Bill Clinton: Republicans More Progressive Than Democrats. "It is Shocking and Embarassing to Me."

In Montana, Bill Clinton Blasts Democrats



Former President Clinton teed off on the Democratic Party, and offered the Republican Party a few back-handed compliments when he spoke at the University of Montana on Wednesday. He's dismayed by what has occurred in Michigan and Florida, where the national Democratic Party stripped those states of their delegates to the national convention after the states violated their own election rules and moved up their primary elections. The Republican National Committee, on the other hand, penalized Michigan and Florida by taking away only half of the states' delegates.

“It is shocking and somewhat embarrassing to me to see the Republicans in a more progressive position than the Democrats,” Clinton said during a campaign rally for his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton then took a shot at the election debacle in Florida in 2000, quipping: “I never thought it would be the Democratic Party that didn't want to count votes in Florida. I thought that was a Republican strategy.”

The former president said that because Hillary Clinton respects the voters of this country, she offered a revote in Michigan and Florida but those suggestions were ignored. But, said Bill Clinton, “Why should we put Michigan at risk and pretend these people didn't show up and pretend somehow she is responsible and the voters are responsible? “The only thing she asked for was to treat those people with dignity and fairness,” he said.

“If we are going to decide a closely held contest, it shouldn't be decided with those kinds of tactics and those kinds of principles,” he said. “We are Democrats. We are supposed to be about the business of empowering people. “How ironic would it be,” Clinton said, if the election was “decided by the most dis-empowering, top-down and, I think, mindless decision I can recall in a month of Sundays?”

<snipped>

I'd been hearing on the news that Hillary was no longer attacking Obama. I guess the strategy is now to attack the Democratic Party as a whole, or the DNC ? Silly me, I thought DU was the last place we'd be seeing that. Crikey..I don't understand the point.

You've overstayed your welcome.

When they choose a black man as the Democratic Nominee, by deceiving the amurcan people with their uppity college edumacations.

They are the corporatist wing of the Democratic party. Their idea of the "ownership society" is the haves and the have mores.
(Bush's base)

Can't get any more elitist than that.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... perhaps you simply missed adding a "sarcasm" smiley to your post.

Corporatist Big state, some voters matter, Have More, trickle down economic, Neo fuck DLC versus the True Democratic, 50 state, power to the people, bottom up, hand up not hand out enomics, ALL PEOPLE MATTER DNC

The sarcasm tag was missing from the earlier post.

DLC addicted-to-losing self-important dicks like Rahm Emanuel and Terry McCauliff are having a little hissy at a candidate whose success has had nothing to do with them. They think of the voters as loathsome animals who need to be tolerated and conned into showing up the voting booth. Obama is running his own campaign, a campaign unapproved by the DLC against their chosen candidate. He is beating them and they cannot fucking stand it.

and clout and their influence got pulled right out from under them by Obamas Movement, not just his campaign, but REAL public funding and organizational support that his supporters represent.

The DLC tried to force their will, that they were used to, and the system absorbed the threat and actually raised the funds they threatened to withdraw.

Thats why Obama is seeing the opposition wall he is, he doesn't have the shackles of beltway favors, and the control of the Machine that thinks they know better than "we" do what we need, and that if you give to the rich they will help the poor bullshit control cycles.

This man was my hero, and he just keeps going off the deep end. I am so,so sad about this development.

then they threw Dem voters who didn't vote for them under the bus, then they threw the STATES whose Dem voters didn't majority-vote for the Clintons, and now the Clintons are throwing the entire Democratic Party under the bus because they won't annoint Hillary Clinton as president.

I can see why Bill would think the GOPers are "more progressive." He's been sucking up to the Bushes for so long he no longer knows what progressive is, but he does know who his cronies are, the Bushes, and it is clear that the GOP and their elites, like the Bushes, are now the Clinton priority.

This Bill comment is illogical, if he expects to get any benefit from it, for two reasons:

1) GOPers are not going to like being called "progressive." So if Bill is trying to suck up to the GOP voters, he's taking the wrong path.

2) GOP voters won't vote for Hillary, I don't care how much Bill sucks up to them. They loathe Hillary, they don't trust her, and they believe that she is the worst of the Clinton bunch.

Bill is losing it. Like Pat Buchanan, I think Bill should be taken off the air until he can pull it together again.

Bill has become pathetic.

I was wrong.

And I long ago lost any respect for him. He's a liar and manipulator.

He's always been like this--the only difference is his interests conflict with the party now.

It's sad to see what this once great man has become.

you win.

mccain/clinton is getting closer to a reality

as much as Bush did. He couldn't have an open government Democrat in the oval office with access to all the documents that Bill kept protected for Poppy Bush. Then the Democrats would realize what a TOOL Bill had been for the powerful elite of BushInc.

asshole

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with time on his hands...can you imagine the trouble he can get into?

office.

"Bill Clinton was the best Republican President they ever had." Mike Malloy.

