Posted on 05/07/2008 7:24:59 PM PDT by doug from upland
LANSING, Mich. (AP)
Hillary did not win the Michigan primary. She looted it because hers was the only name on the ballot. Obama (Edwards & Richardson) agreed to keep their names off the ballot.
Election workers were instructing voters how to write-in a vote for Obama.
Because by being the only name on the ballot, she got 54% of the vote. She won over "Undecided" by a margin of 54% to 46%.
They are not smart enough to have such plans. There was no overall plan to help or hurt Hillary. Two states decided that they wanted to jump to the front of the line in primaries. They screwed the process up that had been in place for many years. The most important thing in all of this is the ground game by Obama. Hillary thought she was going to win by Feb. 5, actually even before Feb. 5 with massive early absentee voting in California.
They could just as easily give Kucinich 55 delegates (or 69, if his wife is included, photos please). What did they do, pick Obama’s name out of a hat to give delegates to, sort of a Ann Arbor lottery? Obama should do the right thing and let Clinton have the delegates she, ah, ?, won?, and take away one of her talking points. Give the lady a bone to play with (damn, there’s that 69 again), and she’ll go away happy.
I guess because everyone else dropped out, there was no one to whom the other delegates could have been given.
I know, just playing, but still post those Mrs. Kucinich photos. Isn’t Crazy Lyndon LaRouche still a candidate? Why doesn’t he get some of the Figtin’ 55? LaRouche probably can actually make an issue of this, if he has enough room in his brain to realize it.
IMO they arrived @ the most "agreeable" number.
You are correct to put the word "right" in quote marks to indicate skepticism. The political parties have the power, rather than a right, to select their nominees. There is considerable confusion over the correct usage of the words "right," "power," "privilege," and "license", which are related in meaning but by no means identical.
A right exists in nature; it is granted by God to all human beings just because we exist. Life, liberty, and the pursuit (note: not the achievement) of happiness meet this criterion. Anything else is either a power, a privilege, or a license.
A power is either granted by other human beings or imposed on them by force, as in the power to tax, the power to wage war, and the power to rule. It encompasses activities which are done to others, with or without their consent.
A privilege is also granted by human beings, but encompasses actions that are not done to other people. Examples are the the privilege of voting, the privilege of private-property ownership, the privilege of enrolling in college, and the privilege of wearing casual clothes to work. None of these is a right--each must be granted by another person, and you must meet established criteria in order to be granted the privilege. Likewise, you can lose any of these privileges by breaking certain laws or failing to maintain the criteria you met to be awarded the privilege in the first place.
A license is a purchased permission to perform a specific act, such a marriage license, a driver's licence, or a business license. A license must be purchased from people authorized to issue them, and as with privileges, you must meet certain criteria in order to qualify for the license.
She is openly trying to steal the nomination. If the supers end up giving it to her it will be an ugly win and she will never be considered legitimate. The rats haven't even gotten over the 2000 election yet. She is so power hungry. The thought of the Clintons in the White House with total control of the House and Senate and scores to settle is absolutely frightening.
Read closer. If they can show Obama (via write-in votes) can claim a certain amount of delegates, he should get that amount.
Don’t confuse my statement about Hillary getting most or all of the delegates to mean I approve of how the Michigan dems screwed up their primary or how the DNC is handling this. Technically she was the only one on the ballot.
I would believe there is a legal problem if you disenfranchise voters who actually voted by arbitrarily deciding to give a certain percentage of delegates to another candidate because you think that is what he should end up with. If that is the case, they must also give some to Edwards, and any other Dem still in the race at that point to be their definition of ‘fair.’
LOL, I learned that a long time ago on this forum.
You know what Doug, I really think that Hillary’s gang will do just what Gore did in 2000-make up the rules as they go along in order to get what they want.
Michigan and Florida didn’t matter a bit to Hillary-until she started losing. Coming up with new metrics...all because she’s losing.
In 2000, Gore demanded count after recount after recount until he got an ourcome favorable to him. He didn’t stop until the SCOTUS told him it was over. I expect the same from Hillary.
Me too. But as some will tell you, we just don’t understand Rush’s omnipotent logic.
There is a right to private property (not a privilege). It is biblical (Thou shalt not steal. - you cannot take what does not belong to you - implying things are able to belong to specific people). You have a right to own things. The original wording of the phrase was “Life, Liberty, and Property.” They wound up changing it to ‘pursuit of happiness’.
The fact that they are not absolute rights does not mean they are not a right. Government can legally (and unfortunately, unlawfully) take your life, your liberty, and your property under certain conditions. You can do certain things that cause forfeiture of your rights, from a biblical standpoint. Murderers forfeited their right to life (death penatly). Criminals in prison forfeit their right to move about freely. Property rights do not apply to thieves’s stolen goods or when they are forced to make restitution in either money and/or goods.
Roooooooohhhhhhh
It's staaaaarrrrrtiiiiiinnnnngggg....
Well, Obama HAS bought more delegates than Hillary.
My opinion is not based on logic. I just think that the Clintons are so completely ruthless that it is the only possible outcome.
Incidentally, this weeks National Review had an interesting column by Rob long that made me laugh out loud. Don't know if it is available on line.
Apparently when you change the rules once, you can change them again and again and again.
Michigan learned that from the Clintons.
pandering to the gay community again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.