If Clintons are willing to trash the DNC's rules, they're probably willing to trash the Constitution

[KittyWampus]

Political organizations can only remain viable as long as there are set rules and those rules are enforced. That goes for the DNC and the United States.

When you're dealing with large groups of people, you cannot make an exception for one subset because you then invite turmoil as EVERY member then will expect the rules to be bent for them.

There is now no doubt that the Clintons ultimately don't care about the rules. And the fact that trashing them when it's convenient lead to chaos and anarchy.

There was a time that no matter how much I disliked the Clintons, I at least believe they'd protect core Constitutional values.

Seeing them so willing to break apart the Democratic Party and DNC to win at all costs now has me questioning them and their commitment to the Constitution. Apparently, the only time they respect the DNC leadership is when it's headed by their own handpicked crony.

As of this week, since hearing that the Clintons are playing to get Florida and Michigan delegates seated, I don't think the Clintons will be willing to give back the powers that Bush and the NeoCons have seized.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. hahahaha

you guys are hysterical!

[LittleClarkie]

6. Which "you guys" are you referring to

the OP is not an Obama supporter.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. And she will probably bomb the whole world, why wouldn't she

she is EVIL evil I tell you boooowwwwwaaaahahahaha

[LittleClarkie]

16. Interesting non sequitor. Now once again, which "you guys" are you referring to

the OP is not an Obama supporter.

[niceypoo]

24. The Clinton haters, obviously

Do you feel it is aimed at you?

:rofl:

[LittleClarkie]

25. It was aimed at the OP. The poster seemed to assume something about the OP that might not be true

and to call the OP a "Hillary hater" is rather like Bush's supporters asking those who were against the war "Why do you hate America" as if they were motivated by unthinking hate that had no source or reason for being.

[niceypoo]

33. We see fifty threads just like this one every day

Do the math

Throwing turds at the wall in hopes something sticks.

The GOP and the media did the same thing to Al Gore during the 2000 election, hyper criticizing every iota of his past, looking for something to smear with.

[LittleClarkie]

35. Why do you hate Obama?

Why are you a hater?

To hate Obama is to hate America.

Why do you hate America?

[niceypoo]

39. Logical fallacies 101

With Republican talking points thrown in for effect! Perfect example!

Person A makes claim X
Person B attacks person A
Therefore X is false

Fallacy of ad hominim.

I have stated 100 times on this board that Obama would make a good president. It is his supporters that I have a problem with and your knee jerk, GOP talking point filled, post is a perfect example.

When Democrats jump on the GOP bandwagon to attack other democrats, it is time for therapy.

[LittleClarkie]

40. Your irony-meter is broken I see

Might want to get that fixed.

[niceypoo]

42. Calmed down now?

Good!

Now you too can learn to use reasoning!

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html">Constructing a Logical Argument

[1corona4u]

98. Oh bullshit.

That is such a stupid statement. I can't even believe someone said it.
:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

140. And I see your irony meter is broken as well

Of course it's stupid. As stupid as talking about Hillary haters.

[1corona4u]

99. Yeah? Who does Cying support then ?

[niceypoo]

21. Obamites gone wild

Hate makes people go off the deep end like nothing else.

Apparently Obamas strengths just dont cut it, so all we get from his 'supporters' are one bizarre attack after another.

[LittleClarkie]

32. The OP isn't an Obama supporter

what are you talking about hate for? Was it mere hate for Bush that drove people to protest the war, as some right wingers insisted? Do you think there is some illogical hate that has no reason for being?

So does everyone who disagrees with you re: Sen. Clinton qualify as a "hater"?

[1corona4u]

100. No shit.

[Cronus Protagonist]

109. No no no they're series! This is hugh!

moran










:sarcasm:
(you'd think this wouldn't be needed, but... ya know)

[LittleClarkie]

2. Just because people will ask, are you the supporter of any one candidate?

Some are probably already assuming you're an Obama person.

[KittyWampus]

5. I'm not an Obama supporter. Although he's apparently the only firewall left. He's the least

offensive. Though I have serious issues with him as well.

Edit- I actually was enthused with Biden, surprisingly. I really know how to pick em. Clark and then Biden. Sigh.