You gave a few jobs to people of color and NOW Bubba considers himself the epitome of "Progressive." :crazy:

Go away Bill Clinton, before you totally trash your legacy. :(


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oRwZQLdhEw

"Well, you know, it's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"
-Hillary Clinton, 10/11/07 on the Michigan Democratic primary.

“Why should we put Michigan at risk and pretend these people didn't show up...? The only thing she asked for was to treat those people with dignity and fairness”
-Bill Clinton, 5/16/08 on the Michigan Democratic primary.

Where was Bill when innocent black people were being put on felons list in Florida. Oh, where was he when people were waiting 8 hours to vote in OH. I say it again Fuck off Bill. Voting rights only matter to this bunch when it benefits them.

I don't know why folks believe differently. Well, yeah, I sorta get it, his presidency was better than GWB's presidency, our lives were better. But think about it, the repub takeover was in 1994 - he didn't adapt any personal or political policies in an effort to gain back control. He kept doing what he knew was harmful to the dems, that gave the moral majority their ammo against the dems.

Sadly, these statements are no surprise to me.

ticket?

Why else? :shrug:

They would lose big time. Hillary supporters do not want to admit it, but there is a huge portion of the right that despise her as much as they hate Bill. I post at a mixed board and the righties believe with all their heart that Bill is a criminal and she is his accomplice.

The only thing going on the McCain ticket might do is give a cover to a theft of the election (like 2000 and 2004). There is no way an obvious blowout (against bush and his polices, thus against McCain - for the dem) can be stolen.

as well.


I really loved the Clinton's but just don't understand their politics right now.

I say, let's get out the votes with the TEAM of GOTV and run a positive campaign.

The Republican message is so sorry right now and for us that is a good thing. :)

The Clinton campaign has resorted to cannibalism.

They're going to take it to the convention, and do everything they can to destroy our party, period. I'm sick and tired of hearing all the rosy evaluations of the situation.

End it.

tries to claim the progressive high ground? Jeebus. :eyes:

You never did.

Move on.

Maybe he's working for Charlie Black now, as a way to pay down that debt.

Bill is sad!

you are!

No one has said that Florida and Michigan would be left out.

:thumbsup:

Everyone KNEW that the delegates would
be stripped if the states broke the rules.

Everyone.

A better forum for you is that way ----------->>>

Remembering that it's a 2-for-1 deal and all...

I think you forgot what your wife was saying prior to the MI primary.

yeah, you really fought for us back in 2000 to count those votes didnt ya Bill... OH WAIT , YOU DIDNT!
no bill, only the 'democrats' YOU hang out with are like that.
i wish hed stop trying to divide us.

For fuck's sake man. Step off.

Many people on this web site are disgusting traitors to the Democratic party. Look who votes for you! Not working class Democrats. Now we appeal to the more wealthy, educated, upper class and Indies. :cry:

True working class Democrats have no home or party anymore. The elitist have taken over! We have not only left the working class behind but some actually ridicule and shame them and call them stupid. Since when are Democrats like that? :cry: They have even thrown our wonderful, compassionate, popular, two term President under the bus and backed over him repeatedly...including hie wife...our X-First Lady and sometimes even his lovely daughter. :cry: I'm ashamed of many of you and those people are traitors and disloyal to the base of our party and Bill and Hillary. :cry: It's a sad day to read such trash on a popular public forum. Too many people who post on DU these days are as hateful and rabid as many Rethug I ever "knew"...even worse! :cry:

I consider myself another kind of Democratic...one who values and feels compassion for hard working class people. A kind person...not hateful... just terribly disappointed in the attitudes of my fellow Democrats. What kind of hateful, irrational monsters have we become? I feel so disillusioned in our posters...I am literally crying for fear of what we have become. :cry:. Many people around here need to re-evaluate and reconsider their positions and attitudes.

lest I become more like those I despise.

I hope so....but it'd be rare now days.

but I'll work on the premise that you're a Clinton supporter. That being the case, I'll stand by my previous statement and wish you a good day!

Yes, I'm a Clinton supporter but I'm ashamed of Democrats and their RW Attucks on one of our candidates. This place is such a feeding ground for Rethugs to come and get more talking points to use against us. So thanks and have a good day too. (Now that was sarcasm)

What make you think such a thing...or was that satire ?
I think the shoe fits perfectly regarding the new Democrats and their values. I'm an old Democratic and believe in our old issues which were on the side of the working poor...not the elite wing of the party that want to compromise with the rethugs...how? know one knows or seems to give a damn. I hope we aren't too surprised or disappointed.

especially when SO MANY OF US DEFENDED HIS CHEATIN' ASS! Good grief, I've always loved Bill Clinton and taken the heat for it, but now, it just saddens me to see him shove his biased rhetoric into this racex(

Is that a Montana voter's chief concern - the delegates of Florida and Michigan, two states which broke the rules while Montana followed them?

How progressive is it, Bill, to want to count an election where there was no campaign? An election that is certain to favor the incumbent who is more well known. Is that a "free election" or something we would expect from a Soviet Tsar? How about an election with only one candidate on the ballot? That's fair, right? And now that is your favorite wine, apparently imported from Russia, that those 'elections' should count. And you aren't trying to sell that whine because it favors your spouse, no that is just a happy coincidence in your progressive crusade against the Democratic party.

