Bill Clinton INSULTS Democratic voters, AGAIN.

[RBInMaine]

First it was the crap about Obama winning so huge in South Carolina because "Jesse Jackson won there." Now Bill Clinton has just said that Obama is winning caucus states because so many "rich people" have the time to go caucus which doesn't favor Hillary. How many times do the Clintons have to insult us out here in America? Hillary called all of us caucus-goers "activists who don't represent the larger party". Oh really? Non-representative voters only? Rich people only? Well up here in Maine we had our largest caucus in history and Mainers from EVERY walk of life turned out to blow Hillary away. And believe me, she campaigned here BIGTIME. She lost and is losing fair and square. Every time the Clintons hurl out another insulting, nasty charge they drive another nail into their electoral coffin.

[Terry_M]

1. I am getting sick of the crap these campaigns are throwing around

without any numbers to back their statements up. Does Bill have any actual numbers of any sort to back this up? And if anyone actually comes up with the number of how many "rich" people voted in the caucus states and it turns out it's a small percentage (not enough to have made a difference in who wins) will he apologize or will he be too proud?

[bellasgrams]

15. Caucus states do discriminate against some people. They only

last a few hours so many people don't have the opportunity to vote. When they do caucus it isn't a private vote, you've got people watching you. If your man/woman does get enough people in that group they have to go to another candidate. Caucus's have to go. Let's hope the next primary it will be 1 man/woman 1 vote. No caucus. Plus voting places are usually open 12 hours, so most people can get to the polls

[FunkyLeprechaun]

24. No they don't

I participated in one caucus and it was quite fun. You are assigned to part of the district you live in. You hear out what people think of certain candidates and you can switch your votes to whomever it could be.

"A few hours"... The ONE caucus (I was away at university quite a bit so I could only participate in one) I was in lasted 2 hours. I think it's more than enough to try to persuade a group of people to vote for a certain candidate.

You talk to people... you hear out what people have to say and what the pros and cons there are. I'm willing to bet that's more persuasive that a piece of paper that you vote with.

[LordJFT]

25. people watching you? oh no, you mean you have to be committed enough to your candidate to support

him/her publicly?

[Major Hogwash]

28. They only last a few hours? How long does it take to fill in a ballot? 15 minutes!

In 2004, I went to the caucus at 6:30 and didn't get home until 11:00.

This year there were so many people going that I got down there at 5:30 and still didn't get home until 11:00!!

It took much more time to caucus than it takes me to vote in the primary - much more time and effort.

Idaho state picks their delegates at their caucus, not at their primary.
Because the Republicans were crossing over to vote for the weaker opponent all the time in the primary and we were getting creamed in the general election.

At our caucus, registered Republicans are froze out, because everyone has to sign a list stating their name and then we vote - in public - we are proud to cast our votes in public. And then they confirm that is how we voted.

It's a much more democratic way of knowing who voted and how many people voted for anyone. They count the votes by hand. Much more secure than trusting someone to count paper ballots collected in a box and carried off somewhere.

Of course, we chide our fellow Democrats for voting in someone else's caucus group - that's the nature of the beast.
They chide us, we chide them - but, at the end of the day - we are DEMOCRATS!!!
Man, I've met some of my old friends from high school at the caucus - guys I haven't seen for 30 years!!
One of the most vocal proponents for Hillary was a very popular Democrat, and he took it all in stride after we hissed at him and jeered him for speaking up for her.
It was great.
Of course, the guy who spoke for Obama was great, too.

But, it was far more particapatory in nature than just going to the polling place, going into the booth and marking a ballot.

Getting involved with the process is what it's all about!
Get with a group, volunteer some time, hang out with people who agree with you about politics, and you'll see that the process is far more interesting than just looking at numbers. You'll get to meet new people and see old friends - politics is about people, it's about us, we are the people, we are the government, we are DEMOCRATS!!

[Window]

35. ..

Peace:thumbsup:

[Crunchy Frog]

2. Well, it's not like your puny little state counts for anything.

:sarcasm:

[RBInMaine]

11. What a NUMB response.

[sjdnb]

3. No, what he said was it didn't mean he would take the nomination

just as Jackson didn't --- Jesse got it, but Obama supporters keep dredging this stuff up time after time.

It's a contest - a race - a primary, seems like Obama supporters think it'll only be 'fair' if the competition is hog-tied.

This crapping on the Clintons is reminiscent of GOP tactics. Not what I'd expect from DUers.

[RBInMaine]

7. Look at all the posts "crapping" on Obama. Be fair.

[rodeodance]

4. gawd, more whining post!! YAWN

[Catchawave]

5. Guess there's nothing else to talk about ?

:rofl:

[paulk]

6. my precinct caucus result wasn't representative of my

neighborhood demographic. It wasn't even close - especially those that stood for Obama. Obama had one Hispanic vote out of his 54 - in a precinct that is 50% Hispanic.

Bill Clinton makes a valid point - caucuses usually aren't representative of the larger party.

