A Final, Empty Gesture: After D.N.C. Verdict, Ickes Threatens Convention Fight
It was quite some show that Harold Ickes put on in Washington on Saturday. Mustering all the self-righteous anguish he could, Hillary Clinton’s most loyal of lieutenants spent the morning, afternoon and early evening (it was a long meeting) accusing his colleagues on the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee of “hijacking” delegates and doing “violence” to the party’s deepest held values.
Finally, as nightfall approached and it became clear that the committee would soon rule against him anyway, Ickes leaned into his microphone and threatened to pick up his ball and go home. His exact words were, “Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee,” but the effect was the same: The Clinton forces didn’t get their way and responded by threatening to spoil any effort to unify the party before the August convention.
Ickes’ bluster was greeted with defiant chants of “Denver! Denver!” from the band of Clinton supporters who had made their way into the meeting hall and was quickly followed by an official statement from the Clinton campaign echoing his threat of a credentials fight this summer.
There’s no telling how long, or even whether, the angriest of the Clinton supporters will take to get on board with the party’s nominee. But as far as the threats from the campaign of keeping the fight going for the whole summer: it’s all hot air.
The actual date that Clinton will quit the race is anyone’s guess, but it’s coming – and fast. As a result of Saturday’s R.B.C. session, the new magic delegate number in the Democratic race is 2,118 – up from the 2,026 figure that has prevailed while Florida and Michigan sat in limbo. After the final primaries next Tuesday, Barack Obama will need to win over – at most – about 25 of the remaining 200 or so uncommitted superdelegates into order to clinch the nomination.
The new math comes courtesy of the R.B.C.’s decision to accept the results from Florida’s outlaw January primary but to give each delegate only half a vote. Michigan’s votes were also halved, but because of the particularly flawed nature of that state’s primary – Barack Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot, in case you haven’t heard – the state’s 128 pledged delegates will not be apportioned based solely on the primary results. Instead, the panel accepted a compromise that gives Clinton 69 delegates (she sought 73) and Obama 59 (he’d asked for an even 64-64 split), each with only a half-vote at the convention.
While the Clinton campaign had argued against reducing the value of each delegate’s vote, they seemed to accept the Florida decision, which will yield a net gain of about 14 delegates for them (depending on how many John Edwards-pledged delegates side with Obama).
But it was the Michigan ruling that prompted Ickes’ threat-making. The state’s delegates, he contended, should be apportioned based exclusively on the January primary, in which Clinton won 55 percent and “uncommitted” took 40. Such an interpretation would have given 73 delegates to Clinton and 55 to uncommitted. (Those 55, Ickes reasoned, would then be up for grabs for either candidate to win over). When the final compromise was introduced, Ickes pronounced himself “stunned that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgment for the judgment of 600,000 voters.”
“Was the (primary) flawed? You bet your ass it was flawed,” he snarled. “It’s hard to find an election in the United States that isn’t flawed.”
To compare the conditions of the January Michigan primary with the routine kinks that accompany any election – like, say, a polling station improperly closing a few minutes early – is absurd on its face.
In Michigan, two of three major candidates who were actively campaigning on January 15 – Obama and John Edwards – weren’t even on the ballot and voters had been told for months that the contest wouldn’t count (something Clinton herself even said publicly). None of the candidates campaigned in the state and hundreds of thousands of voters either stayed home (turnout in the Democratic primary was dramatically off the pace of every state that voted this year, save Florida) or opted to participate in the Republican primary held on the same day. These are not your everyday flaws and the outcome can hardly be considered a fair and reasonable reflection of the state’s Democrats.
Of course, had the roles at the meeting been reversed and had it been Obama – and not Clinton – in desperate need of extra delegates out of Florida and Michigan, you can bet that his loyal allies on the committee would have been playing the same game Ickes did. And Ickes, for his part, would have been enumerating the many ways in which the vote in those two states was flawed. Clinton’s Florida and Michigan posture, no matter what grand purpose her diehard supporters may have convinced themselves of, was never about deeply held principles. It was about political convenience.
