Title: Democrats Look to Avoid Convention Rift
JamesAquila - February 16, 2008 04:03 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
February 16, 2008
Democrats Look to Avoid Convention Rift
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and JO BECKER
Former Vice President Al Gore and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday.
Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates.
The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.
But they also provided an early glimpse at the complex set of tradeoffs facing party leaders, from their desire to make their own influence felt to their worries about offending the candidates and particular constituencies — not to mention the long, sometimes troubled relationship between Mr. Gore and the Clintons.
The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses. That perception could cripple the eventual Democratic nominee’s chances of winning the presidency in November, they said.
A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards and Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate.
“It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Ms. Pelosi said she intended to remain neutral, though some of her closest friends and allies in the House are publicly supporting Mr. Obama.
She said the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month, as the Clinton campaign has proposed. Mrs. Clinton got more votes in both places, although neither candidate actively campaigned there and Mr. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. The party had penalized those states for holding their primaries earlier than the party wanted by stripping them of their delegates to the convention.
“We can’t ignore the rules which everyone else played by,” Ms. Pelosi said.
Few figures are being more closely watched by Democratic insiders than Mr. Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who associates say has been lobbied hard for an endorsement by allies of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama.
Although it is not clear what role their past may play in his decision, Mr. Gore and the Clintons have a complicated, sometimes intense history, and Mr. Obama’s strength in the presidential race could make it even more complicated.
Some of Mr. Gore’s allies have complained bitterly that Mr. Clinton concentrated more on Mrs. Clinton’s Senate run in 2000 than on getting Mr. Gore elected president. For his part, Mr. Clinton was surprised and hurt that Mr. Gore did not enlist him on the campaign trail in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.
Although Mr. Gore has expressed concerns to some associates about the damage a brokered convention could cause, several associates said he was hopeful that one candidate would soon break through, sparing the party such an outcome. He told a close friend recently that his decision not to endorse “feels like the right thing” and that he remained optimistic the race “is going to tip at some point,” the friend said.
Another close ally of Mr. Gore’s, however, said: “He recognizes the need for a few party elders to stay on the sidelines to ensure, if needed, that the process is fair and honest. It could very likely take a group of senior party people, including Gore, to settle this, but the only way they can settle it is if they stay on the sidelines now.”
Kalee Kreider, communications director for Mr. Gore, said that he “has no present plans to endorse a candidate,” though she added, “He has not ruled out that possibility prior to the convention.” Ms. Kreider declined to discuss Mr. Gore’s private conversations with party leaders.
But four close associates of Mr. Gore’s said senior party officials had actively consulted him for his advice about what the superdelegates should do if neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton amassed the 2,025 delegates necessary to win the nomination after the final Democratic caucus in Puerto Rico on June 7.
Party leaders described Mr. Gore as a potentially crucial mediator because the putative head of the party — and the man who chose him as his vice president — Bill Clinton, is hardly a neutral observer when it comes to his wife’s candidacy.
“Because President Clinton is very involved on one side, there is an opening for him to be a more neutral force and an honest broker,” said a close associate of Mr. Gore’s, who like most of the associates spoke only on the condition of anonymity. “He’s probably the only unaligned person with the kind of stature to step in to that role and have a real impact on this.”
Several allies said that because of Mr. Gore’s bruising defeat in 2000 presidential voting in Florida, he would have the credibility with Democrats to carry the message that the will of the people should be respected.
Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are aggressively lobbying the superdelegates, a battle that received new attention after Representative John Lewis of Georgia, who had endorsed Mrs. Clinton, said late Thursday that he would cast his superdelegate ballot for Mr. Obama if the battle for the nomination went to the convention.
The Clinton camp has Mr. Clinton making frequent calls, and Mr. Obama’s surrogates are pushing for superdelegates from states where he won primaries or caucuses to pledge their support to him.
But there was no sign of any wholesale shift in support toward Mr. Obama on Friday. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip and highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he intended to remain neutral and let the primaries play out even though Mr. Obama won overwhelmingly in his district and state.
“If I were to only reflect my state, then that may not be good enough for a national candidate,” Mr. Clyburn said. “So I think we ought to use our collective judgment to do what is in the best interests of our party.”
But the role that the superdelegates should play between now and the convention is at the heart of a raging debate. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which is trailing in the delegate count, has taken the position that superdelegates should be free to choose the best-qualified candidate. Mr. Obama’s campaign has said that the superdelegates should be bound by the voters’ will.
Several senior officials cautioned that the party elders had not yet determined whether superdelegates should be urged to cast their votes for the candidate who has the most delegates, or the one who won their state or Congressional district, or the winner of the popular vote. Because Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton might lead in different categories, the question is a vital one.
At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said. Although a number of his supporters had been urging him to endorse Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton has actively sought his backing, Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said.
A senior associate of Mr. Gore’s said that surrogates for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had tried to lock up the former vice president’s endorsement. But he has steadfastly refused to even hint at which candidate he might favor.
Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting. |
The Paraclete - February 17, 2008 08:26 PM (GMT)
And THIS is why I say we must NOT align ourselves until Mr. Gore makes a choice...he had decided to NOT hurt the process by choosing right now...and as many have said...if THIS convention DOES become 'brokered' then it will be individuals like Mr. Gore who will sort out the 'peace'... :Y:
Meanwhile Senators Obama & Clinton remain 'hot' on each other's campaign trails...but what DEMOCRATS are looking for is UNITY...Hopefully too much 'mud' will NOT splatter on either front-runner...but WE also do NOT want a 'political tar-baby' to take into the general elections either! If too much should STICK on Obama or Clinton this could lead to liabilities down the road to November! :!:
What is a "political tar-baby"? Just look at Kerry in 2004! Mr. Gore had backed Howard Dean, but AFTER the primaries we were pretty much STUCK with John Kerry...or at LEAST that is what we were told...When the neocons 'swiftboated' Kerry then the entire Democratic Ship 'sank' for lack of anything to hold it together...plus the NOISE MACHINE kept claiming that Kerry was NO DIFFERENT than BU$H...(a lie)...kind of what they are doing NOW comparing McCain to Clinton & Obama!...McCain is NO LIBERAL...no matter WHAT they say...and we NEED to remind folks of WHY they put Democrats back INTO POWER in Congress of 2006...to END THE IRAQ WAR!...And JOHN MCCAINE is NOT ONLY NOT GOING TO END THAT WAR...IF HE HAS HIS WAY WE WILL BE IN IRAQ FOR 100 YEARS! :wtf:
It's real simple...you either want WAR...in THAT case vote for McCaine & the GOP come November...or you want PEACE & PROSPERITY...in which case you will VOTE DEMOCRAT! ;)
earthmother - March 5, 2008 03:47 AM (GMT)
Well, a convention rift is looking more likely as of tonight. I can't stay up late enough to see them call Ohio and Texas, but it looks as if Hillary's going to take Ohio, and Texas may be a toss-up. The race will continue. It's quite possible neither Hillary nor Obama will have the needed number of delegates upon getting to Denver. And if that happens, it's hard to imagine delegates from either camp defecting over to support the other candidate. I know I've said that I don't see any way for Gore to get in, even under those circumstances, and I still believe that, but I really do wonder how it would be resolved. :?:
Texan for Gore - March 5, 2008 06:11 AM (GMT)
It's been a grueling night, watching the pendulum swing back and forth on CNN, but they've finally called Texas in her favor, which seems a little premature with it being so close and still only 70% reporting. But the race marches on and I too wonder if the brokered convention is closer on the horizon and if our fair Gore could possibly get in??
