Post from Matt's Blog:
It's Ironic
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
That the name is the Democratic Party. It is anything but. In a Democratic election the person with the most votes wins. The primaries have yet to be decided yet the party is divided.

I use the word party loosly as it really isn't a party it's two parties because there are two candidates. It is the Clinton Party and there is the Obama Party. It doesn't matter who gets the most votes in the primaries because it's really two different parties so both candidates can run as their own party.

There is one party though ... it's called the ME party. I'm in it for me and if my candidate happens to have less votes than the other than damn it I'll vote for MY candidate anyway.

This is the Putrid Party and FDR and JFK would be turning in their graves if they were here to witness the self destruction we bring to this site. It is a masochistic free for all that has Republicans laughing.

McCain will win in 2008, I'm certain of that. It is what the Republicans want and what the Putrid Party wants too. Congratulations on being an individual, the Republicans are a team.

Reader Comments
  
A Democracy would let the people's voices in MI and FL stand...
By TDN May 9th 2008 at 10:55 pm EDT
Seriously,

How do you count out 2 entire states?

Counting out a county would never fly.

2 states- millions of voices calling out for Hillary to help- silenced- thanks DNC. It's the officials fault, not that of the people.
Re: A Democracy would let the people's voices in MI and FL stand...
By Vidya May 9th 2008 at 11:02 pm EDT
I guess 2.3 million can't count..in the new democracy... hypocrisy.
Re: A Democracy would let the people's voices in MI and FL stand...
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:14 pm EDT
The votes did count. Hillary has won six primaries and Obama has won 16. Even if you add the votes and delegates from both of those elections he is still ahead. Hillary still has a chance to win but whoever has the most votes at the end is the candidate. They are both subject to the same rules and both have the same opportunity. Whoever wins the most votes should be the candidate.
Re: A Democracy would let the people's voices in MI and FL stand...
By Woman at Large May 9th 2008 at 11:49 pm EDT
Glad you think so. Can you explain why I got a call this morning from the Obama campaign that began "Ma'am, we're making calls to try to help the Democrats get ready to face John McCain; to try to end the primaries now so that --"
I explained to her that every vote has the right to be cast and counted. I told her her candidate cannot win a national election and that I would write in Sen. Clinton's name if it came to that. Then I thanked her for the call and hung up.
Re: A Democracy would let the people's voices in MI and FL stand...
By Matt May 10th 2008 at 9:35 am EDT
And that will guarantee that the nominee doesn't win a national election. Good philosophy.
Re: A Democracy would let the people's voices in MI and FL stand...
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:10 pm EDT
Even if you add them in the result is the same but it was the DNCs decision to do so and they warned each state that if they moved the primaries up without party sanction there would be no delegates.

Knowing that each state bucked the party. Having said that I think the states delegates should count but I'm not Howard Dean. And it was not Barack Obama's decision so he should not be penalized. Politicians are prone to take advantage of every opportunity, and Hillary is no different. I personally think it was stupid for Obama not to run in MI but the fact of the matter is the primaries are not over and he does lead no matter how you slice the pie.
Deleted by Mike
  
Deleted by Mike
Re: YEEHAW
By Democrat in Mandeville, LA May 9th 2008 at 11:03 pm EDT
Stop your nonsense and get serious.
Re: YEEHAW
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:10 pm EDT
Sure George, you bring the beer.
  
Change
By andy492 May 9th 2008 at 10:59 pm EDT
Well then perhaps we as a party should run our primary process like the Republicans.....clear and simple. Set a calendar when each state will hold their primary so that EVERY state get included and counted but i firmly believe that for a Politcal party to remain nationaly viable; the party needs to win the white house once in a while and I belive that we as a party tend to vote with our hearts rather than our heads. Passionate speakers while wonderful and heartwarming to listen to; do not always make the strongest or most viable candidates.
Re: Change
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:11 pm EDT
I say have them all the same day. Then there's no confusion.
  