The same can be said, in fact, about the R.B.C.’s verdict, and this is the biggest single reason that Clinton’s threat of a convention fight is empty.The majority of committee members were motivated by two factors: a recognition of Obama’s inevitability, and a strong desire to end the primary process and move toward party unity. Clinton claimed 13 allies on the committee, but the vote on the Michigan compromise was 19-8. The reason for the defections was best expressed by Don Fowler, the former D.N.C. chairman and Clinton backer, who broke with her on the vote. Fowler pronounced himself displeased with the plan but, addressing Ickes across the room, declared: “Harold, this is my position, I respect and love you, but this is what I think we should do.”
In that moment, a fault line among Clinton supporters became clear. This may be close to a 50-50 race in terms of popular vote (it’s a 49.1-47.7 race, according to the Real Clear Politics tally), but a big chunk of those Clinton supporters are pragmatic and not blind in their loyalty. Much like Fowler and the other R.B.C. members who deserted her, they can read the writing on the wall and are not prepared to damage their party’s fall prospects for a gesture of devotion to Hillary Clinton.
Yes, Clinton has more than her share of supporters-for-life, like the spirited crowd that assembled in the meeting hall on Saturday, who made it clear that they would happily follow her into a fight in Denver. But the clear majority of the party is now prepared to accept Obama.
Instigating a credentials fight would be a horrific short- and long-term strategy for Clinton. She’d essentially be fighting for an extra four delegates in Michigan (and maybe a few of the “uncommitteds”) while facing an overall gap of 200 delegates (probably more, after next week). And it would almost certainly be in vain anyway, if the R.B.C. ruling is any clue. Plus, it would very possibly ruin her prospects for a 2012 campaign, should Obama lose in the fall. By taking her fight to the convention, she’d be blamed for an Obama defeat in the fall and her more pragmatic supporters (the Fowler-types who broke with her on Saturday) would feel no loyalty to her in 2012. Her base would be radically reduced.
Obama will soon declare victory, possibly as early as Tuesday, and likely by the end of next week. No matter what Harold Ickes is saying now, expect Clinton’s concession to come around the same time.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.6
- 44.2
- Obama +2.4
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.8
- 35.8
- +20.0
- McCain
- 54.8
- 36.6
- +18.2
I think Sen Clinton should go to the convention and she should dispute the Michigan ruling. This is not just about this nomination. It is about the future credibility of the Democratic Party.
You may disagee, but the truth is that many long-time Dems have or are leaving. Ignore it. Dismiss it. Ridicule it.
But, you cannot win in November without them.
Time to start playing fair. Or you will lose the General Election.
Obama disenfranchised FL and Mi voters with 1/2 votes. The cut-and-dice-the-vote Obama gamed the system and prevailed with the DNC.
Sen. Clinton should appeal to the Credentials Committee to get every vote counted in full, undo the MI hijacking, and save the Democratic Party from defeat in November.
Both Hillary suppoerters here are smoking weed! Hillary should be happy that she got any delegates from two primaries that in violation of the rules were deemed to not count a priori... If roles were reversed, you would be chanting for the delegates to be split 50/50. By reading your opinions, it is clear that you don't care about those who voted (and the ones that didn't, which eludes you Clinton fans).
Hillary is done...and yes, vote for McCain. You aren't true democrats anyway...we don't need your votes. They'll be drowned by Obama votes in November.
Obama didn't disenfranchise anybody. The honchos in Fl and Mi who decided to hold their primaries early -- despite warnings from the DNC that they would be penalized--did. The thing that makes me lose respect for Hillary supporters is stuff like the despicable display by 500 supporters outside the RBC meeting today, and their willingness to delude themselves into blaming everything on Obama. What, do they think he has superhuman powers? Gimme a break. Hillary ran a crappy campaign. You can't fault him for being the better politician. And he followed the rules. Just because Hillary decided to renege on her pledge and loudly protest the injustice when it became apparent she was losing doesn't mean that she has the moral high ground here. And anybody with sense and without an irrelevant ax to grind can see this, including her sane supporters.
Well, it's all so partisan.......if you like hillary, you forgive all, and the same if you like Obama.
me, I dislike Hillary, or let me admend that to I could like her.....but her vote for the war, which was done for purely politcal reasons..........I just cannot forgive. All those lives lost forever........all those thousands wounded......for ever........for precieved political gain....no, I can not forgive Hillary for that.
Plus, I just like Obama. He seems sincere, decent.....and I like that he's intelligent........and seems to think before he acts........it would be a welcome change.
I saw a decent compromise take place which reflected well on the party and the process. Ickes, doing his job, is being a sore loser, nothing more. Its time to move on.
