Bill Richardson endorses Obama

[lilyv]

Because they want to.

And because it tends to fit neatly into their overall beliefs.

 

[packetminnie]

The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.




Does he think HRC is on a par with Jesus?

 

[MyManGoofy!]

People were told their votes would NOT be counted. Many showed, but we will never know how many didn't bother. We will never know how it skewed the results. How is that a fair election?

Please stop assigning your blame and heartbreak to your fellow democrats. Your state messed this up. No one else.

I assign the blame where it belongs - the state legislature for passing it - the state dems for not finding a way to stand up to it - the DNC for grandstanding over it.

But you cannot tell me that I cannot be disappointed and heartbroken over the fact that there is ANY American citizen that is willing to let this travesty stand. It is simply un-American.

You see, I started this fight as an Obama supporter. Yes - one of those non-counted primary votes was mine for Obama. And I have been fighting ALL ALONG to see that votes were counted regardless of who they were cast for.

Can you say the same thing? Will you go to a mirror and look yourself in the eyes and say that you would feel the same way about this situation if it was Obama in Hillary's place and your state in place of mine? Not only do I want to know if you can sell it to yourself - but if your heart of hearts will buy it.


ETA: We had more people turn out to vote in this primary than we have had since 1988. How is that skewed? How is it unfair?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.




Does he think HRC is on a par with Jesus?

I'm an Obama supporter, but I've gotta say...I love me a good Carville quote from time to time. Can't wait until he's lined up behind Obama in the general!

 

[Laura]

ETA: We had more people turn out to vote in this primary than we have had since 1988. How is that skewed? How is it unfair?

There were huge turnouts in every state. I can't help but think, though, if there wouldn't be an even bigger turnout in FL and MI if their Democrat voters knew their votes would count. I would like a re-vote to happen in those states, but I don't see how that's going to happen now.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I assign the blame where it belongs - the state legislature for passing it - the state dems for not finding a way to stand up to it - the DNC for grandstanding over it.

But you cannot tell me that I cannot be disappointed and heartbroken over the fact that there is ANY American citizen that is willing to let this travesty stand. It is simply un-American.

You see, I started this fight as an Obama supporter. Yes - one of those non-counted primary votes was mine for Obama. And I have been fighting ALL ALONG to see that votes were counted regardless of who they were cast for.

Can you say the same thing? Will you go to a mirror and look yourself in the eyes and say that you would feel the same way about this situation if it was Obama in Hillary's place and your state in place of mine? Not only do I want to know if you can sell it to yourself - but if your heart of hearts will buy it.


ETA: We had more people turn out to vote in this primary than we have had since 1988. How is that skewed? How is it unfair?

It's not fair because the votes don't count, it's not fair that the Florida Democratic Party broke the rules, and it's not fair because the Florian and Michigander Democratic electorates were told that their votes wouldn't count so many simply didn't show to vote. All the way around, it isn't fair. By simply not including Florida and Michigan, as was agreed upon before the primaries began, back when everyone was thinking much less emotionally and with clearer heads, and lets be honest, before anyone cared whether or not FL and MI's votes counted nationally, it's the only way to keep the whole thing above board and, for lack of a better word, fair. It's the best of a slew of bad choices...

 

[wvrevy]

ETA: We had more people turn out to vote in this primary than we have had since 1988. How is that skewed? How is it unfair?

We've covered this ground a million times already. As early as this faux primary took place, Hillary had a huge advantage in name recognition, similar to what an incumbent president would have. She's been in the national news at least once a week for most of the last 20 years. People that don't closely follow politics probably couldn't have told you the first thing about Barack Obama on that early date.

EVERY state that they've campaigned in started out that way, for the most part. And in EVERY state, the final result has been closer after both campaigned there (with the exceptions of their respective home states). Why should the vote be counted in Florida when Obama never got a chance to state his case?

 

[MyManGoofy!]

