Clinton May Take Delegate Fight To Convention

[kenrockthefirst]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080521/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_florida"]Clinton may take delegate fight to convention[/url]

[i]By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

BOCA RATON, Fla. - Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is willing to take her fight to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to the convention if the two states want to go that far. In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton was asked whether she would support the states if they continue the fight.

The presidential candidate said Wednesday, "Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this."

Clinton is calling for delegates from both states to be seated at the convention based on the primaries. Both states were stripped of their delegates because they voted early, violating national party rules. Clinton won both states; Barack Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot.

The DNC's rules committee will hear an appeal on May 31.[/i]

In other words, despite the fact that she agreed to the rules by which the MI and FL delegations are now being banned, Hillary will milk the people of FL and MI, er, "take her fight" to the convention in her quixotic quest for the Democratic nomination, not caring who she has to step on or exploit to get there.

[apparent]

[i]it's not like Florida and Michigan will not get to vote in Nov. and be counted. Ms. Clinton is running her campain on borrowed money or a day late and a dollar short.
Hay Hillery get a clue, it's all over , "the fat lady has sung"
[/i]

Edited May 21, 2008 by apparent

[praying4carmel]

[quote name='apparent' post='1536492' date='May 21 2008, 07:17 PM'][i]it's not like Florida and Michigan will not get to vote in Nov. and be counted. Ms. Clinton is running her campain on borrowed money or a day late and a dollar short.
Hay Hillery get a clue, it's all over , "the fat lady has sung"
[/i][/quote]

Having Had G.W. Bush stealing 2 of the last 2 elections I admire her courage to hang in there and go all the way to the convention.

[Madame Vengier]

I am all for Hillary "stepping on" and "exploiting" Obama to "get what she wants". More power to her. I'm not a Democrat and won't be voting for either one of them anyway, so I don't have a dog in that fight. But I have to live with the consequences like everyone else and I would much rather we have Hillary to contend with that Obama.

[CatherineM]

I still think there is something here that we don't know about. Hillary isn't dumb, and she has to know the chances are slim. She's practically setting herself up for a public humiliation. It doesn't make any sense.

[cmotherofpirl]

Remember the delegates are pledged on the first vote and thats all. If too many people say they will vote for McCain if Obama runs then it will get very interesting.

[homeschoolmom]

(btw, nice use of "quixotic" in the OP-- that word is never used often enough)

[CatherineM]

I just heard on the news here, a political analyst said that Hillary might be angling for---wait for it--- an appointment to the Supreme Court. Let the screaming begin.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1536923' date='May 21 2008, 11:16 PM']I just heard on the news here, a political analyst said that Hillary might be angling for---wait for it--- an appointment to the Supreme Court. Let the screaming begin.[/quote]

now I'm going to have nightmares.


thanks.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='praying4carmel' post='1536495' date='May 21 2008, 04:26 PM']Having Had G.W. Bush stealing 2 of the last 2 elections I admire her courage to hang in there and go all the way to the convention.[/quote]
This isn't about "stealing" an election, it's about "playing by the rules" to which everyone, including Hillary, agreed at the outset. Now she's simply demagoguing the fact that the FL and MI delegations won't be seated because they broke the rules and, ironically, comparing that to the disputed election results in FL in 2000. Just to be clear: the current situation is "kosher" insofar as everyone knew the rules at the beginning, and FL and MI chose to ignore those rules. My beef is that Hillary is exploiting the people of MI and FL for her own selfish end.

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1536616' date='May 21 2008, 06:26 PM']I am all for Hillary "stepping on" and "exploiting" Obama to "get what she wants". More power to her. I'm not a Democrat and won't be voting for either one of them anyway, so I don't have a dog in that fight. But I have to live with the consequences like everyone else and I would much rather we have Hillary to contend with that Obama.[/quote]
Hillary's not "stepping on" or "exploiting" Obama, she's "stepping on" and "exploiting" the people of FL and MI. As for not having a dog in this fight, we should all care about clean elections, whether we support the candidate or not.