Yeah, I'm being dramatic, but it's been a heck of a dog fight here in Texas. The hope of a Gore ticket still dangles before me. One can only hope....
Stay tuned folks!!
**Edited to add: Btw, did anyone hear the crack made on CNN about Gore possibly being a compromise candidate? Yeah, it was made in jest, but it was still interesting to hear the subject brought up. How many more days until the convention?? :dripple: AlGorefan, slacking up are we on the countdown?? :laugh:
earthmother - March 5, 2008 03:19 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Texan for Gore @ Mar 5 2008, 06:11 AM) |
| Btw, did anyone hear the crack made on CNN about Gore possibly being a compromise candidate? Yeah, it was made in jest, but it was still interesting to hear the subject brought up. |
Who made the crack? Just curious.
Also, what I heard bandied about by Tim Russert and others on MSNBC was how it's going to be tough for either Hillary or Obama to win the election now. They were discussing how the two candidates are really pulling voters from different demographic segments and that they couldn't see a lot of cross-over come November. The affluent, educated, black, and young voters won't want to switch over to Hillary, and the blue collar, middle-aged wealthy women won't want to switch over to Obama. Could just be the usual MSM crap that favors the Reps., but I do wonder if either candidate is truly electable.
Texan for Gore - March 5, 2008 04:38 PM (GMT)
EM, it was Lou Dobbs that brought it up. He was talking to some of the political analysts sitting around. I was trying to remember if Wolf Blitzer was in the room or not. He was in and out as he was showing the breakdown of the votes in different Texas counties as they became available. So I don't know how much stock to put in the comments. I just wondered if he was throwing the idea out there to see what kind of reaction he got. :blink:
Questions - March 5, 2008 05:49 PM (GMT)
I think pundits who say that because Obama and HRC may draw from different constituencies that there won't be enough support in the general election are not factoring in the GOP fatigue factor. It will have some effect, though.
As much as the rank and file GOP complain about McCain, he is the candidate that has the most potential to siphon off indy voters.
The pundits are also not talking about how an HRC candidacy would energize the GOP base. They might not vote at all if it's Obama, but they will vote if it's Hillary, and they won't be voting for her.
Lots of things those pundits "avoid."
Hillary is McCain's best chance.
Questions - March 5, 2008 06:18 PM (GMT)
This guy shows some similarities to HRC's Ohio win and Bush's in 2004:
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/d...0&topic_id=3846Keep in mind that Ohio was the 2004 Florida. Some people have finally been convicted for what went on there.
The new SOS is trying to fix the "system" but it's not easy or fast. Where touch screens are still used, no one really knows who people actually voted for- and without a lot of auditing, optical scan cannot be trusted either although it can be recounted provided the ballots are in safe keeping. (In a 2004 "audit" ballots were pre-audited and in New Hampshire primary this year, the chain of custody and condition of ballot boxes was so bad there is no way to insure the real ballots were in those boxes)
Likewise in Texas, the Hart optical scans happen to record as votes stray marks on the ballot- although pointed out to Texas, nothing was done about it and one honest election official lost his job because he did ring the alarm.
And I believe a good portion of Pennsylvania is touch screen.
I take the results from Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania with a grain of salt.
Does it irk anyone else HRC's comment that she should be at the head of any ticket because, "Ohio thinks so?"
Like, the rest of the country who has put Obama at the top doesn't matter, just Ohio?
I think the states that put Obama on top should be fuming about now.
No one matters unless they support HRC- the rest of you, don't count. :mad:
Texan for Gore - March 5, 2008 06:26 PM (GMT)
Yes, I did catch that comment HRC made because "Ohio said so." And it pissed me off as well. It indeed implies that all the other states (that she didn't win) don't count.
Hmmm, I wonder what she is going to say when she gets to Pennsylvania?? That "PA said so." But she'll ony say that if she wins PA. :unsure:
JamesAquila - March 5, 2008 06:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 5 2008, 01:18 PM) |
I take the results from Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania with a grain of salt.
|
Interesting how you never take the results with 'a grain of salt' when Obama wins regardless of the voting method. Some would call that a double standard. Some might even call that hypocrisy.
Questions - March 5, 2008 07:13 PM (GMT)
No James, I take the results from Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania with a grain of salt because of the voting systems they have in place and because of past history- just like there is no way to validate the New Hampshire results, because of the awful chain of custody issues.
Likewise, although Clinton probably won California, how much should be contested. The "double bubble" idiocy of the the ballot in LA county caused many ballots to not be counted. That double bubble farce seemed to affect the democratic primary race only. It put the candidates on the ballot in the same spot as the AIP party- and you had to fill in another bubble to indicate which parties primary you were voting in. That mess was left by the previous, voting machine vendor friendly, registrar of voters. Then aided and abetted by the former head of elections in the largest county in Washington State that caused so much problem in the Governor's election there.
Given the number of numbers on those ballots, there was zero need to create the ballot that way.
I am waiting for the next couple of days for the report by votersunite.org on voting problems in the latest primaries. Already heard of some people in Ohio, lifelong Democrats, getting to the polls to see themselves registered as Republican.
You can ask votersunite.org to put you on their, pretty much daily, mailing list of news from across the country- the problems you won't see on the MSM. Very informative.
By the way, congrats on getting New York to go with paper ballots.
Did you ever find out from your elections board person where they got the idea that New York (state) did a 20% audit of the ballots after elections?
FYI, I would be inclined to support primaries by ballot more in this country if this country had honest, auditable, elections. We don't.
For information on how things stack up when we vote in this country:
votersunite.org
bradblog.org
If you can insure that all voting in this country is 100% honest, can prove it, that the GOP/military-industrial-complex would not be above "fiddling" with a few elections, (Diebold may be taken over by a military-industrial-company) and when all that is fixed, and then I still cast a "grain of salt" about the results- then you can call me a hypocrite.
Don't quote part of what I said, out of context with what I wrote about, which was based on the voting systems in those states. Quoting out of context is just as hypocritical as what you are implying about my statements.
I am skeptical and my years of study and research into voting problems are a good part of that.
When poll after poll just happens to be wrong- the question never asked about is the possibility of election fraud. FYI, Hillary was projected to win Ohio- but not by the margins she did.
Questions - March 5, 2008 07:18 PM (GMT)
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2...4/article/29386 Commentary: Clinton’s Duplicity On Michigan, Florida Delegates
.....
"She is dead wrong, and we should set the record straight. The DNC did not strip Michigan and Florida of its delegates. The Democratic party is quite willing to welcome all duly elected delegates from both states. However, Michigan and Florida have yet to produce any duly elected delegates—delegates chosen by voters in a fair election. Only a genuine election, where the voters are able to hear both sides, where the names of all contenders appear on the ballot, can produce legitimate delegates at the convention. No real election took place in January. That is the crux of the issue. Clinton may claim that she is defending the voters, but she is actually manufacturing delegates out of a beauty contest that turned ugly. Her plan disenfranchises voters in both states. Thousands and thousands of voters, who would have voted for Obama in an official election, stayed home. If only one name appears on the ballot in a communist country, it’s called a dictatorship. "
JamesAquila - March 5, 2008 08:31 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 5 2008, 02:13 PM) |
No James, I take the results from Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania with a grain of salt because of the voting systems they have in place and because of past history- just like there is no way to validate the New Hampshire results, because of the awful chain of custody issues.
|
So it is just a big coincidence that none of these issues ever come up when Obama wins. Yeah right!
