DNC Rules Committee Selects Obama as Nominee

That is a contradiction but more importantly untrue.
She agreed and signed.

She supported and even acknowledged that the States shouldn't count. She didn't even plan on the votes counting at all and to suggest she did would imply that she actually had an ulterior motive in keeping her name on the ballot that she lied when she said they don't and shouldn't count.

What else is there to say other than she changed her mind or flip-flopped?

- Lee

I never claimed it did. I said she agreed to abide by the rules of the DNC not that she agreed that the delegates should be taken away. Ultimately though she did state that Michigan wouldn't count.

The delegates weren't taken away in the end just divided.



That is speculation and I am going by what she said and swore to uphold, not making assumptions on the possibility of why she may have said it. Similar to her vote for this War to be authorized. I am taking it for what it was and realizing that some voted against it.

I doubt seriously that many could force Hillary to do anything and as you can see already there are talks of fighting this till August. She agreed to the rules and that is how it should be.

- Lee

reply to post by jamie83

---

Just so you are aware, there is no law that says the voters even get a say in the nominee selection process. If they wanted to, the DNC and RNC could simply decide amongst themselves who they wanted the candidates to be, and we would have no say. That would be perfectly legal. We only have a legal right to vote for the general election in November. So there is nothing wrong with them giving however many delegates to whoever they want.

reply to post by lee anoma

---

So you admit that Hillary Clinton never agreed that Florida and Michigan should not be counted, only that she not campaign in those states, which she did not directly do, only with nationally broadcasted commercials as Obama did. Glad to see you are facing the reality.

You want to ignore the behind the scenes arm twisting that the DNC is doing, go ahead, but you aren't going to convince any of us Hillary supporters who will be even more determined to thwart the will of the democratic machine, who more and more have stopped representing the middle class and the working class, and become the party of special interests.

Maybe this is the beginning of the break up of the democratic party. I guess it is about time. On too many issues, the democratic party elitists seem bent on defying the will of their constituents, like say on immigration, or family rights and fathers rights.

True, the DNC can pick anybody however they want. That said, if the lie, deceive, or otherwise mislead people in what they are doing, especially when they are taking financial contributions, what they did in Michigan could be considered fraudulent.

However, I'm guessing since the den of thieves that makes up the DNC rules committee are all lawyers, they probably have their asses covered.

Of course maybe their dishonesty re the primaries might be a violation of some bar association ethics code.

What is clear is that the liberal elitists have now completely taken over the DNC, and they are happy to kick out the Clintons, even though the Clintons brought this country the prosperity by developing third way economics and welfare reform. These liberal elitists don't care about the working class or the middle class, they see them as gun toting, bible thumping racists.

These liberal elitists only desire to milk the middle class and the working class out of every nickel they can get so they can spend it in third world countries to help the poor, even though mainly the money goes to the third world dictators who use that very money to buy weapons and control the masses even more ruthlessly.

Maybe Hillary should make an independent run and create a new party that aims to represent the working class and the middle class first, rather than a pledge to help Africa first, or what ever third world country.

I want the party leadership roasted on an open fire!
they must not of ever had any children, or they'd have known that you don't make threats you aren't willling to carry out, you undermine your own authority.
and, I do believe it was the leadership in these two states that decided to break the rule with the stupid consequences, I don't think the voters had a choice. And, it was them that decided that it was too costly to redo the election, much better to just disenfranchise the voters of these two states.
The rule should have never been made, let the states decide when to hold their primaries, I thought the election process was under their jurisdiction anyways. but, seeing that they couldn't do that, then at they should have aimed the consequences at those who had the power to break their stupid rule....which wasn't the voters, but rather the state party leadership...but, well, that's their friends, can't anger them....
seeing that they couldn't do that and upset their friends, well, they should have just made them the last to decide, let the voters revote, but they couldn't do that, too costly!!
ya, it's just better, and easier to just disenfranchise the voters!!
this is a fine example of american democracy and just what those in power think of we the people. they make stupid rules, expect us to follow them, break them themselves, and then take it out on us when things don't work out!
vote in mickey mouse, or goofy and sit back and watch both parties eat a nice portion of humble pie as they are forced to accept the idea that the american people would prefer a cartoon character over their selected candidates. who knows, maybe they can even find someone off the street to dress up in a mickey mouse costume to swear into office.