[niceypoo]

31. So, Kucinich and Edwards are offensive?

You didnt reason your logic very well there, or hide your loyalties.

[LittleClarkie]

34. And which loyalties would those be

Pray tell.

[KittyWampus]

49. Edwards is a panderer whose Senate record will KILL him in the General and Kucinich

simply doesn't resonate with me as a candidate for POTUS. He's great in the House, where he can be effective.

[TwilightZone]

3. They probably ignore the speed limit, too.

Damn speeders.

[glowing]

4. Hey, I'm in Florida.. I am voting for purpose of only voting.. actually

already voted.. BUT I beleive the DNC trumps the DLC and FUCK them.. the delegates should not count.. Its not fair to do it at this point.. If the states want to go back and have a re-do with campaigning and all the names on the ballot, then let them sit from the second vote... Otherwise, the MI vote was BS and we all know you can't trust the ballot boxes in FL. They're rigged for the DLC and the Repugs still.

[LittleClarkie]

8. At the least I don't know how they could seat Michigan

when Hillary was the only one on the ballot.

[papau]

28. They won't count - but asking the convention to vote on seating them is part of the rules and SOP

[glowing]

134. They shouldn't even be seated.. if they are there.. its too tempting to count them

and that's what they are hoping for.

[suston96]

7. DNC rules that disenfranchise Americans ARE unconstitutional.

Trashing election results by refusing the choices of the voters is the most repugnant form of voter suppression.

[KittyWampus]

11. The DNC is an ORGANIZATION THAT WRITES ITS OWN RULES. Damn some DU'ers are thick.

The rules were written and agreed upon by members.

The Leadership is charged with enforcing those rules.

Members who break the rules get penalized.

It's that simple.

[mondo joe]

27. Is it against the rules to appeal them or to ask to change them?

?

[suston96]

30. Doesn't matter who wrote them. They violate the equal right to vote, among other things.

Penalize the state leaders or the state party with fines, but not the rank and file members of the party by trashing their right to participate in their own self-governance.

[hayu_lol]

14. You guys need to take your questions and criticisms directly to the State Committees...

who decided to break the contract they had agreed to with the DNC.

That is where your criticism belongs.

Florida wants to do something stupid? They have a wonderful 8 year history of doing stupid things.

Michigan wanted to get closer to the front of the line ... probably had something to do with all the campaign dollars that flow in the early primaries.

[robbedvoter]

61. Exactly! Anti-democratic and unconstitutional.

[Heywood J]

136. Did I miss the time when the Democratic Party

became a government entity? A private organization can hold its own elections whenever and among whoever it wants. No one is saying you have no right to vote in the general election, which is the one guaranteed to you by law.

The party, however, is a private entity like a union that you have no constitutional right to belong to or to vote in - it's a privilege.

[mondo joe]

10. The rules are subject to change, of course, and HRC is pursuing that possibility.

Duh.

[KittyWampus]

13. Not in the middle of an election season, when the rules have already been written.

[mondo joe]

22. If the rules are subject to change, they are subject to change. If the parties do not agree

to said change mid-season, there will be no change.

Bottom line: she is operating within the rules of the DNC despite our hysterical claims otherwise.

[1corona4u]

103. I guess it's just OK with you for Obama to change them, right?

What a cryingshame, I really use to trust your judgment. now, I'm not so sure.

[creeksneakers2]

139. I'm not sure of that

The rules were written by the Democratic National Committee, which is made up of members serving as national committee people. The convention will be run by delegates, who run separately or who are appointed. The delegates at the convention have the last say in who gets seated and who can vote.

If the rules were written, they were written without full authority.

[LittleClarkie]

18. You don't change the rules mid-race. The time to change the rules is after this election

and before the next one.

Once the primary race is over, then perhaps the DNC will do something.

[mondo joe]

20. To the contrary: you follow the process, as laid out in the rules. If change mid-campaign

are not permitted then they are not permitted.

[sidwill]

26. disgusting

it's as if all the disgusting things the repukes said about Hil over the last 15 years have somehow actually rubbed off on her.

trying to pull this off demeans us all.

[mondo joe]

29. You demean yourself. Tell me, is it against the rules to ask to change the rules?

?