JamesAquila - March 5, 2008 08:34 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 5 2008, 02:13 PM) |
Did you ever find out from your elections board person where they got the idea that New York (state) did a 20% audit of the ballots after elections?
|
They didn't get the idea. It is standard procedure.
Questions - March 5, 2008 11:11 PM (GMT)
"So it is just a big coincidence that none of these issues ever come up when Obama wins. Yeah right!"
And isn't it just as big a coincidence that Hillary hates caucuses? You know, the ones where the votes can't be counted in secret? The ones the HRC camp take or threaten with legal action, because.....because...they're caucuses! <_<
(FYI, any electronic vote tabulating, even by an optical scan system, is a secret vote count)
(Like I said in the other post, I would support voting by ballot in primaries more if we could insure absolutely honest, audited elections. We can't)
I would like to think that if the voting systems are being gamed, it's due to the influence of those who want to keep the status quo. Like those who want HRC elected because they think she can be beat in the general.
What I don't like is the continual attacks by Hillary on caucuses. If she keeps that up... well, it just begins to sound bad.
Oh, James, would you mind finding the specific New York State law mandating the 20% audit? I looked and must have missed it. I will pass that one on to voting advocates who need that kind of information. There would be no excuse to continue the caterwalling by some officials about how it's just too onerous to audit an election.
JamesAquila - March 5, 2008 11:54 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 5 2008, 06:11 PM) |
| And isn't it just as big a coincidence that Hillary hates caucuses? You know, the ones where the votes can't be counted in secret? The ones the HRC camp take or threaten with legal action, because.....because...they're caucuses! <_< |
Hillary's credibility is not the issue here nor is Obama's. It is your credibility that is at issue. You try to pass yourself off as someone interested in fair elections but with each passing post it is clear that you are not interested in fairness or even the will of the people if they don't agree with you. You have a very one-sided and biased agenda. That puts the credibilty of everything you post in to question.
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 5 2008, 06:11 PM) |
| Oh, James, would you mind finding the specific New York State law mandating the 20% audit? I looked and must have missed it. I will pass that one on to voting advocates who need that kind of information. There would be no excuse to continue the caterwalling by some officials about how it's just too onerous to audit an election. |
I never said it was law. It is standard procedure by the New York Board of Elections to protect themselves from lawsuits.
The Paraclete - March 6, 2008 09:45 PM (GMT)
Looks like it might be up to Al Gore and the Democratic SUPER DELEGATES! What Clinton AND Obama BETTER realize is this...if MCCAINE gets into office because of WHAT they are doing...I want them BOTH strapped to the FIRST BOMB McCaine DROPS on Iran! When the GOP and McCain's actions cause gasoline to TOP $6 a GALLON...it will be TOO LATE to say I AM SORRY! :mad:
This nation can't stand up to 4 MORE YEARS of NEOCON WARMONGERING! If it is up to AL GORE & the SUPER DELEGATES to STOP this then SO BE IT! :angry:
Limbarf, Hannity, Beck and the WHOLE D#MNED Group are yumming this up! They would loooooove a 'brokered convention' and 'split party' for the Democrats so THEY can weasel McCaine...this Manchurian Candidate that THEY ALL SUPPOSEDLY HATE INTO OFFICE! :mad:
Don't be fooled for ONE SECOND! These duplicitous Januses will NOT vote against McCaine's "MUTINY" come November...Just like they did for that Idiot of a President we have right now...THEY will ALL fall in line like the ROBOTS they are and VOTE FOR MCCAINE! :bad:
Questions - March 7, 2008 12:33 AM (GMT)
Moderators, I would like to point out that I did not start the name calling in this thread. If anything escalates, know who started it.
James, it’s time for you to come clean. Every time I have asked you about the auditing of New York elections, you have changed the goal posts. You have never stated just at what level those audits take place. Your response to my initial post was that in New York, they have 20% audits.
It is time for you to stop equivocating and identify just where those audits take place. Why? Because that information would be hugely useful to election integrity activists across the country, those that fight to have honestly counted, audited elections. Any place that mandates an audit is useful. I’ll take state, county, or city. But I need specifics to back up your statements that this occurs. Web site, laws, meeting records, let’s get this thing on the record so that it can be used to help others fight state and county election officials who declare that paper is too onerous and that auditing is impossible.
I’ll send that information out to people it's most useful to. I won’t take credit, I’ll use your name, I’m just the messenger. I’ll even put your email address with the ones I send so you can see that is exactly what I am doing. Because I don’t care a flying fig about credit, it’s yours anyway. I care about getting honest, auditable elections in this country so we- the people- are the ones really electing our officials.
So James, I need some hard evidence to back up what you say. I’ve spent time going over New York State election laws and I don’t see it there. If it’s a policy at the county or city level, I need that verified and I need evidence- website, meeting minutes-where is it?
Meanwhile, I still take the Ohio and Texas elections with a grain of salt. Some food for thought below. I believe the crossover for Obama is high. But let’s say that it’s a 50-50 split. Those voting for Clinton to insure a McCain win (In their eyes) hurt Obama.
On NPR today they interviewed Evan Smith, Texas Monthly Magazine and he said that in Texas, it was estimated that a half a million Republicans crossed over to vote for Hillary Clinton.
I have made no secret that I am not in Clinton’s camp. I’ve also made no secret that I think Gore has a problem with NAFTA to deal with to be the best candidate.
No one made you, James, hall monitor here, what can or cannot be on this forum or who can or cannot post, however you disagree with them. We can agree to disagree but disparaging me with nametags is juvenile. I’m not playing the game James.
Kucinich is out, as is Edwards. We are left with the two we are left with. I do not want to see either win because the system was “gamed.” At this point, any gaming is going HRC’s way. HRC is the one taking the democratic primary contest to the gutter. She supports McCain over Obama. HRC is arguing that she should take the win over the will of the people who voted. I object to that as I object to the super delegates. What is great is that the Democratic primary is proportional so more voices are heard, unlike winner take all elections. You can parse about the proportioning but at least it’s there.
(There will be other points made in the articles. It would be too long to post all and I was taught, due to copyright issues, you can quote and source but not repost whole articles. Mods, you might check into that issue)
Crossover voting, aka, “gaming”, aka, “grain of salt”:
http://www.centralohio.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...3/80218011/1002“One of the worst-kept secrets of the Ohio presidential primary is that Republican Party leaders have a candidate they are rooting for on the Democratic side.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...s.25ae3853.html“Wayne Slater: No question that the effort by conservative talk radio to have Republicans cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton had some impact. .....But whether these Republican cross overs actually produced the Hillary victory is debatable, I think.”(That’s for you James. With proportional delegates, yes, it does matter)
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030...d_in_Texas.html On the local conservative radio stations, many Republicans are calling and complaining about feeling “disenfranchised”.
Apparently, they didn’t realize that by implementing Rush Limbaugh’s strategy of voting for Hillary in the Primaries to prolong the Democrats fist-fight, they would not be allowed to vote for any of the Republicans on the rest of the ballot.
