SLICK HILLY STRIKES AGAIN ON MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA.

[RBInMaine]

Yes, I will use SLICK HILLY because she is slicker than slippery sludge. I am beginning to wonder if she knows how to tell the truth or if she has completely forgotten the meaning of the concept.
She's slick slick slick on this and MANY issues. She STRONGLY agreed to the party rules last summer. She declared her support for them in writing. She said that it didn't matter if hers was the only name on the MI ballot because the vote wouldn't count, and she is on tape saying so. Russert has called her out on this as have have others. Terry McAuliffe, then the party chair, threated MI with the same sanction in '04 when that state was trying to buck the rules then. Now Team-Hilly with SLICK HILLY out front continues to GAME this issue, and the saddest thing is that her pied piper followers insist on turning their BLIND eyeballs away from the indisputable truth in this matter and are just sucking down her filthy cool-aid by the barrel.

Obama has said time and again that he agrees to a fair way to seat their delegates, and that WILL happen. (Most likely by splitting them evenly in MI and most of them evenly in FL but with some proportionally.) Obama is NOT trying to stop MI and FL from having delegations. He is just insisting that it can't be done according to the current outcomes which were fundamentally unfair and in violation of party rules. He is entirely correct that even his 6-year-old can see that would be unfair. There'll be MI and FL delegations, but NOT by team-Hillary's dictates.

* For those who object to "SLICK HILLY", well, tell her stop working overtime to earn the title and I'll stop using it. Same goes for "Hillary SPINton." She's earned them BIGTIME.

[ccharles000]

1. Hillary is a lovely person.

:hug:

[RBInMaine]

2. Those were the days when they weren't SPINNING. (Maybe inhaling, but not spinning.)

[cui bono]

3. If they had a few drinks before inhaling I would bet at least their heads were spinning.

edited to fix typo above...

[RBInMaine]

4. Maybe they're still inhaling so that's why they keep on a-spinning.

[Clintonista2]

7. Were they snorting?

Or was that only Slick Barry?

[rodeodance]

11. i think it is your 2nd choice

[rodeodance]

9. Love that photo of Bill and Hillary

[Hepburn]

35. Yeah, sure she is....

...:eyes: I just LOVE lying assholes like her!

[emilyg]

5. But you didn't like Slick Barry.

[Clintonista2]

6. Shh emily, they don't understand that kind of logic

[emilyg]

14. The longer I'm on on DU - the more

amazed I am that such hatred exists.

[PassingFair]

39. You shouldn't be amazed. As long at the DLC exercises control of

the people's party, you can expect to be
pushed back.

It's OVER.

[rodeodance]

10. Barry had his lawyers in MI and FL putting a stop to re-votes. and Dean is delaying

decisons--and has his doggie Donna out doing the hatchet job.

All to benefit Barry. Dean is not working for the good of the Dem
party

[Obamanaut]

22. A "revote" would be a bad thing, because

it may possibly involve people who did not bother to get out of the house the first time. Or, some of the people who did vote may be angry and stay home. There does not seem to be a way that the same people, and only the same, can be brought together for a vote.

Will the people who voted for other candidates on the initial voting be casting ballots for their original choice, or will they be allowed to vote only for these two front runners? If choice B, will this not further skew the outcome?

[PassingFair]

40. Hillary refused to agree to an AFFORDABLE caucus in Michigan.

Talk to her camp.

[MethuenProgressive]

26. Not "Slick," rather BullShit Barry due to his many lies.

As shown in the OP, some people are easy prey for BullShit Barry.

[Moochy]

38. A small request for all the ugly wart covered thugs to post on this subthread

I see five so far!

[rodeodance]

8. What is Slick Barry up to today??

[GoesTo11]

12. Is she?

Depends on what the meaning of is is.

My definition of slick: When you have to parse what the person says with a fine toothed comb in order to tell whether a)they mean what it sounds like what they mean, b) they mean the opposite, or c) they're lying.