[kstewart33]

12. Yes. And I said a curse word today in front of my kids....

so that must mean I'm surfing child pornography on the web tonight. Or worse!

Geeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz. Give it a break, will ya?

[sniffa]

15. Just like Bush?

You don't say! :wow:

[paulk]

17. that's kind of a stretch

I mean, really - that's an absurd stretch.

And to think I actually used to take your posts seriously.

It's like everyone on this board has lost their minds.

[hulklogan]

19. And then they'll club baby seals, BBQ the meat, and wear seal-fur undercrackers

:crazy:

[dailykoff]

23. They're willing to do much worse than that.

They're ready to endorse and cover up the most heinous crimes against humanity, and not just the ones Hilly's been helping Junior get away with in the Senate. Bill let the boys make the world safe for WalMart in all the same ways that have turned the US into the world's beacon of torture, tyranny and brutal military oppression.

[redqueen]

36. I don't agree that that's a logical statement... but I do think all the candidates

should be asked about their willingness to restore the constitution... actually I think they've all said they would... but it's a campaign... so what else would they say?

Just like everything else... it boils down to whom we think we can trust.

[joeybee12]

37. Yup, constitution and the rules of the DNC...same thing...

...actually, they probably will get reinstated...if nothing else this shows the stupidity of the primaary system, and the frustration of people in many states basically not having a say as to the nominee.

[joeybee12]

38. Yup, constitution and the rules of the DNC...same thing...

...actually, they probably will get reinstated...if nothing else this shows the stupidity of the primaary system, and the frustration of people in many states basically not having a say as to the nominee.

[mondo joe]

41. Also: HRC isn't breaking the rules. She's asking to change them. Same happens with the Constitution.

When you think the rules aren't fair, you address it.

[Stephanie]

43. She's asking to change them AFTER she's seized the delegates.

If you think that's fair play then you must love Karl Rove as much as she does.

[mondo joe]

44. Is it against the rules to do that? If not, the DNC can simply say NO.

Right?

[Stephanie]

48. Is it against the rules to agree not to campaign or participate in MI, and then go ahead?

Uh yeah, it's against the rules THAT SHE AGREED TO. But she will litigate it, mark my words.

[mondo joe]

50. She's asking to change the rules.

And I don't know why litigation is a problem. I have no problem with addressing disputes in the court.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate

who violated the rule and campaigned in MI.

[Stephanie]

65. or PARTICIPATE

you saw that part, right?

[MonkeyFunk]

66. There was no obligation to remove one's name from the ballot

none whatsoever.

Kucinich is the only one who broke his written pledge.

[george_maniakes]

46. When you ask to change the rules...

and you gain benefit from that, it seems hypocritical. If she truly wanted those delegates to count for idealistic reasons, why didnt she fight for them from the start tooth and nail?

[mondo joe]

47. Isn't that for the process to determine? All she's doing is raising it. The DNC can

simply say no - or however the decision is made can come down against her.

[george_maniakes]

53. And the fact that shes raising it right now...

you see absolutely no hypocrisy in that? Frankly im dumbfounded how anybody cant see this as a blatant attempt to grab some delegates by
the worst means possible.

Do i think florida and michigan should of had delegates at the convention? Absolutely. But they broke party rules, months ago. The candidates agreed to not count the delgates from these states, months ago. And now clinton changes her mind, when she can benefit? Its like shes begging someone to call her out on being a political opportunist.

[mondo joe]

54. Is it against the rules to raise it now? The point of the rules is to set the limits

of what is acceptable. If it's not acceptable why isn't it against the rules?

[george_maniakes]

55. Its not against the rules to raise it now as far as i can see.

It is blatant hypocrisy however. Thats the point. By raising it now, shes a massive hypocrite. Or do you believe she is only raising this point now for the most pure of idealogical reasons? Which cant be the case since she's only raising the issue now. Do you see my point at all?

[mondo joe]

58. I see what you're saying.

But I also believe the ground rules are the terms of what is fair.

When my daughters play soccer they do everything they can within the rules to win the game. I'm fine with that, and if they break the rules I would haul them off the field myself if necessary.

I expect politicians to compete, and to compete hard, but to stay within the rules.

[george_maniakes]

62. maybe im dense but i dont understand what your saying.

