Clinton won't be Obama's VP, so get over that. Obama is racist and his wife too, and as she put it, "We can't stand Hillary Clinton, she thinks she is better than us".

Wow this thread is absolutely lacking in any understanding of what went on at the convention!

Unlike you, I watched about 5 hours of it today.
It was an amazing process, they did the best possible thing they could to unify the party, and the Clinton camp is throwing it in their faces.

If anyone is trying to make a mockery of the will of the voters, it is Hillary.

I won't bother to tell you about why they did what they did.

The DNC violated their own rules by giving a waver to New Hampshire but denying one to Michigan or Florida, and precipitated the entire disaster.
They were left with no choice but to tamper further to try and unify the party. Today they worked within the rules. What clinton wanted was the rules to be thrown out just for her. Which would set a wonderful precident.
It is bigger than Clinton or Obama.
If you really want to show an interest, you should really show more interest.

Originally posted by Cyberbian

If you really want to show an interest, you should really show more interest.

So tell me. What did the 600,000 people who voted in Michigan do wrong that resulted in their votes not counting? Start here before you lecture me on how much interest I'm showing. The election should be about the voters, not The Freakin' Party. The voters got screwed. Obama won. And the circus ended with the 29 clowns giving themselves a self-congratulatory round of applause. It's about the most twisted thing I ever saw.

Wow this thread is absolutely lacking in any understanding of what went on at the convention! ...

Cyberian, just when I think there is hope for you, you come out with something like that post.

The DNC just gave Obama those delegates. He did not earn them. The DNC put Hillary away today and with much blatent hypocrisy to boot.

Imagine if it were the other way around, you'd be boasting how unfair it was to Obama, along with Obama's supports. It would really be a big deal if it were to have happened that way.

As the old saying goes, you can't polish a tird, but somehow people like you make that possible because you can apparently be sold on anything.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jetxnet]

All of this has only reinforced my opinion that the American electoral process is the most overblown, convoluted, purposefully obfuscating, defunct system probably in existence. There is way too much going on, it is needlessly over-complex, and the only winners in all of it are the ones who bend, break, and ignore the rules for their own gain without a single thought for their country. I've been watching all of this like a hawk, and to be honest it's quite disgusting they way the candidates are clawing at each other, throwing mud, and playing "he-said-she-said" while completely ignoring any and all matters of substance. It makes me sick, it truly does.

What your country needs is a complete teardown and rebuild of the whole system. There is no way the current state of affairs can be fixed. None.

Originally posted by grover

The rules committee should have stood its ground... it is the state leaders in Florida and Michigan that are to be blamed... not Obama.

And what about the 600,000 voters in Michigans? Why are they punished for what state leaders did?

And how can the DNC justify their totalitarian and arbitrary control over when states can hold elections? Specifically, why are the voters of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina given preferential treatment?

This is the exact due process concept that the Supreme Court ruled on in Bush v. Gore in 2000. If this goes to the Supreme Court, it could never stand. Voters can't be given preferential treatment, i.e., different treatment than other voters.

What's being totally overlooked here is the concept of the punishment for breaking rules. The DNC simply cannot in good faith punish the voters because party official broke rules. An appropriate punishment would have been fines or penalties against the people who broke the rules, not the voters.

Who are the individuals who broke the rules, and how have they been punished? Worse yet, why did New Hampshire get rewarded for breaking the same rules?

And you think the DNC acted fairly? And just to remind you, the candidates shouldn't have ANY say in this. It doesn't matter what Hillary or Obama agreed to. Since when do candidates get to decide whose votes count?

Originally posted by danx

I, like Cyberian, watched basically the whole thing on CSPAN, so I can say that I apparently know more about this than you have shown so far.

I watched the whole thing too, so save your pompous condescension for another topic.

Anyway, there are rules and those states broke the rules. While there could be legitimate reasons for not liking particular rules, they still must be followed

Yes, this is the Obama spin on the situation. First, let's be clear on this. No STATE broke any rules. People broke rules. The people who broke the rules should be punished, not people who didn't break the rules. I'm not sure I've ever seen a precedent like this. Person A breaks a rule so 600,000 people have their votes disallowed. Great work, Dems.