Montana voters, apparently he thinks you are idiots. Please join with South Dakota and prove him wrong by sending him back to Arkansas or to making million dollar speeches in favor of Columbian trade deals that his wife supposedly is against.

A River Runs Through It..

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/16/9506/27804/247/514357

the best Kos diaries have links to DU

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/28/21182/8151/691/486446

as I went searching for a new sig-line to show that Hillary did not expect Florida or Michigan, or any of the 20 states voting after Feb. 5th to count, except to rubberstamp her inevitable nomination.

Sure sounds like it...

I wish more people would pay a lot more attention.

hands and so buddy, buddy awhile back. They are basically two peas in a pod.

He doesn't even bother distinguishing between what is true and what is politically expedient as thoughts form, become words, and pass through his lips. He is just a spin generating machine.

The Obama followers have fallen through the looking glass.

the process. and Dean plays along.

I hope you're as pretty as all my other stalkers!

:rofl:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He does neither Hillery nor himself any favors with this bizarre behavior, imo.

What happened to you? :-(

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it almost does not matter any more http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble Florida, Michigan delegates cannot save Clinton

He's really turned into a fucking Repuke. :puke:

Gone....good job. 50% of your own party is starting to hate you and 100% of the GOP will always hate you.

Keep this up and you'll be as loved as Chimpy.

nt

They can appear on Foxnews all they want. He beat them twice and they will always hate him for it.

There are people in the GOP who still are pissed at Roosevelt.

that would cut off their noses to spite their face should listen.

Come on, SIMPLY, you can't really be serious.

I will agree with you that there are many Obama supporters on this board that could take a lesson in the art of "winning with graciousness," but it is tactics and statements like this by the Clintons that I'm sure have pushed many over the edge. In many ways, Bill & Hil have done it to themselves.

I think "cut off their noses to spite their face" should be directed directly at the candidate you support and her husband.

Now suddenly, we want to just ignored voters who did their patriotic duty even when they were told their votes won't count. So you come on tex-wyo-dem, you seem to forget if we had counted all votes in 2000 shrub would never have even been president. Count their votes or you and Obama supporters will rightfully be called hypocrites. If you are told your vote won't count in the GE will you just stay home, I won't I'll vote anyway and demand my vote be counted.

Don't blame Bill--blame logic, reason, and common decency!

Logic, reason, and common decency quite can easily lead one to a different conclusion. Here's mine.

These were not honest contests between the candidates. That is my chief problem with whole thing ... the voters of MI and FL got screwed because of the machinations of their local politicians. Had those contests been properly run, it is possible the entire primary process would have produced a different outcome. One of the other candidates might have had opportunities that were denied them. (Not likely, but who is to say?) One things is clear ... no one can credit these outcomes as being necessarily representative of voter sentiment today.

ALL the candidates agreed at the beginning MI and FL were out of the picture. Now, both remaining candidates are adopting their stance based on the numbers the outcome of these improperly performed primaries contribute to the overall tally. The right thing would be to re-stage these elections and allow the candidates to campaign for the votes. Regrettably, it is too late for that,

What's the right answer at this point? Beats me. What a mess. But Bill Clinton is merely posturing, feigning righteousness, and diminishing his reputation in the eyes of many who once regarded him highly ... and it does not help the situation or the party. Not at all. And at some point, everyone in both camps needs to extract their heads from their asses and put the interests of the Democratic Party and the American people ahead of their own ambitions and feelings.

The country is in deep shit. Both candidates are brilliant people. Properly supported by the Party, both can assemble the finest brain trust since Kennedy. So I am not so concerned about who wins this nomination. Coming out with the "right candidate" may not be nearly as important is going forward boldly, and united.

head of the DNC in 2004 when Michigan wanted to move their primary date:

TERRY McCAULIFF'S REMARKS (Hillary's chief cheerleader for changing the rules in the middle of the game in 2004)

"I'm going outside the primary window," told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/25/165935/668/909/...

http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/terry-mcauliffe-sang...

So it appears that Michigan not only has a history of wanting to break the rules, but Terry is an even bigger douchebag than I always thought he was.

Then Hillary's campaign started. And lots of people suddenly got selective amnesia.

What it does prove is that this WAS NOT a stunt to promote HRC. Levin et al. have been going at this since the year 2000.

Edit: It also shows that going along with the rules (as Michigan did in 2004) = NO CHANGE.

before he was in Hillary's corner. Now he not only wants to change them (which is fine), but he wants to change them AFTER the fact (which is not fine).

if you think pointing at the other party and saying, "he/she is practicing POLITICS!" is a particularly devastating attack.

In the first place, this has nothing to do with the equities of the case re: Mi and Fla's primary vote. In the second place, the innocent outsider is itself a political archetype as old as the hills. In other words, it is also a form of posturing...

She agreed to the rules. He agreed to the rules. Bill signed off on the rules.

