It is interesting to hear the Clintons and their supporters...

[carpe diem]

...argue that the caucuses (which they didn't express any concern with when Bill was running in and winning them) are now suddenly undemocratic and disenfranchise voters. They have had over 15 years as major figures within the Party to do something about it, including 8 years in the WH when presumably they would have had considerable party influence. But, it is especially curious that the contention is that people are somehow being denied the opportunity to participate in the process when, in fact, participation is UP exponentially in each caucus state. In some locations, there has been as much as a 10 fold increase in the numbers of participants. Now I know the Clinton spin is that only wealthy people who have lots of leisure time can participate, but any honest and reasonable person can look at the stats and see that is not true. They come from all demographics and their common link is that Senator Obama motivated and mobilized enough of them to take the time and make the effort to stand up for him when he needed them.

If Senator Clinton's alleged supporters cannot be bothered now to make the effort on her behalf, when it is of historic importance, what on earth makes her or anyone think they will be able to find the time in November. At least we know Obama's people are committed.

[Shae]

1. and yet

they seem to love superdelegates. Go figure.

[Raine]

5. she also loves breaking rules

to get votes in Michigan and Florida. x(

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Hillary Clinton will do whatever it takes to get elected and thats why she's so hated here

- Claiming Caucuses disenfranchise voters

- Try to get Florida and Michigan delegates seated when she signed a pledge that she wouldn't campaign in the state.

- Trying to get Florida and Michigan seated when Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and nobody knew who he was in Florida. She had name recognition obviously.

- Trying to get super delegates to overturn the will of the people.

- Praising John fucking McCain


And Hillary supporters wonder why we hate their Princess. She's scum.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[C_U_L8R]

7. What did Cali say that was untrue?

You may not agree with the adjectives but the facts are all there.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Raine]

10. Why are calling

this person a repuke, nothing here substantiates that kind of insult.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Ok maybe I was out of line with the princess line, but...

You can't deny she's trying to bend the rules in the middle of the game for her own political ambitions. All while praising John McCain and tearing down the potential democratic nominee.

[Skittles]

15. so, Obama praised reagan

all in the name of politics

[Maddy McCall]

18. Obama praised McCain on March 5th.

[Hawkeye-X]

21. Uh. Are we reading the same thing? Obama congratulated McCain

not praised him.

Big difference, Maddy.

Hawkeye-X

[Raine]

34. Hillary linked herself with MacCain

acouple of days ago.

[skater314159]

38. Praised, not said to vote for him. nt

[Mooney]

19. Reagan's not running for president this year. John McCain is.

See the difference?

[skater314159]

51. Prolly not, since she can't see past her bias. nt

[olkaz]

27. That is seriously so pathetic

I have no idea how that line keeps getting trotted out.

It's patently false and you know it.

[skater314159]

52. 'cause like so much else, it's all they have against Obama...

... and Hillary keeps sticking her pseudo-Repuke foot in her mouth.

Lies, disinformation, fear, and manipulation are all they have.

[TwilightGardener]

14. It's Republican to dislike Hillary? Really? Huh. Could've sworn I was a lifelong Democrat.

[Skittles]

16. HATRED

and it is readily apparent to me that corporated media propaganda worked on more than just repukes. I am no Hillary fan - I detest her views on the war and outsourcing - but the sheer hatred for HRC is beyond all reason

[skater314159]

39. I'm surprised you weren't called "sexist"... that's the usual line. nt

[Raine]

6. Welcome to DU

you're right on target. :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Shae]

8. funny that you glossed over post #3

and proceeded to talk about "haters in the obama camp"

[last1standing]

11. Gee! and if not "an hispanic" maybe a gay or a jew.

Maybe even another black who knows his place, huh? :mad:

I've gotten pissed off quite often with people calling others racist or sexist with no provocation, but your's is a patently racist post. Disgusting, in fact.

[skater314159]

41. I guess it can't be racist since he has a mogen david as his avatar.

Oh wait!

He edited it to save his ass.

[Laurab]

25. While I'm fighting my "mental health issues"

whatever they are, along with the millions of other Obama supporters, I guess, maybe you should try fighting your own, instead of just giving in to them.

I rest much better knowing that HRC will NOT be the nominee, and hoping she'll stop trying so hard to make it more difficult for the DEM candidate to win the GE.

