It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by Leo Strauss

It's all about power, the corruption that powers bring, that is why Hillary wants that seat in the white house, because she already tasted a piece of that power and she got hook on it.

McCain in the other hand has been wanting that seat longer that Hillary, for him is just like that shinning start that keeps eluding him and time is not longer in his side.

What you people are watching is nothing more than the results of the political corruption that has taken hold of this nation.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:01 PM
I am a democrat but I would vote for McCain before voting for Hillary.

Hillary is a conservative in disguise. I have said it before and I am saying it again. Not only that but dishonesty is a big no-no. If I can't trust my leader(at least in theory) then there is no point in voting for them regardless of ideology.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:58 PM
Hilliary is the poster child of "I will say or do anything to win the office".

I hope she does what the article states. The real demoncrats will finally see what their party is made of and then come to embrace the Republicans. She has no compunction of tearing the party apart or disenfranchising minority members. She cares only for herself and the power only she feels she has earned being married only to Bill.

The real problem is this, and it is sad. McCain will win if she is the party nominee. She is a polarizing figure with far too many negatives to overcome.

While I am a very strong Republican, Obama is the least damaged candidate with the fewest political favors owed to lobbyists. Only he can bring change to Washington, not because he is a great leader, but because of his lack of experience in Washington and he feels he can make change happen. He really has no clue as to what he is doing or what he is getting involved with. This may be a good thing though.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by grover
So in the long run Hillary and her cohorts really don't give a damn whether the voters choose Obama over her or not...

That's a strange conclusion to draw. She wouldn't be trying to seat the delegates if the people of Florida and Michigan didn't vote for her. They did. All she's doing is making sure those who voted for her are counted (as is democratic).

Your thread is kind of transparent don't you think? Since you are for the disenfranchisement of anybody who votes for her.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 07:08 PM
I guess it goes back to the old adage...

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

While some people may get into politics for good and pure reasons, when they get up high enough to actually have a chance at being President, they are already very much corrupted....they wouldn't be in the position to be President if they were not. Over the past 8 years or so I have completely lost faith in the democratic process in the United States. When was the last time a President actually made good on any of the promises they made, aside from attacking someone? Blah....I could rant about this all day. As I get older I really start to see things for the way they are. It does not matter who wins, in the end they are all the same.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 07:24 PM
Sadly, the condition of the Democratic party is exemplified by this ongoing 'comedy.'

Clearly, the party itself is not projecting an image demonstrating that as a political body, they are ready for the white house - they seem to be 'playing a game' but none of us are really in this for the entertainment are we? This is a bit more important than all this conniving and contorting. Maybe it's time they all get together and realize the mechanics of their process are broken. Do they do that sort of thing anymore? Are they too blinded by the 'prize' to realize that they are leaving the PEOPLE behind? I mean, this is about the PEOPLE they are to represent, right?

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by hinky
While I am a very strong Republican, Obama is the least damaged candidate with the fewest political favors owed to lobbyists. Only he can bring change to Washington, not because he is a great leader, but because of his lack of experience in Washington and he feels he can make change happen. He really has no clue as to what he is doing or what he is getting involved with. This may be a good thing though.

In the end it does not matter who wins because some things are hard to change. We must change the system, not the candidates. One person or a small group of well meaning politicians can only do so much before 'ill-fated' destiny starts catching up.

Although you are a conservative I agree with the last part of your analysis.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by EarthCitizen07]

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:30 AM
Technically speaking, if the delegates are seated the people are getting who they vote for.

Its like popular vote vs electoral vote.

I really dont see how anyone here can trust obama anymore. Especially after his wifes college dissertation being made public. Everyone surrounding obama's history has a history of anti-white any unity.

Hillary may be one hell of a liar herself, but at least she has a history you can trust.

If McCain wins the election its only because he's the most honest candidate.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:56 AM

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I am a democrat but I would vote for McCain before voting for Hillary.

Hillary is a conservative in disguise. I have said it before and I am saying it again. Not only that but dishonesty is a big no-no. If I can't trust my leader(at least in theory) then there is no point in voting for them regardless of ideology.

Hillary a Conservative in disguise?

Universal health care, her ideas about raising children and how much the government should be in control of family in "It Takes a Village"? That is not Conservative, That is SOCIALIST!

This woman will NEVER be MY President!

[edit on 6-5-2008 by CreeWolf]

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:06 AM
Some of you sound so surprised that Ms. Clinton would do something like this...

Her ambition to be President knows no boundries. She's lied...she's now going to attempt to cheat her way to the nomination. I dearly wish I was surprised, but I'm not.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:37 AM
reply to post by CreeWolf

Take it from a bottled and bonded liberal... Hillary is no liberal... if anything she could be best described as a moderate neocon but other than that there is not much difference.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:58 AM
I heard a joke this morning, something Chris Rock (a comedian) said.

"How come we've never heard of super delegates until a black man is running for president?"

It seems to me that Hilary is making/breaking the rules as she goes along. Anything to secure the nomination. I was reading a book last night and it talks about the Kerry/Bush elections and how Hilary Clinton was in a room with Bush and Cheney and they were watching a Kerry speech, Cheney and Clinton looked at eachother and said, "it doesn't matter, were both voting for Bush" and HIGH FIVED ONE ANOTHER!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously people, this is not a joke, this is from a book about the Bush presidency. If it were not true, then I am sure someone would be sueing someone! Hilary and McCain are just extensions of Bush.