Hillary HERSELF had NO problem with the rules... for months... until she figured out it wasn't going to be the cake walk she expected.

Now she and Bill are pretending to be concerned about fairness.

Eventually, more people will catch on. I hope.

Some still think Reagan's great might was what freed the hostages from Iran... so I guess there's no guarantee.

and if you want to come in here I will kick your damn ass from pillar to post on this topic.

Come on, let's do this.

How DARE you.

I have posted I don't know how many things on this issue. Every single time I've won the argument. The Clinton position on this is a sham and a disgrace. And every single time the Clinton supporters slink off because I've whooped their asses once again.

You just put down some big talk. Let's do this. Come get your ass whipping.

:argh:

by far right-wing fascists who literally couldn't care less about anything except power and lining their own pockets and those of their crony buddies are more progressive than Democrats?!?

I mean, WTF Bill!?! Please, just go away.

As was so aptly said on Tweety's show yesterday, when you're in a hole, quit digging.

That said his behavior is shameful at best. One wonders if he is losing his grip in some way:(

LOOK, BABY- NO, NO, YOU INTERRRUPTED MY SPEECH WITH YOUR COOING, BABY, NOW LET ME TALK!!!!

You are an embarrassment to your wife and this country and the many who defended your ass when you did not deserve it.

You, Hillary and the rest of the DLC are a cancer in the democratic party.

We will cut you out and destroy you and your "progressive" friends in the rethug party this fall!

Obama would be INSANE to let Bill anywhere near the white house after this. And he will not.

So you ruined your wife's political future Bill. She will be lucky to hold her Senate seat after your shit. How does if feel Bill?

have attracted some coverage or Democratic response, but I haven't seen it anywhere. Looks to me like he's getting a pass on everything he says, even the divisive remarks he made in W Va, which were beyond the pale.

If I were Obama I would rather go to the convention than put Clinton on the ticket when you got her husband talking like that. McCain would win EASILY!!

I'm hopeful that the reason that anyone from the Democratic Party isn't calling "Bullshit" on them is because they're working behind the scenes to get it wrapped up for Obama.

Maybe Al Gore will drop that endorsement bomb in FL. What better way to counter this latest Clinton bitching than to have Al Gore put the smackdown on the charges that the DNC/Obama are no better than the SC and Repubs in 2000?

Maybe Hillary should be McCaineyBush as his VP.

Barack Obama would WIN the White House.

Because no repubicon would come out and vote for them, and only Hillary supporters would be casting their votes for them, which they have already claimed they would.


I wish Al Gore would speak out against this Billshit. Billbo is trying really hard to destroy the Democratic Party, his Third Way policies almost destroyed it back when he was pResident, now he's trying to finish it off.

I've NEVER liked Billbo, I always thought of him as a sleazy car salesman. I guess I know how to judge a man's character.

HEY, all you DLCers go ahead and LEAVE. GO AWAY. We'll get along better without you.

Florida's punishment was meted out in August, Michigan in December.

So why didn't she speak up sooner about the need to count the votes of Florida Democrats, rather than wait until her campaign was in trouble after losses in Iowa and South Carolina?

"I was a little preoccupied," she said, laughing. "I was trying to stay alive, frankly."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article456726.ece

Preoccupied with staying alive. In 2007.

Ironically, she's still trying to stay alive in 2008, but isn't too preoccupied to worry about FL and MI. But we won't talk about that. We'll just stand over here and admire Hil and Bill's concern for the disenfranchised from afar.

It's blatantly obvious.

They are depending on people being willing to put blinders on... sadly, many are very willing to do it.

Even her "tell" made it into print. Ask her an uncomfortable question and out comes the hee-haw that sounds as natural as falling up stairs.

and pull this guy off the stage. What a disingenuous, insulting statement. I used to really like this guy. What an ass.

of defecating where they eat, don't they? The sad part is, Bill Clinton would have been revered by historians as a near god flanked by the two Bushes. Now he is just a sorry caricature of himself.

what's gone on in FL and MI is an embarrassment for the Dem party. Especially considering our outrage over the 2000 election theft.

The Republicans made a decision immediately - strip half the delegates. Howard Dean has mishandled this situation -

Clinton said it best -

“decided by the most dis-empowering, top-down and, I think, mindless decision I can recall in a month of Sundays.”


--------------------


I get the feeling that you, in your hyper partisanship "don't understand" a lot of things. That's what is so offputting about many of the Obama nation. Your inability to see past this nomination process.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

More nice things to say about Democrats!

Bought to you by Obamanation (TM)!

Obama is irrelevant to me, my goal is to rid planet earth of Clinton and his DLC ilk.

why don't you go post over at Free Republic? That's their goal, too!

I do.

I'd demand to know why Hillary signed the damn agreement that caused the disenfranchisement of those voters. Why was it okay then and now it's not? And now the Republicans are more progressive. What a piece of work.

he starts talking like this. I don't see how any Democrat, no matter who they support, can condone it.

This is scam. MI and Fl should have been a NO brainer!