IF
By illinoismel May 9th 2008 at 11:00 pm EDT
JFK and FDR are rolling over in their graves as to the invention AND intervention of superdelegates!
Re: IF
By illinoismel May 9th 2008 at 11:02 pm EDT
*it is instead of as to
  
It's Ironic
By Democrat in Mandeville, LA May 9th 2008 at 11:01 pm EDT
Agreed! This has been a manipulation of Hillary's campaign from day 1. Think about it, 2.3 million people who voted in MI and FL, don't count. Private parties willing to pay for a re-do and Obama's campaign blocked it and there was nothing said in support of Hillary from the Dean, Kennedy and Kerry. These men, by the way, tried but never made it to the white house. Obama is not a mainstream candidate and will not win the general election. I am ashamed to be a democrat. I as well of tens of millions will vote for McCain. At least we know that he is a true patriot.
Re: It's Ironic
By Vidya May 9th 2008 at 11:12 pm EDT
Not to mention their crazed manipulations in the "caucus" you have to listen to some of the stories..unbelievable.

Link

There are dozens of reports of abuse.
Re: It's Ironic
By Beat McCain 08 May 9th 2008 at 11:17 pm EDT
Were you there? I was, and I can tell you that the Hillary people in my precinct showed up and electioneered and intimidated and tried to steal the sign in sheets and physically threatened an Obama supporter and on and on...

WHATEVER you have no clue what we had to deal with. It was disgusting. The county convention wasn't much better.

We play by the rules, yall don't (at least in Texas)
Re: It's Ironic
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:21 pm EDT
You have to count the votes. Whoever has the most wins.
Re: It's Ironic
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:17 pm EDT
Even if you were to add those states in Obama would be ahead by around a hundred delegates and would still lead in the popular vote.

Hillary can still win the primaries though. They are both subject to the same rules. Obama has won 10 more primaries than Clinton and is 17 to 1 in the caucuses. This arguing is silly. Count the votes and delegates at the end and the one with the most wins.
Re: It's Ironic
By andy492 May 9th 2008 at 11:25 pm EDT
Given the dire economic straights that our nation is currently facing; i think that we sould forgo the General Election and just move the McCains in to the whitehouse. We will save a whole bunch of money and then Americans won't have to face the very real and very wide racial divide in this country..
Re: It's Ironic
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:30 pm EDT
That's not a bad idea.
Re: It's Ironic
By andy492 May 9th 2008 at 11:34 pm EDT
The November 2008 General Election is going to tear this country apart in a way that the 1960's could never match.......and sadly there will be no galvanizing figure to help put it all back together.
Re: It's Ironic
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:36 pm EDT
This country has already been torn apart. The Democratic Party and it's supporters are on a mission to make sure the damage is irepairable.
Re: It's Ironic
By andy492 May 9th 2008 at 11:56 pm EDT
But as long as Barak get's his chance to get mopped up by McCain; I guess our job is done for another four years. Who shall we run next?
We will have to find some one with even longer odds if we want to keep our loosing streak intact.
Re: It's Ironic
By Matt May 10th 2008 at 9:36 am EDT
Whoever gets the most votes wins.
  
Seriously
By ihaveavoice May 9th 2008 at 11:03 pm EDT
I think the leaders knew exactly what they were doing and who they were hurting when they did their straw polls leading up to punishing the states.

I mean think about it if the DNC really only wanted to punish the lawmakers and not try to control who gets the nomination they could very easily of penalized the lawmakers by withdrawing their own funding to the candidates and ad support in those states. They could have refused to run dem ads paid for by the committee, etc. They had many, many options that would not have affected the voters or the primary.