[TahitiNut]

13. She ignores the fact that the Michigan Primary was Constitutionally invalidated.

Funny how that "quaint" piece of paper is so conveniently ignored by the oh-so-entitled elite.

:puke:

[RiverStone]

15. We were sure thinking alike today

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5690718

[The Magistrate]

16. No Good Case, Sir

Can be made that the Florida results were unfair in any way, though such a case can be made regarding Michigan.

In Florida both were on the ballot, both were the subject of considerable national comment in the news, and the result was what it was when the people voted.

In Michigan, matters were different, and only Sen. Clinton's name remained on the ballot. Supporters of Sen. Obama and Sen. Edwards did pitch a reasonably effective drive for their Michigan adherents to vote 'uncommitted', which line turned in a surprisingly strong showing.

It is also possible to make a decent argument that in Florida, the date was largely the result of mischief by a Republican legislature and Governor, while the same cannot be said of Michigan.

In regard to rules, and the abiding by same, proposals to seat equally divided delegations are as irregular as sitting delegations apportioned by the ostensible practices of the two states' Parties on the basis of actual votes cast, for the actual National Party rules, if abided by, would direct no delegates be seated from either state. Make no mistake: any ruling on this matter is going to be a raw political act, strong-armed through by who-ever holds the upper hand in the appointment of the Credentials committee, and the actual lead in seated delegates when the convention opens, and a great many people, voters and activists and delegates, are going to feel ill-used by the out-come. The decision will not be 'fair': it will be what benefits the stronger camp. In my view, an actually fair and equitable result, and probably the best result in political terms for the coming general election campaign, would be to seat a Florida delegation apportioned as that state Party's rules would direct, and a Michigan delegation divided equally between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.

In regard to considering the popular vote totals for the two candidates, an officially meaningless but emotionally potent metric, and one that has some limited utility, perhaps, in assessing which of these two candidates might make a better champion for the general election campaign, it strikes me as nonesensical to ignore the votes actually cast in these two states, though sensible to assign the 'uncommitted' total out of Michigan to Sen. Obama.

[cliffordu]

18. Aw, come on. You cannot hope to come around here and make this

kind of sense - You'll just ruin everyone's sense of indignation.

THEN what would we do??



:patriot:


PS - Great post!

[JTFrog]

20. It seems more and more people vote every year.

Yes, Florida had a high turnout compared to prior years, but I would like to argue that the turnout would have been much higher had people actually thought their votes would matter. There was no campaigning done in the state, which has proved to be the only way for Obama to get past Clinton's name recognition in the early states.

Also, that so called "mischief" by the "Republicans" was accepted by the Democrats without any resistance whatsoever. I'm sure, Sir, that you know this is well documented and that there are transcripts and video (very well documented by madfloridian) proving that the Democrats were completely complicit in this case.

[The Magistrate]

30. Proclamations of 'Complicity', Ma'am, Make Very Little Impression On Me

What counts is who has the votes; the attitude of those who do not makes no difference to the outcome. Personally, it seems to me a good thing to have larger states weigh in earlier in the process, and that the Party's decision on this question, in drawing up its rules, was faulty, though obviously Gov. Dean as Chairman had to enforce them, and state Party organizations should not have defied them.

Certainly more people vote each round, because the population increases, but the increases in Democratic turn-out this year are very much in excess of this natural rate of growth. It can be stated with a good deal of certainty turn-out to the Democratic primary would have been higher had their been active campaigning, but it cannot be stated with any certainty the outcome would have been greatly different in terms of the proportion in which the votes were cast. Persons who turned out for the primary, knowing their votes might not count, certainly display a determination to register their view somewhat in excess of the normal quotient, and that ardency, it seems to me, deserves some respect.

[Usrename]

29. I disagree with almost everything you said.

Yes, turnout was high in Florida, overall, and I voted in the primary, but not with any expectation that my vote would count. As a matter of fact, my candidate withdrew from the race before the proper date to vote in my state actually arrived. So I was doubly screwed by the early voting, wasn't I? How is fair to now reward one or the other of the remaining candidates, and screw me a third time? It does not make any sense to me.