Anytime I see a real progressive praising Bill Clinton, I have to wonder if they truly remember that the man was a hero to the conservative agenda throughout most of his Presidency. NAFTA, DOMA, Telecom Act, Welfare Reform... the list goes on and on. What they're remembering is that he had a "D" next to his name and that he was generally well-liked and that the economy was booming at the time (through no doing of his own), and he managed to escape being thrown out of office.

He's a crooked bastard and always has been. If he thinks the Republicans are so effing great, he should join up and finalize the deal.

wife along with you.

This is beyond sad.

not for a day, he has no idea what he's talking about. It's no different than Joe Lieberman making a statement like this.

Meaning that he's trying to have both hands in the cookie jar. A progressive he ain't. The Republicans never had it so good as they did in the 90s.

:-(

What strange beliefs they have.

is also a repuke tactic.

to smack you in the fucking mouth with when you're lobbying SD's to put your wife on the ticket.

:)

:rofl:

"Not a single one—not one bypass surgeon, cardiologist or psychiatrist—has stepped forward in his defense; even though all of them are trained to recognize “post bypass surgery cognitive dysfunction.” One of the best-kept secrets in medicine is the brain damage caused during bypass surgery. During my 40 years of medical practice I have never heard a doctor warn a patient before bypass surgery that an expected complication is memory loss. After surgery when the family complains of dad’s fits of anger, I have never heard a doctor admit that personality change is a common consequence of surgery. Yet these well-recognized side effects have been reported in medical journals since 1969.1

Brain damage during bypass surgery is so common that hospital personnel refer to it as “pump head.” The primary cause is emboli produced during surgery from clamping the aorta and from the “heart-lung machine.” This machine pumps blood to keep the patient alive while the heart is stopped during the operation. Unfortunately, this pump also introduces toxic gases, fat globules, and bits of plastic debris into the bloodstream of the patient under anesthesia. Once they are in the bloodstream, these particles migrate to the brain where they can clog capillaries and prevent adequate amounts of blood and oxygen from flowing to the brain. Essentially, all patients experience brain emboli during surgery and for many the damage is permanent."

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008other/080412clinton.htm

to fucking lose this election if his wife isn't the nom.

What an ass.

I am really pissed off about this ----


Thanks for posting it.


Just when I felt happy about a few things... I am glad you posted it though because I hate missing out on Dumbfulckalvania.

is that they threw Kerry under the bus so he would lose to Bush, allowing her to run in 08. This shit has been in the works for a long time. What they seem to be unable to realize is that she will be less viable in 2012. In fact, she'll be in her late 60s and running against an incumbent. Neither of those things bode well in her favor.

The Republicans handled the Florida and Michigan situations much better than Dean and the DNC, with their cheap little "respect mah authoritah" act that backfired so badly and has probably cost us two of the biggest swing states this fall.

then the states in question would never have any reason to regard the rules of future races.

in order to make sure people know who's in charge?

Sorry, but I'm just not that much of an authoritarian, and I have kind of a hangup about counting votes, something that the Florida 2000 debacle strengthened.

Who ever imagined that Howard Dean, whom I once greatly admired, would morph into Katherine Harris?

I don't have great faith that it will happen, but I can hope, of course.

The OP was very clever in framing this to excite the low information BO followers.

I have no doubt that if counting those states would benefit Obama, his followers here would be posting about 500 threads a day stressing the paramount importance of counting all the votes.

And it works the other way, too: I strongly suspect that the Hillary people would be talking nonstop about the absolute necessity of respecting the rules if throwing out two large states would help her get the nomination.

All you people, whoever you are, that thought some of us were disloyal for not trusting. Us claiming that Bill was best Republican the Democratic party ever elected are serving up some crow soup.

So now, just now, really truly just now, what really have you got to say for yourself?

His wife has seemed to slowly moved on, yet Bill still keeps stepping in the big stinky shit pile.

STFU Bill!!

He hung out with Poppy and turned red.

He says nothing about Bush,and Mccain and the republican party but bashes Dems,and those who
support Obama.Why don't they spend as much time fighting Bush than promating their power quest.
Michigan and Florida broke the rules.And they want to blame Obama.I am getting sick of the stuff about Michigan and Florida.Obama and Edwards were not on the Michigan ballet.And don't give me the
Obama pulled out because he couldn't win.Remember Jesse jackson won the primary In 1988.The CLinton attitude seems to be let's Not worry about all the states Obama won those states don't matter.Only states she won plus Michigan and Florida matter.

Spot fuckin on.

not only is this position digusting, but those of you who support it are disgusting, and all you can do is pretend you don't lose every single argument on the subject.

What's disgusting is those of you that would disenfranchise millions for your own petty, selfish sports-minded candidate biased mentality. That's what's disgusting bub.

I win every time.

And here's the most simple answer- equating the monopoly money of bogus primary results in Michigan and Florida with the actual currency of legitimately, properly conducted processes that occurred in all the other states is the TRUE ACT OF DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

Allowing monopoly money into the currency flow weakens the dollar, trust me.