They knew exactly what they were doing when they silenced the voters.
Re: Seriously
By Democrat in Mandeville, LA May 9th 2008 at 11:07 pm EDT
The DNC already had their candidate. The party elders want Obama as their legacy of having the first black president. Forget about all of us! Look for me, it is not about race, it is about the candidate. Obama is not ready to run this country. Once in office, he will do whatever the elders tell him because they put him in office and they can take him out! Hillary will not be pushed and that is the tie breaker!
Re: Seriously
By andy492 May 9th 2008 at 11:11 pm EDT
it's almost like the party leaders intentionally pick people that have little to no chance of winning.
Re: Seriously
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:26 pm EDT
If you think McCain can win against a concerted team effort you're mistaken.
Re: Seriously
By Woman at Large May 9th 2008 at 11:54 pm EDT
But you can't get a concerted team effort if you push an unqualified candidate down thinking people's throats.
Re: Seriously
By Matt May 10th 2008 at 9:37 am EDT
Or if childish people refuse to vote for the party nominee because they don't like them. Whoever gets the most votes wins.
Re: Seriously
By ihaveavoice May 9th 2008 at 11:12 pm EDT
The really ironic part is the first millions Obama used was given to him by the Republicans. Bush's top fundraisers worked for Obama and now work again for the republicans, in fact I read a comment from Romney where it appears they will be losing ( lending ) one of those guys to Nadar's campaign as well. Now THAT is ironic. That's two elections now where Rove has hand selected the Dem Nominee by using the money and media. The day after Obama declares himself a winner the papers will turn on him the same way they did on Kerry. The honeymoon is over. The only saving grace is I am not convinced McCain will be a horrible president. There are things I will not like about him no doubt, but deep inside I think he will do alright if he picks his cabinet by his gut and not party pressure and I am still unconvinced Powell and Rice will sit this one out, one of them will be on that second spot.
Re: Seriously
By Vidya May 9th 2008 at 11:14 pm EDT
A very well manipulated candidate.
Re: Seriously
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:24 pm EDT
If you can prove it I'll believe you. The fact is the one who has the most votes and delegates at the end of the primaries wins.
Re: Seriously
By ihaveavoice May 9th 2008 at 11:27 pm EDT
ummm excuse me if the party meant it to be that way why did they just not write the rules that way instead of having the delegates decide? However has the most votes at the end of the cycle wins.

Because elections can be manipulated that's why. Ask Al Gore. Ask the dems who voted in the caucases and were called racists or blocked from voting at all.
Re: Seriously
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:28 pm EDT
Whatever, this is the Putrid Party not the Democratic Party. That Party is dead ... now there is the Clinton Party and the Obama Party.
Re: Seriously
By ihaveavoice May 9th 2008 at 11:28 pm EDT
Prove what the money? Umm go back and look up the names of his fundraisers in the beginning. Its public record. They are very well known as well.
Re: Seriously
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:29 pm EDT
Tell me who worked on Obama's campaign and then went back to work for Bush. Karl Rove perhaps?
Re: Seriously
By ihaveavoice May 9th 2008 at 11:36 pm EDT
I think this artuicle listed in details his ties to all the lobbyists and fundraisers he has used and I will get you the link to the fundraisers who worked for Bush as well and now work for McCain-since you apparantly can not do research- I wonder how you ever look up the issues your candidate stands for.. HMM

Link
Re: Seriously
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:27 pm EDT
He's won 16 primaries to Clinton's 6 and 17 caususes to her 1. He has the most popular votes and the most delegates.
Re: Seriously
By ihaveavoice May 9th 2008 at 11:32 pm EDT
Yes caucuses where the white middle class working voters, single parents, seniors are all disenfranchised by the system. Why do you think Obama would only agree to a revote in Fla unless it was in caucus style and why do you think the state rejected it outright without even asking the Clinton campaign, who also rejected it when it was finally presented to them- because it disenfranchises the majority of the voters in their state.

But hey argue with me all you want, I would bet my life savings both Fla and Michigan go Red by the largest vote margin ever seen before in those states.
Re: Seriously
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:37 pm EDT
and 16 primaries. Both count ... whoever has the most votes wins.
Re: Seriously
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:20 pm EDT
Blame the DNC and/or the states for defying them. They knew what the consequences were if they moved up their elections and the DNC was trying to prevent states leapfrogging over others in an attempt to have greater impact on national results.

Having said that if you throw those two states and their delegates in the results are closer but still the same.
  
It's Ironic
By Democrat in Mandeville, LA May 9th 2008 at 11:12 pm EDT
I'm bitter and clinging to my religion and guns. That's what Obama said about the white middle class in front of wealthy folks. What a joke for a candidate.
Re: It's Ironic
By Matt May 9th 2008 at 11:23 pm EDT
Maybe he was referring to our Vice President.
  
not much help
By NJ member May 9th 2008 at 11:35 pm EDT
here, your pandering