setting a new precedent
|
|
| Also listed in: 08 - It's Hillary Time! | 2008 Presidential Blog | American people For Hillary | Americans to write in Hillary | Blue Jersey | Christians 4 Hillary | Democratic Environmentalists | Feminists United! | Hillary Clinton | Hillary's THE Answer | The Anti-Neocon Agenda | Young Puerto Rican Democrats |
you know, i woke up early this morning to watch this meeting but then i had a party at 3. now, i know i missed out on the good parts, but i heard all of the proposals and arguments.
multiple people on the board felt that giving the uncommitted delegates to a candidate set a "new precedent" that gave party leaders too much power over the interpretation of a vote. it isn't my senator's job to tell me who uncommitted was, and i think the board was right on that.
so really, senator obama? you'd rather absorb the good will of thousands of edwards voters, biden voters, richardson voters, and act like they only wanted you?
you'd rather absorb the protest votes of thousands of angry voters who wouldn't claim a candidate in an election where the lead candidates (minus ours) decided they would pay extra money to be taken off a ballot?
you made that choice, and i don't know why you aren't paying for it.
69-59? please. this is a new precedent- a precedent of political manipulation working for our candidate the same way it worked for republicans in 2000, 2004, and multiple local elections.
congratulations, dnc. i'll see you in denver.
multiple people on the board felt that giving the uncommitted delegates to a candidate set a "new precedent" that gave party leaders too much power over the interpretation of a vote. it isn't my senator's job to tell me who uncommitted was, and i think the board was right on that.
so really, senator obama? you'd rather absorb the good will of thousands of edwards voters, biden voters, richardson voters, and act like they only wanted you?
you'd rather absorb the protest votes of thousands of angry voters who wouldn't claim a candidate in an election where the lead candidates (minus ours) decided they would pay extra money to be taken off a ballot?
you made that choice, and i don't know why you aren't paying for it.
69-59? please. this is a new precedent- a precedent of political manipulation working for our candidate the same way it worked for republicans in 2000, 2004, and multiple local elections.
congratulations, dnc. i'll see you in denver.
He has good lawyers.
You should have seen Obama in action in Chicago. He was too afraid to run against actual candidates, so he and his attorneys, actually had his competition removed from the ballot.
Can you believe that? What a complete turn off
It’s just gross.
Even more gross, are the people who call it good strategy.
Right.
The people of Illinois had no choice, but to vote for Obama, in the democratic primary. he took all their choice away. No one else was on the ballot to run against Obama, because of his expertise in ballot manipulation. Well at least he has expertise in something..lol
I call that the strategy of a dictator, not of a democrat.
It is just plain creepy.
I guess I am just not prone to brainwashing.
You people think we will all turn into good little robots and fall in behind a candidate that got his candidacy by bitter, divisive strategies that put Carl Rove to shame. No sir, we are the real democrats, the party of the people, and we will not take the many insults, constant misogyny and the selling of the election to a flawed candidate and just "man up". Not going to happen....and don't say it was our fault when you blow another election.
only change is in o's pocket