Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should Clinton be stripped of the Texas delegates she won?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:56 AM
Original message
Should Clinton be stripped of the Texas delegates she won?
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 04:07 AM by Wizard777
Texas would not allow Dennis kucinich on the ballot because he refused to sign the loyalty pledge to support the democrat nominee who ever it may be. I'm damned sure that Democrat nominee won't be John Mc Cain. If Texas can keep Kucinich off the ballot for refusing to sign the pledge. Hillary should be striped of all her Texas delegates for violating the loyalty oath she signed. In supporting John Mc Cain over Barack Obama. What say You?

Edit: At 4:00am I don't care about the difference between Stripped and striped. But to be nice to those that do.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Seeker30 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Why do you hate democracy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. LMAO! That's great freeper impersonation. So Yes or no should she lose the delegates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. Stripped maybe, but why do you want to stripe her? What kind of stripe? What Color?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. mmm... stripped Hillary...
sorry, having a Homer moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. That's okay I think I was having a senior moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. I think that was a subconscious aberration
To using the words Stripped and Hillary in the same sentence. I have them all the time. "Greedom isn't free." "The Presidebt." Etc. etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
47. LLOL
Literally LOLLed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. dark blue...to match the color of her campaign signs...
Tory blue, some call it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. She has violated the pledge...
but I don't think they would follow through with stripping her of delegates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. So they only do that to Fla. and Mich. for not following the rules?
Now that sound like some kind of personal vendetta against Fla. and Mich. Hillary can break the rules without losing delegates. But Fla. and Mich can't. I think the last thing in the world we need in another "untouchable" President that can do no wrong even when they are violating every law ever written.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doublethink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #17
35. I've been seeing a-lot of that 'untouchable' ....... personality trait .....
in Hillary Clinton lately. And personally I've had enough of it for the last 7+ years. No No No ... not another President who puts themselves above the law !!! Makes me wanna scream at times. Peace. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
38. She has not violated the pledge
and I guarantee you, she will support the nominee.

This whole "she endorsed McCain" bullshit is the saddest stupid attack I've seen here in a long time. You guys are wall-biting insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #38
46. No matter what word you call it, Hillary said McCain had a lifetime of experience and crossed
the threshold of commander in chief whereas Obama just had one speech. Whether that is an official endorsement or not, it is clear that she is saying McCain is better than Obama as a commander in chief and on experience. Never before has a Democratic candidate for president praised a Republican nominee over a Democratic candidate. EVer. Ever. Ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:03 AM
Response to Original message
5. "Should?" Yeah, probably.
Good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedbird Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. better idea, another vote .n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Dawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:11 AM
Response to Original message
8. That is a great point.
It was BS how they kept Kucinich off the ballot. But Clinton has actually violated the pledge! She should definitely lose the delegates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
32. A very good point
The reality of Texas and Florida and Michigan is that Hillary Clinton likes the Republican way. Rules apply only when they benefit you. When they don't, well, fuck the rules.

Sheila Jackson Lee by the way is in a bit of a mess now that she has committed herself to Hillary Clinton. Her constituents voted for Barack Obama 2-1. I suspect Sheila Jackson Lee is not alone.

The reality is the Texas Democratic Party is funded and fueled by Hillary Clinton supporters. Most of them corrupt.

And as Nance Gregg put it in her post, well, Hillary Clinton intends to have the nomination by hook or by crook. In Texas, the latter is easy.

Someone actually asked the other day what Molly Ivins would say. She already said what she had to say. She would probably just rerun the same column. And perhaps add "ditto" at the end.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JenniferH Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
11. Hillary is a fighter, she was just fighting
Her statement was meant to win against Obama. She wants him to lose so she can go on to win against McCain, what she signs along the way is not of importance. The important thing is we have a fighter that will fight republicans on their terms. Obama is too saintly and goody two shoes for a general election against a republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Just what we need! Another damned President that thinks pledges and oaths don't mean a thing.
That Presidential oath is just a bullshit line that you have to say before they let you do the job. That Bush shit isn't any better with a (D)behind it. In fact it's far worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. There are plenty of ways Hillary can fight Obama with honor for the remainder of this campaign.
I'm fine with that.