The result, the delegates and votes allocated were fair and represent the percentage that each candidate earn, taking into consideration the 50% penalty.

Please explain how Obama earned any delegates from Michigan?

Don't also forget that there were 48 other states who would have liked to have changed their primaries and caucuses to an earlier date but didn't, and followed the rules.

No, there were 47 states that followed the rules. New Hampshire broke the rules and was given a waiver. I thought you said you watched the whole thing?

For everyone who watched the whole thing, I think it was pretty clear that this result was fair.

I did watch the whole thing and I thought it was one of the darkest, most embarrassing days in the history of the country. It started with this group of 30 Democratic insiders granting special privileges to most favored states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

Then when Michigan and Florida, in an effort to make the votes of their citizens mean something, dared challenge this elite crew of Washington insiders, the Washington insiders displayed incomprehensible arrogance by asserting that they would not consider the votes of the over 2,000,000 citizens in Florida and Michigan.

When the light of day was brought upon this abuse of power and authority, the DNC decided they needed to save their own ass and protect their own kingdom at the expense of the people who voted in Michigan and Florida.

So they decided among themselves which citizens votes counted, and which didn't, and for how much those votes were going to count. FIVE MONTHS after the votes were tallied. In other words, they waited until the race was over to allocate the votes in a way to make sure Obama was still the winner. If this was a fair process, they would have done this BEFORE the race was over. It's like the referees at at football game deciding a touchdown is going to be worth 4 points instead of 6 after the game is over. It was a total farce.

What would have been FAIR and JUST would have been to punish the INDIVIDUALS who violated the rules, not the voters in Michigan and Florida. And by awarded delegates to Obama in Michigan that he didn't earn is an affront to the principles of the Democratic party, who I will remind you, has complained for the last 8 years that every vote must count.

What you saw wasn't fair. It was a display of hypocrisy, corruption, and an abuse of power of the highest order. A total farce. A decision of HOW to count the vote after the race was over in order to come out ahead politically with ZERO regard for the concept of fairness.

Obama as weird as this may sound is our only hope out of the 3.(i would prefer Jesse Ventura)..

we need a new government..ran by GOOD humans.

but then again once he becomes pres he will probably get the shaft and become another puppet...we shall see.


i feel there is no point in talking about this though cause a lot of the peeps here are government....lol look at all the anti-obama threads.

oh well..the government peeps here are going to change for the better as well...i know they can feel it..they want to care about the people and our future.

to them i give a big giant cuddly bear hug and i hope you change your ways cause judgment(or something like it,hard to explain) will be soon(around 2012).

take care

Originally posted by jamie83
I watched the whole thing too, so save your pompous condescension for another topic.

You apparently didn't read that that part of my post was directed to another member..

Yes, this is the Obama spin on the situation. First, let's be clear on this. No STATE broke any rules. People broke rules. The people who broke the rules should be punished, not people who didn't break the rules.

I'm sorry, Obama spin? No, there's no spin there, just the facts. The rules were clear about what would happen if the states would move up their primaries or caucuses.

Like I said in my previous post, you might not like the rules and they might not make sense or be fair, but everyone was aware of them. Hillary certainly was, and was in favor of punishing those states.. before she found out that she won them and would need the votes in the future.

If there's any spin to this situation it's from the Clinton people.

Please explain how Obama earned any delegates from Michigan?

I'm confused.. I thought you said you watched the whole thing?

Anyway, Michigan's party chairman said they come up to the 69-59 number based upon the primary (Clinton 55%, Uncommitted 40%), exit polls (Clinton 46%, Obama 37%) and write-in ballots.

No, there were 47 states that followed the rules. New Hampshire broke the rules and was given a waiver. I thought you said you watched the whole thing?

Thank you for the correction.

What would have been FAIR and JUST would have been to punish the INDIVIDUALS who violated the rules, not the voters in Michigan and Florida.

Agreed.