Emmy5:27PMMay 29th 2008

I have mixed feelings on this matter. The PEOPLE from Florida and Michigan had no say in when their primaries would be held. The governments of these states are completely at fault. As such, the elected officials should face sanctions, but not the people who never wanted for this to happen. The votes should be counted.

On the other hand, there is the problem of who was on the ballots and who did/did not campaign, and the fact that because people knew their votes would not count, many of them did not vote at all. I think the Clinton campaign is being extremely devious about this, implying that it's Obama's fault that their delegates are not being seated, and therefore ensuring her of a win if a re-vote is held. This fiasco is NEITHER candidate's fault, so neither of them should be holding the other accountable for it.

About two weeks ago, Michigan tried to seat their delegates by giving Hillary 69 and Obama 59 (I believe those were the numbers) but Hillary refused this offer. I am not sure why, since this basically portioned out the delegates according to the original vote, with the "other candidate" votes going toward Obama since none of the others on the ballot are still in the race. I believe that she could insist on up to 73, but no more than that, because then she would be asking for more delegates than she earned with her 10% margin.

If there is a fair way of seating the delegations, we need to do it.

bonbon5:44PMMay 29th 2008

TO ALL VOTERS

OK Tell me

1. what state are you from ?

2. did you cast a vote ?

3 suppose the DNC or whoever decided they could change your vote.

4. suppose the Dnc, or whoever choose to decide, your vote was not allowed to count, POOF, they took it away.

You say you wouldn't be mad, but I bet you would, You would be mad as HELL.

There is something more important here than just Florida, Michigan, and the RULES.

MUCH MUCH BIGGER.

Our right to vote, is our right to freedom, freedom of speech, our RIGHTS PERIOD.

WE THE PEOPLE HAVE CERTAIN INALLIENABLE RIGHTS.

one is to vote for the candidate of our choice, and NO ONE can change that vote.

NO ONE.

Otherwise we stop being a DEMOCRACY, and become a COMMUNIST STATE or a DICTATORSHIP.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE DNC OR THE RULES.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT HILLARY OR OBAMA.

THIS IS BIGGER THAN THEM.

THIS IS ABOUT YOU, ME, AND EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN CITIZEN.

AND OUR RIGHT TO VOTE AND TO HAVE THAT VOTE COUNT.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARTY AFFILIATIONS

DON'T YOU GET IT.

THE WHOLE IDEA OF INVADING IRAQ, WAS TO GET RID OF SUDDAM HUSSEIN, TO GIVE IRAQ A CHANCE TO BECOME A DEMOCRACY.

OUR SOLDIERS DIED SO THEY COULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO VOTE, TO FREELY VOTE FOR WHOMEVER THEY WANTED TO.

AS WE DO OR DID...

AND IF WE ALLOW THE DNC TO TAKE AWAY

TO DENY JUST ONE VOTE

THEN WHAT COMES NEXT.

BECAUSE TO DENY JUST ONE VOTE

IS TO DENY EVERY VOTE

YOURS INCLUDED



YOURS INCLUDED

OhReally5:55PMMay 29th 2008

If you truly want news on how this election is shaping up there is a website

About this Site
Welcome to Electoral Vote Predictor, which tracks political polls for U.S. federal elections. The site was immensely popular in 2004, ranking in the top 1000 Websites in the world and the top 10 blogs in the world, with about 700,000 visitors a day. In some surveys, it was the most popular election site in the country. In 2006, it tracked the Senate and House elections. Now it is back tracking the presidential, Senate, and House elections for 2008.

Electoral Vote Projection.. The only vote that really matters. (as of May 27)

Clinton 327 McCain 194 Tied 17
Obama 266 McCain 248 Tied 24

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/

Clinton picked up 8 more electoral votes since the report of 5/24

and those numbers do not include the Hillary supporters that will vote McCain should the need arise:-)

Obama is NOT electable.

For some reason the Obama Pimp Machine does not want to talk about these numbers. Wonder why?

