"We're ready to provide strong leadership to, er, run the country. We think."
Posted on 05/31/2008 4:17:09 PM PDT by Jean S
If there are riots it will set race relations back even further than they are now.
"We're ready to provide strong leadership to, er, run the country. We think."
Dem superdelegates can trump all the dem voters in over 30 states.
A month ago they were talking about putting Al Gore in if the problems with Hillary and Obama hurt chances of winning in the fall. That would mean NO voters would count. Just the "supers" doing their thing...
Wish that we could find another Ronald Reagan.
If the delegates “committed” to Obama don’t come through there will be mayhem on the convention floor and they can kiss 2008, and probably 2012, goodbye.
Of course I sincerely believe their party’s leaders and candidates have strayed so far from what they claim to believe, and their special interest groups have such different agendas, that the Democrats are in serious trouble in the long run.
I think those that think the Republicans are in trouble are missing which party REALLY has problems that are likely impossible to overcome.
And how many of those 60% that voted for Hillary only did so because either a) they didn’t understand what “uncommitted” meant or b) recognized that an “uncommitted” vote was no vote at all, since the person you elected to represent you could turn around and vote for the one candidate you were expressly rejecting?
Except to make that argument she has to avoid mentioning that Obama couldn’t get votes in Michigan, and he likely would have a popular vote lead if the caucus states had regular primaries rather than the abomination that is a caucus.
Even the typical Democratic Superdelegate isn’t that dumb. Especially those who held out this long to see what they could get for their vote and/or waited to see which side would win so they could join the winning team.
Ha!!! I remember that!! Kyle Farnsworth is a legitimate “likes to fight guy”
That's what really set Ickes off with him saying that Hillary reserved the right to challenge the Michigan decision with the credential's committee in Denver. But the vote wasn't even close; 19-7 to seat the delegation giving each 1/2 vote and the 44% uncommitted to Obama.
Apparently some votes count more than others with the DimocRats.
Hopefully, but they'll have to be told on a GOP or GWB bashing thread, because they never come to the "liberals stink" ones.
Denver, Denver, Denver!
Only of those states that voted. There were many caucus states - most of which Obama won - and they don't have vote counts to put into the 'popular vote' total.
The crazy thing is Obama was not on the Michigan ballot and will get more delegates than the percentage that voted uncommitted, and Clinton will get 4 less than represent the actual votes she received.
So they stole 8 delegate votes. (Though each only counts half.)
I can understand penalizing Michigan and even compromising party rules. I can even understand giving some delegate representation to Obama who was not on the ballot.
But I cannot understand taking some from Clinton and giving them to Obama. That’s a penalty for one candidate rather than the state that broke the rules.
As far as I an see, they did what Democrats do best: decide based on emotion and a distorted sense of right and wrong, rather than logic and morality.
These are the same ones who make the rules we must follow, but they cannot even stick to their own.
“Democrat rules”. Talk about your oxymoron!
“Democrat rules”. Talk about your oxymoron!
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.