DC Area Voters

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Then I also apologize for calling you a name, as well. But I still maintain that 99% of the board understood what I was saying and that I was not citing some secret, completely-unreported-by-the-media comments from GWB on the seating of the Democratic Florida & Michigan delegations.

[godsshoeshine]

for what its worth, id be less against redoing those primaries than simply counting the votes. ironically, those primaries could have meant more in the traditional cycle than they would have early on

[Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface]

Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
  for what its worth, id be less against redoing those primaries than simply counting the votes.  

I understand why people don't want Michigan's counted since Hillary was the only serious candidate listed, but in Florida, both Obama and Clinton were on there. Why go through the trouble of redo-ing that?
 
 As long as they do PRIMARIES, I'm not opposed to them both being re-done (it's certainly better then disenfranchising 5.5+ million voters to punish state party leaders), I just don't see the need to spend the money in Florida when everyone was on the ballot and no one campaigned in the state.

[vansmack]

I'm quite certain the DNC won't agree with your logic.  I suspect that we will hear from Howard Dean shortly on the issue.
 
 The rules were made for a reason.  All the candidates agreed to them.  All the states were made aware of them and 48 other states (and a couple of territories) followed them.  The states that violated the rules need to find a solution that fits within the rules - it's their problem, they caused it.  If that means another primary before the June 10 cutoff date, fine.  Who's going to pay for it?  Well that's an entirely different question.

[ggw]

Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
  As long as they do PRIMARIES, I'm not opposed to them both being re-done (it's certainly better then disenfranchising 5.5+ million voters to punish state party leaders), I just don't see the need to spend the money in Florida when everyone was on the ballot and no one campaigned in the state.

Clinton visited Florida for two fundraisers the weekend before the primary at which time she also came out saying she would try to get their votes counted.  If that's not campaigning, I'm not sure what is.
 
 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/28/politics/main3760117.shtml

[godsshoeshine]

and if you already know your vote wont count, why bother
 
 again, its the state party leaders with egg on their faces

[vansmack]

Well, just knowing the rules should be enough, so I wasn't going to get into the details.  She also scheduled her rally that night in Florida right after the polls closed, where all the other candidates stayed away.
 
 And the reason why only her name was on the ballot in Michigan is because all the other candidates voluntarily withdrew their names but her.  After she refused to take her name off the ballot in Michigan, the rest of the candidates decided to leave their names on the Florida ballot.
 
 Regardless, the rules are the rules and she signed a pledge.  That should be enough.  Unless her word is not her word?

[Frank Gallagher]

Originally posted by vansmack:
  Well, just knowing the rules should be enough, so I wasn't going to get into the details.  She also scheduled her rally that night in Florida right after the polls closed, where all the other candidates stayed away.
 
 And the reason why only her name was on the ballot in Michigan is because all the other candidates voluntarily withdrew their names but her.  After she refused to take her name off the ballot in Michigan, the rest of the candidates decided to leave their names on the Florida ballot.
 
 Regardless, the rules are the rules and she signed a pledge.  That should be enough.  Unless her word is not her word?

They couldn't write in their candidate in MI? I'm sure Obama supporters didn't vote for Hillary just because he wasn't on the ballot, they wouldn't have voted at all, which just makes Hillary smarter than Obama in my opinion.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
   

The Canadian Press â?? Canada's domestic equivalent of the AP â?? is reporting that the original source of the leak was Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And as it turns out, Brodie's original conversation with reporters focused much more on Hillary as the candidate whose people were reassuring Canada that the anti-trade rhetoric was all just campaign talk.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/report_naftagate_leaker_said_h.php
 
 This should put to rest the media isnt fair to Hillary bullshit, they just handed Ohio to her because they didnt do their job. [/b]

regardless of who leaked what, it showed that the obama campaign was unable to control the narrative effectively- clinton much more quickly was able to shape the story than obama.  course, it also didn't help that there was a paper-trail to obama.  
 
 btw, how about linking to the original  story.

[Sage 703]

Originally posted by Brain Walrus:
   

Originally posted by vansmack:
  Well, just knowing the rules should be enough, so I wasn't going to get into the details.  She also scheduled her rally that night in Florida right after the polls closed, where all the other candidates stayed away.
 
 And the reason why only her name was on the ballot in Michigan is because all the other candidates voluntarily withdrew their names but her.  After she refused to take her name off the ballot in Michigan, the rest of the candidates decided to leave their names on the Florida ballot.
 
 Regardless, the rules are the rules and she signed a pledge.  That should be enough.  Unless her word is not her word?

They couldn't write in their candidate in MI? I'm sure Obama supporters didn't vote for Hillary just because he wasn't on the ballot, they wouldn't have voted at all, which just makes Hillary smarter than Obama in my opinion. [/b]

No, it means she didn't play by the rules as the DNC requested.  In fact, 40% of voters turned out and voted "Undeclared" or some variation of that in protest.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by callat703:
  No, it means she didn't play by the rules as the DNC requested.  In fact, 40% of voters turned out and voted "Undeclared" or some variation of that in protest.

Try not to confuse Mankie with the facts.  It's not nice to pick on old people that way.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 btw, how about linking to the original  story.

Now I'm really scared.  They're putting the Mounties on the case!

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 btw, how about linking to the original  story.

Now I'm really scared.  They're putting the Mounties on the case! [/b]

<img src="http://www.melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/stills/D/dudley5.jpg" alt=" - " />

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  regardless of who leaked what, it showed that the obama campaign was unable to control the narrative effectively- clinton much more quickly was able to shape the story than obama.  course, it also didn't help that there was a paper-trail to obama.  
 
 btw, how about linking to the original  story.

its a lot easier to control the narrative when the media is reporting based on the work of other reporters and not actually doing any investigation, if reporters had been writing that Hillary's campaign called Candian officials it wouldn't have been very hard for Obama to change the story would it have?
 
 and the link I gave provided the link to the story? is it really a big deal? I read about the story there so I linked there, if American media would actually cover the damn story now that there have been all kinds of other developments perhaps I could link to one of them

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by you be betty:
  Directly from the man's mouth - Obama's average donation is $109, FYI      

info released today, of the $55 million Obama raised in February
 
 * More than $45 million of it raised online
 
 * More than 90% of online donations were $100 or less
 
 * More than 50% of online donations were $25 or less