You will notice that AOL doesn't want you to see this news for whatever reason, other than it doesn't look good for BO. More on "the law" later.

kaflooey5:55PMMay 29th 2008

Emmy,
I agree that fairness to both candidates is key. The question is how can that happen?
I thought the best idea anyone had prior to now was a re-vote. There were "uncomitted" votes in Michigan that now would go to Obama, from what I understand, based on the presumption that those who voted uncommitted instead of for Hillary would have chosen Obama if he had been a choice on the ballot. Well, I don't think that's quite fair to assume either. How can this be taken for granted when there were still other candidates at that time? Ugh, what a mess.
I didn't vote on either choice presented because at this point the whole thing is so damn confusing, I don't know what to think anymore.
I found this article about a Chicago election when I was trying to get some information to sort this voting thing out, take a look,it's pretty interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

Diane5:59PMMay 29th 2008

I really don't care who is at fault with the primary in Florida--I voted and the votes should stand as they are and the winner should get the delegates based on the voting. If those who knew the votes may not count so they didn't vote--then that was their choice and stupidity. I also don't care who campaigned and who didn't--if they chose not to campaigne here in Florida then that was there choice.
I think that all campaigning should be done in all 50 states first and then primaries should be held on the same day in all states. That would solve the problem. Then we can here all their speaches in all the states and see how they change from one to another and then vote.

I voted--and if Florida has to split the outcome of the primary votes in any way--I will change my part affiliation. Punish the ones who changed the primary dates--not the people who did their part and voted. Seems the Democratic party has made more of this than needed to be.

cliff bennett5:59PMMay 29th 2008

i know both fla and mich knew what would happen when they did what they did...as far as the dem party..so why did they do it..i have yet to see a story on this

JOHN6:00PMMay 29th 2008

>>>THIS #3 ARTICLE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT COULD BE USED AGAINST OBAMA FOR HIS LINKS TO WRIGHT, REZKO, AYRES, FARAKAN ETC WHICH WOULD DISQUALIFY HIM FROM THIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE!!!!
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

cliff bennett6:03PMMay 29th 2008

sorry but the people of every state have a say in when there party is...going to hold there election..its called the democratic process and this is the dem process too bad if it sucks for you and you are too ig to follow it or get involved

cliff bennett6:04PMMay 29th 2008

sorry hellary is done....she has lowered herself to talking about mistical electoral votes, and popular votes which do not mean s in a primary...she is behind and cannot catch up and even if she gets close (a long shot) obama has the race card..the supers would not split the party by p-ing off the blacks..which would give mcain an easy victory

OhReally6:12PMMay 29th 2008

There is a concept in politics called "the law" and it is applied when there is a political conflict. It suggests that in solving problems one asks the question...Who benefits?.

The Florida/Mich case is ez. If the delegates are not seated in their entirety, no democrat benefits. McCain wins Michigan and Florida.

The question I would like to ask is this.

What about the millions of dollars that AOL has poured into the Obama campaign through free "advertising" on the Political Machine.

1. Of course Obama benefits.
2. What has been promised to AOL for its largesse on behalf of this candidate what "benefits" will go to AOL if their candidate becomes the nominee.

3. What "benefits" have been promised to the pundits who's daily spew of Obama love we must endure. A couple of them are maybe shooting for a spot on the New York Post staff, or maybe the STAR. Perhaps, the "benefit" is they don't lose their jobs.

4. Who benefits from the blatent Obamanism of AOL and its minions. Well folks, again McCain may be the winner as they have succeeded nicely in alienating Hillary supporters who will not vote Obama but McCain.
]
These are perhaps questions only the FEC can answer, if we had an FEC

Vicki6:15PMMay 29th 2008

Lanny Davis is a great lawyer and right-on with his proposed analogy seeking a solution for the two-state temporary disenfranchisement in contract law's ability to facilitate a cure for any breach in existence during the life of a contract. And he's also right to highlight the fact that the party standing in the way of a cure can never benefit from such impeding action.