Those primaries were conducted under outrageously inadequate circumstances. It would be condemned by every respectable nation around the world if an election was held in another country under these circumstances and held up as legitimate.

You'll retreat into simplistic "COUNT THE VOTES" or "Blah Blah DISENFRANCHISEMENT!" either because you're too stupid to hang with me in an actual logical debate or because you're smart enough to realize that you've got nothing.

You want a whipping? Come on in and get it. Otherwise s-t-you know the rest.

Typical.

It's the truth as to why you all run when I challenge you to a battle of logic on the issue.

Either you're too stupid to take up a contest of logic with me on this issue, or you're smart enough to know your position is a loser.

Sorry I kept you waiting, since you obviously were so anxious to be an audience to my attention since all your posts are, are cries out of "please talk to me! please give me attention! Please let me feel like I'm important and special and stuff! Please! On the internets I get to pretend I'm cool! Please don't take that from me!".

So sad. :hi:

:eyes:

argument.

Patience, your whipping is coming right along.

No matter what argument you'd pull out in that regard, it would fall flat on its face. If you don't have the logical prowess and objective maturity to admit in debate that caucuses are even worse as far as the process is concerned, then attempting to debate such ignorance would be an utter waste of my time. I'm not going to debate somebody who is so clouded, so biased, so narrow minded in their logical thought process, that they don't even have the integrity or capability to first accept that caucuses are inherently flawed and unrepresentative of the greater masses. Such a person is too ignorant and far gone in their bias to hold a real conversation.

So if you're about to defend them, if you're about to make such an obviously false and amateurish claim that caucuses are fine while millions of people voting in record breaking numbers that were already more than aware of both candidates wasn't merely due to neither candidate running a campaign there, then please don't waste either of our time. It would show quite readily that you are not ready nor capable to have this real discussion.

When you're able to wipe the biased fog from your eyes and hold an objective, honest and intelligent conversation, we can talk then kid.

I'm not going to get into it here.

Read my post just a few centimeters down where I take you to the woodshed and leave you in the chipper.

They are not ideal, but your assertion that they are "even worse" than two situations so hopelessly illegitimate is beyond laughable. But this is not the place for that. Enter into the other post where I slap you raw.

In fact, the results of the caucuses are probably 10 times as inadequate as that which transpired in Florida. Your argument about the results being condemned in every respectable nation in the world shows how weak your logical ability is, since caucuses would be laughed at as a legitimate means of election in those same nations. Oh yeah, we don't even use them here in elections.

Yet, I bet you think the caucus process was just alllll sorts of dandy huh. See, if you can stand there and say that caucuses are completely fine and 'repectable', and that they are adequate 'currency' and accurately representative of the will of the people, then not only are you short sighted and not even worthy of debating me, but you'd also be the epitome of a hypocrite being that caucuses are probably at least 10 times worse as it relates to legitimate process as Florida could be considered.

So please, spare me your false platform of logic, arrogance and confidence in debate. Until you condemn the caucus process with as much or more veracity as you would that which occurred in Florida, you have ZERO ground to stand on and no argument to wage whatsoever, lest you be a hypocritical and ignorant fool.

Sorry kid.

Nope, never, ever thought you would use this one.

See, here's the problem, however. You're still completely wrong.

First, you state that caucuses would be laughed at around the world. Is this just staggering ignorance or were you hoping that no one here would know the truth? Because caucuses ARE currently used IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. In fact, many of our most prominent allies use them to guide hugely important procedures in their governments. See ENGLAND. See NEW ZEALAND. See AUSTRALIA. See CANADA. But good work. It's only paragraph one and already you've had your ass handed to you.

Second, there is the question of their legitimacy. Do I think that caucuses are an ideal format? No. Am I quite certain that they are part of an agreed upon format that all the candidates signed on for and made not one peep about prior to the primary/caucus season? Yep.

Do they have a long history? Yep, a history as long as the history of our country- in fact, a history longer than that of our country, even on this very continent.

Now is there a proud tradition of elections where only one major candidate is on a ballot, because only that one candidate has refused to abide by her own signed pledge? No. No there is not.

Is there a proud tradition of elections where no campaigning or communicating with the people is allowed prior to voting? Well, to an extent there is, as candidates themselves viewed it as beneath them to make direct appeals to the people. But there is surely no tradition of this sort of absence of campaigning existing in a world where campaigning and communicating with the people is the rule of the day.

Most importantly, is there a tradition of holding an election under circumstances where votes are explicitly described as not counting and then counting those very votes? No. Of course not. To suggest so is to be absurd, but then, that's not a stretch for you, is it?

So on the one hand, we have the caucus: flawed, but agreed upon by all the candidates, an accepted practice with a long history, a process used importantly by many other nations in the world, and a process which was not complained about by any of the candidates until events dictated that one whiny baby do so.

On the other hand, we have the Florida and Michigan elections. One in which only one major candidate's name remained on the ballot, in direct violation of her own pledge, and the other where not only was campaigning disallowed, but where it was explicitly stated that votes would not count, notwithstanding one whiny baby's expedient insistence that these votes cast under this understanding should suddenly be magically transformed into votes that do count.