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/03/...over_in_la.html “Poll watchers throughout Ohio are noting large numbers of Republican voters crossing over to vote in the Democratic Primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
One woman voted for Clinton in hopes of delivering John McCain a weaker debate opponent. Another picked Obama because her vote could help deny Clinton and her husband a return trip to the White House.”
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?...fe-d74e97777cfe “Clermont County officials prepared more than 33,000 Democratic ballots, expecting some crossover voting, but ultimately didn't anticipate the amount who would.”
So far, a small s scam:
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/...166/detail.html“Precinct Judge Edna Russell told Local 2 Investigates that some senior citizen voters had to be turned away because absentee ballots had already been mailed in using their names.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/us/polit...ml?ref=politics“One of the surprises Tuesday in Ohio was the number of registered Republicans who crossed over to vote in the Democratic primary, which election officials said was particularly obvious in usually heavy Republican precincts. But Edward B. Foley, director of the election law project at Ohio State University, said those crossover voters might not have been handled in accordance with state law.
“In Franklin County, my impression is that there was no enforcement of this requirement,” said Professor Foley, adding that he had heard reports from several other counties where the law apparently was not enforced.”
For a different take, here’s a report on Republican support in Texas for Obama- before Rush opened his mouth. Maybe it hadn’t occurred to some (Non-Obama types) that they could game the system this way?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...ins_ohio_texas/Postmortem: Race, Republican Cross-Overs, and Rush Limbaugh:
As noted yesterday, Rush Limbaugh urged listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton to prolong the race. Did they listen? It’s probably too early to say but not too early to speculate.
CNN’s Joe Van Kanel reports,
Early exit polling shows 10 percent of the voters in Ohio’s Democratic Primary identified themselves as Republican, along with 22 percent who said they were independents. It was the same story in Texas: 10 percent of the voters in the Democratic primary identified themselves as Republican, along with 25 percent who said they were independents.
Tom Ott, Michael Scott, Joe Wagner & Maggi Martin of the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
Poll watchers throughout Ohio are noting large numbers of Republican voters crossing over to vote in the Democratic Primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
In the Republican roost of Chagrin Falls, veteran poll worker Liz McFadden was amazed at the number of people jumping the party’s ship. Democrats accounted for 70 percent of the voters in her precinct, one of seven at the village’s high school. “That’s a complete reversal of what it normally is, even more so,” she said. “I’ve never seen a switch like this.”
This is purely anecdotal and doesn’t tell us much of anything. My hunch, though, is that a handful of people voted to sabotage the opposition primary while most simply voted for their preferred candidate in the only contest that mattered.
Hugh Hewitt (and apparently Bill O’Reilly) thinks the Limbaugh factor was huge. But there’s not much evidence for that at this point. Indeed, the early Ohio exit polls show a 49-49 split of Republicans between Clinton and Obama.
Obvious, right wing site:
http://dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com/“Regarding the Texas primary result totals and exit polls, it seems that almost 2,000,000 Texans voted in the Democrat primary, ten percent of those, Republicans, about 200,000, and about half of those for Hillary; about 100,000 voters, whom the experts, (except Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris) were surprised to see, as Hillary one by about 100,000 votes, so there you go; the Hillary victory on the shoulders of Texas Republicans, about 100,000 of them, the margin of victory.”
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Texas_G...omo_code=469F-1“Republican crossover voters apparently helped win the Democratic primary in Texas for Hillary Clinton — with one in every 10 Democratic votes came from Republicans.
According to exit polls, of the 10 percent of Democratic votes that came from Republicans, about 53 percent of the crossovers chose Obama and 46 percent went with Clinton, the Dallas Morning News reports.
But previously these crossovers had voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. And the exit polls also show that Hillary won handily among conservative voters, including many Democrats, 53 percent to 43 percent over Obama, reports the Web site Outside the Beltway — which also noted that “Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.””
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5589381.htmlCopyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Refuse to 'rig'
Recently, Rush Limbaugh put out a call to Republican Texas voters to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton. His reasoning behind this was to "rig" the election so as to have the weakest candidate run against the Republican machine in the general election this fall.
The saddest part is that caller after caller to his show has called to say they've done exactly that — voted early for Clinton in the Texas primary so as to rig the election.
(Editorial)
JamesAquila - March 7, 2008 01:50 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 6 2008, 07:33 PM) |
Moderators, I would like to point out that I did not start the name calling in this thread. If anything escalates, know who started it.
James, it’s time for you to come clean. Every time I have asked you about the auditing of New York elections, you have changed the goal posts. You have never stated just at what level those audits take place. Your response to my initial post was that in New York, they have 20% audits.
It is time for you to stop equivocating and identify just where those audits take place. Why? Because that information would be hugely useful to election integrity activists across the country, those that fight to have honestly counted, audited elections. Any place that mandates an audit is useful. I’ll take state, county, or city. But I need specifics to back up your statements that this occurs. Web site, laws, meeting records, let’s get this thing on the record so that it can be used to help others fight state and county election officials who declare that paper is too onerous and that auditing is impossible.
I’ll send that information out to people it's most useful to. I won’t take credit, I’ll use your name, I’m just the messenger. I’ll even put your email address with the ones I send so you can see that is exactly what I am doing. Because I don’t care a flying fig about credit, it’s yours anyway. I care about getting honest, auditable elections in this country so we- the people- are the ones really electing our officials.
So James, I need some hard evidence to back up what you say. I’ve spent time going over New York State election laws and I don’t see it there. If it’s a policy at the county or city level, I need that verified and I need evidence- website, meeting minutes-where is it? |
First I never said it was a matter of law but it is policy and standard procedure. I have this directly from a NY State Commissioner of Election. And I'm not going to go back and question her veracity to make you happy. Beleive me or don't beleive me. I could care less.
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 6 2008, 07:33 PM) |
Meanwhile, I still take the Ohio and Texas elections with a grain of salt. Some food for thought below. I believe the crossover for Obama is high. But let’s say that it’s a 50-50 split. Those voting for Clinton to insure a McCain win (In their eyes) hurt Obama.
On NPR today they interviewed Evan Smith, Texas Monthly Magazine and he said that in Texas, it was estimated that a half a million Republicans crossed over to vote for Hillary Clinton. |
So when Republicans crossover to vote for Obama that is a good thing but when they crossover to vote for Clinton that is a bad thing? This is exactly the kind hypocritical double standard that I'm talking about.
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 6 2008, 07:33 PM) |
I have made no secret that I am not in Clinton’s camp. I’ve also made no secret that I think Gore has a problem with NAFTA to deal with to be the best candidate.
No one made you, James, hall monitor here, what can or cannot be on this forum or who can or cannot post, however you disagree with them. We can agree to disagree but disparaging me with nametags is juvenile. I’m not playing the game James. |
And no one said that you could post here with impunity. If you're going to post on a public board be prepared to be challenged and don't cry when someone does.
You've set yourself up as someone interested in fair elections, yet the only time you question the results is when Clinton wins. To me that is a double standard that calls your credibility into question.
Now if you don't like Hillary Clinton it is your right and if you want to post regarding the issues that you disagree with her that is your right too. I'm fine with that as long as you are fair and truthful. But this campaign of smear and innuendo you've launched with cherry-picked info to me is ultimately destructive to the party as a whole. I saw the same type of campaigns launched from the left against Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Many Bradley and Dean supporters are still complaining that the 'fix' was in even thought there is no evidence of that. All that accomplishes it to put the legitamcy of the ultimate nominee in to question which only benefits to GOP. Because of that we got 8 years of Bush. I don't want to see 4 years of McCain.