The delegates from MI and FL were ALWAYS going to be seated in some fashion, up to and including in full. That was provided for in the rules from the inception - and it's the reason why most of the candidates left their names on the ballot in Michigan. Obama and Edwards were grandstanding when they took theirs off. Furthermore, there is no reason why Obama should get any of the uncommitted votes in Michigan since people voting for Edwards may now support Clinton over Obama as their subsequent choice.

A revote in either or both states was proposed - with funding offered - yet Obama nixed that idea, likely afraid he would lose again. Under contract law, he would never be allowed to benefit by preventing a solution to the original date breach which initiated this conundrum.

Additionally, while all the candidates agreed not to campaign in the two states - and nothing beyond that - Obama broke that agreement by running ads in Florida, thereby nullifying any delegates he would have received there, according to the rules.

The DNC should have come up with a response to states' scheduling conflicts that did not impact the election results, especially since the date changes were initiated by Republicans in Florida, and the people voting in each state had no control over any of it. Now, party "leaders" are left with the task of making amends for the chaos they've created. All delegates should be seated in both states based on the elections that took place, except for Obama's Florida delegates.

As to concerns about setting a precedent for future elections regarding date setting, that point is moot. Democratic party officials will be revamping the primary process going forward - possibly toward a more functional winner-take-all strategy, such as the GOP enjoys. Conceivably, voting would take place on a single day. Caucuses must be eliminated, as they are non-democratic and nonrepresentational.

What remains to be seen is how the DNC will account to Hillary Clinton's campaign for the loss of momentum, new voters, and suppression of fundraising that is a direct result of the party leaders' blunder. All that must be quantified and compensated for for the entire process not to appear to be a sham.

Crystal6:16PMMay 29th 2008

How many dem delegates are in Michigan and how many in Florida?

edward.slough6:16PMMay 29th 2008

OBAMA PLAYING "RACE CARD" IN
ATTACKS ON BUSH'S ISRAEL REMARKS!!!

Bush's comments in Israel were almost certainly directed at Jimmy Carter's recent "talks" with Hamas. The State Department made public claims to have requested that Carter NOT meet with Hamas. Carter
stated that in several discussions with the State Department, no such thing was ever mentioned. What especially infuriated the Bush Administration were photos of Carter "embracing" Hamas representatives
--- a traditional Middle Eastern greeting.

Now, Obama may wish to attack Bush, the most unpopular president in the history of polling, in order to direct attention away from his continuing battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party
nomination. But his indignation about Bush's
"personal attacks" on Obama is just the latest example Of Obama using the "race card" by playing the "poor maligned black man" to the media and the press. He's been very effective in using the media's desire for "political correctness" to escape
any critical analysis of political strategies such as this one.

Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Prize for Peace for his contributions to the Middle East peace process. He has remained very active on a number of international fronts, including Habitat for Humanity. As a private citizen, former U.S. President, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, he doesn't need anyone's permission to visit and talk with anyone he wants in the Middle East.

However, I do believe that Obama was quite correct in confronting McCain's attempt to link Obama with the "endorsement" by Hamas. McCain is a true American hero. This sort of attack demeans McCain's stature, and smacks of the kind of "dirty tricks" politics in which McCain has stated he would not engage. McCain legitimized Hamas' unwarrented intrusion into American political processes, and elevated the comments to the stature of international news. Hillary
Clinton has stated that any statements by Hamas are irrelevant!!!

HILLARY CLINTON 08!!!

Crystal6:25PMMay 29th 2008

The DNC will screw Hillary just like they've been doing from the beginning.