Everybody knew it was a straw poll. Now you think it should count. Isn't that an awful lot like saying (during the final game of a pennant race) that some of the preseason games should count too, because one team or the other played well during the preseason?

(In Florida we don't have a state income tax. We had our own state-wide Proposition-13-style ballot measure this year, limiting how fast they can raise our property taxes, and that is the reason so many people turned out to vote. Unlike other primaries this year, in Florida the Dems only accounted for exactly half of the vote in the state, instead of two-to-one over the Republicans like in most other early states. It's because everyone who owned property turned out to vote. This flies in the face of your main argument, doesn't it? Don't you think the Democratic turnout would have been much higher if people had known that their vote would count in the primary race? All those renters that didn't vote, you're saying it would be just A-OK to lie to them and tell them to stay home, their vote won't count, then later say to them "Ha ha, we fooled you good this time!" That is just the most pathetic argument in favor of disenfranchising an entire class of voters - those without property - that I have ever heard of, whether or not you intended it.)

As far as your solutions go, what does your proposal solve anyhow? Is it any deterrent at all if the Florida delegates are seated? Won't you just be begging for more anarchy next time? Even doing what the Republicans did, allowing only half the delegates to be seated, would not be any real deterrent considering these idiot's maniacal drive to be first every year. It fulfills their delusions of grandeur, and they will not stop unless they know they will be held to account next time. Right?

This is no longer about being fair to the candidates or their supporters, that opportunity to be fair was lost when the folks decided to break the rules. It would only make things worse to reward one side or the other for this hideous behavior.

[The Magistrate]

32. Several Points, Sir

The first and most important being that any person who pays rent to a landlord and thinks themselves unaffected by a property tax needs a sound shaking, and perhaps even to hear the classic cry "My God, man, slap yourself and think!" It is persons who rent a premises that pay the property tax on it for their landlord; that is a major determinant in setting the rent, and a landlord is a species of tax-farmer for collection of the property tax, which actually is levied on those who occupy property, whether they own it or not.

The general tenor of your comments simply serves as an illustration of my chief point, that whatever manner this is resolved in, a great many people are not going to like the solution imposed. You do not like the solution that seems to me to be both the most equitable, and the best in terms of political calculation with an eye towards the November balloting: the solution it seems you are proposing, namely not to seat any delegates at all to punish the state Party organization, though of course it will not really suffer from this at all in any real sense, would also anger a great many people. There are problems that have no good solutions, only a variety of imperfect to down-right awful ones, but still the choice must be made from what is available.

My view on the question is guided by belief that the persons who cast votes think their votes ought to count for something, and are likely to be somewhat angered and discouraged should it prove otherwise, and in some measure likely to recoil in disgust from whoever it was that gave them the sad and final news that indeed they did not. It is not the voters who determined the schedule, though it is the voters on whom any sanction for violating the scheduling rules will fall. A better form of sanction might be fines or dismissals levied against state Party officials, though doubtless there is neither authority, nor are there mechanisms, for doing this in the national Party structures.

We agree that any solution imposed at the convention is not going to be dictated by concerns of fairness, either to voters or to candidates and their supporters. It is going to serve the interests of whatever faction is strongest when the convention opens, and that faction will probably not construe its interests as amounting to anything but the immediate concern of securing the nomination for its leader.

[Usrename]

34. I agree, no matter how it is decided it will be a political decision.

I think there isn't any good way to punish the folks who did this, even if we could figure out to whom we should assign the most blame. But there is still the need to enforce party discipline. We should try and make sure this doesn't become common behavior that happens every time we have a primary.

So what kind of deterrents are available to us? Only a very few that are strong enough to actually work. Seating the delegates as if no rules were broken will only encourage more rule breaking, and more problems, in the future. It doesn't really make things less contentious, either, so there isn't really any immediate political gain to be had.