[RBInMaine]

9. They've been done for years, and it doesn't excuse insults.

We've had caucuses for generations, and you don't see the Clintons crapping on the New Mexico caucus goers who very narrowly gave her that state (almost 50/50). They're only hurling out this negative crap because they are losing, as always. John Edwards was right in the New Hampshire debate. Hillary wasn't going negative when she was ahead. Now they she's behind, she goes negative in any way she can. Talk about "whining".

[paulk]

14. all the states should be primaries

"we've had caucuses for generations"

Sixty years ago they were ALL caucuses, actually. Why aren't they still? Because caucuses, by their very nature, exclude people and produce results that are not indicitive of the larger party. States have been moving toward primaries because voters demanded it of their state parties. For the very reasons that Clinton names.

It is a valid point that Clinton is making. It is not "whining". And it's a point that the super delegates will take into account, I'm sure.

[creeksneakers2]

8. They aren't making generalized characterizations

about everybody who attends caucuses. They are just saying the demographics put them at a disadvantage.

There is more outrage now than is necessary.

[RBInMaine]

10. There is outrage at the Clinton negativity.

Yes, there is outrage at the Clinton-machine negativity. Hey, I voted for Bill Clinton twice and stuck up for him all through his Monica days. If Hillary were to be nominated, I'd close ranks in the end. But the Clintons, I think, are frustrated that they were not coronated as they thought they'd be, and they are plain insulting voters when they say this crap about caucuses when they LOSE. You didn't hear all this negativity when she was ahead, and you didn't hear these negative comments on their own narrow caucus wins in New Mexico and Nevada. In fact, especially in Nevada, Hillary went on and on about what a great victory it was for her campaign. Now, of course, when she loses caucus states she pulls a typical rhetorical flip flop. God, I can see why so many people have Clinton fatigue.

[UALRBSofL]

13. And I'm sure in your caucus in Maine you went for Obama

That explains the sour grapes.

[creeksneakers2]

30. Actually, she did complain about caucuses

as far back as Iowa. She says they are unfair because so many people can't participate.

I don't see what the Clintons are saying here as negativity. They are just putting the best spin they can on their losses. What candidate doesn't?

[Fredda Weinberg]

12. The Big Dog's got a valid point. Seen this before and that's why the

party has super delegates.

[RBInMaine]

17. The "point" is he wouldn't be saying it if Hillary was winning.

Sure, for many reasons fewer people vote in caucuses. But my point here is that they are saying things that insult caucus goers because they are losing. You didn't hear them whining about the Nevada and New Mexico caucus results. And you certainly didn't hear Obama crapping on the Nevada and New Mexico caucus demographics and process when he narrowly lost those caucus states. He moved on. Also, I'll lay a bet that in ANY caucus state Obama has won, he would also have won if it were a primary given his very large margins of victory.

[Fredda Weinberg]

20. So where's the insult? n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. The reason the party has superdelegates is to squelch any attempt

at a populist uprising in the ranks.

It is noteable that the creation of the super-delegates and the DLC coincide.

[TexasObserver]

16. Bill has lost his mind.

No other explanation makes sense.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Bill is terrified of being stuck with Hillary in Chapaqua

OTOH if Hillary were President, Bill would be a mentor to young interns once again.

[TexasObserver]

26. She'll have the Secret Service fit him with a chastity belt and a bell

and monitor him by GPS device

[nolabels]

33. dupe

n/t

[Buzz cook]

18. Yeah Clinton's a eacist and now a facist.

I'm embarrassed to be a democrat /sarcasm

I swear that there is nothing Bill Clinton can't say that won't be interpreted as evidence he is not only a crypto-fascist, but also deeply evil.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

34. GREENSPAN: "I thought Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while"

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on Interest Rates, Bush Economic Policy, Personal Legacy Tuesday, September 18, 2007

From the transcripts:

GREENSPAN: "I thought Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297250,00.html

[Infinite Hope]

19. Here in Minnesota it was 2 to 1 for Obama. Middle and Lower class here.

Not a rich democrat in the county. Well...there's one or two that I'm aware of.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. 3 to 1 for Obama in Kansas

[Major Hogwash]

22. That's pure bullshit! I'm not rich, it took 3 hours to caucus, not 30 minutes to vote in a primary

And I had to stand up, give my name, sign a list, confirm IN PUBLIC that was the way I wanted to vote - and that was after listening to 30 minutes of speeches made by the 2 candidates' representatives!!

Saying caucuses don't count is pure 100% bullshit!!!

It's the purest form of party participation we can get involved with!!
It took much longer to caucus than it does to simply go to the polling booth and mark the ballot!!

Bubba needs to take a break and shut the hell up!!!

[DemGa]

27. He didn't say that about Jesse Jackson

Oh well, why bother.

[eridani]

31. There are no high income people in my precinct, period

Lots of turnover, only 3 PCOs in the 10 precinct area I convened. When I made my pitch for them to get involved with voter registration, I said "I know that everyone here is either retired, overworked or unemployed, but even a couple of hours will help."

[TheDonkey]

32. Supposedly Obama supporters are in the $100,000+ income bracket and do not need a President

too bad someone has not alerted MY bank account to this requirement. :(