To all of the Hillary Clinton Supporters out there, I must ask one thing.
Where was your beloved Hillary Clinton at the start of this process when these decisions were made? She agreed to follow these rules and made no remarks against them. If she was truly, genuinely against the rules, then she should have spoken up BEFORE she started to lose. Changing the rules, once you start to lose is CHEATING. Now that she has clearly lost the nomination, she is doing WHATEVER she can to change the rules in her favour and is lying through her teeth by making claims that she's concerned about "disenfranchising voters." The amount of rhetoric we have all been hearing from Hillary Clinton's campaign is apphauling.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous, this sense of entitlement the Clintons feel to the presidency. The claims of the contests being completely fair despite there being no campaigning in Florida or Michigan, that Barack Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan and that many voters simply did not vote because they felt their votes would not count is absurd!! The Clintons' soaring rhetoric on the situation is even more frustrating when they simply refuse to compromise and acknowledge that these other variables would have impacted the vote totals. This is clearly political maneuvering by a desperate candidate who cannot accept reality.
Hillary Clinton lost, and if her campaign keeps this up, is not only posed to lose the nomination, but also the respect of her colleagues and peers. She is risking destroying the party because of her inability to accept defeat.
Barack Obama had nothing to do with the rules that the DNC put forth. ALL of the candidates, including your beloved Hillary Clinton, AGREED to these rules at the start of the primaries. Senator Clinton only changed her mind once she realized what was happening. "Oh my God, Barack Obama is a real threat. He just might win this."
Shame on you Hillary Clinton. Shame on you.
Ok - if Obama was in Hillary's position today, he would'nt have been given a chance to fight this. The "inevitable" nominee would have simply roadrollered past him with the Dem party in tug. He probably would have got a pat on the back in public for giving a good fight and some subtle threats to his political future if he shows the audaucity to push it. And please don't tell me the anybody would have cared about FL or MI votes in such a situation.
You're all missing the point. The only reason we're even having this conversation is because of Hillary's lack of forward thinking. AGAIN.
Setting aside snarky remarks, policy differences and affection (or lack thereof) for Bill, how many times is this woman going to be WRONG in her decision-making before people realize, you know, maybe she's just not that good?
1) HER PLEDGE TO CREATE 350,000 NEW JOBS FOR NEW YORKERS in 2000? Wrong. ("Who knew Bush would win", she claims now.)
2) HER VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE IRAQ WAR? Wrong. (Who knew Bush would go to war," she claims now.)
3) GOING ALONG WITH THE PUNISHMENT OF MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA?
She's a good Mom, not scratch that, A GREAT MOM, with a lovely, bright daughter. That needs to be acknowledged. But, with her massive campaign debt, her campaign's seriously flawed long-term planning, her verbal mistakes on the trail, her inability to execute anything remotely close to quality forward-thinking throughout her Senate career, up to and including this presidential race, is it really wrong to see this woman as not much more than a MEDIOCORE TALENT?
You're all missing the point. The only reason we're even having this conversation is because of Hillary's lack of forward thinking. AGAIN.
Setting aside snarky remarks, policy differences and affection (or lack thereof) for Bill, how many times is this woman going to be WRONG in her decision-making before people realize, you know, maybe she's just not that good?
1) HER PLEDGE TO CREATE 350,000 NEW JOBS FOR NEW YORKERS in 2000? Wrong. ("Who knew Bush would win", she claims now.)
2) HER VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE IRAQ WAR? Wrong. (Who knew Bush would go to war," she claims now.)
3) GOING ALONG WITH THE PUNISHMENT OF MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA?
She's a good Mom, not scratch that, A GREAT MOM, with a lovely, bright daughter. That needs to be acknowledged. But, with her massive campaign debt, her campaign's seriously flawed long-term planning, her verbal mistakes on the trail, her inability to execute anything remotely close to quality forward-thinking throughout her Senate career, up to and including this presidential race, is it really wrong to see this woman as not much more than a MEDIOCORE TALENT?
Hey, once Obama is the nominee and Hillary officially drops out (I'm still hoping she'll be veep), he can always restore the full delegates in Denver himself. In other words, the way for Florida and Michigan to be made whole is to make the party whole - behind and Obama-Clinton ticket.
...
HILLARY IS ALL 'BUN AND NO BEEF' ---.
