Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It is interesting to hear the Clintons and their supporters...

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
 
carpe diem Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:59 PM
Original message
It is interesting to hear the Clintons and their supporters...
...argue that the caucuses (which they didn't express any concern with when Bill was running in and winning them) are now suddenly undemocratic and disenfranchise voters. They have had over 15 years as major figures within the Party to do something about it, including 8 years in the WH when presumably they would have had considerable party influence. But, it is especially curious that the contention is that people are somehow being denied the opportunity to participate in the process when, in fact, participation is UP exponentially in each caucus state. In some locations, there has been as much as a 10 fold increase in the numbers of participants. Now I know the Clinton spin is that only wealthy people who have lots of leisure time can participate, but any honest and reasonable person can look at the stats and see that is not true. They come from all demographics and their common link is that Senator Obama motivated and mobilized enough of them to take the time and make the effort to stand up for him when he needed them.

If Senator Clinton's alleged supporters cannot be bothered now to make the effort on her behalf, when it is of historic importance, what on earth makes her or anyone think they will be able to find the time in November. At least we know Obama's people are committed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Shae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. and yet
they seem to love superdelegates. Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. she also loves breaking rules
to get votes in Michigan and Florida. x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hillary Clinton will do whatever it takes to get elected and thats why she's so hated here
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 11:07 PM by Cali_Democrat
- Claiming Caucuses disenfranchise voters

- Try to get Florida and Michigan delegates seated when she signed a pledge that she wouldn't campaign in the state.

- Trying to get Florida and Michigan seated when Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and nobody knew who he was in Florida. She had name recognition obviously.

- Trying to get super delegates to overturn the will of the people.

- Praising John fucking McCain


And Hillary supporters wonder why we hate their Princess. She's scum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. What did Cali say that was untrue?
You may not agree with the adjectives but the facts are all there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Why are calling
this person a repuke, nothing here substantiates that kind of insult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Ok maybe I was out of line with the princess line, but...
You can't deny she's trying to bend the rules in the middle of the game for her own political ambitions. All while praising John McCain and tearing down the potential democratic nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. so, Obama praised reagan
all in the name of politics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Obama praised McCain on March 5th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Uh. Are we reading the same thing? Obama congratulated McCain
not praised him.

Big difference, Maddy.

Hawkeye-X
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #18
34. Hillary linked herself with MacCain
acouple of days ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #18
38. Praised, not said to vote for him. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mooney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Reagan's not running for president this year. John McCain is.
See the difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
51. Prolly not, since she can't see past her bias. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olkaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #15
27. That is seriously so pathetic
I have no idea how that line keeps getting trotted out.

It's patently false and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #27
52. 'cause like so much else, it's all they have against Obama...
... and Hillary keeps sticking her pseudo-Repuke foot in her mouth.

Lies, disinformation, fear, and manipulation are all they have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. It's Republican to dislike Hillary? Really? Huh. Could've sworn I was a lifelong Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. HATRED
and it is readily apparent to me that corporated media propaganda worked on more than just repukes. I am no Hillary fan - I detest her views on the war and outsourcing - but the sheer hatred for HRC is beyond all reason
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #14
39. I'm surprised you weren't called "sexist"... that's the usual line. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Welcome to DU
you're right on target. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Shae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. funny that you glossed over post #3
and proceeded to talk about "haters in the obama camp"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Gee! and if not "an hispanic" maybe a gay or a jew.
Maybe even another black who knows his place, huh? :mad:

I've gotten pissed off quite often with people calling others racist or sexist with no provocation, but your's is a patently racist post. Disgusting, in fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
41. I guess it can't be racist since he has a mogen david as his avatar.
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 10:41 AM by skater314159
Oh wait!

He edited it to save his ass.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. While I'm fighting my "mental health issues"
whatever they are, along with the millions of other Obama supporters, I guess, maybe you should try fighting your own, instead of just giving in to them.