Problem is, I haven't seen that from her campaign. Attacking his inability to keep our babies safe at night is beyond the pale for a primary campaign, and that's why people are justifiably pissed off at her.

She could redeem herself in a lot of people's eyes if she'd switch to something substantive and, for God's sake, make McCain the focus of her attacks. Or at bare minimum, explain in a way that isn't totally corrosive to the party's chances in November how she's preferable to him in fighting McCain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
48. Most of us are quite tired of FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

The problems we face, are best solved by cooperation and thoughtfulness..

If she wants to FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT, perhaps it's a character flaw on her part.. Of course being married to WJC might bring out the "fight" in any woman :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
15. I agree that Texas was wrong to bar Dennis...
But if you stripped HRC of her delegates, would you not also have to strip Obama of his?

Just to be fair and consistent?

(Of course, you could to that and make Texas send an ALL-Kucinich delegation to Denver...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. What did Obama do that would Merritt losing the delegates?
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 04:49 AM by Wizard777
He's shown Mc Cain respect. But not support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #18
30. I thought the issue in Texas was the decision to campaign there even though Kucinicn was excluded
Which is something both Clinton and Obamb did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #30
40. If it was. It isn't anymore after Hillary endorsement of Mc Cain over Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:34 AM
Response to Original message
16. I agree. Stripe her.
If she were 20 or 30 years younger, I'd say her strip her too. Then again, I'm not 20 or 30 years younger either so who am I to talk?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:03 AM
Response to Original message
19. Though I have been nice to most Obama supporters on here
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 05:04 AM by musicblind
I hate to break it to you. Obama is not the nominee. Not yet. If he BECOMES the nominee and she no longer supports them... anyone who thinks she should be stripped is not in touch with reality and is blinded by hate for her. The reason being ... Obama is not the nominee. Geesh.


However, I have admitted that Hillary should have been more wise with her words as they could come back to haunt us in the GE. It ISN'T, however, breaking any rules because we HAVE no nominee as of yet.

You guys talk about Hillary wanting to change the rules mid-stream ...

you want to change the rules from "don't insult the nominee" to "don't insult any democrat running. Right ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. You lost me at blinded by hate for her. Do you guys really think that blind hate crap is going to
get her anywhere? Why should I vote for Hillary? Well from what I've heard from her supporters is that everyone hates her. That why do you hate Hillary crap is no better than the freepers saying why do hate America. They run that into the ground. Now you might as well just be saying Hillary has nothing of real substance and what ever country she wants to invade will not have the WMD's. Because of the freepers that's all anyone hears when you say that. Hillary has nothing of real substance and what ever country she wants to invade will not have the WMD's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. you just went on a rant that mentioned hate, wmds, freepers, hillary
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 05:59 AM by musicblind
and made no sense at all. I say "blinded by hate" because that is what hate does to people. If you hate something you make irrational arguments against it. I do not hate Obama at all. I think he seems like a really nice guy and if he is the nominee that will kick butt. I also do not hate Hillary, she rocks and if she is the nominee that too will kick butt. I have a pretty clear head about all of this, and can therefore see that your argument that she be stripped of delegates makes no sense. So you are either not very bright (which I'm sure that you are or you wouldn't be on a political messageboard), or you are filled with hate. Why else would you make an irrational arguement?

:shrug:


You stated in your OP that she made an agreement to support the democratic nominee. Well Obama is NOT the democratic nominee, and very well may not even END UP the democratic nominee. You never know... Since she made a negative statement (one that I agree, she shouldn't have made. It is doing more harm than good.) about someone who was NOT the democratic nominee... how does this have anything to do with her statement to support the democratic nominee. It doesn't. So you made an irrational arguement. If the reason for making this irrational arguement isn't hatered then what is it? There seems to be only one other option, and I do not think you yourself are irrational by nature, something must be clouding judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. I don't think It's an irrational arguement considering its a loyalty pledge.
How was that loyal to the democrats in any way? The full implication of her statement is that there are only two people qualified to be president. Her and Mc Cain. So if she doesn't get the nomination that only leaves Mc Cain to vote for. The loyalty pledge from what I understand is that you will support the nominee whoever that may be. You think the operative word is nominee and I think it's the words may be. I'm damned sure that the Democrat nominee will not be Mc Cain. Mc Cain as a democrat nominee. Now there is an irrational arguement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. IF Obama gets the nomination and IF she does not then support him
for the nomination once he has received that then she will be breaking her oath. However, I expect her to endorse and support him should he win.