HILLARY PROVES TO BE ONLY A 'WANNABE ROCKY' ---.
HILLARY SURRENDERS.
RULES RULE .... NOT THE CLINTON CAMP.
SUCK IT UP.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Obama nomination represents the ascendancy of the Harvard-Hollywood liberal who has no real problems and so dedicates himself to pursuing the quixotic causes of the affluent by pandering to racist blacks, illegal immigrants, Guantanamo inmates, Islamists, gay activists, envirolunatics, African charities, etc.
Whenever you suggest to these people that they spend more time addressing practical issues, such as health insurance; job creation; poverty; border security; gas prices; and eliminating race-based affirmative action in favor of a fairer socioeconomic model that addressed ACTUAL hardship rather than skin color, they look at you as if you have three heads.
The Obama base is composed of 19-year-old Columbia rich kids who have no fucking concept of a world outside their parents' money; 40-something NYU English professors who "feel sorry" for the blacks; and a group of racist blacks (think Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan) who, ironically, want to see the Columbia kids and the NYU professors dead or at least removed from their lofty position.
What a gaggle of schmucks.
I am a typical Obama supporter: Mexican American, female, farmworker background, paid my own way through college, over 60 years old. I am a typical Obama supporter because I base my vote on selecting the BEST candidate for the job.
"Phony Hillary" is exposed. Ickes is a JERK.
Seems the Democrats just cannot govern at all. They are terrible in getting anything done in the Congress or Senate, add on billions of dollars in pork and do not even have the money to hold their convention. Maybe George Soros and MoveOn.org can pay it for them. Yet, as strange as it sounds the media wants them to be in control of America. I guess everyone is just waiting to pay the higher taxes associated with big government.
Even if everyone hates Clinton they have to admit that she is a fighter. With the MSM aligned against her she still has the most popular vote of the people.
Now is the time to see what Clinton is made of. Will she continue and bring down the Decocratic party for her own selfishness? If she does, I believe any political future for her will be over.
If all Hillary could count on were supporters like the "McCain Democrat" above, we were spared a terrible disaster. I suspect that it's not the case.
Understand that when we resort to cursing and name calling, we are simply pulling from the bottom of the barrel. Our emotional tank is empty.
What's sad is that the people who need the most help, (the McCain Democrats)are usually the ones with the least education and/or opportunity. They are stuck in paycheck to paycheck jobs. Cannot pay for healthcare. Are choosing between medication and food for their families. Are using public transportation because $5 worth of gas(All they can afford this week) gets them nowhere but to the next pump.
Explain to the rest of us how John McCain will help your situation? Does he really give a hoot if you live or die tonight on an empty stomach?
Are you really willing to cut off your nose in order to spite your face?
Does McCain care, mikeL? Ahh, probably not. Does Hillary care about being somebody important? I would say so. If that helps Joe power-saw, so be it. My point is, is she competent enough to make good decisions?
Forget about her record in the senate. For someone like me, I'd vote for Dianne Feinstein (someone I disagree with on many issues) before I'd vote for Hillary. At least Feinstein has a track record for getting things done and on occassion, she reaches across the aisle.
McCain, quite frfankly, and I know it kills the magna-cum latelies out there in the blogsphere to say it, he's done a better job than she has in the Senate in the last six years.
McCain, whether he cares about people or not - and he may not- he's simply better at getting things done then she is.
Is he "smarter?" I dunno, maybe not.....he's just better at the job than she is. but don't ask me - consult the congressional record.
Just watched Harold Ickes on CNN where he made a stink about how Obama supposedly never mentioned Hillary when he rejected the "guest minister" screaming lunacy as idiotic as Ickes' own diatribes.
Problem is that Obama DID mention Hillary in an early response to the media madness over things said once again by other people who are NOT Obama.
Perhaps Ickes gets his interpretation of events from the same imaginary world that creates machine-gun attacks around Hillary in Bosnia?
Here's my suggestion to Ickes: Stop lying and follow the simple rule of law.
Does McCain care, mikeL? Ahh, probably not. Does Hillary care about being somebody important? I would say so. If that helps Joe power-saw, so be it. My point is, is she competent enough to make good decisions?
Forget about her record in the senate. For someone like me, I'd vote for Dianne Feinstein (someone I disagree with on many issues) before I'd vote for Hillary. At least Feinstein has a track record for getting things done and on occassion, she reaches across the aisle.