Yes, yes, I see the equivalence here. That is if by yes, I mean, no, there is no comparison here whatsoever.

So did you enjoy your SCHOOLING, or your whipping, or your beating, or your trip to the classroom? You're not a kid. You're just stupid.

Buh-bye.



:nuke:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Whole lotta words, not ONE legitimate defense as to why the results of caucuses yield a more representative result than that of the record breaking florida vote. Not one. You provided nothing but fluff and irrelevance, yet made no case whatsoever as to why caucuses represent the will of democratic voters in a way more valid than the record breaking millions that voted in Florida. Yet having failed to do so or even come close to doing so, you step up on your flimsy stool and declare victory like a dolt. How embarrassing for you.



"First, you state that caucuses would be laughed at around the world. Is this just staggering ignorance or were you hoping that no one here would know the truth? Because caucuses ARE currently used IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE WORLD. In fact, many of our most prominent allies use them to guide hugely important procedures in their governments. See ENGLAND. See NEW ZEALAND. See AUSTRALIA. See CANADA. But good work. It's only paragraph one and already you've had your ass handed to you."

Tell me oh wise one: Do any of them use them to elect a President? But who even cares. What I laugh at the most is your insinuation that the caucuses in those nations are comparable or equal to the caucuses we are speaking of here. They're not. Right off the bat you let your amateur and even embarrassing logic shine through. How sad for you.


"Second, there is the question of their legitimacy. Do I think that caucuses are an ideal format? No."

You're right, they're not.

"Am I quite certain that they are part of an agreed upon format that all the candidates signed on for and made not one peep about prior to the primary/caucus season? Yep."

Irrelevant


"Do they have a long history? Yep, a history as long as the history of our country- in fact, a history longer than that of our country, even on this very continent."

Irrelevant. Also see point one. Incomparable.


"Now is there a proud tradition of elections where only one major candidate is on a ballot, because only that one candidate has refused to abide by her own signed pledge? No. No there is not."

Haven't mentioned Michigan. I'm talking about Florida. Irrelevant.



"Is there a proud tradition of elections where no campaigning or communicating with the people is allowed prior to voting? Well, to an extent there is, as candidates themselves viewed it as beneath them to make direct appeals to the people. But there is surely no tradition of this sort of absence of campaigning existing in a world where campaigning and communicating with the people is the rule of the day."

The people of florida knew both candidates more than well enough to let their intentions be known. Do you think they don't have tv's? Do you think they don't read the paper? Do you think they live in caves? Do you hear outcries from people there that with what they know now, they would've never voted for Hillary? Isn't Hillary still whipping the shit out of Obama there as it relates to polls? Did Obama not have a national ad running during that time? Do you think the people of florida are that stupid that they didn't know the candidates well enough to make a valid choice? All of them in record breaking numbers? You need to get a grip son.



"Most importantly, is there a tradition of holding an election under circumstances where votes are explicitly described as not counting and then counting those very votes? No. Of course not. To suggest so is to be absurd, but then, that's not a stretch for you, is it?"

1.7 million voted. 1.7 million. Record breaking numbers. Sorry pal, but ya can't tell me that made people stay home. You can't tell me with any integrity that people went to the polls and said "ya know, if it counted I'd vote for Obama, but since it doesn't I'm voting for Hillary". To wage such an argument would be flat out dumb. 1.7 million people went and voted. There is no legitimate nor intelligent reason to believe whatsoever that those that didn't go for such reasons, would've been slanted to any statistically significant degree to any candidate. Your argument has no merit. 1.7 million. Yeah, I'd say that's one hell of a sample as far as intention towards a candidate is concerned.


You failed and failed big. You not only failed to give ANY reason as to why the results of caucuses are more legitimate than that of the vote in florida, but the points you did try to make were amateurish, weak and laughable.

So yes, I enjoyed my schooling quite much, thank you. In fact, I'm still laughin my ass off from it! :rofl:

Buh-bye.

What your post really amounts to is a random selection of what you consider relevant and irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant to note that the Iowa Caucuses have been held for more than one hundred years, whereas the practice of changing votes that do not count into votes that do count, is - to my knowledge - a relatively recent one? Because you say so?

How could it possibly be irrelevant that the system, for better or for worse, was signed onto by all the candidates, as it has been in election after election, while I don't believe any of the candidates signed on to the idea of the Florida votes counting? Oh, that's right. They actually signed on to a pledge that said THE OPPOSITE.

But the fact that we have something that all candidates agreed to on one hand and then another thing that is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what all the candidates agreed to on the other hand is suddenly irrelevant. Because you say so. Riiiight.

So you didn't bring up Michigan in this part of the thread. However, elsewhere, you said that Clinton, who DID bring up Michigan was "spot fucking on." Can't imagine why I'd think that was ground worth covering.

