO's "problem"?

I don't know why Tanya can't get that weave right!!!!!!

Truth,


IMO this is additional proof that the HRC's votes are really AGAINST BHO. If they really beleive in her then why can't they put their money where their mouths (votes)are? Where's the beef? (or in this case the dough!!)

I do NOT understand why the MSM keeps talking about what BHO's "problem" is and why he can't finish this up.


OK seems to me that they should be fosuing on HRC's problem! I mean she can't even raise money so how can she be "better positioned" to win the general?????? Has she won the primary? I am lost? I mean has she finished this up? Is she ahead in the primary? I mean I would think I was confused if it were not for common sense!



I'm just sick of it though. He is ahead. He is winning and obviously is going to be the Democratic nominee!!!!!!!! Doesn't it say anything that she is in debt???????

There was something else I found interesting about the exit polls other than 2 out of 10 people admitted to total strangers in the exit polls that race was an issue for them and they voted for Obama (what about the ones too "Christian to admit the truth??) is that those same people were polled and a vast majority of people in WV and Kentucky admitted that they felt that Obama WOULD be the nominee so to me that suggests they obviously voted AGAINST Obama.


Andy,



You stated that the exit polls showed that the people from KY and WV were not just stupid but were mean and racist. Could have fooled me! Did you see the interview of Klay(Clay) Kounty(County) Kentucky? I hate to say it but those people I think actually appeared more ignorant than some of those in WV. Some said they had never voted b/c no one cares about them and they are never gonna have anything. One woman's income was $700 per mo!! Her son ( I think) who lived with her could not get a job b/c he didnt have GAS to get to an interview! They said they don't ever remember a presidential nominee visiting them EVER. Said they will always be broke and it didn't appear that any of that group would even vote at all!!