Can you speak more clearly please? The way i understand you, your saying yes its hypocritcal, but if she wins by being a hypocrite with this issue, so be it.

[mondo joe]

68. I'll gladly try again.

To my thinking, the rules are the limitations of what is agreed to be acceptable.

If the competitors play within the rules, everything is fair game. If it's not fair game, it should be against the rules.

In the primary, everyone should know the rules and compete within the rules. If HRC is not violating the rules they all agreed to, I don't know how I can hold it against her.

[george_maniakes]

72. So by your thinking, if a candidate does something blatantly hypocritical...

but within the rules, thats perfectly fine?

[mondo joe]

75. Whether it is hypocritical or not is arguable. Whether it is within the rules is far less so.

I have little interest in back and forth on subjective determinations, so I try to stay focused on the factual.

[george_maniakes]

77. Im not arguing whether its within the rules. obama mooning clinton at a debate is within the rules..

.the point is whether its the right thing to do now or the wrong thing to do. I say its about as obviously wrong as obama mooning clinton.

[mondo joe]

80. And Obama is free to choose to do that. It's his race to win or lose.

The point of the race is to win. Candidates, IMO, are free to act within the rules and live with the consequences.

[george_maniakes]

82. I thought this race was going to be different...

as in a respectful discussion of issues , not trash politics. I guess i was wrong.

[mondo joe]

84. This is child's play compared to what's coming in the general election.

:shrug:

[george_maniakes]

85. So your point is, instead of raising the standard of discourse...

win at all costs within the rules? These democratic candidates have a choice into what kind of campaign they want to run. The fact that the republican nominee is going to throw poo like its confetti on the fourth of july is irrelevant.

[mondo joe]

87. My point is: it's a competition, and voters are the judges. We voters determine

what we're getting, by supporting or opposing candidates.

Don't you think that if voters were unwilling to support - let's call it "poo throwing" - they'd change? Their goal is to get your vote, after all.

[george_maniakes]

90. Wouldn't you prefer a campaign where no poo was flung?

Isnt that the goal, a competition where voters dont have to wade through piles of poo? Don't you feel bad when your candidate resorts to
throwing poo as opposed to saying "this is what i want to do...", or "this is what i stand for..." Winning at all costs is not worth it if it helps to weaken the democracy.

[mondo joe]

92. There are many things I'd prefer to be other than they are. But voters respond as voters do,

and whoever wins the primary will fight a much harsher battle in the GE.

If people wanted elevated dialogue, we'd get it. But alas, it is not the case.

I'm fine with winning at all costs provided the cost is not the rules/laws. If the voters are sufficiently dissatisfied with the rules, we can change them. If we are dissatisfied with the candidates, we can reject them.

Ask yourself why these things don't happen.

[george_maniakes]

94. I think its really sad that you would prefer your candidate to win...

rather than have an elevated competition where genuine dialogue and ideas could be had.

[mondo joe]

97. What I would rather have and what are reality are often two different things.

I don't see why you don't understand that.

[george_maniakes]

102. I see your point i think...

but you seem to have no desire to change the level of discourse thats going on in the campaign now. You seem merely content to accept the level the contest has sunk to as what people want. I dont think this is what people want. Just because i sneak a peak at a road accident as i drive by doesnt mean i like it.

[mondo joe]

104. My complaining won't change the leve of discourse. The only thing that will change it is

when the majority of voters express that with their votes.

But I would also say that I have zero interest in sending a Dem candidate into the GE who is not able to defeat the Republican. If they can do that by being so inspiring through raising the discourse, that's great. But being a tough fighter will do also.

[george_maniakes]

106. Your opinion of your candidates behavior is important.

the fact that bush won elections by engaging in low brow politics doesnt mean low brow politics should be engaged in. It matters how you win.

[mondo joe]

110. I'll refer to my daughters again, if you don't mind.

I like them to be clean, considerate, mindful people.

When they play soccer I expect them to get dirty and sweaty, to exploit every opportunity they have to win.

That's how you play soccer. Sure, it's possible to play soccer in a clean, considerate and well mannered way. You could not try to get the ball from the other team quite so hard - you could even take turns and have tea.

But that's not how it's played. It's a competition. So is politics.

