If Martin Luther King were Alive Today!
|
|
If Martin Luther King could be alive today,
He would be ashamed of Barack Obama...... I know it.
Obama blocking American votes? If there were even the slightest hint that Barack was going to do what he is doing to the votes from voters in Michigan and Florida, MLK would come down hard and fast on that. Civil Rights was, also, about the abuse in voting and the rights of all Americans to have a voice with their votes...... this was not isolated to just the black community.
Obama blocked the re-votes of Michigan and Florida and is now blocking the count of these very votes.
Rules of the game......
It is a fact..... don't blame the DNC at this point.
They cannot break the rules themselves because at the next opportunity states would be moving their primaries all over the place.
But, the DNC compromised by leaving the revote up to the Candidates.
Obama said, according to the Associated Press's Nedra Pickler. "I'll leave that up to you guys. If you want to count them for some abstract measure, you're free to do so."
So, they left the problem to the two Candidates for a re-vote.
There were volunteer donations to cover the cost of the re-vote. The DNC said yes, the States said yes, Hillary said yes... Obama didn't want to......... fact... fact...fact!
In public he said he will do whatever they want to do but ...... it is to his advantage...big time to just leave it were it is. Obama didn't say no........ he just drug his
feet until the time expired on the deal for the re-vote. King would not like this.
In Michigan....
The rule was not to campaign.. nothing about taking their name off.
When it became clear that a mistake had been made, or not. Why risk a loss if the votes do not count. Looks bad......... Just like the loss in WV...... didn't campaign so it doesn't look so bad.
(put the fire out, of the win, the next with an Edward's endorsement)
Anyway.......... not on the ballet. (remember no rule that said take the name off)
Massive, massive, massive media and radio blitz went out to tell voters...... if your vote is for Edwards or Obama vote undecided (never did they mention any others) Kucinich was also on the ballet.
Hillary Clinton got 53%
Undecided got 40%
Kucinich got 7%
The real votes for Clinton are real votes. People did not go to the polls and say I will vote for Hillary Clinton if they were unsure ... Why?
Because there was a place on the ballet that said "unsure"..... 40% did.
Florida??? Everyone had their name on the ballet. Why? Because in Florida, if you want your name on the GE ballet, it has to also be on the Primary ballet.
Proof ....... that names on ballets were optional...... not a rule.
Record numbers went to the polls. Hillary Clinton beat them all, Democrat and Republican.
She beat McCain 2-1 and the Democrats beat the Republicans in number 2-1.
Hillary got 51% and Obama got 33%
She can beat McCain in the GE.
******************That was his block to the re-vote.
His block to the count? **
*************************
He wants 50/50 of Fl... and all of the 40% of the undecided in MI. This gains a wash.... it is not fair to the voters of these two states. Why? Because it takes real votes....their voice....away from them given to others and transfers it to Obama. (others= Clinton and Edwards)
Again...... it is saying they have no value, no voice, no vote.
In an effort to be fair........ but fair to whom? King would not like this. The fairness is to the votes, the votes belong to them.
Part of that 40%, in Michigan, belongs to John Edwards, he has real value too!
Now, that Edwards has endorsed Obama his portion will need to be awarded at the convention.
OBAMA DOES NOT GET ALL 40% as pledged state delegates.
In Florida, there was a record turn out. Clinton beat them all, Democrats and Republicans in the number count. She beat McCain 2-1 and the Democrats beat the Republicans 2-1.
She got 54% and Obama got 33%. She can win the GE in Florida.
Obama wants 50/50 in Florida and all of the 40% in Michigan. That would make a wash.
Of course he does.
He would be ashamed of Barack Obama...... I know it.
Obama blocking American votes? If there were even the slightest hint that Barack was going to do what he is doing to the votes from voters in Michigan and Florida, MLK would come down hard and fast on that. Civil Rights was, also, about the abuse in voting and the rights of all Americans to have a voice with their votes...... this was not isolated to just the black community.
Obama blocked the re-votes of Michigan and Florida and is now blocking the count of these very votes.
Rules of the game......