Questions - March 7, 2008 06:30 AM (GMT)
"First I never said it was a matter of law but it is policy and standard procedure. I have this directly from a NY State Commissioner of Election. And I'm not going to go back and question her veracity to make you happy. Beleive me or don't beleive me. I could care less."
It's not about me believing you- it's about proving this is policy and SOP so that others can use it to get auditing across the country. If it is, it ought to be recorded somewhere. Asking where that is is not onerous and it is not questioning her veracity- that's your interpretation. Provide the information in a useful form because I'm waiting to get this out to voting integrity advocates.
"So when Republicans crossover to vote for Obama that is a good thing but when they crossover to vote for Clinton that is a bad thing? This is exactly the kind hypocritical double standard that I'm talking about. "
Don't change the context of the information I provided. There was information early on about the crossover for Obama by Republicans sick of the neocon GOP. I just provided site after site on the recent cross over rationale occuring for Clinton in the last primaries. Those are words of other people, not me. I don't happen to like the crossover aspect at all but in open primaries it can be done. What people do is what people do and it's not hypocritical to point and reference that. You did note, didn't you, that in a few cases Republicans voted for Obama because they don't want Clinton? The point is what some are using the crossover votes for. With Texas and Ohio, we now have a lot more stories on gaming the system to pick what the GOP believe is the most easily defeated candidate in the general election. That's what the information out there says. It's not hypocritical to gather that information and present it. The stories are there in whole for anyone to read.
"nd no one said that you could post here with impunity. If you're going to post on a public board be prepared to be challenged and don't cry when someone does."
Oh, I'm not crying and you don't get to frame me like I am. You fired the first shot so don't catterwall when someone fires back. And you're still not the hall monitor here.
"You've set yourself up as someone interested in fair elections, yet the only time you question the results is when Clinton wins. To me that is a double standard that calls your credibility into question."
Clinton has set herself up for this kind of questioning. From threatening lawsuits, belittling the "small states," and bemoaning the caucus process because she doesn't have the organization in place to win those. Clinton's got the double standard in spades. If the oddities happen to occur with Clinton, that is just where they are happening.
Yes, I'm interested in fair elections. I've put in my time, money, and sweat and tears into getting state law changed, I support organizations that fight to achieve real, honest elections in this country because the ONLY way to get our country back is through honest audited elections. No candidate should attain the nomination by hook or crook. The only real way to get the good candidates is by cleaning up the system and that includes the primaries. That's why I am so very, very interested in the New York audits. Every little bit helps. Help the cause, get me the information so I can pass it on. You want proof all the time, well now is your time to pony up. It's not questioning the veracity of your commissioner- it's just finding out where the information exists.
Questions - March 7, 2008 06:47 AM (GMT)
Other views of the recent primaries from people who have been looking at these issues for a long time and crunching the numbers:
Ohio:
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/d...46&mesg_id=3846Ohio Does Its Magic: Hillary’s 3% Exit Poll Margin Morphs to 10% in the Vote
Updated: Mar.6
Ohio just did for HRC what it did for Bush in 2004.
Clinton won Ohio by 10.46%: 55.23-44.77% (2-party, 100% reporting)
But her 9pm exit poll margin was just 3.30%: 51.65-48.35%.
Her vote share margin was more than TRIPLE the exit poll margin.
Ohio:
(From the people on the front lines who have been fighting the good fight for years to bring some honesty and justice to Ohio elections- if you need more information, go back to the 2004 election and the discrepancies across the board)
Ohio's primary and election reform � the good, the bad and the ugly
March 6, 2008
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2008/1640Co-written with Ron Baiman
The good news is that visible strides were made in re-enfranchising Ohio�s Franklin County (Columbus) inner city urban voters in the March 4, 2008 primary. Voting machines and paper ballots were plentiful and equally distributed.
But,the bad news is that the discrepancy between the preliminary exit poll data and the unofficial vote tallies was reminiscent of the improbable results of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio between John Kerry and George W. Bush.
While the Clinton-Obama results are more probable than the Kerry-Bush results of 2004, they are still highly suspect and suggest statistically significant flaws in the exit polling or in the recording of Ohio votes.
In their "day after" analysis, the Washington Post reported (on page A9) that the Ohio Democratic presidential primary "preliminary exit poll results show the makeup of the electorate and how it voted."
The preliminary exit poll information showed Clinton beating Obama by 3.26% -- Clinton with 51.13% and Obama with 47.87%.
The unofficial results posted on the website of the Ohio Secretary of State are: Clinton 54.29%, Obama 44.00% and Edwards 1.72%, which gives a Clinton to Obama gap of 10.29%. This gives us a difference of 7.03% from the exit poll results.
Texas:
Whoa....with luck, the GOP crossovers voting for Clinton won’t be enough- which would make the Obama win all the more incredible and one wonders how much he might have won by if not for the “Rush” tactic:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/030608a.htmlWhen the media proclaimed Clinton the victor in Texas, the caucus results were simply not part of the equation. But now that more than 24 hours have passed, something fascinating is happening.
Obama appears to be winning Texas.
If current trends hold, Obama will win Texas by earning the overall delegate victory
Clinton had a big win in Ohio, and a substantial victory in Rhode Island. But imagine the narrative had the press noted that she appeared to be losing Texas.
Bill Clinton’s words would have echoed throughout the media. He had told an audience in Texas in February, “If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be.”
Democratic Party leaders would likely have called upon Clinton to gracefully accept defeat for the good of the party.
(I guess it's how you parse winning)
JamesAquila - March 7, 2008 04:07 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 7 2008, 01:30 AM) |
| It's not about me believing you- it's about proving this is policy and SOP so that others can use it to get auditing across the country. If it is, it ought to be recorded somewhere. Asking where that is is not onerous and it is not questioning her veracity- that's your interpretation. Provide the information in a useful form because I'm waiting to get this out to voting integrity advocates. |
As I said I could care less. I'm not here to be a research tool for you. And if these so-called voting integrity advocates are as biased as you, I have no desire to help them.
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 7 2008, 01:30 AM) |
| Don't change the context of the information I provided. There was information early on about the crossover for Obama by Republicans sick of the neocon GOP. I just provided site after site on the recent cross over rationale occuring for Clinton in the last primaries. Those are words of other people, not me. I don't happen to like the crossover aspect at all but in open primaries it can be done. What people do is what people do and it's not hypocritical to point and reference that. You did note, didn't you, that in a few cases Republicans voted for Obama because they don't want Clinton? The point is what some are using the crossover votes for. With Texas and Ohio, we now have a lot more stories on gaming the system to pick what the GOP believe is the most easily defeated candidate in the general election. That's what the information out there says. It's not hypocritical to gather that information and present it. The stories are there in whole for anyone to read. |
Again a double standard. Republicans who crossover for Obama are sick of the neocons but those who do so for Clinton are gaming the system.
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 7 2008, 01:30 AM) |
| Oh, I'm not crying and you don't get to frame me like I am. You fired the first shot so don't catterwall when someone fires back. And you're still not the hall monitor here. |
Could have fooled me. The problem is you can't see past your own bias. I didn't fire the first shot I merely pointed out your double standard.
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 7 2008, 01:30 AM) |
| Clinton has set herself up for this kind of questioning. From threatening lawsuits, belittling the "small states," and bemoaning the caucus process because she doesn't have the organization in place to win those. Clinton's got the double standard in spades. If the oddities happen to occur with Clinton, that is just where they are happening. |
Again the issue is not Hillary Clinton its you. All candidates spin their defeats and wins. The fact that you state that oddities only happen to occur when Clinton wins just exposes your bias and double standard. I'm sure that if I wanted to I could cherry-pick articles the were not favorable to Obama. But I have no desire to smear the man. He is a good candidate and will be a much better president than John McCain.
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 7 2008, 01:30 AM) |
| Yes, I'm interested in fair elections. I've put in my time, money, and sweat and tears into getting state law changed, I support organizations that fight to achieve real, honest elections in this country because the ONLY way to get our country back is through honest audited elections. No candidate should attain the nomination by hook or crook. The only real way to get the good candidates is by cleaning up the system and that includes the primaries. That's why I am so very, very interested in the New York audits. Every little bit helps. Help the cause, get me the information so I can pass it on. You want proof all the time, well now is your time to pony up. It's not questioning the veracity of your commissioner- it's just finding out where the information exists. |
It seems that you're only interested in fair elections when Clinton wins.
earthmother - March 7, 2008 04:14 PM (GMT)
I'd like to remind everyone in this thread to please stick to the issues and not personalize these debates. Also, there are other ways to make a point than to stick a label on a person. For a truly informative discussion, all members should provide facts to back up what they've said if they're challenged. And if you can't find the facts in print for quoting, please say so and don't press the issue. I think it's time to move this thread forward.
JamesAquila - March 7, 2008 05:21 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (earthmother @ Mar 7 2008, 11:14 AM) |
| I'd like to remind everyone in this thread to please stick to the issues and not personalize these debates. Also, there are other ways to make a point than to stick a label on a person. For a truly informative discussion, all members should provide facts to back up what they've said if they're challenged. And if you can't find the facts in print for quoting, please say so and don't press the issue. I think it's time to move this thread forward. |
The problem is sometimes you can't prove a negative. And even if there is a link to support something it doesn't mean that the info linked to is accurate or unbiased. If you search the internet you can find many sites to link to that say Hillary killed Vince Foster or Obama is a Muslim or 9/11 was an inside job or the moom landings were faked and other such BS. So sometimes the credibilty of the person that is presenting the information is the issue. Al Gore often points out that certain global warming denyers are funded by the oil industry. Thus do I think it is out of line to point that someone who is claiming to present unbiased information actually has an agenda and is presenting very biased, cherry-picked information.
I also want to add that this is a Support Gore site, that doesn't mean that it needs to be an attack Hillary or attack Obama site. Both have been attacked in this forum in recent days and I find it distasteful, especially when when the attacker uses innuendo tactics. Now the Democrats have two great history making candidates running for the nomination right now. While I prefer that Al Gore was running I don't want to see either unfairly demonized or damaged. That will only help the Republicans. In 2000 & 2004 Bradley and Dean supporters used similar tactics to question the legitmacy of Gore & Kerry as the Democratic nominee. All that got us was 8 years of Bush. I don't want to see that happening again. After the Iowa caucuses I saw several accounts by Hillary supporters claiming that Obama supporters broke the rules or the Republicans crossed over to Obama because they thought he was the weaker candidate. Of course none of that was ever proven. After New Hampshire Obama supporters claimed that Diebold fixed the election. But a hand recount proved that was untrue. Both sides need to cut out the BS and accept the outcome when their candidate loses a primary or caucus. If not then we better prepare ourselves for President McCain and whatever rightwing wacko he picks as VP.
The Paraclete - March 8, 2008 11:42 AM (GMT)
Who is calling who what names in this thread? James is just pointing out you can't trust everything you read on the Net...Where the information IS coming from IS important!
Do you THINK Dick Morris is 'unbiased'? Yet people take his words like they were God's Truth when it comes to the Clintons... :dripple:
Limbarf TOLD Republicans in certain states that COULD vote in Democratic Primaries to go in and VOTE for Clinton! AND THEY DID!
Just like the Echo Chamber TOLD Republicans in certain states to go out & VOTE for Obama where they could...this was done to try to keep the Democratic Party in 'turmoil'...THEY are hoping that both Senators Clinton & Obama will keep attacking each other so vehemently that they will both damage each other in the process! Then THEY can get the WARMONGER NEOCON FAVORITE John...BOMB,BOMB, BOMB...BOMB, BOMB IRAN McCain right into office!
As for states that allow independent voters to vote in either parties primaries right at the door...I THINK that if YOU are REGISTERED as a REPUBLICAN in the LAST ELECTION you VOTED IN...then you should be BANNED from voting in Democratic Primaries and visa versa!...OH! You CAN vote in the GENERAL ELECTION...but NOT in PRIMARIES where you WERE NOT REGISTERED for THAT party!
What Limbarf, Hannity & Co. are REALLY doing is what I call VOTE PACKING! They are USING Republicans as 'wolves in sheeps clothing' in a Rove designed Politics Of Division play to try to cause dissention between Clinton & Obama supporters in the hopes they can split the Democratic Party UNITY! So as I said, if it TAKES Super-Delegates to iron out this problem then so be it!
Plus, I warned people some time back that Tony Rezko would be brought up to 'smear' Obama...now they want to use Bill Ayers as well! They are finally 'rattling the skeletons' in Obama's closet, and trying their BEST to make sure the CLINTON CAMPAIGN GETS THE BLAME FOR IT!...I call THAT Rove procedure 'masking'...THEY are doing the REAL 'dirty work' and trying to project the BLAME on the Clinton Campaign...this is THEIR way of throwing enough ASPHALT on both Clinton & Obama that both get tarred by it! AND IT WORKS!
Just remember THEIR PLAN is to get Johnny "More Troops" McCain into office so THEY can continue THEIR "stay the course" pre-emptive strike military policy that has cost this nation BILLIONS of dollars! Every bit of so-called BU$H 'tax cut' GROWTH has dwindled to NOTHING! THAT is because BU$H started a WAR in the Persian Gulf that CAUSED a disruption in the flow of OIL from all the nations in that area! Those producing areas are STILL punishing this nation as well as the rest of the world for what BU$H did! These nations COULD up production if they WANTED to, but they WON'T as long as we stay stationed in Iraq and threaten Iran! :bad:
So like I said before...we can KEEP on with the political 'infighting' like Conservative Radio wants while they 'fan the flames'...or we can START doing what we SHOULD do! And that is bring up what JOHN MCCAIN WANTS TO DO CONCERNING DIPLOMATIC SITUATIONS...and that boils down to ONE WORD...WAR! Or we can continue what we did in 2004 and refuse to break the pattern and watch the GOP put yet another BU$H 'clone' into office who may probably be WORSE! I don't know about the REST of you...but I say we NEED to concentrate on the GOP candidate who is sitting outside of the political boxing ring watching TWO DEMOCRATS make complete '#sses' out of themselves in the process...and then just take his UNIFIED parties votes and ride into office unchallenged...I have to admit...Karl Rove KNOWS how to play the Democratic 'flaws' just like a fiddle! :angry:
So what Clinton & Obama SHOULD do is make every effort to EXPOSE John McCain instead of hacking at each other...The Right Wing Noise Machine is trying to make political 'tar babies' out of BOTH Democrats while they try to give the 'impression' THEY hate McCain which is YET ANOTHER FALLACY! That is Karl Rove trying to give McCaine a coating of 'political teflon'...HE is hoping all the bad publicity, political innuendo, and 'smears' will STICK to Clinton and Obama while everything else SLIDES off of McCain...and is hoping HALF of the Democratic VOTERS will STAY HOME come November 2008! WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!