Next, we have your fascinating dismissal of the value and purpose of campaigning. Apparently, because - and I just can't type out your fucking stupid name, because it's too stupid, so- YOU - say so, the Florida people had plenty opportunity to get to know the candidates. Because YOU deem it sufficient, all campaigning in Florida would have been superfluous. Now, it can't be that the less campaigning that is done, the more it favors the candidate with name recognition, could it? And it can't be that Hillary has maintained popularity in the state by playing the "poor me, poor us" card, could it?

But let's return to the hilarious assertion that because YOU say so, we can invalidate the whole idea of campaigning. Because this twit on DU insists it is so- think on this, everyone- all the time the candidates spend traveling from end to end of a state, all the rallies they attend, the multi-millions they spend on advertising- all WORTHLESS! Hosannah!

Now how could that be? Politicians work themselves nearly to the nub with their busy campaign schedules. Experienced and sometimes brilliant campaign advisers recommend the spending of all that money on advertising. Obama spends all of our money on it. Hell, Hillary is willing to bankrupt herself to do it. But because YOU say it has no bearing, no meaning, but because YOU say that the people of Florida were sufficiently reached, I guess all of that overwhelming argument in favor of campaigning and advertising should be invalidated. Brilliant.

Apparently, people in Florida own TVs and Obama ran a SINGLE national ad. And YOU say that should have been enough.

But the last part is the choicest, because it's the part where you really can't pull off the magic you seek. No matter how many votes were cast, no matter how much you want to jump up and down until you're blue in the face and say "they count!" you still can't turn votes that were cast with the explicit knowledge that they would not count into votes that do count. You're not Jesus and you can't turn that water into the wine you need.

Votes that do not count cannot be transformed magically into votes that do count. Except that according to you, they can, because you say so. Because you've set some magical threshold whereby if we cross this imaginary line, the magic transformation can take place. I don't recall reading in the pledge or in the decree of the DNC to the people in Florida anything that said, "Ok, your votes don't count. However, if you cast enough of them, they do count." See that didn't exist.

And here's a finishing peach- "There is no legitimate nor intelligent reason to believe whatsoever that those that didn't go for such reasons, would've been slanted to any statistically significant degree to any candidate."

Riiiight. Because, I dunno, the Obama campaign isn't known for having a certain strength in... turning out voters and registering new voters in unprecedented numbers. Nope, it's not like that's been our bread and butter in nearly every state where we've kicked Hillary's ass.

Good one.

And what, suddenly having a requisite sample size is enough to confer legitimacy on a result? What fucking planet are you living on?

Whether our version of presidential caucuses are different or not from the caucuses that exist in other countries, I invite you to share with us the great reams of international mockery they have exposed us to. We're all ears. What they are is a slightly arcane, somewhat flawed, long accepted and many times over validated part of our political process. They have been used many, many times in nominee selection without complaint. What they are not is something completely illegitimate and without precedent which is the process of saying "these votes don't count- oh, wait, you got enough of them- ok, now they count!" That has no precedent, has never been validated, and, to my memory has never even been argued for.

The idea that because you don't like a part of the system, that can suddenly justify the processing of votes that didn't count into votes that do count is just absurd.

Heck, I'm not crazy about the electoral college, but funny how no matter how long I held my breath, no one was willing to change that part of the 2000 Election fiasco.

You can call this a whipping, an exposure of the absurdity of your arguments, or whatever you would like. What remains is that "because you said so" is not a winning rationale.









:hi:

when the decision was made. He thinks we are incredibly stupid. It's hard to believe some still call him the best natural politician - it may be that he is charming, until you see the negatives, but not all that insightful - or else he is so angry with Democrats, that he doesn't care.

that she would play nicey nice and then attack through a surrogate.


sad.

for the sake of unity.

instead, they continue to post divisive attackes.

I want to picket his office. Get the fuck out of Harlem you lying sell out.

He's talking about the single issue of counting people's votes.

And he's 100% right. It's bizarro world, but the RNC actually took a much better approach than the DNC on this one issue. It pains me to say it, but it's the truth.

Some of the posters on this board continue to astound me to no end.

:thumbsup:

....all the crap from the Limbaughs and Hannities of the world, and all the crap we had to go through from the right wing from 1993-2001, than Messrs Limbaugh and Hannity could have even begun to imagine doing themselves.

sez Bill ... like "Women's Voices, Women Vote," Bill?

:freak: this is Lamont Williams :freak: this is Lamont Williams:freak:this is Lamont Williams :freak: :freak:this is Lamont Williams :freak: this is Lamont Williams:freak: this is Lamont Williams:freak: this is Lamont Williams:freak: :freak:

will embrace your message. This is unreal. And sad.

fuck off Clinton...:grr:

to Whine about his little FAUX problems. Go have a hot dog with daddy bu$h and STFU, bil.

I can see why he might think repukes are more progressive.

Hence the DLC via Bill Clinton's Presidency gave us among other things.......



















"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/hillary-clinton-on-w...

(ACTUAL LINKS AVAILABLE HERE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5587196

:puke:

You only hurt the ones you love, big guy.

Commence "Get over it, Sore Loserman!" routine from 2000 to prove how Democratic you all are. :wank: :eyes: