The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     How do I ...»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageOpinion: The Rise of Hillary Hysteria?

Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Sue D. in Politics | 29 comments | 1153 views
Next in Politics
Related News
Advertising
If anyone thought that Hillary Clinton would be allowed to fade quietly out of the spotlight they severely underestimated her supporters tenacity and drive. Three recent events have fueled their fire and given them a reason to continue fighting.
Fueling the fire and anger of dejected but motivated Hillary Clinton supporters are three recent developments. A Rasmussen report released yesterday, showing that Clinton fairs better against McCain than Obama does, a new group created that is lobbying the Democratic National Committee to list Clinton as a nominee and hold an open roll call vote on the convention floor where superdelegates would have to state who they would prefer, and last but not least rumors that 8 superdelegates would vote for Clinton if there was an open roll call vote on the Democratic convention floor and last but not least

The title comes from a high profile blogger, Taylor Marsh, that used to be called the "hub for everything Hillary" and now titles a piece saying "Hillary Hysteria Mounts" as she describes emails she is receiving which accuse her and others of trying to discount their vote by not backing their call to have an open roll call vote at the Democratic convention.

The Rasmussen Report.

A Rasmussen report released shows that while Barack Obama holds a a 4 percentage point lead over John McCain with 45 to 41 percent, when "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 48 percent and McCain 45 percent, but when McCain is matched up against Hillary Clinton, she would lead McCain by 8 percentage points.

However, McCain fares better against Obama than he does against two other prominent Democrats. New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%.

These numbers help explain why Election 2008 is competitive even though events so heavily favor the Democrats -- because the Republicans are on course to nominate their strongest possible general election candidate but the Democrats are not. Perhaps even more importantly, the data suggests that voters don’t see a potential McCain Administration as the third term of President Bush.


The portion emphasized has been the running theme throughout the Clinton supporting blogs since Barack Obama was named the presumptive nominee, and now many are citing this latest Rasmussen report to prove their point.

Clinton supporters and The Denver Group.

Congressional Quarterly, (CQ) politics ran an article on July 13, 2008, showing that a newly formed group called The Denver Group is actively lobbying Democratic officials to hold and open roll call vote at the Democratic convention which will be held in Denver in August.

What they want is Hillary Clinton's name to be listed as a nominee, which can be done since her campaign is suspended but was not ended.

The Denver group formed quietly but has gathered strength even before they were highlighted by CQ and other media outlets. One of the people that started the group is what is known as a "Hillraiser", which are contributors that contributed more than $100,000 to the Clinton campaign.

With donations for their efforts they have already run an ad in the Chicago Tribune and are preparing to launch a television campaign, all in an effort to force the Democratic National Committee, headed by Howard Dean, into assuring that Clinton's name be in the nomination at the Democratic convention.

Vote it up! 15 votes
Chicago Tribune Ad
Ad placed in the Chicago Tribune, sponsored by The Denver Group, geared to force the DNC to place Clinton's name in nomination at the Democratic convention.
Courtesy of The Denver Group (Creative Commons - Attribution)


“Senator Clinton’s name must be put in nomination. Her supporters must be allowed to make speeches on her behalf of her candidacy. There must be an honest roll call vote, not a symbolic one, so superdelegates can cast their votes honestly, for either candidate, as their judgment, conscience and democratic principles dictate.”


The reasoning behind forcing the superdelegates to stand up and have their open roll call vote be counted is a variety of reasons.

One major reason is that Barack Obama did not win enough pledged delegates to assure himself the nomination and it was the superdelegates that selected him.

The number that was needed to win the presumptive nominee status was 2,118 and Obama had received 1766.5 while Clinton received 1639.5 and the superdelegates put Obama over the magic number with 463 for Obama and 257 for Clinton.

Superdelegates have the option of changing their vote from now until the Democratic convention in August.

Another reason stated by a founder of The Denver Groups, Heidi Li Feldman, is, "What they have to do is make it possible for people to say to themselves that there was a fair and correct process."

Rumor spreading in Hillary Clinton blogs.

There is a fast spreading rumor within the Clinton bloggers, that when following link after link, seems to have started with a blog called Alegre's Corner, which claims that through unconfirmed sources, eight superdelegates have stated that if Clinton is given nomination at the Democratic convention, they will switch their votes from Obama to Clinton.

I heard about an interview Will Bower of PUMA did recently, where he said delegates are starting to say they'll vote for Hillary in Denver if the DNC did the right thing and ran an open and fair convention. That means a roll call vote with Hillary's name put into nomination, and on the ballot.

So I shot an email to Bower to ask him where he got that info from, and here's what he sent me regarding the efforts of a friend of his

"A large phone banking effort to the super d's combined with Obama's flips and poor presumptive nominee performance, etc have yielded doubts within the super delegates, enough that 3 elected and 5 DNC members have confided that should they have the opportunity to do so, they will vote for Hillary."


Clinton would need 100 superdelegates to switch in order to reach the number needed to obtain the official nomination as the Democratic candidate.


Vote it up! 3 votes
Illustration by DigitalJournal.com


That hasn't stopped Clinton bloggers from writing about the claim made by Alegre's Corner though, which was written yesterday and by this morning the rumor had spread to a large number of other Clinton blogs.

The questions.

Simple questions arise from these recent developments.

Given the recent reports about Democrats on the Hill complaining about the Obama campaign, is it at all possible that enough of the superdelegates would switch their votes to Hillary Clinton if she was listed as a nomination and a roll call vote was taken?

Considering the growing movement within the Clinton supporter community with 22 percent of her supporters saying they will not vote at all and 17 percent of her supporters claiming they will vote for John McCain, can Obama and the Democrats win the presidential election in November without that large a number of their Democratic voters?

If the Obama campaign and the DNC are positive that in August the superdelegates will choose Obama, why not allay the concerns of millions of Clinton supporters and allow the process to play itself out?

Last but not least, is this Hillary Hysteria as Taylor Marsh calls it, or is this a legitimate attempt by Clinton supporters to have their voices heard at the Democratic convention, win, lose or draw?

You can read more about the history of the Democratic conventions, using wikipedia as just a loose reference point, but it bears noting that since 1972 the nature of conventions changed to being an event that officially ratifies the nominees instead of choosing them.

This eliminated the type of dissent that holding a roll call vote with Clinton listed as a nominee would potentially cause.

There are pros and cons, no matter what the Democratic National Committee decides to do and refusing to make a final decision and announce it promptly, either way, is simply prolonging the hopes, the anger and encouraging the growth of the Clinton movement at a time when many think the DNC should be helping Obama and Clinton unite the party.
article:257489:51::0
4 subscribers
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #1
    And the Denver circus continues to build...
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Whitdawg
    #2
    Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ...
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #3
    I don't know what they are going to..... I haven't seen this type of anger from a party against their OWN party, since what I read about the 1968 convention.
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Mr Garibaldi
    #4
    @ Sue D.
    I don't know what they are going to..... I haven't seen this type of anger from a party against their OWN party, since what I read about the 1968 convention.


    There are those threatening a repeat of '68, but I honestly think it'll be much worse if they try that.
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #5
    @ Whitdawg
    Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ...


    That water is dangerous and not getting much better!
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #6
    Wow! Wow! I'm stunned! Good piece, Sue!
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #7
    Thanks
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    Wow! Wow! I'm stunned! Good piece, Sue!

    Debra. I am mightily impressed with yours as well today!
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #8
    Well thank you! LOL!
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Whitdawg
    #9
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    Well thank you! LOL!


    Enough ass kissing you two ! Get back to work and get us some more great articles !

    :-)
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #10
    @ Whitdawg
    Enough ass kissing you two ! Get back to work and get us some more great articles !

    :-)


    Yes Sir!!! (Cheeekily saluting)
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Whitdawg
    #11
    @ Sue D.
    Yes Sir!!! (Cheeekily saluting)


    Quite right too ...
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Debra Myers (skyangel)
    #12
    @ Whitdawg
    Enough ass kissing you two ! Get back to work and get us some more great articles !

    :-)


    I did get back to work and have put up another story to be "bugged" about! LOLOL!
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Whitdawg
    #13
    @ Debra Myers (skyangel)
    I did get back to work and have put up another story to be "bugged" about! LOLOL!


    About time. What have you been doing ...?

    lol
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Mark L Harvey
    #14
    Well, there are 8 Obama Super Delegates that have re-defected back to Hillary.

    Also, at Right Wing Nut House
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #15
    @ Mark L Harvey
    Well, there are 8 Obama Super Delegates that have re-defected back to Hillary.

    Also, at Right Wing Nut House


    I listed that as rumor for now because it is unconfirmed, but it still is adding fuel to that particular fire.
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Mark L Harvey
    #16
    (shhhhhhhhhhh! i confirmed it this morning....shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #17
    @ Mark L Harvey
    (shhhhhhhhhhh! i confirmed it this morning....shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)


    Now she needs 92 others to join AND the DNC to have the courage to let a floor vote happen and let the chips fall where they may.
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Mark L Harvey
    #18
    Well, that may sound like a long shot - only because it is - BUT, after his announcement of a Civilian Homeland Security Force on an equal par to the United States Military, his support has taken a serious hit.

    The audio segment was culled from his video here and it is between 16:35 and 17:02.
  • avatar Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #19
    @ Mark L Harvey
    Well, that may sound like a long shot - only because it is - BUT, after his announcement of a Civilian Homeland Security Force on an equal par to the United States Military, his support has taken a serious hit.

    The audio segment was culled from his video here and it is between 16:35 and 17:02.


    By August the DNC may have to have that roll call vote, just to save themselves by November. My heavens.
  • redhawk Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  redhawk
    #20
    Libs like to eat their Own... and I do not mean it other that depicting them as Carniferous...
    So let's take a look at actuality;
    Neither the Straw unmasked one has the Real Number of Delegates to Claim a definite Nomination...
    Rasmussen shows that Hillariuos polls stronger against Mc Cain and by Demanding an Open Convention and Roll call She just might get the Niomination or get Al Gore Elected by Default and open up a return to the Lincoln Bedroom for Bill's true life long desire....
    Yes the Circus is heading for Denver.. and the wagons are actually pulled by Donkeys! AKA Jack a$$es
  • redhawk Posted Jul 16, 2008 by  redhawk
    #21
    @ Sue D.
    By August the DNC may have to have that roll call vote, just to save themselves by November. My heavens.

    Al Gore .. Al Gore... Al Gore!!! after all he actually outdoes the other two when it comes to altercation of facts which qualifies him for Number one on the "giddy" talking heads and Msm , moron.org shows , , and Congressional Inepts HIT PARADE!!! Not to mention the Loon lake dwellers!
  • gonzotx Posted Jul 17, 2008 by  gonzotx
    #22
    Hillary has always been the stronger candidate, thats why she received the most votes of any Dem nominee in the history of primaries. That's right, she has more votes than Obama...
  • avatar Posted Jul 17, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #23
    @ gonzotx
    Hillary has always been the stronger candidate, thats why she received the most votes of any Dem nominee in the history of primaries. That's right, she has more votes than Obama...


    Yes, when all the voters that voted were counted, even if the DNC didn't recognize them in the end, Hillary had 18,046,007 and Obama had 17,869,542 according to the Real Clear Politics popular vote count.
  • Ani Posted Jul 17, 2008 by  Ani
    #24
    Has The New Car Smell Worn Off?

    Do we really want to nominate a candidate we have to protect, or someone who is going to protect us?

    With the collapse of IndyMac and Bear Stearns, mounting home foreclosures, a tanking economy and no end in sight in Iraq, we need someone far smarter and more knowledgeable than we are on matters of foreign and economic policy, national security, and our place in the global community; someone who regards as sacrosanct the role of the President in upholding our Constitution. Someone who will stand up for what is right. FISA comes to mind. Senator Clinton kept her word and voted against giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity while Senator Obama blithely reneged on his, throwing the 4th amendment under the bus.

    As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously said “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Senator Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, has done his level best to make us fear– not voting for his candidate. If you don’t vote for Obama, we will consider you a racist. If you don’t vote for him, they will overturn Roe v. Wade, they will nominate conservative Justices, they will keep us in Iraq for 100 years.

    Most worrisome to me, however, is that whenever I speak to an Obama supporter, they can give me nothing to rest their hopes for change on. Their number one statement is: “He’ll surround himself with really great people.” This strikes me as code for ‘We are electing a symbol. We know he’s too inexperienced, but the old ‘pols’ will protect and help him.’ So perhaps their faith in his scintillating judgment is not as strong as they pretend.

    Congressional approval is at an all time low. Nancy Pelosi, once elected Speaker, turned from a tiger into a pussycat, and with her pasty smile, said “impeachment is off the table.” Democrats have taken nary a bite out of Bush since they took back Congress, making their integrity suspect. Are these really the people you want whispering in Obama’s ear?

    Now, apparently, we are not even allowed to poke fun at Senator Obama, so thin is his skin. Oh, let me not mention the word skin, lest that be taken the wrong way. What are his supporters so afraid of?

    Do they secretly realize with all his policy flips flops, gross inexperience, and 20 years of nefarious, crooked and divisive associations that he is hanging on by a thin thread as it is?

    This week, we saw more evidence of the thin-skinned Obama campaign.

    The New Yorker cover featuring Barack and Michelle has everyone up in arms over the possibility that we are either offending or besmirching the chosen one. Regardless of whether one thinks this cartoon is great satire or misses the mark, if Senator Obama’s skin is that thin, what is he doing running for the highest and toughest office in the world?

    Even the LA Times, and the NY Times’ otherwise inexcusable Maureen Dowd, both long on the Obama bandwagon, were making fun of the humorless Obama campaign.

    What if Hillary Clinton had behaved this way, taking issue with every negative, smarmy or unfair depiction of her? She would never have had a moment to campaign; too preoccupied fighting shadows. Only once did she come out swinging: when David Shuster of MSNBC piggishly asked if the Clintons were “pimping out their daughter Chelsea.”

    Doesn’t it make anyone uncomfortable that Barack Obama has enjoyed political cover the likes of which have never been seen before? Hillary enjoyed no such advantage. In fact, it was exactly the opposite.

    I don’t want to play tit for tat here. Honestly. But as disgusting as the disrespect and misogyny leveled at her was, and no matter how much her political rivals, aka, the “boys” piled on, no matter the Democratic Party elites stabbing her in the back for their own selfish gain – didn’t it make you feel better knowing that she could handle it?

    She actually got taller and stronger the longer the campaign wore on.

    The White House pressure cooker is a non-stop stress machine. The President has it coming from all sides, foreign and domestic, and must stand ready to take a pounding like the heavy bag at a gym. The honeymoon is over 20 minutes after the Inauguration, I can assure you. In fact, if the past couple of weeks are any indication, it looks like the bloom is already off the rose.

    Are we really saying that Senator Obama does not have the intestinal fortitude to laugh off this magazine cover? That is preposterous. Or was this outrage merely feigned? Another tactic from the brain of David Axelrod – get preoccupied about a cartoon, so that the damaging and/or unfavorable contents of the article itself would go largely ignored.

    On Larry King Live, Senator Obama just commented The New Yorker cover was an insult to members of the Muslim community. Really? It seems the Muslim community was far more offended when two Muslim women, in traditional dress, were removed from sitting behind him at a photo op. Again, his comments are a diversion, more tactics of fear in order to protect and advantage himself. The only upset is the upset he is fomenting as another distraction from the real issue: him.

    Watching how Senator Obama’s fans protect him and the party elites run political interference for him – remember President Bush’s remarks at the Knesset – almost makes me feel like I’m at an Al-Anon meeting. We are not here to enable this man. He has to be ‘able’ without our help.

    Do you really want to buy four years of this? How will you feel when your student loans keep you in indentured servitude and he has no plan to help but instead continues to be enamored of Reaganomics?

    How will you feel when he keeps capitulating on the Constitutional protections this country is founded on? How will you feel when women’s rights are further whittled away on Roe v. Wade because late term abortions should not be permitted when, as he so insensitively and cluelessly put it, a woman is “feeling blue”?

    The fact that Hillary Clinton, out of the race for the past five weeks, is still polling better than Obama against John McCain should telescope something very significant here.

    What will you do in the somewhat unlikely event that Senator Obama is elected? I promise, you will quickly tire of making excuses for him.

    “Oh, he’s just running to the center.” The center of what? All his supposed political principles have been thrown out the window: gun control, women’s rights, Iraq, FISA, the death penalty, NAFTA, and more.

    Senator Clinton, as the true progressive in the bunch, evidenced once again with her FISA vote, would need to make no such adjustments. Whether or not you agreed with her on every point – her policy positions were straightforward from the beginning and she would require no waffling or fence-straddling now.

    This is no time for a trainee. Fortunately, though the DNC would have you believe otherwise, this situation is not irreversible. There is a very clear path to the stronger candidate and if responsible Super Delegates have any courage, they will take it at the Convention.

    Otherwise, please ask yourselves, how long can you protect someone who has shown he has no interest in protecting you?
  • redhawk Posted Jul 18, 2008 by  redhawk
    #25
    @ Ani
    Has The New Car Smell Worn Off?

    Do we really want to nominate a candidate we have to protect, or someone who is going to protect us?

    With the collapse of IndyMac and Bear Stearns, mounting home foreclosures, a tanking economy and no end in sight in Iraq, we need someone far smarter and more knowledgeable than we are on matters of foreign and economic policy, national security, and our place in the global community; someone who regards as sacrosanct the role of the President in upholding our Constitution. Someone who will stand up for what is right. FISA comes to mind. Senator Clinton kept her word and voted against giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity while Senator Obama blithely reneged on his, throwing the 4th amendment under the bus.

    As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously said “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Senator Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, has done his level best to make us fear– not voting for his candidate. If you don’t vote for Obama, we will consider you a racist. If you don’t vote for him, they will overturn Roe v. Wade, they will nominate conservative Justices, they will keep us in Iraq for 100 years.

    Most worrisome to me, however, is that whenever I speak to an Obama supporter, they can give me nothing to rest their hopes for change on. Their number one statement is: “He’ll surround himself with really great people.” This strikes me as code for ‘We are electing a symbol. We know he’s too inexperienced, but the old ‘pols’ will protect and help him.’ So perhaps their faith in his scintillating judgment is not as strong as they pretend.

    Congressional approval is at an all time low. Nancy Pelosi, once elected Speaker, turned from a tiger into a pussycat, and with her pasty smile, said “impeachment is off the table.” Democrats have taken nary a bite out of Bush since they took back Congress, making their integrity suspect. Are these really the people you want whispering in Obama’s ear?

    Now, apparently, we are not even allowed to poke fun at Senator Obama, so thin is his skin. Oh, let me not mention the word skin, lest that be taken the wrong way. What are his supporters so afraid of?

    Do they secretly realize with all his policy flips flops, gross inexperience, and 20 years of nefarious, crooked and divisive associations that he is hanging on by a thin thread as it is?

    This week, we saw more evidence of the thin-skinned Obama campaign.

    The New Yorker cover featuring Barack and Michelle has everyone up in arms over the possibility that we are either offending or besmirching the chosen one. Regardless of whether one thinks this cartoon is great satire or misses the mark, if Senator Obama’s skin is that thin, what is he doing running for the highest and toughest office in the world?

    Even the LA Times, and the NY Times’ otherwise inexcusable Maureen Dowd, both long on the Obama bandwagon, were making fun of the humorless Obama campaign.

    What if Hillary Clinton had behaved this way, taking issue with every negative, smarmy or unfair depiction of her? She would never have had a moment to campaign; too preoccupied fighting shadows. Only once did she come out swinging: when David Shuster of MSNBC piggishly asked if the Clintons were “pimping out their daughter Chelsea.”

    Doesn’t it make anyone uncomfortable that Barack Obama has enjoyed political cover the likes of which have never been seen before? Hillary enjoyed no such advantage. In fact, it was exactly the opposite.

    I don’t want to play tit for tat here. Honestly. But as disgusting as the disrespect and misogyny leveled at her was, and no matter how much her political rivals, aka, the “boys” piled on, no matter the Democratic Party elites stabbing her in the back for their own selfish gain – didn’t it make you feel better knowing that she could handle it?

    She actually got taller and stronger the longer the campaign wore on.

    The White House pressure cooker is a non-stop stress machine. The President has it coming from all sides, foreign and domestic, and must stand ready to take a pounding like the heavy bag at a gym. The honeymoon is over 20 minutes after the Inauguration, I can assure you. In fact, if the past couple of weeks are any indication, it looks like the bloom is already off the rose.

    Are we really saying that Senator Obama does not have the intestinal fortitude to laugh off this magazine cover? That is preposterous. Or was this outrage merely feigned? Another tactic from the brain of David Axelrod – get preoccupied about a cartoon, so that the damaging and/or unfavorable contents of the article itself would go largely ignored.

    On Larry King Live, Senator Obama just commented The New Yorker cover was an insult to members of the Muslim community. Really? It seems the Muslim community was far more offended when two Muslim women, in traditional dress, were removed from sitting behind him at a photo op. Again, his comments are a diversion, more tactics of fear in order to protect and advantage himself. The only upset is the upset he is fomenting as another distraction from the real issue: him.