LIKE I SAID...DEMOCRATS BETTER HANG TOGETHER OR WE WILL ALL CERTAINLY HANG SEPARATELY!
My example is John Kerry in 2004...we do NOT need a REPLAY of THAT!
It's up to us people! IT IS ALL UP TO US! This is OUR RACE TO LOSE! :!:
earthmother - March 8, 2008 03:15 PM (GMT)
I was just reminding people of our rules and standards because sometimes people get locked into debates in these threads that need to be resolved (or stopped) so we can move on, and there's a tendency to get personal as well, which is something we eschew. ;)
And while I agree that we don't want to start attacking Hillary or Obama, I see nothing wrong in pointing out things they've done that are distasteful, etc. I personally think that both campaigns have sunk to lows I'm not at all happy with.
trueconservative - March 8, 2008 09:37 PM (GMT)
earthmother, I have scanned this thread in its entirety and I not found an instance of any 'name calling'. Just because James is questioning the 'credibility' of what Questions has brought forward doesn't equivalate to calling somebody names. In my estimation if anybody is calling anybody names then Questions called James a 'hall monitor'? And what is that all about? If you bring forth a disputable point, and somebody challenges you on that point then I don't see any reason to think it is a personal issue. The old saying holds true,
If you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen!
You can't just bring forth facts without support otherwise it is your 'opinion'. I have nothing against opinions. But don't state them as facts or it makes you Rush Limbaugh.
papa is a 'spinner' and admits to it. Everybody knows it's HIS opinion. And I am the same way. I don't presume to admit any data as facts unless I know they are indeed facts. I am not saying Questions or James can't have opinions, what I AM saying is you can't quote questionable sources without backing up what was said by those sources. And you also can't let your own personal 'bias' get involved in the process. That is what James is saying if I am getting this correctly!
Am I?
JamesAquila - March 8, 2008 09:44 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (trueconservative @ Mar 8 2008, 04:37 PM) |
That is what James is saying if I am getting this correctly!
Am I? |
Yes you are indeed.
The Paraclete - March 8, 2008 10:04 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Questions @ Mar 7 2008, 12:47 AM) |
Ohio just did for HRC what it did for Bush in 2004.
Whoa....with luck, the GOP crossovers voting for Clinton won’t be enough- which would make the Obama win all the more incredible and one wonders how much he might have won by if not for the “Rush” tactic:
Clinton had a big win in Ohio, and a substantial victory in Rhode Island. But imagine the narrative had the press noted that she appeared to be losing Texas.
Bill Clinton’s words would have echoed throughout the media. He had told an audience in Texas in February, “If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be.” |
Questions what you seem to be saying 'in MY opinion' is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a 'cheater' along the lines of BU$H & Rove when it comes to Ohio...that sounds like 'bias' to me...
As for Bill Clinton's remark...it is also HIS opinion...just because he is Hillary Clinton's husband doesn't mean he can't have ANY opinions! RU$H and Co. jump Bill Clinton every time he even opens his mouth while they 'flap their gums' on a daily basis about how ANYTHING the Hillary Clinton campaign does...like how she would UNDERMINE Obama, so he shouldn't have her as a VP if he DOES win! Look at WHO is saying this! RU$H found a NEW way to CHEAT using his ROBOT ARMY as crossover votes in Texas for Clinton...THEY did the same thing for Obama in other states mainly because they want the man THEY supposedly HATE...More Troops McCain to be ELECTED President no matter WHAT they say to the contrary! This is a typical Rove Trick! And I HOPE it blows up in THEIR faces this TIME! It is TIME for the Division to STOP!
This crossover voting is the LATEST way to try to RIG an election! There should NOT be a precedence where REGISTERED REPUBLICANS should be allowed to VOTE in Democratic Primaries and the same holds true for DEMOCRATS voting in REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES! ONLY TRUE INDEPENDENTS WOULD HAVE THAT CHOICE!...(And I don't see WHY Independents would WANT to vote in Party Primaries)...In SHORT...ONLY DEMOCRATS SHOULD VOTE IN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES & ONLY REPUBLICANS SHOULD VOTE IN GOP PRIMARIES!...Anything short of THAT opens the door to what RU$H & ROVE are doing... :blink:
CHEATING AGAIN!
Leave such an avenue OPEN and it WILL be used negatively...EVERY TIME! :mad:
Wayne in WA State - March 8, 2008 10:09 PM (GMT)
Papa, I have to say that I'm afraid to tell people what I think of the Clinton campaign lately. I'm extremely disappointed.
The Paraclete - March 8, 2008 10:14 PM (GMT)
By the way James, if you ARE Hall Monitor...I have been running to the 'political restroom' without a PASS! :laugh:
But what EM is saying holds true...we have to move on to other issues as well! James, you and Questions can keep 're-inventing a dead horse'...(I got that from Dilbert)...or move on! It may be irritating as sandpaper for BOTH of you, but there has to be some conclusion here somewhere! :!:
I think? :?:
James, I have known you for years, and even though we have had differences...I have NEVER taken you as being heavy handed...But I still want to sift through Questions materials without the bias, and SEE what FACTS are THERE! ;)
Questions, I want to CAREFULLY review ALL the materials you have presented first before I pass some judgement...and THAT judgement will STILL be MY opinion!...It CAN be disputed! and I welcome it!...Also what true said is correct...I am a SPINNER....and PROUD OF IT!...I am also a TOUT! A TOUT is basically a CHEERLEADER for his or her cause...and MINE is a DEMOCRATIC WIN THIS NOVEMBER!...It doesn't matter to me! CLINTON-OBAMA or OBAMA-CLINTON makes NO difference! I LOVE ALL MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS! And RIGHT NOW...BARACK OBAMA IS BEING SMEARED!...RU$H claims a Clinton 'source' said they have to 'mess Obama up'...REALLY RU$H? AND WHO WOULD THAT CLINTON SOURCE BE?...THAT TURNCOAT POPPINJAY...DICK MORRIS? :?:
All I DO know is this...Our GOOD Democrat...SENATOR BARACK OBAMA is BEING SET UPON by the NOISE MACHINE...and I WILL run to his AID!...I want to be there when Hillary & Barack march into the WHITE HOUSE TOGETHER!...I want to OPEN THE CHAMPAIGN BOTTLE!...and I WANT TO HELP SERVE THE VICTORY BANQUET!..."He who is lowest becomes greatest ONLY when he SERVES EVERYONE ELSE!"...I shall wash the FEET of Hillary Clinton...Barack Obama...and of COURSE my LEADER...AL GORE! So get in line folks! VICTORY DINNER SHALL BE SERVED!...BY ME! ;)
Don't worry Hillary...I plan on putting some WRINKLES on the FACES of those who have pillaried you as well! COUNT ON IT! ;)
JamesAquila - March 8, 2008 10:36 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (The Paraclete @ Mar 8 2008, 05:14 PM) |
| Also what true said is correct...I am a SPINNER....and PROUD OF IT! |
The point is that you admit it. And despite our disagreements I've always respected your honesty about it.
