• Home
  • Local Listings
  • Archives
  • Face to Face
  • About Us
  • Sunday Line-Up
Add a Comment
by elsylee28 March 10, 2008 4:42 PM EDT
of course they will.
BTW I found a fantastic article...A MUST read for EVERYONE

%u201CThe Hussein Dynamic%u201D at http://savagepolitics.com.

Brilliant writing that goes beyond what the MSM is feeding us!!!!
Reply to this comment
by samthetvcat March 10, 2008 4:08 PM EDT
PS Also blue-collar men are likely cognizant that while Hillary uses black/''muslim'' references against Barack, the GOP are likely to use female references against her (the stand by her man like Tammy Winette quote, etc) . . .
Reply to this comment
by samthetvcat March 10, 2008 4:06 PM EDT
If you allot the all the delegates for the remaining states by using relative donations to the candidates as proxy for relative voter support which tends to be a strong predictor, and then add the Michigan and Florida delegates and popular vote as-is, Hillary STILL doesn''t beat Obama (when you give Obama half the ''uncommitted'' votes, which is WAY generous) on pledged delegates and popular vote.

So, maybe this whole argument will become moot if she loses Pennsylvania. Because then doesn''t she lose her whole argument that only SHE can win big states? The superdelegates might all use that excuse to pile on Barack''s side if that happens just to squeeze her out. Despite conventional wisdom, I actually think she''s LESS likely to win Pennsylvania because she''s never actually been the front-runner this whole race . . . when she tries to portray herself as the front-runner, voters shoot her down. She CLAIMS her base are blue-collar men, but prior to Ohio they''ve been shifting towards Obama which means if they shifted to her that fast they can just as easily shift away from her.

If you look at candidates the way you would assess the true value of a stock, Obama''s got greater growth potential because his ''change'' platform works better against McCain. Hillary''s ''experience'' platform does not. I think it comes down to that given that their policy positions are pretty much the same . . .
Reply to this comment
by kerick913 March 10, 2008 3:16 PM EDT
The whole Loser-crat situation shows how well they could govern the country. They can''t even figure out how to nominate their leader. They want to change their own rules after the game starts. That is something that kids do when they are losing at Monopoly or another board game. If the DNC wants to havea do-over, then they should pay the entire bill for a do-over. The taxpayers of the state should NOT pay a dime. Besides, the Republican voters don''t care and definately should not pay.
Reply to this comment
by lisa313-2009 March 10, 2008 2:47 PM EDT
Many people living outside of the state of Florida are stating that the will of the people came through in the votes on January 29. The amount of people that came out to vote had more to do with the tax issue on the ballot than voting for Hillary Clinton. What they fail to realize when they comment that Hillary Clinton won overwhelmingly is the fact that many Barack supporters were told that their vote would not count, and for this reason stayed home. I myself was one of those voters and I know many others as well. In retrospect, I am now wondering if I was apart of just another one of Hillary Clinton and her campaign insiders "bag of tricks". Could this have been planned all along. If Hillary knew the rules of the game going in and objected to them, why did she agree not to campaign in front of the DNC and other candidates. Yet inspite of this agreement she flew down to Florida before the primary and just happened to be shown on the local tv speaking to a crowd of potential voters. Like usual, she said one thing in our faces and did something else behind our backs. I don''t know about anyone else, but that is called campaigning. Hillary and all her supporters knew about that DNC decision to not seat delegates before Michigan and Florida. It seems her conviction to get them seated now has more to do with being behind Barack Obama in the delegate count.
Reply to this comment
by cozzicon March 10, 2008 2:18 PM EDT
"The DNC may not accept the citizens of Florida & Michigan''''s voice at there convention but come November they can''''t suppress there voice any longer. I think Florida & Michigan citizens will at that time make very clear there voice!"-- Posted by gemstone1955

What a load of garbage.

1. The Michigan and Florida democrat parties were told not to hold a primary before a particular date, or their delegates would not be seated.

2. Clinton and Obama both agree to this based on party rules. They both state publicly that they will adhere to the policy of the party.

3. Clinton puts herself on the ballot in in both states. Obama is on the ballot in Florida.

4. Michigan and Florida hold primaries in violation of party rules.

5. Clinton starts losing primaries. And then starts to actively trying to get the DNC to give her the delegates for her wins in Florida and Michigan. Which are not even really wins, since Obama didn''t campaign in either state, and wasn''t even on the ballot in Michigan (Obama adhered to the rules).

C''Mon- who are you speaking up for? This isn''t a voters rights issue. If anything it''s a manipulation of the vote being perpetrated by Hillary Clinton.

Those delegates should-not-be-seated. Period.

Citizens of Florida and Michigan who feel disenfranchised in the primary process should hold their local party leadership accountable.

Vote the bums out!
Reply to this comment
by davthewav1 March 10, 2008 1:59 PM EDT
Florida''s republican governor Charlie Crist is promoting the option of allowing the illegitimate primary''s results stand with Hillary Clinton as the winner . Why wouldn''t he want a do over election that would follow the rules of the DNC . Could it be as a avid supporter of John McCain, governor Crist wants Hillary to win the nomination knowing that she would be easier to beat than Barack Obama in the general election? It seems that Hillary Clinton and the republicans have a common agenda, to take Obama out of the game, that is until the general election where the republicans will unite strongly against their despised opponent .

Reply to this comment
by realpatriot1 March 10, 2008 1:55 PM EDT
If Hillary had abided by her agreement to not campaign in these states the Primaries could''ve proceeded when originally scheduled and we wouldn''t have this mess.

She wanted to see if she could get away with running unopposed like Sadaam. Now it''s blowing up in her face yet she''s still whining.

She is now telling Newsweek that she believes pledged delegates elected by the voters re free to change their votes. It''s clear that she knows she''s already lost fair and square and she''s planning to steal the nomination by promising perks to elected delegates to go against the vote of the public.

Is this what she would call a core Democratic value?

Samantha Power was ight, she is a monster. It''s time for real Democrats to ram a stake through the heart of the beast!
Reply to this comment
by snarful March 10, 2008 1:41 PM EDT
If I were to break the law, would a judge say go back and do it over? Well all parties agreed to the rules. Now they want to be seated? Many Dem.''s did not vote in the Floida primary because they knew it would not count. Besides the Dem.s will not win Florida in the general election anyway. As far as Mich. goes only one candidate on the ballet give me a break.
Reply to this comment
by ewnnrj March 10, 2008 1:30 PM EDT
"Will Florida, Mich. Delegates Be Seated?"
No.
Live with it.
Reply to this comment