I assign the blame where it belongs - the state legislature for passing it - the state dems for not finding a way to stand up to it - the DNC for grandstanding over it.

But you cannot tell me that I cannot be disappointed and heartbroken over the fact that there is ANY American citizen that is willing to let this travesty stand. It is simply un-American.

You see, I started this fight as an Obama supporter. Yes - one of those non-counted primary votes was mine for Obama. And I have been fighting ALL ALONG to see that votes were counted regardless of who they were cast for.

Can you say the same thing? Will you go to a mirror and look yourself in the eyes and say that you would feel the same way about this situation if it was Obama in Hillary's place and your state in place of mine? Not only do I want to know if you can sell it to yourself - but if your heart of hearts will buy it.


ETA: We had more people turn out to vote in this primary than we have had since 1988. How is that skewed? How is it unfair?

None of you addressed the part I highlighted above. See - I think much of the "fairness" issue would disappear in a flash if they would be more of a benefit to Obama.

How many televised debates were there before January 29th? How much news coverage (both locally and nationally) has this primary season received - yes even back then? What about the national ad that Obama "inadvertently" ran here in Florida? As for name recognition - in this case you want to use the argument that people would vote for her just because her name is Clinton. But I have seen other arguments against her ability to win the GE because her name is Clinton. Which is it - is her name a liability or an asset? Can't be both.

Why does any politician need to campaign somewhere for people to be able to make a choice. I am sure there are certain states and areas within a state that have seen few or no campaign stops and still they manage to cast their vote. This is the age of information - we have 24 hour news, the internet - youtube for cripes sake - we are far past the need for whistle stop tours!

I am done trying to get people to care about this. Not only do I think it is un-American and un-democratic - but it continues a dangerous precedent that was started in 2000. I can only hope that it doesn't come back to haunt us all down the road.

 

[lilyv]

None of you addressed the part I highlighted above. See - I think much of the "fairness" issue would disappear in a flash if they would be more of a benefit to Obama.

How many televised debates were there before January 29th? How much news coverage (both locally and nationally) has this primary season received - yes even back then? What about the national ad that Obama "inadvertently" ran here in Florida? As for name recognition - in this case you want to use the argument that people would vote for her just because her name is Clinton. But I have seen other arguments against her ability to win the GE because her name is Clinton. Which is it - is her name a liability or an asset? Can't be both.

Why does any politician need to campaign somewhere for people to be able to make a choice. I am sure there are certain states and areas within a state that have seen few or no campaign stops and still they manage to cast their vote. This is the age of information - we have 24 hour news, the internet - youtube for cripes sake - we are far past the need for whistle stop tours!

I am done trying to get people to care about this. Not only do I think it is un-American and un-democratic - but it continues a dangerous precedent that was started in 2000. I can only hope that it doesn't come back to haunt us all down the road.

Actually the only place it seems to regularly haunt is Florida. I do care, really I do. But, it's a state issue. The STATE needs to get it's act together.

 

[wvrevy]

I have already answered it in any number of places: I do not think the votes should count, regardless of what the outcome was. The rules were the rules, and that is the end of the argument. But it won't do any good to tell you that, because no Clinton supporter believes it.

ETA...And yes, her name can be both. It's an asset in a primary when Democrats are picking a nominee. It's a liability in the general when conservatives unhappy with their party's selection will still come out specifically to vote against her.

So yes, it absolutely can be both a liability and an asset. The primary and general elections are two very different animals.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

None of you addressed the part I highlighted above. See - I think much of the "fairness" issue would disappear in a flash if they would be more of a benefit to Obama.

How many televised debates were there before January 29th? How much news coverage (both locally and nationally) has this primary season received - yes even back then? What about the national ad that Obama "inadvertently" ran here in Florida? As for name recognition - in this case you want to use the argument that people would vote for her just because her name is Clinton. But I have seen other arguments against her ability to win the GE because her name is Clinton. Which is it - is her name a liability or an asset? Can't be both.

