So let me see if I get this straight wrt caucuses.

[Liberal Veteran]

First of all, let me just say my heart goes out to HRC supporters for not being forewarned about caucuses. They've only been going on since the 19th century, so it's entirely understandable that the campaign had little time to adjust for them.

But my real question is this: I've heard the refrain over and over how caucuses are so unfair because the kind of people who might support Hillary Clinton are less likely to be able to make time for a caucus, yet they seem to have all day to stand around and bitch and moan at the RBC meeting today.

How is it that her supporters couldn't find the time to caucus, but could find the time to protest?

[gateley]

1. K&R nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. I love how caucuses should be disregarded because only activists have time for them

But that the people supporting Hillary Clinton are the "real Democratic activists" according to many of her fans on this board. Bizarre.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. That does seem paradoxical, doesn't it?

[Terry_M]

3. Screw all the caucus arguments.

The fact is Hillary was outmaneuvered, her strategy of spending all the money in the big states lost her the nomination. SHE fucked up, and now we're all paying for it while she keeps whining about everything that there is for her to whine about.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Shhhh....We aren't supposed to mention that Hillary and her supporters screwed the pooch.

...by ignoring caucus states and not starting to campaign until March.

[RazBerryBeret]

5. or how 'bout since she's been through

this process TWICE before w/her husband--if she really thought they were unfair, WHY hasn't she done something about it in her two terms as Senator?? THAT's what I'm so tired of--Washington insiders complaining about stuff they actually have the power to change. Don't they realize that is an indictment on themselves? or their inabilities?

[Liberal Veteran]

9. Amazing how that works. After all this time suddenly someone notices we have caucuses.

Shocking, isn't it?

[scarletwoman]

10. Who knew?

:rofl:

[RazBerryBeret]

13. seriously, was she not paying attention before?

or I guess it didn't matter then.

[Liberal Veteran]

14. What fascinates me is the argument that someone who so easily outmaneuvered is the best person.....

...to lead the country.

I mean, what the hell? This is the Clintons second time at running a campaign.

Is that supposed to be the evidence of preparedness and experience that the Hillary folk are always yammering about?

[Coexist]

6. great question.

[Honeycombe8]

7. I think Bill won a few caucuses, if memory serves. nt

[scarletwoman]

8. Yes, but *that* was different. (nt)

[Liberal Veteran]

11. It does come off as a *tad* whiny to start complaining caucuses are unfair...

...at this juncture.

[scarletwoman]

15. Hell, Bill Clinton won in MY caucus in 1992. (over my vociferous objections, I must add) (nt)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

16. LOL!

Not to mention that every demographic has voters who voted for both candidates. Did Obama's caucusgoers feature no elderly people, shift workers or single mothers at all?

[Liberal Veteran]

18. That's always been the part of the caucus whining that has puzzled me the most.

There are really only two conclusions:

1) Obama is excellent at motivating people to actively partake in the process.

2) People just didn't feel strongly enough about Hillary to make an effort.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

19. A fair amount of her popularity is based on name recognition.

Amazing that a virtual unknown like Obama beat her. :D

[NC_Nurse]

17. This thread rocks!

:D