I rest much better knowing that HRC will NOT be the nominee, and hoping she'll stop trying so hard to make it more difficult for the DEM candidate to win the GE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. LOL Better check your crystal ball, because Obama isn't getting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #26
42. Why? Because you say so? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #42
59. No, because TPTB don't think he's tough enough to take...
the old man. Afterall, this is about winning the GE, that's why the Super delegates are there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #26
46. Oh? Hillary is going to lie and cheat her way to it?
Then I guess it's welcome to President John McCain - there's just no way areound that if Hillary continues. I hope your crystal ball includes that part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #46
60. Clinton/Obama 2008 -that is all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
40. Why assume Hillary will win? Oh, and you are RACIST. nt
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 10:39 AM by skater314159
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
17. I would think that caucuses favor Clinton, doesn't she have retired people
squarely in her corner? People who have hours and hours of free time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
47. Maybe they coincide with Matlock reruns
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. lol!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progdog Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. or "Law and Order"
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Darned all those episodes on TNT!




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANgDDgAj4WU

Even all the pics I could find of Matlock are in B&W!!! It IS for old ppl!!!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. ...
:spray:

You made me spray Coca-Mexicana all over my keyboard and screen! Darn you!

:rofl:

Seriously though, thanks for that... I needed that laugh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
20. They Were ALWAYS Undemocratic And Disenfranchise Voters.
As long as they've been the way they currently are, then they've always been amazingly flawed, unrepresentative, disenfranchising amateur exercises.

I only delved into them this year, but am STILL in shock that these crock of shit things exist. Who has or hasn't supported them in the past is irrelevant. What matters is the process and its integrity, and there simply isn't any. That holds true now or 10 years ago. They should be COMPLETELY done away with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
30. And yet going into these caucuses, the playing field was level for all candidates
Everybody knew how they worked, how to work them, how to get them to work for you. All of this was a known quantity to everybody involved. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama has had a better game plan on how to approach them. Hillary on the other hand dismissed them.

To try and call foul at this juncture is disingenuous, and to do so comes across as whining. If you're in a caucus state and don't like them, well in the next few years you can get involved with like minded people and change them if you can. If the caucus states don't change, then they're obviously happy with them, and despite your complaints, it is up to the state party apparatus to decide these matters, not you, not the national folks. You have to respect that decision, take into consideration for future elections and move on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. What A Waste Of Time It Was Reading That.
The argument is about whether or not they are fair, have integrity, and are representative of the voice of the people. Fact: They're not.

I think everybody here who supposedly cares about the integrity of elections, should lobby to ensure that we rid ourselves of these laughable and amateur processes before the next election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. So you are wanting the states to have no control of how party politics are run in their own state?
How very und/Democratic of you. You not only don't have the power to change them, you don't have that right to change them either.

What I find laughable is that now, when caucuses aren't going your way, they're suddenly "unfair" and "lack integrity". Yet if Hillary was winning we wouldn't be hearing a peep from you on this issue. The hypocrisy is hilarious, however the whining has gotten pathetic.

And the sense that you, from a non-caucus state, are entitled to meddle in the political structure of another state is ludicrous on the face of it. Not surprising though, Hillary supporters are much like their candidate, authoritarian, autocratic, and think that they're entitled to do as they wish and have what they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. "Hillary supporters are much like their candidate"
"authoritarian, autocratic, and think that they're entitled to do as they wish and have what they want."

lol. You've reached a new level in idiocy.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. My God Could You Be Any More Wrong? Holy Misguided.
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 10:37 AM by OPERATIONMINDCRIME
"So you are wanting the states to have no control of how party politics are run in their own state?"

I never said such a thing, anywhere. Your insinuation of such is ridiculous. What I said is that we should all lobby to have them removed. Did I say we shouldn't do so on a state to state level? Oh, I didn't? Oh, you mean you over-reacted and read into something that wasn't there, when the intent was quite simple to understand? Holy knee jerk. Get a grip.


"How very und/Democratic of you. You not only don't have the power to change them, you don't have that right to change them either."

ROFLMAO!!!! Oh you're a piece of work. I'm being undemocratic by pushing for the removal of a highly undemocratic process and installation of a far more democratic one? Now there's some brilliant logic if I've ever seen it. And I have no right to change them? Are you nuts? Of course I do. All of us do. All of us that care about the integrity of elections have a right to change processes that are undemocratic and disenfranchising. We have to do it in the right ways, and on the state level, but for you to make claim that I have no right to try is laughable and highly ignorant.

"What I find laughable is that now, when caucuses aren't going your way, they're suddenly "unfair" and "lack integrity". Yet if Hillary was winning we wouldn't be hearing a peep from you on this issue."

There you go being ignorantly assumptive again. Do you always think this little when you post and react in such a knee jerk manner? I mean, you're just parroting the same empty logic that others here have done, as if there ISN'T a bunch of things totally flawed and inadequate about the caucus process. Hey, here's a news flash for ya: It isn't US that are complaining about them because they aren't going our way, it is YOU and others who are defending them because they ARE going your way. You forsake all the truth in their inadequacy and defend disenfranchisement due to your own selfish reasons of them working in your favor. Now THAT'S pathetic. See, contrary to your highly ignorant assertion about my intent, I've only truly learned about the caucus process this year. From the MOMENT I learned about them in detail, my jaw literally dropped that these things are allowed to exist. I IMMEDIATELY recognized how flawed and nonsensical they are, and couldn't believe that we, as democrats, who are supposed to care about the process, could actually condone and sanction these things. And that's how I felt BEFORE Obama started being favored by them. So your assumption was completely off the mark. See, it doesn't matter who they favor or why someone does or doesn't want them. That would all be ad hominem bullshit. The FACT is, that in spite of any of that, on their own merits and for their own reasons, they are poor, inadequate, disenfranchising and undemocratic processes. That stands true no matter who does or doesn't like them or which candidate they do or don't favor. They have ALWAYS been undemocratic, unfair, and have lacked integrity, and your insinuation that I'm creating that due to their favoring Obama is quite naive. They are what they are, and what they are is simply not good enough.


"The hypocrisy is hilarious, however the whining has gotten pathetic."

There is no hypocrisy on my end. If anything, it is on your end. You act so smug and righteous and try and put forth that it is us that are whining and complaining solely because they favor Obama, when in reality it is YOU who is being disingenuous and selfish by resisting our concerns, solely because you like the fact that they favor Obama. That's the fucking fact. You and others are blatantly projecting when you turn it on us. The process is pathetic. That's a fact. You simply don't care, because here and now they are favoring YOUR candidate. How pathetic and selfish of you. But to turn that logic around on us is quite laughable, when it is quite easy to see just who the selfish ones are as it relates to liking or disliking the process. Any intelligent person would recognize the inherent flaws within the caucus process. It is obvious as hell, when someone defends them so passionately, that they do so out of selfishness due to their favoring the candidate they like. It's so transparent, and I laugh my ass off at your insinuation that it is us, rather than you, that are being closed minded and hypocritical. What a hoot!


"And the sense that you, from a non-caucus state, are entitled to meddle in the political structure of another state is ludicrous on the face of it."

Again, are you nuts? As an American, as someone who cares about the integrity of elections, I have EVERY right to voice my concerns about the caucus process. I have EVERY right to lobby and try and convince others on their state level to rid ourselves of these pathetic events. We ALL have such a right to do such things, and your assertion that we don't is one of the most ignorant and misguided things I've ever seen here. The caucus process disenfranchises voters, is lacking in integrity, and is undemocratic in a whole lot of ways. To say "tough! Nothing you can do! It's none of your business!" is just plain dumb on its face. It really is, and I'm amazed you could even utter such crap.

"Not surprising though, Hillary supporters are much like their candidate, authoritarian, autocratic, and think that they're entitled to do as they wish and have what they want."

Yes. How DARE we care about the election process. How dare we want processes that are fair, democratic, non disenfranchising, and that have integrity. I mean, HOW FUCKING DARE WE. Seriously, do you have any idea how monumentally stupid those comments sound? Get a grip honey, you are making yourself look quite silly.

Caucuses are horribly inadequate processes that all of us here should come together in getting rid of. We should all care about the integrity of elections regardless of candidates. We should care about having processes that are fair and not disenfranchising. We should all do what we can to lobby in the respective states for the complete removal of these amateur processes, and demand nothing less than a real election, where everyone has a chance to vote and can do so anonymously.

So yeah, you couldn't have possibly been more wrong and misguided in your reply. It was mind boggling in its lack of logic and critical thought. Hopefully, if you choose to reply again, you do so a bit more intelligently next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #31
45. Not fair because you say so? Whatever, sore loser. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #45
56. Wrong. Not Fair Because By Design, They Disenfranchise Voters And Are Undemocratic.
That holds true regardless of how you, me or anyone else feels about them. Take your blinders off please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #20
44. Yeah, cause Obama keeps winning 'em, destroy 'em. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #44
57. Try Not To Be So Narrow Minded And Blind, Ok?
My complaints about caucuses, and the inherent flaws within them, have nothing to do with the current candidates and all to do with the reality of caucuses. If you could take your partisan bias blinders off and turn on the switch in your mind that allows even the slightest bit of critical thinking to take place, you'd be able to realize for yourself why they're so flawed. This is something we all should agree on here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
22. That's why they take the grand
prize for whinging in extra innings this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
23. I am NOT a Hillary supporter, but have posted that the caucuses are undemocratic and
they disenfranchise voters.

The caucuses need to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
24. Most decent people are mortified by caucuses, and always have been.
I don't much care who is against caucuses, or when or why they came to that view.

It's the only ethically worthwhile view.

Coming around to a clearly moral view only belatedly and for the wrong reasons is indeed embarrassing.

Embracing an immoral view out of narrow partisan interest is something worse than embarrassing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FedoraLV Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. Caucuses
This Political Scientist disagrees with you:

<http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/12/why-iowa-... />

This article also supports that the decision making at caucuses are similar to the decision making that goes into voting in the GE: <http://www.alternet.org/story/72027 />

-FedoraLV
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. Well,
For most of our history, caucuses were the way that parties nominated. And to me, saying caucuses are undemocratic is like saying that town meetings are undemocratic. they're not. they're the purest form of democracy. I'm sorry that Vermont no longer has caucuses. Having said that, I do think switching to an all primary system is a better way to go, much as I love real hands on democracy. However, Hillary Clinton never had a bad word to say about caucuses- until she started losing them. She's noting but a hypocrite on this issue. You know damned well if she were winning them she'd be praising the caucus system as the greatest thing under the stars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bilgewaterbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
35. Spot On!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
37. I wouldn't call it "interesting", more like "frustrating" or "infuriating"!
Also, I tried to use the term "racist", but apparently calling things "racist" when there is racial bias gets messages deleted, whereas throwing around terms like "sexist" against everyone who disagrees with you is ok.

I am just sick of the behaviour of the HRCCampaign and the Hillary supporters, as they make Democrats look stupid and infantile. I am also sick of the people who want Hillary to win - even if it means destroying the party, having race riots across the country, or having eight more years of Repuke shit.

Thanks for the great post.
Keep up the good fight!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
43. That's my take on caucuses, even if Obama were losing them.
How bad do supporters want their candidate to win is the issue. Are they willing to go out and do something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unbowed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
48. She's proven to be quite the control freak.
We've just put up with eight years of a "my way or the highway" presidency. Why would we want another tone deaf "decider" in the White House?

That's what's so appealing about Obama. He isn't making it about him, he's embracing a coalition of people who want to have a say in how their government is run. Obama is offering the first true government of the people we have seen in long time.

Hillary Clinton is offering to make all our decisions for us because she knows so much more than the American people.

Sounds like a Hillary administration will be 4 MORE YEARS of the same.

Maybe Clinton is so willing to embrace McCain because she understands him and will just never get Obama. Imagine someone wanting to give the American people a real choice in the direction of their government. What a silly concept? Democracy isn't really supposed to be an actual democracy, after all. Apparently, Mrs. Clinton believes what we really need is a new decider and she'll do anything to be that person. Anything.

Clinton doesn't have a problem with the concept of rules, just rules not of her own making. She is running specifically because she wants us to follow her rules.

She is the one who wants to control us like a flock of dumb sheep.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. Which is typical of narcissists and egotistical persons. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unbowed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. You said it! n/t
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 Sep 17th 2014, 01:12 AM
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