Clipmarks
 
Sign Up  Install  Learn More  Login 
Embed This Clip In Your Site...

tags:, , , , ,
n2sooners says:
In the end it could come down to Howard Dean as his 25 members would be enough to sway the vote one way or the other.
10 Comments   |Add a Comment
5-6-2008 11:55 PM
sillysam
Bah, it is over now. Too bad. I love Barack blaiming Limbaugh for his loss in Indiana.
5-7-2008 2:11 AM
willhelm
Bah, it is over now.
I was going to go out on limb and predict Hillary will drop out tomorrow. I just have not seen how she expects to take this nomination. I've been in awe of her disregard since Super Tuesday.
5-7-2008 1:32 PM
wiccantexan
Bottom line on the numbers: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx

Even counting IN Florida and Michigan, it's becoming a moot point.
5-7-2008 1:37 PM
n2sooners
Read the whole article at the source. Hillary likely has the votes to get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated. She would then actually have a slight lead on Obama. Either way it could end up coming down to those 25 people that Dean will seat at the credentials committee. So, it really isn't over until Hillary decides she is okay with waiting at least eight more years to try again to become president.
5-7-2008 4:31 PM
wiccantexan
Unfortunately, n2sooners, if she succeeded, it would create a big rift among voters since Obama was not even on the ballot in at least one state, and did not campaign in either. It would be considered akin to the Bush/Florida controversy.
5-7-2008 4:34 PM
n2sooners
I thought the controversy in 2000 according to Gore was that every vote should be counted. Seems now the dogma is two states should have none of their votes counted. Face it, this primary is beyond being able to fairly pick a candidate. Neither is capable of winning and the only choice left is to appoint one or the other as the next democrat candidate for president.
5-7-2008 8:12 PM
wiccantexan
Legitimately, to have ALL the votes count in FL and MI, then ALL voters should have had the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice. That isn't the case as it stands.
5-7-2008 10:56 PM
n2sooners
That was my point, if you seat those delegates, you disenfranchise the Obama voters. If you don't seat those delegates, you disenfranchise all the voters. Of course, it isn't Hillary's fault. It is Obama's fault for ignoring those states, and it's the democrat party's fault for putting itself in this situation by trying to dictate to the states when they could hold their elections.
5-8-2008 3:09 PM
willhelm
Of course, it isn't Hillary's fault. It is Obama's fault for ignoring
those states, and it's the democrat party's fault for putting itself in
this situation by trying to dictate to the states when they could hold
their elections.
I do not see how it is Obama's fault. I can certainly see how it is the DNC's fault.

Obama was just playing by the guidelines the DNC set.

Much of this is really created by HRC wanting to change the rules after the fact for her benefit.

Can you pass me some popcorn?
5-8-2008 3:42 PM
n2sooners
Obama is the one who removed his name from the ballot. He also opposed holding another primary in the state. As for Hillary, she is playing it smart. After all, how democratic is it to deny citizens in two major states the right to vote in the Democrat primary?

But the major blame all comes down to the party that tried to dictate to states when they could have their elections. I thought it was stupid when they proposed it, and I thought it was stupid when republicans talked about doing something similar. When the parties start footing the bills for the elections, then they can dictate when they are held. Otherwise that is the decision of the state (at least in my opinion).

Anyway, no matt...
read more»
Login to Comment.  Not a member yet? Sign up
     

OK