Why does any politician need to campaign somewhere for people to be able to make a choice. I am sure there are certain states and areas within a state that have seen few or no campaign stops and still they manage to cast their vote. This is the age of information - we have 24 hour news, the internet - youtube for cripes sake - we are far past the need for whistle stop tours!

I am done trying to get people to care about this. Not only do I think it is un-American and un-democratic - but it continues a dangerous precedent that was started in 2000. I can only hope that it doesn't come back to haunt us all down the road.

If the situation was reversed, you bet I'd be frustrated and POed, but I wouldn't consider trying to overturn the rules because I didn't like the outcome. This huge national public outcry should have come before Florida's primary, not after the fact.

As far as the situation being un-American and un-democratic, how does telling Florida Democrats that their vote won't count, they don't show up to vote, and then they are told "Oops, never mind what we said earlier, we're counting the votes" appear to be democratic or American?

I keep hearing that the record turn out in Florida should be reason enough to disenfranchise those who didn't vote, but if we can be frank, the only reason the state's turn out was what it was is because of the highly controversial Florida property tax amendment that was also on the ballot. If it wasn't for the fact that I am a Florida homeowner, I wouldn't have showed up to vote either. I only voted because I was there anyway, and figured what the heck...it doesn't count, but what'll it hurt. I know for a fact quite a few Dems who didn't vote because they don't own property. That's hardly fair either.

As I said, by following the rules originally set forth before the Clinton campaign started hyperventilating about counting every vote (remember, back before the primary season began, Clinton also signed on to disenfranchise the voters of FL and MI, just like every other Democratic candidate did), it's the only "fair" solution we have as a party.

 

[NewJersey]

Call me cynical but I cannot believe for a second Hillary is watching out for democracy and the voters' interests. She cares about her interests of getting those extra delegates to go from no shot in hell of winning the nomination to a snowball's chance in hell shot. If the uncommitted vote beat her in Michigan or if Obama was on the ballot there and beat her, she'd discount Michigan and hedge her bets on Florida.

The rules were the rules - they should not be changed to suit either candidate at this point.

 

[Honu]

Can you say the same thing? Will you go to a mirror and look yourself in the eyes and say that you would feel the same way about this situation if it was Obama in Hillary's place and your state in place of mine? Not only do I want to know if you can sell it to yourself - but if your heart of hearts will buy it.

As I have stated before, I would feel the same way. The integrity of the election is more important.

 

[wvrevy]

Call my cynical but I cannot believe for a second Hillary is watching out for democracy and the voters' interests. She cares about her interests of getting those extra delegates to go from no shot in hell of winning the nomination to a snowball's chance in hell shot. If the uncommitted vote beat her in Michigan or if Obama was on the ballot there and beat her, she'd discount Michigan and hedge her bets on Florida.

The rules were the rules - they should not be changed to suit either candidate at this point.

That's not cynical, it's demonstrable. Her only argument for winning the election is for super delegates to overturn the vote of the vast majority of states. She couldn't care less about disenfranchising Mississippi...she only cares about Florida and Michigan because she can claim to have won them. I mean...her campaign staff has even said as much, often repeating the "Hillary wins the states that matter" argument (as if New York and California are going to suddenly turn red in November, or Ohio or Michigan with their depressed economies are going to line up in droves to vote for an adamant free trade supporter in McCain).

Hillary doesn't care about anyone's "rights" but her self-perceived "right" to the party's nomination. Period.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

That's not cynical, it's demonstrable. Her only argument for winning the election is for super delegates to overturn the vote of the vast majority of states. She couldn't care less about disenfranchising Mississippi...she only cares about Florida and Michigan because she can claim to have won them. I mean...her campaign staff has even said as much, often repeating the "Hillary wins the states that matter" argument (as if New York and California are going to suddenly turn red in November, or Ohio or Michigan with their depressed economies are going to line up in droves to vote for an adamant free trade supporter in McCain).

Hillary doesn't care about anyone's "rights" but her self-perceived "right" to the party's nomination. Period.