    Watching how Senator Obama’s fans protect him and the party elites run political interference for him – remember President Bush’s remarks at the Knesset – almost makes me feel like I’m at an Al-Anon meeting. We are not here to enable this man. He has to be ‘able’ without our help.

    Do you really want to buy four years of this? How will you feel when your student loans keep you in indentured servitude and he has no plan to help but instead continues to be enamored of Reaganomics?

    How will you feel when he keeps capitulating on the Constitutional protections this country is founded on? How will you feel when women’s rights are further whittled away on Roe v. Wade because late term abortions should not be permitted when, as he so insensitively and cluelessly put it, a woman is “feeling blue”?

    The fact that Hillary Clinton, out of the race for the past five weeks, is still polling better than Obama against John McCain should telescope something very significant here.

    What will you do in the somewhat unlikely event that Senator Obama is elected? I promise, you will quickly tire of making excuses for him.

    “Oh, he’s just running to the center.” The center of what? All his supposed political principles have been thrown out the window: gun control, women’s rights, Iraq, FISA, the death penalty, NAFTA, and more.

    Senator Clinton, as the true progressive in the bunch, evidenced once again with her FISA vote, would need to make no such adjustments. Whether or not you agreed with her on every point – her policy positions were straightforward from the beginning and she would require no waffling or fence-straddling now.

    This is no time for a trainee. Fortunately, though the DNC would have you believe otherwise, this situation is not irreversible. There is a very clear path to the stronger candidate and if responsible Super Delegates have any courage, they will take it at the Convention.

    Otherwise, please ask yourselves, how long can you protect someone who has shown he has no interest in protecting you?

    Pelosi might have been a tiger in some other life but right now she is nothing but an inferior CRETIN.. Too busy to placate her West Coast clueless base along with that other Example for Clueless ness Reid who oppose taking any steps towards a short term/long term energy plan to reduce our energy and food spiralling high costs.. Those two Gore disciples in lies are looking for another Vacation, and Pelosi shuts down on Thu for the week and has the stupidity to blame Bush for the gas prices... and that weak interviewer , Woolfir Blitzken the gutless taliking head of CNN, had no gute to remind her of the Campaingn Promises af lower gas prices and that since then they have more than doubled...Pelosi is a freaking IDIOT!
  • redhawk Posted Jul 18, 2008 by  redhawk
    #26
    @ Sue D.
    Yes, when all the voters that voted were counted, even if the DNC didn't recognize them in the end, Hillary had 18,046,007 and Obama had 17,869,542 according to the Real Clear Politics popular vote count.

    And they claim to be a Democratic Party... Funny way to reinvent the meaning of the word isn't it???
  • Lynn Ellingwood Posted Jul 20, 2008 by  Lynn Ellingwood
    #27
    Actually according to party rules, there is no way not to have Hillary's name placed into nomination and a roll call vote. The party officials who were trying to negotiate with Hillary for her to release her delegates and not have her name placed in nomination and a roll call vote were breaking the rules. By bringing it out in the open, it makes it more likely that they will have to follow them without bringing a lawsuit.
  • avatar Posted Jul 20, 2008 by  Sue D.
    #28
    @ Lynn Ellingwood
    Actually according to party rules, there is no way not to have Hillary's name placed into nomination and a roll call vote. The party officials who were trying to negotiate with Hillary for her to release her delegates and not have her name placed in nomination and a roll call vote were breaking the rules. By bringing it out in the open, it makes it more likely that they will have to follow them without bringing a lawsuit.


    i would hope so Lynn. At least make things open and aboveboard.
  • redhawk Posted Jul 21, 2008 by  redhawk
    #29
    @ Lynn Ellingwood
    Actually according to party rules, there is no way not to have Hillary's name placed into nomination and a roll call vote. The party officials who were trying to negotiate with Hillary for her to release her delegates and not have her name placed in nomination and a roll call vote were breaking the rules. By bringing it out in the open, it makes it more likely that they will have to follow them without bringing a lawsuit.

    Rules Schmules.. You are dealing withn the Clintons who not only lie , they reivent the meaning of words... and do not count Alphonse the Bore Gore out.. he is "inching" his Phat Persona into the Dilemma for Denver....Lies and all.

Add a Comment

You have to Login or Register to comment


Email:
Password:
Remember meForgot password?