[george_maniakes]

113. There is behavior in soccer, while by the rules...

is obviously not right. Would you rather they win and engage in this type of behavior?

[mondo joe]

115. It may be that I don't know enough about the rules of soccer - I never

played and was a debate person, personally - but there's not much I can think of that the rules don't cover.

:shrug:

Maybe I should have used a debate analogy instead - I understand those rules better.

:-)

[george_maniakes]

117. heres an easy one...

the opposing goalie is a muslim, and so your girls let it be known before the game that insulting her by way of her faith would probably
help their team. They dont say outright "insult her", but they get their message across.

There are plenty of ways of doing the wrong thing but still playing by the rules.

[mondo joe]

119. That seems against the rules to me.

It's certainly against rules among students in the school, and against the family rules.

[george_maniakes]

121. Those other rules dont apply to whether they break the rules of the soccer game itself.

Just like clinton saying those delgates should count now, while not breaking the rules of the primary, break the rules of, say, whats hypocritical behavior or not.

[mondo joe]

122. Ah, but you're forgetting the other factors.

If my daughter did what you described, it might not break the rules of the game, but it breaks my rules so it doesn't fly.

If Hillary asks to revisit the delegates it might not break the rules of the primary, but it might breaks the rules the voters feel and then she doesn't get the votes.

That's democracy.

[george_maniakes]

123. Thats my point, she broke those other rules.

whether she gets peoples votes or not doesnt change whether she broke those other rules, especially if there are enough voters such as yourself, who are more forgiving of low brow politics. continuing to lower peoples thresholds for expectations of a respectful debate and dialogue is not the goal, a high level of debate is. Clintons actions in this matter clearly lowers the level of the debate.

[mondo joe]

124. Fine - if she broke the rules of the voters, she won't get the votes.

You need to stop confusing YOUR feelings with the feelings of the electorate.

[george_maniakes]

126. And you need to understand getting the most votes doesnt make you right.

It means you win, but it doesnt change how you won.

[mondo joe]

127. "Right" is subjective. "Winning" is the goal of elections, amd the people choosing

their representatives is the point of our democratic model.

You want to talk about the "other rules" but you're applying YOUR standard - not the standard of the voters.

[george_maniakes]

129. winning at the cost of bringing down the level of debate...

is not a victory for democracy. The candidate may win, but at what cost?

[mondo joe]

130. Your problem then is with the people, the voters. They set the rules.

If your problem is the voters of your party (if you're a Democrat of course), that's a difficult position.

[george_maniakes]

131. What do the people have to do with clintons behavior? You lost me.

Clinton is responsible for bringing down the level of debate, the people pick a candidate. If the people pick the candidate who brought down the level of debate, that doesnt excuse her behavior.

[mondo joe]

132. I'm not seeking to excuse behavior. I'm saying the panel of judges for that behavior are the voters.

Sometimes your fellow voters agree with you about candidates' behavior.

Sometimes they don't.

Night.

[george_maniakes]

133. and im saying bush getting more votes doesnt equal bush's behavior being right.

It might mean more people voted for him, but more votes does not equal good action.

Night.

[peacetalksforall]

45. Cllinton = DLC.. DLC fights DNC, therefore Clinton fights DNC. DLC is an

unfavorite of mine. I don't think I'm getting my money's worth with a pro-Cheney, pro-Bush, pro-corporation DLC.

Why do I not support the DLC? I can't explain it, I can only come to that conclusion by observing them in action for a number of years. The advice they give their selected nominee is rotten. The image they provide the citizens when they and only they get invited (until recently) on the corporate airwaves is ultra-disappointing. When the DLC speaks and acts, I am not represented.

[johnnydrama]

52. hmmm

I'll give her campaign a nice 8 hour day, 5 days a week.

How many hours did it take her to protest the rules for Florida & Michigan?

Let's say around 1000 hours.

Is this how long it takes her to protest something she finds unfair?

Where was she from August through yesterday?

[UALRBSofL]

51. I'd like to expand on the rule breaking

I am very aware that Hillary has stated she would like to see the Florida and Michigan voters represented.