The best solution is probably to wait until the FL and MI results would not have any impact at all on the decision, and then to seat them at the convention by whatever method is determined to be the most politically expedient at that time (e.g. 50-50 MI, 60-40 FL). This will at least keep most of the convention-going party members happy.

I wouldn't try to come up with any split based on the actual votes, though, or you eliminate any possibility of having a deterrent effect.

[The Magistrate]

41. Unfortunately, Sir

Since there is no means to actually punish the real offenders, no useful deterrent effect is possible. The officials of the state Party suffer not at all if delegations are not seated: they continue to hold their positions, which are based on local allegiances, not on national warrant, and to enjoy all the perquisites of their Party offices within the state. The only 'deterrence' which might occur is to deter voters from voting in future, having given them yet another lesson in the unimportance of their bothering to cast a ballot.

In my view, if we must have primaries (which are far from my favorite political events, by the way), they should involve large states early. The prominence of Iowa and New Hampshire seriously distorts the process, albeit partly owing to the idiocy of the gibbering monkeys who constitute the corps of journalists, and conceive their function to be more that of race-track touts providing odds than of reporting information to a public badly in need of it. At heart, my sympathy is not is not with the Party's rules in this matter.

[Usrename]

44. There could be a real deterrent effect, depending on what happens.

If someone starts seriously discussing doing this again in the future, hopefully their cohorts will point to what happened here as a lesson for them. I think some of the party rules are pretty poor, but they should not be changed in the middle of a contest.

[juajen]

33. Thank you, sir, for your voice of wisdom.

I'm grateful we can always count on you for making sense out of the non-sensical.

[musicblind]

43. Wow, magistrate, that was a very very good post.

Though I personally felt like doing revotes made the most sense. I have to say that you made a lot of sense in what you were saying. I just hope we can work something out where everyone is happy.

[JackORoses]

17. I prefer 'Filthy Hilly'

because she is oh so much worse than just Slick

[phrigndumass]

19. How about Hypothetical Hillary? Or Hypo Hill for short.

It's more accurate. It incites less anger, and we don't need that.

:hi:

[rodeodance]

21. How about Slick Barry??

[Bensthename]

23. It's all about McCain being nomintated and Hillary run again in '12. Havent you heard?

Her plan is clear. This was supposed to be Hillary's, Obama stole it and now he will pay the price..

Hillary's bumper sticker: McCain '08

[MethuenProgressive]

24. Right Wing Smears like "Slick Hilly" should be in quotaion marks.

And due credit should be given to Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, David Axlerod, Sean Hannity, and the other slime bastards that are writing the script for the HillHaters.

The OP says more about the OPer than it does about his target.

[QC]

25. Some days I have to look twice to make sure I'm not at FR.

It gets harder every day to tell the two sites apart.

[MethuenProgressive]

27. Put a few dozen BO followers on ignore, and DU's just fine.

:hi:

[here_is_to_hope]

28. Put a few dozen Hillary supporters on ignore and

you pretty much have wiped out the tribe...

[Hepburn]

36. Same advice to you...

...put the rabid Hillbots on IGNORE and it is pretty much like DU should be ~~ no RW nonsense and links.

Try it...it is sooooooo much better to not see the filth they post.

:hi:

[suston96]

31. Splitting them evenly? Bullshit! Split them the way the Democrats in those states voted....

In Michigan, Hillary gets what the voters gave her and Obama splits the uncommitted with Edwards whichever way they want to.

In Florida, the vote split is obvious - precisely how the Democrats voted.

[Hepburn]

37. But Hillary agree to not do this....

...why would you support doing something the opposite of what she agreed to?

:shrug:

[suston96]

42. What Hillary or anyone else agreed to regarding Democratic members participation is wrong if....

...it violates the Democratic Charter.

I don't follow Hillary or anyone else blindly especially when individual voting rights are concerned.