[greyghost]

26. LOL Better check your crystal ball, because Obama isn't getting it.

[skater314159]

42. Why? Because you say so? nt

[greyghost]

59. No, because TPTB don't think he's tough enough to take...

the old man. Afterall, this is about winning the GE, that's why the Super delegates are there.

[Laurab]

46. Oh? Hillary is going to lie and cheat her way to it?

Then I guess it's welcome to President John McCain - there's just no way areound that if Hillary continues. I hope your crystal ball includes that part.

[greyghost]

60. Clinton/Obama 2008 -that is all

[skater314159]

40. Why assume Hillary will win? Oh, and you are RACIST. nt

[Coexist]

17. I would think that caucuses favor Clinton, doesn't she have retired people

squarely in her corner? People who have hours and hours of free time?

[JVS]

47. Maybe they coincide with Matlock reruns

[Coexist]

49. lol!

[progdog]

50. or "Law and Order"

n/t

[skater314159]

54. Darned all those episodes on TNT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANgDDgAj4WU

Even all the pics I could find of Matlock are in B&W!!! It IS for old ppl!!!

:rofl:

[skater314159]

53. ...

:spray:

You made me spray Coca-Mexicana all over my keyboard and screen! Darn you!

:rofl:

Seriously though, thanks for that... I needed that laugh!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. They Were ALWAYS Undemocratic And Disenfranchise Voters.

As long as they've been the way they currently are, then they've always been amazingly flawed, unrepresentative, disenfranchising amateur exercises.

I only delved into them this year, but am STILL in shock that these crock of shit things exist. Who has or hasn't supported them in the past is irrelevant. What matters is the process and its integrity, and there simply isn't any. That holds true now or 10 years ago. They should be COMPLETELY done away with.

[MadHound]

30. And yet going into these caucuses, the playing field was level for all candidates

Everybody knew how they worked, how to work them, how to get them to work for you. All of this was a known quantity to everybody involved. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama has had a better game plan on how to approach them. Hillary on the other hand dismissed them.

To try and call foul at this juncture is disingenuous, and to do so comes across as whining. If you're in a caucus state and don't like them, well in the next few years you can get involved with like minded people and change them if you can. If the caucus states don't change, then they're obviously happy with them, and despite your complaints, it is up to the state party apparatus to decide these matters, not you, not the national folks. You have to respect that decision, take into consideration for future elections and move on.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. What A Waste Of Time It Was Reading That.

The argument is about whether or not they are fair, have integrity, and are representative of the voice of the people. Fact: They're not.

I think everybody here who supposedly cares about the integrity of elections, should lobby to ensure that we rid ourselves of these laughable and amateur processes before the next election.

[MadHound]

32. So you are wanting the states to have no control of how party politics are run in their own state?

How very und/Democratic of you. You not only don't have the power to change them, you don't have that right to change them either.

What I find laughable is that now, when caucuses aren't going your way, they're suddenly "unfair" and "lack integrity". Yet if Hillary was winning we wouldn't be hearing a peep from you on this issue. The hypocrisy is hilarious, however the whining has gotten pathetic.

And the sense that you, from a non-caucus state, are entitled to meddle in the political structure of another state is ludicrous on the face of it. Not surprising though, Hillary supporters are much like their candidate, authoritarian, autocratic, and think that they're entitled to do as they wish and have what they want.

[ruggerson]

33. "Hillary supporters are much like their candidate"

"authoritarian, autocratic, and think that they're entitled to do as they wish and have what they want."

lol. You've reached a new level in idiocy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. My God Could You Be Any More Wrong? Holy Misguided.

"So you are wanting the states to have no control of how party politics are run in their own state?"

I never said such a thing, anywhere. Your insinuation of such is ridiculous. What I said is that we should all lobby to have them removed. Did I say we shouldn't do so on a state to state level? Oh, I didn't? Oh, you mean you over-reacted and read into something that wasn't there, when the intent was quite simple to understand? Holy knee jerk. Get a grip.


"How very und/Democratic of you. You not only don't have the power to change them, you don't have that right to change them either."

ROFLMAO!!!! Oh you're a piece of work. I'm being undemocratic by pushing for the removal of a highly undemocratic process and installation of a far more democratic one? Now there's some brilliant logic if I've ever seen it. And I have no right to change them? Are you nuts? Of course I do. All of us do. All of us that care about the integrity of elections have a right to change processes that are undemocratic and disenfranchising. We have to do it in the right ways, and on the state level, but for you to make claim that I have no right to try is laughable and highly ignorant.

"What I find laughable is that now, when caucuses aren't going your way, they're suddenly "unfair" and "lack integrity". Yet if Hillary was winning we wouldn't be hearing a peep from you on this issue."

There you go being ignorantly assumptive again. Do you always think this little when you post and react in such a knee jerk manner? I mean, you're just parroting the same empty logic that others here have done, as if there ISN'T a bunch of things totally flawed and inadequate about the caucus process. Hey, here's a news flash for ya: It isn't US that are complaining about them because they aren't going our way, it is YOU and others who are defending them because they ARE going your way. You forsake all the truth in their inadequacy and defend disenfranchisement due to your own selfish reasons of them working in your favor. Now THAT'S pathetic. See, contrary to your highly ignorant assertion about my intent, I've only truly learned about the caucus process this year. From the MOMENT I learned about them in detail, my jaw literally dropped that these things are allowed to exist. I IMMEDIATELY recognized how flawed and nonsensical they are, and couldn't believe that we, as democrats, who are supposed to care about the process, could actually condone and sanction these things. And that's how I felt BEFORE Obama started being favored by them. So your assumption was completely off the mark. See, it doesn't matter who they favor or why someone does or doesn't want them. That would all be ad hominem bullshit. The FACT is, that in spite of any of that, on their own merits and for their own reasons, they are poor, inadequate, disenfranchising and undemocratic processes. That stands true no matter who does or doesn't like them or which candidate they do or don't favor. They have ALWAYS been undemocratic, unfair, and have lacked integrity, and your insinuation that I'm creating that due to their favoring Obama is quite naive. They are what they are, and what they are is simply not good enough.


"The hypocrisy is hilarious, however the whining has gotten pathetic."

There is no hypocrisy on my end. If anything, it is on your end. You act so smug and righteous and try and put forth that it is us that are whining and complaining solely because they favor Obama, when in reality it is YOU who is being disingenuous and selfish by resisting our concerns, solely because you like the fact that they favor Obama. That's the fucking fact. You and others are blatantly projecting when you turn it on us. The process is pathetic. That's a fact. You simply don't care, because here and now they are favoring YOUR candidate. How pathetic and selfish of you. But to turn that logic around on us is quite laughable, when it is quite easy to see just who the selfish ones are as it relates to liking or disliking the process. Any intelligent person would recognize the inherent flaws within the caucus process. It is obvious as hell, when someone defends them so passionately, that they do so out of selfishness due to their favoring the candidate they like. It's so transparent, and I laugh my ass off at your insinuation that it is us, rather than you, that are being closed minded and hypocritical. What a hoot!


"And the sense that you, from a non-caucus state, are entitled to meddle in the political structure of another state is ludicrous on the face of it."

Again, are you nuts? As an American, as someone who cares about the integrity of elections, I have EVERY right to voice my concerns about the caucus process. I have EVERY right to lobby and try and convince others on their state level to rid ourselves of these pathetic events. We ALL have such a right to do such things, and your assertion that we don't is one of the most ignorant and misguided things I've ever seen here. The caucus process disenfranchises voters, is lacking in integrity, and is undemocratic in a whole lot of ways. To say "tough! Nothing you can do! It's none of your business!" is just plain dumb on its face. It really is, and I'm amazed you could even utter such crap.

"Not surprising though, Hillary supporters are much like their candidate, authoritarian, autocratic, and think that they're entitled to do as they wish and have what they want."

Yes. How DARE we care about the election process. How dare we want processes that are fair, democratic, non disenfranchising, and that have integrity. I mean, HOW FUCKING DARE WE. Seriously, do you have any idea how monumentally stupid those comments sound? Get a grip honey, you are making yourself look quite silly.

Caucuses are horribly inadequate processes that all of us here should come together in getting rid of. We should all care about the integrity of elections regardless of candidates. We should care about having processes that are fair and not disenfranchising. We should all do what we can to lobby in the respective states for the complete removal of these amateur processes, and demand nothing less than a real election, where everyone has a chance to vote and can do so anonymously.

So yeah, you couldn't have possibly been more wrong and misguided in your reply. It was mind boggling in its lack of logic and critical thought. Hopefully, if you choose to reply again, you do so a bit more intelligently next time.

[skater314159]

45. Not fair because you say so? Whatever, sore loser. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. Wrong. Not Fair Because By Design, They Disenfranchise Voters And Are Undemocratic.

That holds true regardless of how you, me or anyone else feels about them. Take your blinders off please.

[skater314159]

44. Yeah, cause Obama keeps winning 'em, destroy 'em. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Try Not To Be So Narrow Minded And Blind, Ok?

My complaints about caucuses, and the inherent flaws within them, have nothing to do with the current candidates and all to do with the reality of caucuses. If you could take your partisan bias blinders off and turn on the switch in your mind that allows even the slightest bit of critical thinking to take place, you'd be able to realize for yourself why they're so flawed. This is something we all should agree on here.

[Cha]

22. That's why they take the grand

prize for whinging in extra innings this year.

[antigop]

23. I am NOT a Hillary supporter, but have posted that the caucuses are undemocratic and

they disenfranchise voters.

The caucuses need to go.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. Most decent people are mortified by caucuses, and always have been.

I don't much care who is against caucuses, or when or why they came to that view.

It's the only ethically worthwhile view.

Coming around to a clearly moral view only belatedly and for the wrong reasons is indeed embarrassing.

Embracing an immoral view out of narrow partisan interest is something worse than embarrassing.

[FedoraLV]

28. Caucuses

This Political Scientist disagrees with you:

<http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/12/why-iowa-a-defense-of-the-iowa-caucuses/>

This article also supports that the decision making at caucuses are similar to the decision making that goes into voting in the GE: <http://www.alternet.org/story/72027/>

-FedoraLV

[cali]

29. Well,

For most of our history, caucuses were the way that parties nominated. And to me, saying caucuses are undemocratic is like saying that town meetings are undemocratic. they're not. they're the purest form of democracy. I'm sorry that Vermont no longer has caucuses. Having said that, I do think switching to an all primary system is a better way to go, much as I love real hands on democracy. However, Hillary Clinton never had a bad word to say about caucuses- until she started losing them. She's noting but a hypocrite on this issue. You know damned well if she were winning them she'd be praising the caucus system as the greatest thing under the stars.

[bilgewaterbill]

35. Spot On!!

[skater314159]

37. I wouldn't call it "interesting", more like "frustrating" or "infuriating"!

Also, I tried to use the term "racist", but apparently calling things "racist" when there is racial bias gets messages deleted, whereas throwing around terms like "sexist" against everyone who disagrees with you is ok.

I am just sick of the behaviour of the HRCCampaign and the Hillary supporters, as they make Democrats look stupid and infantile. I am also sick of the people who want Hillary to win - even if it means destroying the party, having race riots across the country, or having eight more years of Repuke shit.

Thanks for the great post.
Keep up the good fight!

[mmonk]

43. That's my take on caucuses, even if Obama were losing them.

How bad do supporters want their candidate to win is the issue. Are they willing to go out and do something?

[Unbowed]

48. She's proven to be quite the control freak.

We've just put up with eight years of a "my way or the highway" presidency. Why would we want another tone deaf "decider" in the White House?

That's what's so appealing about Obama. He isn't making it about him, he's embracing a coalition of people who want to have a say in how their government is run. Obama is offering the first true government of the people we have seen in long time.

Hillary Clinton is offering to make all our decisions for us because she knows so much more than the American people.

Sounds like a Hillary administration will be 4 MORE YEARS of the same.

Maybe Clinton is so willing to embrace McCain because she understands him and will just never get Obama. Imagine someone wanting to give the American people a real choice in the direction of their government. What a silly concept? Democracy isn't really supposed to be an actual democracy, after all. Apparently, Mrs. Clinton believes what we really need is a new decider and she'll do anything to be that person. Anything.

Clinton doesn't have a problem with the concept of rules, just rules not of her own making. She is running specifically because she wants us to follow her rules.

She is the one who wants to control us like a flock of dumb sheep.

[skater314159]

55. Which is typical of narcissists and egotistical persons. nt

[Unbowed]

58. You said it! n/t