She sure would have had a better leg to stand on if she would have defiantly refused to sign on to the DNC's pledge not to count the votes in Florida and Michigan back in September of '07, instead of this desperation grab after the fact.

The Clinton campaign even went so far as to state “We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process” when they signed on to the protect the early primary dates and disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. Now that she needs them, I guess Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina's role in the nominating process isn't so unique or special anymore...

 

[NewJersey]

She sure would have had a better leg to stand on if she would have defiantly refused to sign on to the DNC's pledge not to count the votes in Florida and Michigan back in September of '07, instead of this desperation grab after the fact.

The Clinton campaign even went so far as to state “We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process” when they signed on to the protect the early primary dates and disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. Now that she needs them, I guess Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina's role in the nominating process isn't so unique or special anymore...

I think the best part is that Iches voted to strip the delegates back in September.

 

[chris1gill]

I think the best part is that Iches voted to strip the delegates back in September.

Yeh, she forgets about that tiny little problem, HER OWN ADVISOR VOTED FOR THIS, he says he stands by it, but then he blames Obama WTH does he have to do with the State Electorate doing what they did and what does he have to do with someone suggesting a privately funded election that smells like a rigging from afar, don't they do THAT in other country's and then we see it as rigged? Umm, yes... Please, she wasn't so self righteous when on video she said it was fine those states delegates didn't matter, she looks like a fool now for saying otherwise. It's known as self preservation, and it's an act of desperation, since everyone thought from the beginning she'd tie this thing up in a heartbeat.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Yeh, she forgets about that tiny little problem, HER OWN ADVISOR VOTED FOR THIS, he says he stands by it, but then he blames Obama WTH does he have to do with the State Electorate doing what they did and what does he have to do with someone suggesting a privately funded election that smells like a rigging from afar, don't they do THAT in other country's and then we see it as rigged? Umm, yes... Please, she wasn't so self righteous when on video she said it was fine those states delegates didn't matter, she looks like a fool now for saying otherwise. It's known as self preservation, and it's an act of desperation, since everyone thought from the beginning she'd tie this thing up in a heartbeat.

Plain and simple, she overplayed her hand, thinking the nomination was hers before one ballot was cast and now she's paying the price for a poor campaign strategy. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, if she would have taken the same stand back in September '07 that she is taking now, instead of disenfranchising the voters with the rest of the Democratic candidates, Michigan and Florida would have greatly appreciated it. I'm sure Rudy Giuliani would have loved to go back in time and actually do a little campaigning in the early primary states after his Florida strategy fizzled. Live and learn, I guess...

 

["Got Disney"]

She cares about her interests of getting those extra delegates to go from no shot in hell of winning the nomination to a snowball's chance in hell shot.

.

And there stands the Electoral vote...she is ahead in those....do you think that the SD will ignore that...think not.....It has never come down to popular vote nor has it ever come down to more states won...it has always in the end been about the Electoral votes. It has continually showed that Hillary is way ahead in beating McCain when it comes down to theses votes...

In addition these are what will be looked at by the SD. Not by whom won more states or popular votes....but who can win in the major democratic States.

so yes there is still a snowballs chance that she can win even though you may think not. However if this is the case the SD may wimp out in fear of riots from Obama supporters and vote against the electoral votes...and if that happens you will be looking at McCain as your new POTUS.

It is a tough call all the way around.....but one thing I am sure we can all agree with is that we don't want McCain in office.

 

[va32h]

Can you say the same thing? Will you go to a mirror and look yourself in the eyes and say that you would feel the same way about this situation if it was Obama in Hillary's place and your state in place of mine? Not only do I want to know if you can sell it to yourself - but if your heart of hearts will buy it.

YES. I am pulling out my little compact mirror and looking into it right now and saying "yes, I would feel the same way."

I was heartbroken in 2000 but I understood that this is the way our election process works and it sucks to be on the losing end of it, but there it is.