It is a fact..... don't blame the DNC at this point.
They cannot break the rules themselves because at the next opportunity states would be moving their primaries all over the place.
But, the DNC compromised by leaving the revote up to the Candidates.
Obama said, according to the Associated Press's Nedra Pickler. "I'll leave that up to you guys. If you want to count them for some abstract measure, you're free to do so."
So, they left the problem to the two Candidates for a re-vote.
There were volunteer donations to cover the cost of the re-vote. The DNC said yes, the States said yes, Hillary said yes... Obama didn't want to......... fact... fact...fact!
In public he said he will do whatever they want to do but ...... it is to his advantage...big time to just leave it were it is. Obama didn't say no........ he just drug his
feet until the time expired on the deal for the re-vote. King would not like this.
In Michigan....
The rule was not to campaign.. nothing about taking their name off.
When it became clear that a mistake had been made, or not. Why risk a loss if the votes do not count. Looks bad......... Just like the loss in WV...... didn't campaign so it doesn't look so bad.
(put the fire out, of the win, the next with an Edward's endorsement)
Anyway.......... not on the ballet. (remember no rule that said take the name off)
Massive, massive, massive media and radio blitz went out to tell voters...... if your vote is for Edwards or Obama vote undecided (never did they mention any others) Kucinich was also on the ballet.
Hillary Clinton got 53%
Undecided got 40%
Kucinich got 7%
The real votes for Clinton are real votes. People did not go to the polls and say I will vote for Hillary Clinton if they were unsure ... Why?
Because there was a place on the ballet that said "unsure"..... 40% did.
Florida??? Everyone had their name on the ballet. Why? Because in Florida, if you want your name on the GE ballet, it has to also be on the Primary ballet.
Proof ....... that names on ballets were optional...... not a rule.
Record numbers went to the polls. Hillary Clinton beat them all, Democrat and Republican.
She beat McCain 2-1 and the Democrats beat the Republicans in number 2-1.
Hillary got 51% and Obama got 33%
She can beat McCain in the GE.
******************That was his block to the re-vote.
His block to the count? **
*************************
He wants 50/50 of Fl... and all of the 40% of the undecided in MI. This gains a wash.... it is not fair to the voters of these two states. Why? Because it takes real votes....their voice....away from them given to others and transfers it to Obama. (others= Clinton and Edwards)
Again...... it is saying they have no value, no voice, no vote.
In an effort to be fair........ but fair to whom? King would not like this. The fairness is to the votes, the votes belong to them.
Part of that 40%, in Michigan, belongs to John Edwards, he has real value too!
Now, that Edwards has endorsed Obama his portion will need to be awarded at the convention.
OBAMA DOES NOT GET ALL 40% as pledged state delegates.
In Florida, there was a record turn out. Clinton beat them all, Democrats and Republicans in the number count. She beat McCain 2-1 and the Democrats beat the Republicans 2-1.
She got 54% and Obama got 33%. She can win the GE in Florida.
Obama wants 50/50 in Florida and all of the 40% in Michigan. That would make a wash.
Of course he does.
A troll is a person who smear their copy and pasted spam repeatedly with no regard to others. You Are A Troll!
What copy and pasted spam?
I don't recall calling you names for your opinion. And I believe, at least the last time that I checked, that I have a right to my opinions too.
Sorry you don't like it but too bad.
There is an infinite number of methods that trolls use to disrupt the discussion, but one thing they all have in common is that they pretend to believe something that they dont really believe, in order to get a reaction from others. Which is known as "trolling" because it resembles a method of fishing.
I can only add two things.
First - it does not matter in Michigan how many uncommitted votes/delegates they agree to give to Obama - his people have already ran people for every uncommitted delegate in Michigan in our recent delegate convention.
Basically, if someone running for delegate would not stand up and openly say they are supporting Obama, they were run out of dodge. So at the convention he WILL have 100% of the uncommitted votes.