The Paraclete - March 8, 2008 11:31 PM (GMT)
Thank you most graciously James...I appreciate that! :clap:
Also, sorry Wayne, I didn't mean to overlook you there...but don't put ALL the 'blame' on the Clinton Campaign...They are getting too much OVERBLOWN help from The Right Wing Nut Jobs!...Believe me, Hillary Clinton better worry when she has the likes of RU$H Limbaugh working for HER!...(not that she even wants it)... and that Ann Coulter says she will VOTE for her...(when PIGS fly!)...but when THEY put ALL the blame on the Clintons...then you KNOW some Neocon fish is STINKING somewhere about this whole mess! Obama needs to look at the 'undercurrents' of where this is coming from...and it isn't just the Clintons alone...IT IS ALSO KARL ROVE AND HIS CROOKED PLAYMATES! :!:
JamesAquila - March 8, 2008 11:32 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Mar 8 2008, 05:09 PM) |
| Papa, I have to say that I'm afraid to tell people what I think of the Clinton campaign lately. I'm extremely disappointed. |
I'm disappointed in both sides. I think if you look hard enough you can find fault with both.
But the real culprit is the Corporate Media. They love to create narratives about people. We all know about the narratives they created about Gore in 2000. There is a great article on Media Matters about the narrative they've created for John McCain, one they have perpetuated for years:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803070011?f=h_top It is no secret that McCain has been a media darling for years. When the NY Times ran that article about McCain earlier this month the cable networks went into 'defend McCain at all costs' mode. While I'm not defending the Times, some of their reporting was downright shoddy. But once you got past the sexual innuendo there was merit in the core story about McCain's double standard regarding lobbyists. However, that didn't matter to the cable nets since it was at odds with the narrative of McCain as a maverick and straight talker that they've been peddling for years.
Now this year the MSM tried to create narratives about Clinton, Obama and Edwards early on They were successful with Edwards but with Hillary and Obama they left themselves open to charges of sexism and racism. So what were they to do? The answer lies in the actions of the British media after the death of Princess Diana.
When Diana was killed the British media was fearful of a backlash from the public because their agents were chasing her car which caused the crash. To disfuse that backlash they had to give the public another villian, the Queen and the Royal family. And they did their best to direct the publics anger toward the Queen.
I believe this is what they media is doing now. They can't go after Hillary or Obama the way they went after Gore or Kerry. So they are doing their best to ratchet up the vitriol between the campaigns. This started last October when the NY Times goaded Obama to 'take the gloves off' in the Philadelphia debate. Tim Russert and Brian Williams did there best during that debate to set the candidates against each other.
I think they are still doing this. While some might say that they just are trying to perpetuate a good story, I believe there is a hidden agenda. They want their darling McCain to be President. They will look the other way on his flip-flops and double standards while continuing to goad the Clinton and Obama campaigns to attack and damage each other.
The big problem is that there are supporters of both campaigns that can't see past their own bias to realize that they are being used as pawns to do the GOP's and MSM's dirty work for them.
The Paraclete - March 8, 2008 11:42 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (JamesAquila @ Mar 8 2008, 05:32 PM) |
But the real culprit is the Corporate Media. They love to create narratives about people. We all know about the narratives they created about Gore in 2000. There is a great article on Media Matters about the narrative they've created for John McCain, one they have perpetuated for years: http://mediamatters.org/items/200803070011?f=h_top
It is no secret that McCain has been a media darling for years. When the NY Times ran that article about McCain earlier this month the cable networks went into 'defend McCain at all costs' mode. While I'm not defending the Times, some of their reporting was downright shoddy. But once you got past the sexual innuendo there was merit in the core story about McCain's double standard regarding lobbyists. However, that didn't matter to the cable nets since it was at odds with the narrative of McCain as a maverick and straight talker that they've been peddling for years.
The big problem is that there are supporters of both campaigns that can't see past their own bias to realize that they are being used as pawns to do the GOP's and MSM's dirty work for them. |
James you could not have made it more clear...The entire post is correct...but I excerpted the points that were the MOST telling!
And the MSM...the cable and alphabet Networks need to STOP being the National Enquirer or the GLOBE... and get down to issues! It is a sorry state of affairs when Paris Hilton & Britney Spears get MORE media attention than a NATIONAL ELECTION! And when THAT election DOES get coverage...it isn't over ISSUES...it's over Hillary's wrinkles or the fact Barack's middle name is Hussein! Or that he wore authentic garb when visiting Kenya! It IS the media that has dumbed down the populace to ONLY accept the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR! :mad:
The Media Bigwigs ring a "scandal" bell and the population salivates over it!
The Paraclete - March 8, 2008 11:57 PM (GMT)
But letting you guys know before I take off for the evening...I have HOPE!...HOPE that when the DUST settles we will have BOTH Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama TOGETHER and READY to GANG UP on the REAL ENEMY!...(and it isn't John McCain...really...He's just taking the ride hoping Rove will fulfill his promise that Johnny would be KING after the BU$H IDIOT EMPEROR did HIS damage)...IT IS THE BU$H NEOCON CONSTABULARY...ROVE & THE NOISE MACHINE! THEY are the REAL ENEMIES! :dripple:
Besides do you think Karl Baby...RU$H...The Leprachaun Hannity...Beck and ALL those PROFITEERS are just going to relinquish the POWER HOLD they have on the GOP?...NOT UNLESS WE BEAT THEM THEY WON'T! ;)
AS THE DEMOCRATS RETURN TO UNITY...THE REPUBLICANS WILL RETURN TO HONESTY! THIS WILL COME TO PASS!
AND AMERICA WILL BE UNITED AGAIN!
Questions - March 9, 2008 05:47 AM (GMT)
More reading for you Paraclete- and so this is clear, anything after the addy is from the site, headlines and all. The idea that crossover may be against the law in Ohio is brought up, as well as this author's frustration with it. Read the article because the guy lives in a heavy GOP area:
http://isaacs.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/0...-more-comes-out"Butler County in southwest Ohio is the most Republican county of all Ohio's 88 counties. 26 county offices and none of them are held by Democrats. Yet, the strangest thing happened on Tuesday... the Butler County Democratic Party increased in registered members by over 200% and now has more registered members than the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton won this county in the Democratic Primary by 10%. "
.....
"If one knows Butler County as I do, having run a campaign here and worked on campaigns my entire life, they will know that the city of Fairfield and West Chester and those surrounding areas are the staunchest strongholds of Republican voters in the county. This is where the farce of Republicans destroying a Democratic primary becomes obvious. These Republican strongholds are colored nearly totally blue, indicating that more voters took Democratic ballots than Republican ones. Since Clinton won Butler County by 10% it can safely be concluded that the majority of Republicans voted for her. "
....
"The greater question is, what are we as Democrats going to do about this? Are we going to prevent Republicans from flooding the last few primaries and trying to nominate our weakest candidate? Are we going to tolerate Republicans disenfranchising voters of Barack Obama and openly admitting to committing election fraud in Ohio? Are we going to allow the Republicans to game our system and stack the deck in their own favor politically by choosing the Democratic nominee? The answers to these questions will answer whether this party is able, whether it is even fit, to win the White House this year. A party that allows its opponents to choose its nominee and openly laugh about it cannot be an effective governing party. "