McCain, quite frankly, and I know it kills the magna-cum latelies out there in the blogsphere to hear it, he's done a better job than she has in the Senate in the last six years.
McCain, whether he cares about people or not - and he may not- he's simply better at getting things done then she is.
Is he "smarter?" I dunno, maybe not.....he's just better at the job than she is. but don't ask me - consult the congressional record.
As someone who was at the RBC meeting, I will tell you that the people who were chanting "Denver! Denver!" were not just people who somehow "made their way into the meeting hall" they were people who were credentialed to be at the meeting, just as I was and as everyone who entered the room was. Were you there, Steve, or does your reporting come from watching the televised proceedings?
"There’s no telling how long, or even whether, the angriest of the Clinton supporters will take to get on board with the party’s nominee."
First of all, Steve, we don't yet have a nominee. We won't until the delegates vote at the convention, or one of the candidates quits the race.
Second of all, if you were actually at the meeting and took the time to interview any of the angry people you describe, you would have discovered that many of them were MI and FL voters who were not there supporting either candidate, but rather they were there to protest their disenfranchisement. And yes, some of those angry people are advocating taking this to the convention floor -- and given that you clearly weren't listening to all of the speakers, I'll point out that so are some of their elected representatives.
"Ickes leaned into his microphone and threatened to pick up his ball and go home. His exact words were, “Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee'"
Actually, Steve, he wasn't threatening to pick up his ball and go home, a cliche that indicates someone quitting the game, he was threatening to go all the way to the convention -- which means the exact opposite of quitting -- it means going into overtime.
The chants of "Denver! Denver!" were not in response to anything Ickes said, they were in response to the defeat of the first resolution submitted to the committee -- the resolution seeking to re-instate the FL delegation with 100% of the delegates. I understand that you clearly have a bias here, but at least get your basic reporting right. The chants started immediately after the vote and if any committee member said anything, it was one of the co-chairs stating the final tally for the record.
"In Michigan, two of three major candidates who were actively campaigning on January 15 – Obama and John Edwards – weren’t even on the ballot"
Your statement of this point is passive -- Edwards and Obama "weren't even on the ballot" as if their names just magically disappeared from the ballot. Edwards' and Obama's names weren't on the ballot because they both made a calculated political choice to remove their names. Your omission of this basic fact is tantamount to a lie. But it is ironic that Obama is now contending that the election is invalid because those who wanted to vote for him couldn't given that his political career was started not be winning a greater number of votes than his opponents, but by getting his opponents names removed from the ballot. Just ask Alice Palmer.
"but a big chunk of those Clinton supporters are pragmatic and not blind in their loyalty. Much like Fowler and the other R.B.C. members who deserted her, they can read the writing on the wall and are not prepared to damage their party’s fall prospects for a gesture of devotion to Hillary Clinton."
It's not about loyalty to a candidate, Steve, it's about the legitimacy of the selection process, much like the protests over Bush's coronation in 2000 were about the legitimacy of the election. But keep fooling yourself into believing that the anger that the "old coalition" feels about being pushed aside for the "new coalition" (to use Donna Brazile's framing) is going to dissipate, and that the people who are being told that as a part of the old coalition, they don't matter care about damaging a party that has rejected them.
Thanks Steve, for your analysis of Clinton's short and long-term strategies. And for this "By taking her fight to the convention, she’d be blamed for an Obama defeat in the fall" I ask, who is going to be blamed if Clinton were to drop out tomorrow and Obama still loses in the fall? Are you still going to blame Clinton, or will you instead blame the way Obama alienated huge portions of the Democratic base, his past relationships with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Pfleger and Auchi (just to name a few), his unwillingness to substantively answer important questions put to him, his poor debate performances, or Michelle's comments on her lack of pride in America? Who is going to be to blame for his failings then?
THERE WERE A BUNCH OF IGNORANT HILLARY GROUPIES CHANTING AT THE RBC ON SATURDAY. IT GOES TO SHOW THAT HILLARY'S SUPPORTERS ARE ALL LOW CLASS. LOW CLASS. LOW CLASS.