Anyone who says they are a liberal/democrat but would vote for McCain if Hilary was the nom.............really??????? You give up your rights and your freedoms willy nilly, see the patriot act become an actual part of the constitution, see us in a 100 year with Iraq, etc, blah, blah, blah.........really just because you are pissed that your candidate did win??????????????? Is America really that FREAKING STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????? God (if he exists) help us all!!!!!

A vote for McCain is a vote for Hilary, a vote for Obama is a vote for the lesser evil, a vote for Hilary is a vote for at least some itsy bitsy chance at some how very small change. No matter how corrupt they all are. She's a cheater.......he's Bush Jr. and Obama is naive. We're all screwed!

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 09:23 AM
If anyone is a super elite its the Clintons, I mean they have the whole political image down pat, Bill the Rhoads Scholar both of them completely Washington insiders who like the Bush's can't get enough of having power and keep the grip on the country I mean the Clintons as a family had their chance and we saw what could be possible and not possible, the Bush's had it on lock and have a great influence on the courts, the laws and the future for many years, if we really want change it has to be someone completely new I think, I used to have some respect for the Clintons but after this campaign I have seen an ugly and deceptive side on both their parts that I do not like, how can someone really know what a candidate will do based upon their debates and rhetoric to get elected its virtually impossible, I think that if the Clintons went nuclear it won't work, for one they would have to at least split michigan because Obama did not even campaign there, it would not be fair to give even unequal shares of that states delegates, the only issue if any would be Florida, but they both broke the rules of the party by having early primaries which disqualified their votes, so legally there is no leg for her option to stand on, at least as far as i can see at this point.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by CreeWolf

If she sounds socialist to you, you must be a budding hitler, as she's right-wing.

And since when is socialism bad? The countries with quality of living higher than the US are socialist. You know - those countries with freedom, longer life expectancy, better healthcare, better pensions, better public transport, etc.

But don't bother with logic if it winds up supporting TEH COMMIES!!!111eleventy1!


posted on May, 6 2008 @ 09:52 AM
ALL politicans say what their (1) what their party wants to hear and (2) what the public would like to hear... this is especially true in the race for president.

To many... creewolf for one... Hillary sounds like a socialist but there is a huge difference between real socialism (which is totally different from Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist "communism") and the select policies that Hillary enunciates.

All that being said.... when it comes to politicians, and especially politicans like Hillary... pay no attention to her words... look at her deeds and her voting record, and especially her second and third votes on something. By this I mean something she might vote for while the press is looking vs. how she voted after they've turned their attention to something more important, like the latest Brittney Spears meltdown. Yes its more liberal than say bush minor, but its far more conservative, or neoconservative than liberal left.

Remember she (and Bill) are both members of the Democratic Leadership Council... a body of politicans who have in their accomadation of the right in their push to the middle effectively nutered the Democratic party until it became little more than conservative lite.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 09:57 AM
This is an amendment to my original posting of this thread. This is from today's article the title of which is "There is No Nuclear Option for Hillary".

Edsall writes, "with at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives."

The problems with this report -- and other speculative pieces like it -- is that the Rules and Bylaws Committee is not the last stop in the DNC committee process on the question of seating Florida and Michigan delegates. The DNC Credentials Committee is, and there, according to members interviewed throughout the nominating season, many delegates seem to believe following the party's rules -- i.e., winning delegates state by state -- is paramount, as is respecting the primary season's popular vote winner.

In other words, there is a bigger picture and more to the process than the next hurdle in the horse race coverage, namely, the Rules Committee's meeting on May 31.

We shall see in the next couple weeks which way this actually plays out.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by grover]

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:05 AM
You liberals ned to relax Hillary is only acting like a moderate to win the moderate vote, if she won the election she would instantly revert back to her old liberal self.
As far as McCain goes the only good thing us conservatives would get would be good, conservative judges. it seems

anyhoo can you say "Operation chaos"?

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by SteveR

Since they had already agreed to disallow Florida and Michigan for having early primary elections, and the Democratic leaders in those states knew that from the very beginning, as did the voters who did vote.... the answer is no.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:08 PM
Michigan and Florida state democratic committees knew what might happen if they flouted the National Committee rules. Now they pay the price. Too bad, so sad...tough luck. Follow the rules next time.

Now Ms. Clinton, who signed that agreement along with all the other Dems. way back when to disallow the results, wants to allow them back in. For the sole reason, she won them...hmmm...too bad, so sad...tough luck, chicky. Follow the rules that you helped put in place this time.

These state voters are in no way disenfranchised. They'll still get to vote in November. That's truely the only vote that matters.

I am really curious to see what Mr. Obama's people do, if/when Ms. Clinton is allowed to do this. Interesting is the word I choose to use.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 09:08 PM
Considering that when all the votes are counted, Hillary is the candidate who has won the popular vote. Hillary did not camapaign in Michigan, she left her name on the ballot, showing some respect for the people of Michigan. Hillary Clinton was forced to agree not to campaign in Florida and Michigan.

Obama campaigned in Florida more than Hillary did, so learn some facts, those who prefer to mis-represent.

If Hillary Clinton uses the rules to win, being that she has won the popular vote so far, then that would be just and right. Maybe Obama supporters need to stop thinking that they have the right to decide on which rules will be followed. If Michigan and Florida hadn't been disenfranchised, Hillary would have won the nom long ago. If Hillary uses the rules in place to take the nomination after having the most people vote for her in this supposedly democratic process, than she is doing what is right.

<< 1   >>

log in