Clinton backers warn Pelosi on superdelegate rift , page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 27-3-2008 @ 08:11 PM by jsobecky

reply to post by kosmicjack

How is it that he is still in the race? Here's my .02...

Giuliani knocked himself out with that harebrained scheme of putting all his eggs in the Florida basket.

Romney was knocked out by two things: 1) collusion between Huckabee and McCain, and 2) the sad fact that America still thinks a candidate's religion is important.

After those two were out of it, it was easy to overpower Huckabee.

reply posted on 27-3-2008 @ 08:27 PM by seagull

reply to post by jsobecky

It's not a foolish notion to want to know what religion some one is, who is running for high office. It gives a voter at least a glimpse of what their core belief system is. It doesn't mean they're good or bad, but it is what makes them, or at least helps, who and what they are.

Did that make sense?

reply posted on 27-3-2008 @ 08:44 PM by Shar

kosmicjack,

She is so going nuclear

Yes, that is exactly what this reporter said at the end of this news.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Personally, I'm shocked that it came down to these two people!! If our elections were all held at the same time we wouldn't have this problem.

Why cant we hold an election to at least narrow it down to 2 people and then go from there. Instead of a few states chosing and the rest drop out. I think it's crazy they way they do it.

[edit on 27-3-2008 by Shar]

reply posted on 27-3-2008 @ 11:29 PM by Shar

"UPDATE"

War Breaking Out Over Superdelegate Role in Democratic Primary

The battle over the Democratic presidential nomination turned nasty on Thursday, one day after Hillary Clinton donors subtly threatened to stop the spigots for House Democrats if Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists superdelegates vote the same way as pledged delegates. Liberal group MoveOn.org — which has endorsed Barack Obama — issued a letter to its members, asking them to sign on to a statement that says millionaire donors shouldn’t dictate how the race is won. It also asked for members to match the money the donors would otherwise supply. The Democratic nomination should be decided by the voters — not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We’ve given money — and time — to progressive candidates and causes, and we’ll support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for democracy in the Democratic Party,” reads the statement.....

you can read more here

You know I always though moveon.org came about during the clinton adminstration. For them. So that surprised me a great deal. I also agree that millionaire should not dictate who wins the race. Is she saying that because she has money she should win? I don't think so!!!! She is no different than the rest of us.

reply posted on 28-3-2008 @ 06:20 AM by jsobecky

reply to post by seagull

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by jsobecky

It's not a foolish notion to want to know what religion some one is, who is running for high office. It gives a voter at least a glimpse of what their core belief system is. It doesn't mean they're good or bad, but it is what makes them, or at least helps, who and what they are.

Did that make sense?

No, there's nothing wrong with that, in the interest of vetting a candidate. Religion could make a difference in a person's approach to national defense, for instance.

What I'm talking about are people who won't vote for anyone who has a different religion than they do.

reply posted on 28-3-2008 @ 12:18 PM by seagull

reply to post by jsobecky

True enough, Jso, true enough. I suppose since I don't use religion as a basis for voting for or even against. I automatically, or almost automatically, think that most others don't either. I suppose I'm wrong in assuming that. Assumptions'll get you every time,