2nd - he is violating the rules right now by campaigning in Michigan and Florida. They agreed not to compaign before the primary in either state - wellll it seems that the results of the primaries are tied up in negotiations. He technically should lose his delegates from Michigan for this - ironic, they were not his to start with but he has taken them. Now he should lose them but will not because the vote will not be counted at all unless Clinton agrees to give him some of her votes. Ridiculous to barter and trade the votes.
Neither candidate should be campaigning there. (see convention rule under challeges sec 20C6)
It was ordained from the start to be Obama.
It is Important to have all 50 states at the convention....... that is the kind of politics she practices. ....
She will also support Obama with all her heart if he is the Nominee ....
Don't tell me it is just politics....
He is the one preaching CHANGE......
HE IS A HYPOCRITE
This was not a racist post. There is nothing here about racism. A candidate likens himself to a famous person yet does the exact opposite of what that person would do. You are the one bringing race into this.
Obama is the one who used MLK for leverage.
If John Edwards, Joe Biden, Richardson, or any other candidate had claimed to be like MLK and then refused to count the votes or agree to a revote when it was put into their power to do so I would say the same thing. They are not acting like the person that they claim to be so like.
But I feel it is unfair to paint Senator Obama as a villain, when there are several good reasons he is adhering to the rules set forth. In Michigan for example cross over voters would have lost the right to revote in Senator Clinton's proposal. This would have favored her as he has done very well in open primaries. So he chose not to accept that proposal, and instead left it in the hands of the DNC to decide what would be the fairest way to handle the issue. He did not set up these rules, and just because he doesn't accept a deal that is slanted in Senator Clinton's favor, doesn't make him the suppressor of votes. I am tired of her supporters trying to make him out to be something the facts don't reflect.
Not one of them broke any rules.
What is your point?
They... the DNC and you ........ want these two states on our side in the GE.
So, many compromises have been formulated and yet another will be done on May 31.
It is like a road traveled.......to reach the goal,
you keep going back to the start, your not alone others are stuck there too.
1.it was..... 2.it is.........3. and it will become.
The travel is to an end of success.
And that is??????????? To seat these two states at the convention...
What is it that is hard to understand.
I tried to use small words.......
Might I also add that I feel that Obama would do much better now in a Michigan revote because of the demographics of the state, but that the Michigan Democrat Party - which members are heavily biased in favor of Senator Clinton - agreed that a revote would be too financially and administratively cumbersome for the state, and that having Clinton devotees finance it, would turn the re-vote into a private election, so it wouldn't count under the Michigan State constitution anyway. The Clinton campaign was touting a mail-in vote in Florida and trying to sell the public on the idea that that was a viable option. One problem: Florida's state constitution doesn't allow it - a special amendment would have to be enacted into state law. Cheryl doesn't mention that New Hampshire law requires that its primary be held at least a week prior to any other state primary, and that New Hampshire had to push its primary up a week to accommodate the possibility that Michigan would go ahead with its vote on January 15th, and Iowa being "first in the nation" had to also move its caucus up a week? There are all kinds of other legal ramifications Cheryl doesn't mention, like what to do about people who voted in January but who for one reason or another are unable to vote again? Who have since died, or since moved out of state, or have mobility, health or personal issues which would make going to the polls a second time impossible? How would Michigan handle a postal vote with identification issues? Then there's this other issue which isn't exactly new, but more pronounced this election season due to the sub-prime crisis: registered Democrats who no longer live at the same address they did four months ago. I don't think Cheryl considered all the above obstacles to a re-vote, not for lack of interest, but for lack of knowledge about how elections work and the law.
Cheryl's point that some of the people who voted for Obama before the media, with the acquiescence if not help of the Clinton campaign and her supporters, ran selected loops of Jeremiah Wright 24/7 in a dedicated effort to kill Obama's run for the nomination, would have judged the man's entire career and personal outlook on somebody else's occasional rants would not have voted for him after, is valid. By the same token I believe that Clinton would have lost more crucial votes because of the way her campaign has been run, but especially over the Michigan and Florida issue. Unlike Cheryl, I have imperical evidence that she would not have won the New Hampshire primary and the Nevada caucus, and would have probably done even worse in Iowa. The New Hampshire Union Leader on January 29th ran the headline: "Hillary's word - it's worth nothing":
"COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.
Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.
"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.
Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.
She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.
New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers."
The Union Leader ran another, similar story under the headline, "Fair Weather Friends - The Clintons Cut NH Loose", on March 28th: "REALLY, there are no permanent Friends of Bill. For the former President and his wife, a tandem of duplicity and ambition unrivaled in American history, there are only temporary alliances. New Hampshire is learning this now, as so many others have before.
Ever since Bill Clinton proclaimed himself "the Comeback Kid" for his second-place finish in the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic primary, he has portrayed himself as a stalwart defender of New Hampshire and its first-in-the-nation tradition. He championed this state's retail politics as a model for the nation and made sure he maintained his ties here in preparation for his wife's inevitable future presidential run.
Those relationships paid off handsomely in January, when Hillary Clinton, who had spent more than a year fawning over New Hampshire's great electoral traditions, won here with the strong backing of the Democratic Party establishment.
Now, having used New Hampshire as the launching pad for both of their presidential bids, the Clintons have no more use for us. And so it was that on Monday, Bill Clinton threw New Hampshire and our Democratic Secretary of State Bill Gardner under the proverbial bus.
To justify his claim that Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, the former President said, "We let New Hampshire go out of turn. They had a Democratic secretary of state. The Florida voters are totally innocent. They asked to vote on time."
To the Clintons, rewriting history is as simple as repeating their own talking points until they become accepted as facts. But the truth is that the Clintons happily accepted the bumped-up New Hampshire primary at the time because they perceived it gave Hillary an advantage. Hillary Clinton even signed a pledge to not campaign or participate in the Michigan or Florida primaries. That pledge was meant to punish those two states for moving up their primary dates, and she knew it.
But it was not sincere. It was one point of the famous Clinton triangulation. And before you knew it, Sen. Clinton was participating in both the Michigan and Florida primaries, which, of course, she won by violating her pledge.
Now, needing those delegates, she and her husband innocently claim that it was the sneaky New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner who broke the DNC rules, victimizing poor, helpless Florida and Michigan. And the DNC let him get away with it only because he is a Democrat.
Never mind the historical record, which shows that Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries first, prompting New Hampshire to respond. If they stand in the way of the Clintons' march through history, the facts be damned.
And, if they stand in the way of the Clintons' march through history, their friends be damned, too."
Womens groups in New Hampshire signed a petition asking to rescind their Clinton votes over her "change of direction" over Florida and Michigan.
Check out the NH readers' comments here:
Link
The Iowa Democratic Party was equally scathing:
Link
In addition, there were incidents that didn't quite make it into the national headlines:
Link
http://www.seacoastonline.com/ apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200 80208/NEWS/802080448
Link
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20 080415/NEWS01/424263755
Some time in the future, we can have conversations about the various (perfectly legal) tactics the candidates used to put paid to the ambitions of a "presumptive nominee", along with their motives. Let me just say that the Clintons are not the only people in the party who know how to play the game...and they call Obama "weak"? If anything, the way this virtual unknown used the system to his advantage in such a calculated and methodical way to become nominee bodes well not only for his chances in November, but for his chances in implementing what others call an "idealistic" domestic and foreign policy agenda. Obama is one very smart cookie.
Obama would have agreed, had Clinton agreed. Well, now he's got John Edwards on side, does she still have a problem with this?
Exit polls showed Obama and Edwards split the "Uncommitted" vote by a 70/30 margin in favor of Obama; Edwards is now backing Obama and urging his pledged delegates to back Obama, and they are doing it.
So why does Clinton have a problem with this?
He should get closer to 25
I say go ahead and split them as they were voted, 73 to Clinton and 54 to Uncommitted. But that is unacceptable to Clinton. She thinks she should have 128 delegates and Obama should have zero.
Hillary would have gotten 73 delegates, and the "uncommitted" delegates would have been 54 - so they were basically taking away four of Hillary's delegates and giving them to Obama. That was unaccepable to her, too.
She doesn't seem to want to settle for anything other than Obama receiving zero delegates from Michigan.