[CatherineM]

I'm a registered Democrat in Florida, and I don't feel stepped on. The only thing un-kosher about the primary there, is that the state party decided to have it on a different day from when the national party wanted them to have it. The feeling was that since the votes in Florida mattered so heavily in the last two elections, that they should vote earlier in the primary season. I didn't really care one way or the other, but I guess some people don't like the idea that voters in Iowa or New Hampshire get to have such a large impact on who gets nominated.

[kujo]

[quote name='praying4carmel' post='1536495' date='May 21 2008, 06:26 PM']Having Had G.W. Bush stealing 2 of the last 2 elections I admire her courage to hang in there and go all the way to the convention.[/quote]

What? Steal? When did Bush steal an election? Silly me, thinking that rulings by the Supreme Court (a liberal court, FYI) matter.

And what happened in '04 that constituted "stealing?"

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1536694' date='May 21 2008, 09:30 PM']I still think there is something here that we don't know about. Hillary isn't dumb, and she has to know the chances are slim. She's practically setting herself up for a public humiliation. It doesn't make any sense.[/quote]

I've been thinking the same thing lately.

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1536923' date='May 22 2008, 01:16 AM']I just heard on the news here, a political analyst said that Hillary might be angling for---wait for it--- an appointment to the Supreme Court. Let the screaming begin.[/quote]

Any citation?

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1537226' date='May 22 2008, 12:30 PM']I'm a registered Democrat in Florida, and I don't feel stepped on. The only thing un-kosher about the primary there, is that the state party decided to have it on a different day from when the national party wanted them to have it. The feeling was that since the votes in Florida mattered so heavily in the last two elections, that they should vote earlier in the primary season. I didn't really care one way or the other, but I guess some people don't like the idea that voters in Iowa or New Hampshire get to have such a large impact on who gets nominated.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm a Floridian and people forget that Republicans got their delegates cut in half, too. Florida should've followed the rules. Hillary is full of croutons!

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1537226' date='May 22 2008, 10:30 AM']I'm a registered Democrat in Florida, and I don't feel stepped on. The only thing un-kosher about the primary there, is that the state party decided to have it on a different day from when the national party wanted them to have it. The feeling was that since the votes in Florida mattered so heavily in the last two elections, that they should vote earlier in the primary season. I didn't really care one way or the other, but I guess some people don't like the idea that voters in Iowa or New Hampshire get to have such a large impact on who gets nominated.[/quote]
Clearly FL is an important state. But the time to make the argument about when in the primary season FL would vote was [i]before[/i] the process began. To flout the process once it began and to then claim that FL is somehow being dissed is a recipe for anarchy.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kujo' post='1537237' date='May 22 2008, 10:40 AM']What? Steal? When did Bush steal an election? Silly me, thinking that rulings by the Supreme Court (a liberal court, FYI) matter.[/quote]
You're right, Bush didn't steal it. He was handed it by judicial fiat. Talk about "activist judges."

[quote name='kujo' post='1537237' date='May 22 2008, 10:40 AM']And what happened in '04 that constituted "stealing?"[/quote]
Ohio. Not enough voting machines. In districts likely to vote Democratic. State Registrar also head of Bush's re-election committee in Ohio. Kind of like yer woman in FL in 2000.

[kujo]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1537269' date='May 22 2008, 01:18 PM']You're right, Bush didn't steal it. He was handed it by judicial fiat. Talk about "activist judges."
Ohio. Not enough voting machines. In districts likely to vote Democratic. State Registrar also head of Bush's re-election committee in Ohio. Kind of like yer woman in FL in 2000.[/quote]

That "judicial fiat" stuff is bullcrap. The Supreme Court was well within their jurisdiction to rule on the issue at hand which, by the way, was NOT who won the Presidency, but whether or not the excess votes in Florida were to be counted. And, seeing as how a different standard for counting the votes was applied in different counties, thereby disenfranchising some while elevating the power of others, the Supreme Court ruled that the deadline for counting the votes would stand and that the standard must be universal.

As for the Ohio stuff, I think that it is hard to blame bush for the incompetence of the people in Ohio...and Florida, for that matter.

Your liberal nonsense is sad. Put down the Michael Moore DVDs and Bill Maher books, take a look around you, and realize that things are not as insidious as you'd like to believe they are.