I am a 66 year old woman who has never voted anything BUT Republican all my life. In 2005, I read Obama's 1st book (Dreams of My Father" and have been an "Obamican" ever since. I am now engrossed in his 2nd book, "The Audacity of Hope". (My husband, a native Greek, and the most politically astute person I have ever known, has also changed party affiliation and is an avid "Obamican." And by the way, I am also a Christian who goes to church and sings in the choir every Sunday, but does not always agree with what my minister says either! Let's face it - we can all find reasons to criticize those we are against, and praise those that we are for. If Obama is the nominee, we will vote for him. If Hillary/Billary somehow pulls off a big upset, we will run right back to the Republican party as fast as our feet will carry us. She and Bill are 2 of the most polarizing people in American politics, and will do anything to realize their "DREAM" to be the first ever to occupy the White house a third time. I beg you all to WAKE UP and see these people for what they really are.
People, let's cut out the bashing of Hillary and any supporters of Hillary. Like, right now. It brings us ALL down. This is The Observer, a quasi-classy operation for somewhat enlightened individuals. It's not the CNN.COM message board. If you're on this sight, it probably means you're either from Manhattan or you've somehow discovered the site. We are ALL bright people here.
Let's have a conversation about why we feel the way we feel, with facts to back up our assertions. For the Republicans out there, here's a thought....
When you demonize a liberal, and call them names, you only empower them. You MARTYR them, which is oftentimes the fuel of their passions. The only real way to get under the skin of a liberal is to hit them where their ego lies: their intellect, their "intellectual curiousity" and MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT. It's that simple.
There is no real argument that any Hillary supporter can articulate that can defend the Senator from New York's actions here, vis-a-vis seating the delgates of Michigan and Florida. What she has done here is on the wrong side of history, the rules and basic ethics, and no person being intellectually honest can refute this.
So stop calling her names, stop losing intellectual credibility by snarking out SLICK WILLIE or BILLARY and start listing FACTS, not heresay, FACTS....because, people, the facts, and there are a BUNCH of 'em, are out there.
Go find 'em. :)
People, let's cut out the bashing of Hillary and any supporters of Hillary. Like, right now. It brings us ALL down. This is The Observer, a quasi-classy operation for somewhat enlightened individuals. It's not the CNN.COM message board. If you're on this sight, it probably means you're either from Manhattan or you've somehow discovered the site. We are ALL bright people here.
Let's have a conversation about why we feel the way we feel, with facts to back up our assertions. For the Republicans out there, here's a thought....
When you demonize a liberal, and call them names, you only empower them. You MARTYR them, which is oftentimes the fuel of their passions. The only real way to get under the skin of a liberal is to hit them where their ego lies: their intellect, their "intellectual curiousity" and MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT. It's that simple.
There is no real argument that any Hillary supporter can articulate that can defend the Senator from New York's actions here, vis-a-vis seating the delgates of Michigan and Florida. What she has done here is on the wrong side of history, the rules and basic ethics, and no person being intellectually honest can refute this.
So stop calling her names, stop losing intellectual credibility by snarking out SLICK WILLIE or BILLARY and start listing FACTS, not heresay, FACTS....because, people, the facts, and there are a BUNCH of 'em, are out there.
Go find 'em. :)
DON'T BE DUPED AGAIN AMERICA !!!
IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!
Large numbers of BUSH_McCain Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on with the backing and help of the medical and insurance industry. Under the direction of the George Bush, and Karl Rove vote fraud, and vote manipulation machine. Because they feel Barack Obama would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And they want to stop Hillary Clinton from fixing the HUGE! American, and Global mess they have created. shocking!!! isn't it. Just gotta love those good old draft dodging, silver spoon Texas boys. Not! :-(
You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves off of you, and your children's suffering.
With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality affordable universal health care for everyone very soon. And you are also certain to see major improvements in the economy for everyone.
The American people face even worse catastrophes ahead than the ones you are living through now. It will take all of the skills, and experience of Hillary Clinton to pull the American people out of this mess we are in. Fortunately fixing up, and cleaning up others incompetence, immoral degeneracy, and mess is what the Clinton's do very well.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
Just look at Oregon for example. Obama won Oregon by about 70,000 votes. But approximately 79,000 Bush republicans switched party's back in January to vote for Obama in the democratic primary. They are not going to vote for, or support any Democrat in November. Are you DEMOCRATS going to put up with that. Are you that stupid, and weak. The Bush republicans think you are that stupid, and weak.
As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses, and open primaries where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Except North Carolina where 35% of the population is African American, and approximately 90% of them block voted for him. African Americans are only approximately 17% of the general population.
Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. This is even more phenomenal when you consider she has been also fighting against the George Bush, Karl Rove vote fraud machine in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Hillary Clinton is STUNNING!.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. That is crystal clear now. Because all of the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. And the demographics, and experience are completely against him. All of this vote fraud and Bush republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.
You will have another McGovern catastrophe where George McGovern lost 49 of 50 states. And was the reason the super-delegates were created to keep that from happening again. Don't let that happen to the party and America again super-delegates. You have the power to prevent it. The only important question now is who can best win in November. And the answer is HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. That fact is also now crystal clear.
And YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. As do African Americans. Support Hillary Clinton. She will do her best for all of you. And she will know how to best get it done on day one.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.
Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic, and heroic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. Probably the best there has ever been. :-)
“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)
Sincerely
jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I'm with ya baby. All the way. "Clinton Supporters Count Too."
way to go harold i don't know you but like what you said to dnc just shame they don't see i what i here and see out people around here says people will vote oboma in primerys but come national no way and i hope they don't macain
MikeL SAID (not verified): What's sad is that the people who need the most help, (the McCain Democrats)are usually the ones with the least education and/or opportunity.
McCain Democrat: Um, actually, I'm an appellate lawyer. Nice elitism, though. Ironically, in that ONE SENTENCE, you underscored the reason why Obama will be destroyed in November.
The fringe liberals who compose Obama's base neither have nor understand the problems that affect working- and middle-class Americans. Thus, it's no surprise that they have ignored these problems, choosing instead to concern themselves with the quixotic causes of the liberal rich: pandering to racist blacks, illegal immigrants, Islamists, gay activists, environuts, the Manhattan-Hollywood charity circuit, etc.
The intellectual arrogance of the Obama liberals is utterly boundless. They betray absolutely NO embarrassment in suggesting to a voter that THEY are better equipped to identify his best interests than he is!
"""My dad got me into Harvard, so I understand how to help Joe Sixpack, who's too stupid to know what's best for himself! He needs me to tell him how to be happy!"""
MILE L SAID:Explain to the rest of us how John McCain will help your situation? Does he really give a hoot if you live or die tonight on an empty stomach?
McCain Democrat: I pray, for your sake, that you don't actually believe this nonsense. NO POLITICIAN cares whether any stranger lives or dies tonight. Your implication that Obama Democrats care about starving Americans is laughable. New York and Los Angeles represent the epicenter of American liberalism, yet these cities have two of the largest, most intractable homeless populations in the WORLD. The fringe-liberal HYPOCRITES literally step over the homeless on the way into black-tie balls to benefit programs sending money, food, medicine, and technology to Africa, yet should anyone SUGGEST that they do something to help the AMERICAN poor, they become indignant.
MIKEL:
Are you really willing to cut off your nose in order to spite your face?
McCain Democrat: No, I'm willing to cut off Obama's nose--and his campaign--to SAVE the Democratic party from the Harvard-Hollywood set.
I was at the rules meeting yesterday. Everytime i heard A Hillary supporter yell that she was going to vote for McCain i started yelling that i was going to vote for Scalia and Alito. Let's get real! What i cannot understand is that if Hillary has so much experience and had so much influence on Bill Clinton's presidency,why have so many of his cabinet members endorsed Sen.Obama? These people saw Hillary upclose and personal on a weekly,if not daily,basis in the white house and yet they chose not to endorse her. What might they know that we don't. Secondly, i have never heard Hillary explain WHY she never read the national intelligence report on Iraq before voting to invade that country,nor has she ever told the american people WHO it was that briefed her on that top secret report. We know that it wasn't her staff because they didn't have security clearance back in october 2002. I find it puzzling that altho every soldier who is fighting and dying in Iraq was brought into this world by a woman,so many women are not outraged that Hillary Clinton voted to send their children off to war without first doing her homework. I lost my oldest brother in the Korean war therefore i am very sensitive about sending our soldiers off to die.In my opnion Hillary is a very smart woman who has mastered all the facts and figures. She is a great debater and she is "a Fighter". But i do not trust her judgement at all. Presidents have cabinet members and advisors who focus on their own areas of expertice,but the buck stops with the president and his/her judgement is what is most important at the end of the day. I believe Hillary's judgement is flawed and that is why Bill Clinton's former advisors and secretaries did not endorse her.