What most here aren't aware of, the DNC along with the candidates signed a binding contract not to campaign or advertise in Florida or Michigan. Hillary has followed the rules. Obama has been running ads on CNN for 2 weeks in florida running about every 3 to 4 hours. He chose not to block the ads in florida or michigan running on CNN. So in retrospect if the DNC did allow delegates to count I would have no doubt Barrack would do pretty well since he's the only democrat campaigning in florida.

What Hillary said today may not be in the best interest and would appear she's pandering for votes which is absolutely true, but, I believe Barrack is doing the same thing campaigning in florida pandering for votes.

That said, I hope everyone turns out to vote whether it's Barrack, Hillary, or John that's our nominee. We don't need another republican in office at this time.

[george_maniakes]

57. but what does it matter if people in florida see an obama commercial,

if he isnt going to allow them to be his delegates at the convention, as per the agreement?

[mondo joe]

63. They had an agreement.

If it didn't matter, they shouldn't have agreed.

In such cases, those who have an agreement have the choice to:

revisit the agreement and seek to change it
keep the agreement
break the agreement

[george_maniakes]

69. Again, im not seeing your point clearly. Are you saying because obama...

ran a cable commericial seen by florida, and the candidates agreed not to campaign in florida, that means the delegates in florida should now count?

[mondo joe]

70. No, the commercial and the delegates are separate issues.

In the case of the commercials, Obama technically violated the agreement so Clinton is considering it void.

No one has violated the delegate agreement. Clinton is asking to revisit it.

[george_maniakes]

73. And the fact she is asking to revisit it now, as opposed to anytime in the last few months,...

that seems ok? To myself, that seems like a reason to get away from that type of politics as fast as possible.

[mondo joe]

76. If it's wrong to ask now, it should be against the rules. As it's not, she and all the other

candidates had equal opportunity to do the same.

[george_maniakes]

79. Again im not saying raising the issue now is against the rules...

im saying raising the issue right now makes her an obvious hypocrite.

[mondo joe]

81. If that's your reaction, you can choose to show our feelings with your vote.

That's the beauty of the election. We all get to judge.

[george_maniakes]

83. I think even within the rules there are obvious bounderies of hypocrisy...

I think she went into blatant hypocrisy land.

[mondo joe]

86. Yes - and that's the point of the electorate. You can cast your vote to show your

point of view.

If candidates do things that the voters find offensive, it will show in the votes.

[george_maniakes]

88. So just to be clear i understand you, you believe...

Clinton is not being a hypocrite for bringing this up now? When she had months and months to bring it up, her bringing it up now, when she benefits, thats fine with you?

[mondo joe]

89. I have no opinion about the "hypocrisy" of it.

I don't really care.

She's trying to revisit the issue - same as anyone else could do, or could have done.

And in response they can say HELL NO. Also fine with me.

And voters can show their approval or disapproval. Also fine with me.

This is how competition works.

[george_maniakes]

91. So you dont care if your candidate is a hypocrite?

Dont you care what kind of candidate your voting for?

[mondo joe]

93. I care of my candidate is a hypocrite. But I have no opinion about the alleged

hypocrisy of this case.

There may be two very fine cases, for and against, the change even at this time.

I don't have an opinion about it.

[george_maniakes]

96. That to me seems to make about as much sense...

as if obama mooned clinton, and i said "well he didnt break any rules, other than that, an arguement could be made for or against his behavior. I have no opinion at this time."

[mondo joe]

101. Good. Because I don't care if Obama moons Hillary. What difference does it

make to anything?

I don't know how old you are, or if you have children. I have two daughters, and I would say they often have conflicts. Sometimes I intervene on behalf of one if the other is way out of line. More often they both have a point and they need to work it out.

This matter to me is more like the latter. I can see two sides, both of which have a legitimate argument. There is a proper system for resolving such differences and I trust that system to work. I have no dog in this fight, as they say.

[george_maniakes]

105. But the point is that Clinton doesnt have a legitimate arguement.

And your response to the fact that her arguement isnt legitimate is "well the people will decide if it is." That doesnt make something right or wrong, that just means someone got more votes than someone else.

[mondo joe]

108. I don't agree. I don't know if she has a winning argument.

When you have a dispute it has to be settled. There is a process to do that, which I trust enough.