He is not the nominee now so she has done nothing wrong. You cannot try someone for a crime you think they might commit in the future. Let's say I met a man on the street, he bumped into me and I was rude to him. Then... two years down the line... that man turns out to be my teacher in a class room. Could he randomly give me detention on the first day of class because I was "rude to my teacher". No he could not because he was not A TEACHER WHEN THE INCIDENT TOOK PLACE.

Therefore, no, it makes no sense to say Hillary should be punished because Obama is NOT the nominee, and she did not endorse McCain. She spoke the glaring obvious about McCain. She said he has a buttload of experience. Which ever person in America is already aware of. Maybe her statements did, somehow, reach that .04% of America that currently resides in a coma... but I somehow doubt it. She did not say she endorsed McCain. She simply said that McCain brought a lifetime of experience to the table. It was a stupid statement to make and made me shake my head when I found out she made it, and then continued to make it. I think she will make a good president, but she needs to be careful how she gets there. I do not think she is trying to hurt the Dem party on purpose, I think she is in a very tough spot right now and is trying to find a way out. If Obama is the nominee and she does NOT endorse him... feel free to kick this post and laugh at me, but I believe that if he is the nominee she will support him and will endorse is candidacy, he will have earned it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. This is what it actually says.
"I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."

If it said this instead I would agree with you 110%.

I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President.

But that's not what it says. It's followed by the words "whoever that shall be." It shall not be John Mc Cain and I say that constitutes a violation of the loyalty oath. If only because he's on the other freakin team and it's a loyalty oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #36
43. Yes
that's the pledge. And since we don't have a nominee yet, she couldn't possibly have violated it.

Running against Obama is not the sin you people make it out to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PetraPooh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:05 AM
Response to Original message
20. YES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
21. jesus christ almighty
wtf is up with these throw the kitchen sink threads. I will say they are HIGHlarious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
25. This is the actual text from the Texas loyalty oath.
"I, ______________ of __________________, __________ County/Parish, _____________, being a candidate for the Office of President of the United States, swear that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. I further swear that I will fully support the Democratic nominee for President whoever that shall be."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #25
39. OK, so it refers to the nominee and not a person who might...
...eventually be the nominee.

Seems like Hillary Clinton is in the clear on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. An experienced politician might say this oath has some language problems.
The problem is, "whoever that shall be." It shall not be John Mc Cain at any time for any reason. That constitutes a violation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
27. You are basing your argument on a false premise. Hillary does not
support John McCain. Comparing her experience and Obama's experience to John McCain's does not constitute support for McCain. She did not violate any loyalty oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. That's not what she did.
She compared her and John Mc Cains experience to Obama's. That was not a Hillary & Obama vs. Mc Cain statement. That was a Hillary and Mc Cain vs. Obama statement. Yes there is a difference. Her statement was supportive of Mc Cain and disparaging to Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #34
42. She was comparing experience, not giving support. There's a big difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
28. ???
???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
29. I LIKE THAT IDEA!!!
Yeah, if Shrillary's going to endorse McCain over Obama, and Kucinich didn't get on the ballot for refusing to sign a loyalty pledge to support the Democratic nominee, and Hillary did sign that pledge, yeah, let's strip her delegates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
31. yes she should
if it is found by the DNC chair that she indeed did violate the pledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemVet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
33. Geez, where do people come up with this crap? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
37. very stupid.
Very, very very stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
44. This has to be one of the most
ass biting ridiculous posts I've read this week.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
45. She shouldn't be stripped of anything, but it would be nice if MSM
would leave the Hillary love fest for a few moments to report the actual delegate count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
49. Yeah, Right After
she's "roughed up" a bit, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
50. I think you should strip of ALL her delgates, and give them to BHO
Just on general principles. Isn't that all that matters to the O-bots?

:sarcasm:

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 26th 2014, 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC