Hillary's going to take it to the convention.

[mckeown1128]

So it is becoming obvious that the DNC is going to change the rules in order to seat 50% of the MI and FL delegates that were created based on sham primaries. Hillary has manipulated herself some new delegates. My personal guess is that they will let the same number of delegates go but take half their voting power.

Obama would already clinch the magic number next Tuesday under the current pre-agreed upon rules. Many think he has enough Super D's in the waiting to clinch it even if the DNC changes the pre-agreed upon rules.

But Hillary isn't going to drop out. She is going to push this to the convention. Here's why:

She has been laying the groundwork for this for the past month. She has slowly made this whole contest about vote totals. (which are impossible to determine do to some caucuses not listing numbers and due to FL and MI not being accurate vote totals) Her whole justification for staying in is based on the vote and the super delegates being able to change to change who they endorse. Her parrot site like Hill44 are already pushing the idea that until the convention Obama doesn't "really" have superdelegates... because they can change their mind.

Hillary is claiming that she should be the nominee because she has the popular vote.(which is debatable) How does she drop out after next week? How does she claim that Obama is the rightful nominee when she has created a situation where she and her supporters are claiming that she is the popular vote winner.(which is debatable) She can't.

She can't say "I should be the nominee because I have the most votes(which is debatable) and the Super Delegates can switch their botes".... and then the next day say "Just kidding Obama is the rightful nominee." There is no way for her to bow out with the rhetoric she is using.

She has even set up the perfect excuse for taking this to the convention. She will "fight"(aka scam) to get FL and MI fully seated(aka change the rules to get more delegates)

You may ask "why is she doing this?" I personally believe that her popular vote argument isn't meant for the SDs or the donors(aka donate I can still win) I believe that it is for her supporters. The ones who have already voted.(since almost all have) I believe she is trying to cast doubt on the results.(Democratic Nominee Obama) She pulls this thing to convention. (crippling our candidate) She bows out after technically losing the nomination in the big vote. She does a Romney style, "let's get behind the nominee"(aka you'll miss me when I'm gone) speech. Then when a crippled Obama who can't recapture the small faction of Hillary (it was stolen from us..boo hooo) voters, he could lose the GE. Then Hillary is set to take the nomination in 2012.

Ask yourself this: "Can you picture Hillary dropping out?" Can you picture Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning, Hillary going to the podium and saying the usual "we fought hard, but the party now has a nominee?" Can you?

[saltpoint]

1. She risks the "I won't be ignored" bunny-snuffing characterization, then.

Prolonging her candidacy when she cannot win the nomination will be seen, with justification, as a betrayal of common purpose. A dynamiting of any bridge she may want to cross at some point in the future.

There's such a thing as a sore loser, as most LIttle League players could explain to Mrs. Clinton.

[backscatter712]

24. You know what?

I got troll-rated on Kos for calling Clinton a "bunny boiler", and Keith Olbermann gave Ken Rudin Worst Person In The World honors for making the same comparison.

But after she made that RFK assassination remark, I'm at the point where I think calling Hillary a bunny boiler is no longer hyperbole...

[saltpoint]

66. As some left-leaning bloggers have pointed out, there is more than a

half cup of bitter in the recipe for the Clinton camp these days.

Unrequited entitlement is a ... well, a disappointment.

[2rth2pwr]

53. Then she's got nothing to lose. She has already been branded that and worse.

[truebrit71]

2. The supers will all move to Obama as soon as the rules committee and the final primaries are done...

...the party simply cannot afford to let this power-mad ego-maniac drag this onto the floor at the convention...

If she does NOT concede we will know for SURE what her motivations are...getting herself elected come hell or high water...

We already have a nominee by the agreed upon rules, and Princess Sour-Grapes is only doing herself further damage the longer she holds on...

[Kittycat]

3. Doubt it. Pelosi will be stepping in by the end of June.

And I would imagine Gore and others will as well. Clinton has to back out before they step forward, or her political career will be ruined. At least in the Dem party.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/29/pelosi-nomination-could-be-resolved-next-week/

In editorial board meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle, the Speaker of the House predicts a nominee within a week after June 3, says if there is no resolution of Michigan, Florida by late June she’ll “step in.”

“Because we cannot take this fight to the convention. It must be over before then.”

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. "You may ask 'why is she doing this?'" Don't need to ask, as I already know

Very sadly, she has become the sterotypical villain: a power-crazed maniac who will stop at absolutely nothing to get what she feels is her divine right. To be honest, I would not at all be surprised if she loaded the national convention site with exposives and threatened to blow the place up if she is not made the nominee.

[sui generis]

5. If your candidate is crippled by a woman you said can't win

Then your candidate does not deserve to win.

I'm sorry, the cries of pain are ridiculous. Let the political process work so we can finally hear some real discussion of issues, regardless of who wins!

If I wanted to be told who to vote for I'd be a fucking republican. Now you kids need to grow up and learn to play the game instead of calling time outs until the bell rings.

faugh.

[mckeown1128]

9. edit: dupe

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

13. So it's OK with you to have one Democratic candidate backstabbing another Democratic candidate

All to bolster her chances in 2012? Gee, are you sure that you're in the right party?

[sui generis]

14. yes, I'm a republican. see eyes roll below.

grow up. :eyes:

[Supersedeas]

62. appears to be a lot of that going 'round

[Mike L]

21. Obama, his supporters, and the media all backstabbed Clinton. em

[mckeown1128]

23. Yes how dare Obama up and win the nomination...

How could he back stab Hillary by taking the nomination from her. And with the help of the voters no less.

Seriously, you have any evidence to back up your ridiculous claim or are you just another hit and run poster.

[Mike L]

35. Evidence that Obama lied about HRC's positions:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_nafta_nonsense.html

"Barack Obama's campaign is distributing a mailer in Ohio that plays upon anti-NAFTA feelings in the Buckeye State. But the flyer is misleading"

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/harry_louise_again.html

"Obama mailer on Clinton health care plan lacks context."

[mckeown1128]

36. My own case against Hillary: (from my own journal)

A lesson in history: Hillary's ATTACK mailers!!! and robocalls.


1. This is one where Hillary attacks Obama using Republican fear mongering on taxes. Obama has said that as a possible solution to the SS problem. Of course the mailer says it will be a trillion dollar tax increase on working Americans. That leave the impression of the middle class, but in reality Obama has said that if we raise the SS cap, that he would make sure there is a donut protecting "hard working families." Something along the line of only people earning more than 200,000 would have to pay more. Hmm... sounds kinda... progressive to me. Of course Hillary leaves out the details in the hope of scaring up votes.

On Eve Of Primary, Hillary Drops Negative Mailer Hitting Obama On Taxes

here in New Hampshire http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmem...
and here in Nevada http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/010...


2. You may ask "what if right wing talking points on SS don't work?" Well, AFSCME on Hillary's behalf sent out this wonderful mailer in an attempt to scare voters into voting for Hillary.

"A Prime Minister is on the phone: They've lost a warhead," says the fictional memo on the front of the mailing.

The solution?

"Send in the right woman for the job."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/010...

This disgusting tactic lead to some members of AFCSME to right this letter. Where they say they are "shocked and appalled" at the deceptive tactics.

http://thepage.time.com/letter-to-afscme-p... /


3. And another mailer attacking Obama on "possibly" raising the cap on SS for those over 200,000.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archiv...


4. If this still didn't seem enough for the Hillary campaign. They could always LIE by implying that Obama isn't pro-choice.

Barrack Obama. Unwilling to take a stand on a woman's right to choose.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmem...

Only problem is that... Obama voted present on those few Illinois state senate issues because Planned Parenthood asked him to vote present as part of Planned Parenthood's strategy. Ohh... and Obama has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL. More on this here:

http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2007/12/04/ab... /


5. Just to mix it up here is another Hillary attack on Obama's SS this time a robocall that also wrongly accuses him of wanting to cut benefits. (Which, falls under his statements that everything is on the table. Even though he said it isn't a serious consideration.)

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/arc...

6. We all know that Hillary said MI (and thought the same logic fl) "doesn't count for anything" and now she says it should count based on Obama running national ads. Remember all the faux outrage about Obama advertising in FL by default. Well, Hillary did have her "supporters" run a robocall and GOTV operation. And while this robocall isn't a direct attack on Obama, it does show the absurdity of that big spectacle Hillary's campaign made of FL based on Obama running ads nationally on CNN and MSNBC.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/arc...

7. In SC Hillary's campaign didn't even try to spin a lie. They just flat out lied. This time claiming that Obama would "dismantle the minimum wage."

here:http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-creates...
and here: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/arc...

8. I guess lying about Obama's policies wasn't enough. Hillary's campaign apparently decided that to appeal to religious bigots and racists. This robocall seemed to serve no purpose with the exception of emphasizing Obama's middle name of Hussein, mentioning it 4 times. I like the last line of "You just can't take a CHANCEHUSSEIN Obama." (Clinton loyalists will be quick to say that "there is nothing wrong with his middle name" of course that is bullshit.. These candidates have experts to poor over EVERY single word to make sure the word frames give the correct impression at all times. Also, how many robocalls will a campaign put out that say the name of the opposing candidate 4 times)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/010...

9. Of course here is where we get the hypocritical BS from Hillary herself. She says that Obama attacked her health care plan unfairly. (I personally think there is nothing wrong with criticizing someone else's positions.) Hillary of course forgets that she has been attacking Obama's health care plan too. This attack is over the lack of a mandate. Hillary shows a diverse group of people and the mailer asks "Which of these people doesn't deserve health care?". Of course that is misleading. Hillary's attack is that Obama's health care plan will prevent 15 million people from getting health care, but that doesn't match up with what the difference is. Hillary's logic is that 15 million people won't choose to get insured... that is a big difference from people being "left" out of the plan(as she is implying.)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/... /

[Mike L]

38. Back at u:

http://www.factcheck.org/just-the-facts/more_spam_an_obama_mislead.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html

Substance Abuse
A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama's bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton's. Don't believe it.

Obama's Oil Spill
Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.

[mckeown1128]

43. You have got to be kidding me?

You have an article debunking an anonymous email?! What the hell does that have to do with Obama?

The other article about oil companies says that he is telling the truth. He doesn't take money from oil companies. It does say that he took about 200,000 dollars from people who work for oil companies or whose spouses work for oil companies. That doesn't make his statement a lie. If my wife were to work pumping gas at the shell station down the street and I were to donate money to Obama's campaign... that would add to that ridiculously low figure of 200,000.

Give me a break. Your reaching here.

[dionysus]

42. why do you guys play that bullshit "victim" card over and over and over? The truth;

1) she was a shitty and divisive candidate
2) she couldn't campaign her way out of a wet paper bag
3) she couldn't manage her money
4) she campaigned like a republican
5) she's acting like a 60 yr old spoiled baby who is fucking up our chances in november

that enough for you?

[sui generis]

49. who are you referring to? please read before further embarrassing yourself

Gosh you are SUCH a persuasive argumentificater. I am ashamed to be alive-ified. :eyes:

Does browbeating other democrats work a lot for you? I'm curious what your conversion stats are.

[dionysus]

50. obviously I was referring to.... wait for it.... the person I responded to...

[Moochy]

20. Woops

My original message :Wow an idiotically sexist frame from a a faux-feminist hillary supporter
Color Me Shocked!

The original message just left it at "...crippled by a woman" which implied something pretty revealing. Nice Edit Sui, it clarified that ambiguity i jumped on. :blush: sorry!

[sui generis]

26. say wuh?

I'm not sexist, and I'm not a hillary supporter. Where did you get that? Y'all need some coffee. Maybe I need less coffee.

Okay, because I think you are generally more fair, all I'm saying is that the original OP was continuing the general direction of the news and much of DU for the past year, which is, why doesn't she just quit, from well before this point.

I personally don't like Hillary for completely different reasons, and neither candidate has any form of warm feeling from me at the moment. But the Hillary hate here is just as bad as the "Hitlery" crap we were subjected to four and eight years ago.

It's disgusting and I don't like it, and I'm not going to change my opinion of the nastiness inside our own party. It's inappropriate to either candidate.

[mckeown1128]

29. Hey, I don't hate Hillary..

I liked her last year. I have come to hate the things she is doing in this campaign.


I think she should drop out after the last contest. At that point Obama will have the majority of all delegates. Her staying in at that point is ONLY destructive to the cause. (I was only posting my own theries as to why she would stick in it after Obama wins the majority of delegates)

[sui generis]

33. fair enough

you do have to admit though it is very easy to be misread as a rabid supporter of either side, at the drop of a hat! I think there are some less well considered postings too, and referring to the passion specifically it does color my opinion of the candidate. I get the sense of "mob" (now I'm being touchy feely, sorry) which makes me withdraw a bit to look around.

Of course that sense is only reinforced when I see pitchforks and torches headed my way . . . but it's all good. Eventually, the "fittest" candidate will prevail, and there is much to be said for that regardless of their personal positions. The office of president serves as the head administrator of the various branches of government, and generally speaking serves to lead the administration of the executive branch, theoretically in the best interests of Americans and the parts of the world and economy we must interface with.

If Barack gets there fairly and overwhelmingly then America has spoken, and that IS democracy, whatever the outcome.

[Moochy]

32. Ah, You are correct about the coffee, and more...

Sorry I was skimming and the edit was not nefarious, it clarified your point. I fully agree that much of the BS thrown and Hillary is drawn from the ready pool of sexist crap thrown against her for 16+ years.
I think we agree, the tent is big, the camps have been dug in for so long that the forest is being lost for the trees.

Thanks for being cooler headed than I. :hi:

[dionysus]

40. i guess you're bitter she lost, huh?

:shrug:

[sui generis]

48. self deleted. I'm feeling combative for no good reason.

we're supposed to be on the same side. I will leave it at that.

[XemaSab]

54. It's not about a REAL discussion of issues

It's about

*Pastor Wright
*Shame on you
*Count every vote :eyes:
*Drinking BUCKETS of alcohol
*Hoping he'll drop dead
*Pastor Wright
*Two candidates who have the experience to lead, and one who doesn't
*Automatic delegates
*Pastor Wright

And other bullshit.

[goclark]

6. I can not visual your question

so my answer is NO she will not respond in the exceptable way.
Sad.

[CanonRay]

7. Why not?

She's already lost all credibility, most of her dignity, 60% of the Democratic party, most of the independents, the Clintonn legacy. What is there to lose? :argh:

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Reposted from My Journal, from Friday May 23rd...

I'm assuming most missed it the first time around, things move so fast here at GD-P that it is already archived and can't be kicked:


My simple statement about Hillary Clinton and the nomination end game.

I can understand many things. I can accept many things. Sometimes I can even sort of understand things that I can't understand and accept things that I can't accept. The world can be funny that way.

No one runs for President without having a big ego. No one runs for President without believing that they have some unique gift to offer America that voters should reject only at their own peril. And no one runs for President who can't sharpen their elbows when need be.

Politics is about many things but power is at the root of all of them. Power to do good, power to do evil, but power in every case. At other times and in other places in the world power changes hands literally over many dead bodies.

So I am not shocked to see anyone in politics play their hand to the max until the final cards have been dealt. In labor/management disputes, in pending lawsuits, frequently no agreement between adversaries is in sight and rhetoric stays heated until a deal is struck and that agreement is signed off on. And then the minutia of that dispute, one that potentially dominated headlines for weeks, becomes just yesterday's news, replaced by a picture of a handshake and a smile.

OK, that is my prelude, here is my simple statement. This contest must be over by June 10th. Democrats need to unify behind our candidate by then. Hillary Clinton can make her best case, can play her best hand, and can employ her best and hardest negotiating tactics before then, but by then it must be over. And by then Democrats need to start closing ranks. In my opinion there is no case that Hillary Clinton can now make that can win her the support of enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, but I have been wrong before. If she's going to try she has until June 10th, max, to succeed. If Hillary Clinton carries any semblance of this contest forward beyond that date I will shift to being a strong, persistent and outspoken opponent of hers, both on Democratic Underground and elsewhere.


The link for anyone who is interested in the discussion thisgenerated last week:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6087114

[MNDemNY]

11. Great, maybe we can nominate someone else.

[KittyWampus]

12. No, she isn't. Stop feeding this bullshit anti-Hillary frenzy please. It serves no purpose

all you are doing is speculating.

The Media, Obama and McCain are pretty much ignoring Hillary.

Why do YOU feel the need to obsess on her?

Even if she does continue past June 7th, who cares? She's a sideshow.

YOU are giving her the attention she craves.

STOP IT.

[mckeown1128]

15. The media is NOT ignoring her...

she isn't getting the Huckabee treatment by the media. She is getting top billing along with Obama and McCain. Obama and McCain are ignoring her because they know it's over and are in GE mode. But the media is after those Clinton caused ratings.

I highly doubt Hillary craving my DU threads.

[Max_powers94]

16. The Clinton's are going to be in the history books as causing the first AA to lose the white house

:(

[Mike L]

22. Why do you focus on race? em

[Max_powers94]

30. Because the Clinton's brought it up

[Mike L]

17. All the way to the convention, baby! And disenfranchising half the FL & MI voters isn't acceptable.

Count every vote. And, yes, SD's can change their minds at any time before they vote at the convention. They only need to look at the empirical evidence-- polls, primary results, demographics-- in swing states to know that Hillary can win the GE and Obama can't. It's all true. HRC is our only hope to win the WH.

[mckeown1128]

19. You can't count votes from fraudulent elections.

If FL and MI counted then Hillary took part in voter suppression.

[Mike L]

25. That's ridiculous. The polls were open to everyone.

And Obama chose not to have his name on the MI ballot. That was his dumb mistake.

[mckeown1128]

27. Telling people there vote doesn't count

and that delegates won't be awarded is voter suppression if you turn around after the vote and say "surprise it did count." Voter's have rights and one is to know whether or not their vote is symbolic or will put something into effect (delegates in this instance)

The fact that half the candidate weren't on the ballot is only icing on the cake of why MI and FL shouldn't be seated per the results. The real reason is that the voter's were told one thing... then their vote was used for something totally different.

[rusty fender]

31. Not his "dumb" mistake, but Hillary's

intent to CHEAT from the very beginning! What a no good, rotten... I'm verklempt.

[RiverStone]

39. HRC's not going anywhere after mid June

You must of missed the news, Obama has 35-36 SuperD's slated to put him over the top on June 5/6. She may get 1/2 the delegates in a DNC compromise for those sham state elections, but it won't matter.

Game over.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

44. Superdelegates will be changing their mind

I don't think you'll be enthused about how that's going to go.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Bensthename]

37. She does that after Obama has the clinched the delegate number She will lose her las bit of respect

from every Obama voter and most likely half of her own voters. History shows that taking this to the convention is a dem loss. We shall see what is most important to her.. HER or the party and country.

If people think we are in an up roar of MI/FL, they haven't seen any thing yet if she tries to take this to the convention.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Stop Cornyn]

28. The super delegates won't let it happen. They'll desert her en mass if she floats that trial baloon

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[grantcart]

41. Not going to the convention - Even Rendell admits its over and she can't go

to the convention without him.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/28/rendell_doesnt_think_clinton_can_win.html

[Mike L]

45. "we're not going to field our strongest candidate."

Said Rendell: "I'm a realist, and I think most likely the superdelegates will give Sen. Obama the votes he needs. I don't think the DNC is going to fairly adjust what happened in Florida... I don't think they're going to fairly adjust it. So I think it's very unlikely that Senator Clinton can prevail. I think that means we're not going to field our strongest candidate."

[billyoc]

46. She'll no doubt sway the Super Delegates with her massive war chest

of I.O.U.'s

:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

47. Nancy Pelosi says over her dead body.

so there's that

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/28/MNQE10V1UL.DTL&tsp=1

[sui generis]

51. there is that, being that the fittest candidate should prevail

without challenge. God I hope there's a better reason to elect to elect a president than some self-referential momentum though.

AK, I know we disagree on much, and with great ardor, but there is a nastiness toward Hillary supporters (I'm not one) that is unseemly and uncivil and I won't participate in it. To say anything at all in defense of having the candidate go as far as she feels is appropriate with the resources available is to become one of the the hated.

I think we need it, and I agree with Pelosi's assessment of the timing. Why does everyone else have rabies? Premature ejaculection?

[AtomicKitten]

55. Pelosi and posse have pledged to back the candidate with the most delegates.

And that is and will be Obama. Even with seating FL and MI 100%, Obama prevails.

The problem which is played out on these boards is entirely Clinton's fault with the incessant moving of goalposts and the constant drive to define and redefine what a win looks like depending on what she feels advantages her from one day to the next.

DNC rules state that the candidate who has garnered the most delegates wins. Period. There it is.

Is it that much of a leap to understand why trying to overturn the delegate count which is, in fact, the will of the people (Clinton conveniently disregards caucus states) is received with such distaste and revulsion?

Using every means at her disposal does not entitle Clinton to strong-arm the process, and on that point we vehemently disagree, and on that point the battle rages on.

[sui generis]

57. battles are for sissies

snork.

In the end, my vote will go to the best candidate, regardless of their fitness to be president, because that too is a demographic. At the same time, I recognize the need for a candidate to be fit. I just hope the candidate I vote for in the general election is both the best and the fittest by the time we get there.

I confess I have not followed the strategic blow by blow closely because I am much more interested in what positions the candidates represent than what they're doing strategically in the primaries. Maybe I'm a purist that way.

I do have respect for both candidates as candidates, but little to no respect for their positions on my marriage and family, nor on how they realistically plan to address social security, health care, inflation and an aging broke population in this country.

Maybe if I knew less or cared less about those issues I'd be more into the mechanics of the race for the sake of "battle", but as it stands I can honestly say the nastiness is demoralizing, and even embarrassing. I am being completely honest when I say that today I am not happy with the way we have conducted this year's primaries from the start, and that includes opening game strategiies of both candidates.

Sigh. Another sigh. :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

60. "fit" is determined by the vote and that is reflected in the delegate count

You seem to think your determination of "fit" should be the deciding factor, and it is - for your one vote. Your subtle insinuation is that you feel Obama is not fit.

No worries about that because you can weigh in for what that's worth - one vote.

There is much to be said about a semblance of order and rules, and Clinton shirking that is a disgraceful demonstration of blind ambition at all cost. That's really what you should be worried about in your determination of what "fit" means.

And, ftr, I have absolutely ZERO respect for the Clintons working the "isms" this campaign, for invoking racism and assassination - all revolting and really explains the anger that has you so bewildered.

[sui generis]

63. eeeeeeh

I love you as much as ever. God damn you are nearly as arrogant as I am, and may even surpass me. Some day when I'm dead or have all my fingers chopped off.

:hi:

Arrogance is fine. Just don't condescend, at least not to me - and I apologize in advance if that was condescending to you. Your one vote does not outweigh mine, in any universe. Clearly you are passionate in your disaffectation. I am not bewildered at all and don't need to restate myself other than this:

I don't like their political positions on just about everything. I like McCain's even less (don't bother going there). Since I'm voting for a plan, and not a personality, for BOTH or EITHER candidate, I don't give a crap about mudslinging from either candidate. What are their stances (rhetorical) on the issues. That is important to me. Kitten what you "subtly" like to qualify as my character flaws is irrelevant, and trying.

On topic, I agree with order and rules; they should have been laid out and fixed in stone from the start. If they had been, we would not have had pre-emptive primary politicking and maybe we'd be talking about the candidate's issues instead of the candidates' tactics.

[AtomicKitten]

65. Hey, it's not the POV but the way it's delivered that causes a fractious environment.

I was an ardent Clinton supporter for two decades. I operated as their enforcer on these boards for the first couple years of my tenure here at DU. I have a view of both sides of this contest having made the journey from the Clinton camp into the Obama camp. Well, with a detour through my dream of a Gore redux. Sigh. ;)

No worries. I have nothing against Clinton supporters because I really do know where they are coming from. The IWR vote always stuck in my craw but it wasn't until this campaign did I get a good look at what the Clintons are made of, and I have turned my back on them in disgust. But that's me, my journey, and for the purposes of this conversation where I'm coming from.

I think we will have an answer next week once and for all and then we can move ahead as a party to defeat the GOP in the fall. That's the money point here.

Cheers. Really. :D

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

61. well that's an overall opinion rather than specific to this issue

But I certainly agree Congress' neglect in not prosecuting the criminals currently inhabiting the White House is flat-out wrong and, in fact, makes the Dems case for leadership in November that much more difficult to press.

[Yotun]

52. I have met at least one person today who won't vote Dem WHEN they cave in and sit Michigan and Flori

da. Let's go all the way to prove that Democrats don't have the backbone to stand up for their own rules. Yea... :(

[Ganja Ninja]

56. Personally I think she's planning on turning Republican some time

after the election and running for the GOP nomination in 2012. Just look at where she's been this time around. Fund raisers with Rupert Murdock, appearances on FOX with Bill'o, sit downs with Richard Mellon Scaife. And then there's Bill's visit to the Rush Limbaugh show. Just who are they trying to appeal to?

[mudesi]

64. She has no integrity. I fully expect her to do the wrong thing (nm)

[mckeown1128]

67. kick.nt

[IsItJustMe]

68. I think you have the 'what' part of this right. I think her motives for doing so are tied up with

her ego though.