Similarly, there was a dispute recently between 2 unions in Nevada. A lot of DUers were upset that it as gong to court. My opinion was that that was the right place for it to go, and the right bod to render judgment. As it turned out the side many DUers opposed lost. Seems to me the dispute resolution confirmed their opinion.

Same thing might happen here - Hillary might lose.

But I don't have an opinion about it other than that I see two sides.

[george_maniakes]

111. The fact that she is raising a dispute now at this point is itself the question.

Its isnt the fact that theres a dispute. Its the question of whether her raising this question now brings down the level of the competition.

If your two girls wanted to run a race, and you said make it 100 M and they said OK, and then after 50 M one of the girls, thinking by extending it another 25 M she'll win because she knows she's got a better chance of winning a 125 M race, asks you to make it a 125 M, you dont think her asking the question brings into question her character?

[mondo joe]

112. Well, we disagree about that it seems.

But I'll answer your question.

"If your two girls wanted to run a race, and you said make it 100 M and they said OK, and then after 50 M one of the girls, thinking by extending it another 25 M she'll win because she knows she's got a better chance of winning a 125 M race, asks you to make it a 125 M, you dont think her asking the question brings into question her character?"

No, I think it means she's looking for an advantage in a competition. And I'd laugh and say "no."

[george_maniakes]

114. Im sorry to say but i think you have low standards...

when it comes to politicians if you think that type of behavior is acceptable.

[mondo joe]

116. That's okay.

I have some thoughts about your position as well. But there's no need to harangue each other, so I'll leave it be, with no ill will intended.

:-)

[george_maniakes]

118. thats fine and good for you to do that...

but for clinton to agree to disagree on her behavior in this matter makes no sense, in that she has no arguement.

[tabatha]

138. That is incorrect.

Apparently they were unable to block them.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[robbedvoter]

60. It's the DNC rules trashing the Constitution: right to vote? remember that?

I think it supersedes the egos of the party hacks. They can exact revenge on other party hacks without taking the right to vote of millions who were not responsible for the snafu.

[george_maniakes]

67. They way i see it, all the candidates agreed to write off the delegates...

from these states months ago. Does it suck, hell yes. But why did these states try to do something they knew would have consequences? Why couldnt they just follow the rules?

[Politicub]

64. DU is getting stupider by the day

And I've been around for a long time. Yeah, I'm sure they would turn on the shredder and send the constitution on through. Whereas Obama, DK or "anybody but Clinton" would create beautiful clothes from it - a sweet fabric of freedom that will enshroud all Americans. :eyes:

[gulliver]

71. Yes, and they like recreational whale torture.

Apologies to 30 Rock.

[Auntie Bush]

74. Oh how prophetic of you! Any other great ideas?

Well, I guess there are plenty where that comes from (lower anatomy) which is the source this conclusion came from. I can personally think or make up a lot of negative posts to make about others...but that's hitting below the belt and is cowardly. If the show fit...wear it...Cinderella.

[ursi]

78. I'm sure a real examination of Hillary's voting record will show how she feels

about the constitution already.

[zulchzulu]

95. I already got the memo that the Clintons were sleazy asshats 10 years ago

Gee, what a friggin' surprise...

:crazy:

[wisteria]

107. It doesn't hurt to remind people though. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

120. Like "The Bush" Family, THE RULES don't apply to the Political Royal Family known as "The Clintons"

:thumbsdown:

[mondo joe]

125. Please don't lie. Clinton is operating within the rules.

There is no rule that these things can't be revisited.

[Major Hogwash]

128. Too bad Hillary doesn't just fire Dean and put Carville in as the DNC Chairman.

I'm sure she would want to.

[IndianaGreen]

135. Through their spokesman Carville, the Clintons wanted Harold Ford as DNC Chair

Ford supported and campaigned for Joe Liberman when he ran against the Democratic nominee Ned Lamont.

[Major Hogwash]

142. The same man who stood in ads in front of the Bars and Stars?

Amazing, wasn't it?

How many other black people do you know that would do something as ignorant as that?

[Perry Logan]

137. Special DUzy award: Best thread based on both false assumptions and false logic.

[ecstatic]

141. Our constitution guarantees every citizen the right to vote nt

[truedelphi]

143. Thanks for taking a look into the depths of their lost souls

Now let's hope that Obama will swing a little bit to the progressive side.