Lin Cruiz6:27PMMay 29th 2008

Not only should the delegates be seated...all votes should count

Crystal6:29PMMay 29th 2008

cliff bennett5:59PMMay 29th 2008

i know both fla and mich knew what would happen when they did what they did...as far as the dem party..so why did they do it..i have yet to see a story on this
~~~~~~~~
I think McNeilly's article goes somewhat into the reason.

Lin Cruiz6:44PMMay 29th 2008

bonbon...you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT...this is BIGGER than BIG......this is about freedom...freedom to vote, freedom to choose, freedom to protest ........freedom to have our voices heard.....it is about democracy and government for the people , BY the people, OF the people!!!! This is about the democratic party leaders limiting our choice and being unequal in their support of candidates....biased...in them choosing who we will have as a candidate...this is about equality and the core values the party is professed to adhere to!!!!!

lmay6:45PMMay 29th 2008

Go to Vetsforfreedom.org.........

1) Senator Obama has never met, one-on-one, with the Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.
2) Senator Obama has not visited Iraq, and our brave troops on the ground, in over two years. His last visit to Iraq was January 2006, and he was there for less than two days.
3) On April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in the office, just wouldn’t come out. Sergeant Anderson was a member of that group.
The point here is plainly made. While Barack Obama talks about how important it is to conduct direct presidential diplomacy without preconditions with Iran, he so far has been unwilling to offer the same sort of direct contact with the American commander of forces in Iraq, or even with veterans from his own state. If that seems a little backward to you, Vets for Freedom feels the same way.
-----------------------------------------------------

I'll bet Senator Clinton or Senator Mccain would have met with these vets. He's willing to sit down with our enemies and give em a good talking to.

I didn't vote for Bush, but he's kept our country safe since 9/11. I want a President to keep us safe and someone our military men and women are proud to serve under. I would bet there are many of them who will not want to serve under Obama.

Obama is a shameful disgraceful man. Anti American.

We are not voting for a rock star...we are voting for a Commander in Chief to keep us safe and keep our freedoms.

Senator Hillary Clinton or John Mccain truly love our country.

Go Hillary..take it to the convention!!! If not Mccain will be just fine!!!

FORCE JOHN MCCAIN TO DROP OUT!7:06PMMay 29th 2008

Check this out:

http://files.meetup.com/500018/Force%20John%20McCain%20to%20Drop%20Out.gif

This little document nicely shows how bad a candidate John McCain is. Not only shouldn't he be elected, he shouldn't even be running! Regardless of whoever else you want to win, you must rule out McCain. Try to get him to drop out if you can. You should print this out and pass it out to as many people as you can. You should also email it to people and post it on one or more websites if you can. STOP MCCAIN! The document explains pretty much everything.

Also, you should sign this petition to have McCain's delegates get dropped since he violated federal law to have his campaign funded. Show McCain he's not above the law:
http://www.petitiononline.com/JDAlvey1/petition.html

lmay7:07PMMay 29th 2008

Father Michael Pfleger, Surpassing Jeremiah Wright at Trinity

This YouTube is now being sent to me by many readers. I'll have a transcript in a moment, but it features one of Obama's close friends, Fr. Michael Pfleger, preaching at Trinity United. This seems like an oddly-timed sequel to the Wright brouhaha, as we now have another Obama mentor giving a strikingly similar message.

UPDATE: Much like written words don't do justice to Jeremiah Wright's sermons, the video must be watched to be believed.

Pfleger is introduced as "a friend of Trinity", and then the YouTube skips ahead to one section:

I must now to address the one who says, 'don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did.' But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did! And unless you are ready to give up the benefits — Throw away your 401 fund! [sic] Throw away your trust fund! Throw away all the money that been put away in the company you walked into 'cause your daddy and your granddaddy and your great grandaddy —

(screaming at the top of his lungs)

Unless you are willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation! 'Cause you are the beneficiary of this insurance policy!

Words cannot describe the surreality of watching a middle-aged white man in a priest's collar appearing like he is trying to imitate Jeremiah Wright at his most outrageous.


[garbled] expose white entitlement. And supremacy, wherever it raises its head. I said before, I really don't want ot make this political, because you know I'm really very unpolitical.

When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, 'this is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.'

Then out of nowhere, 'I'm Barack Obama!'

Imitating Hillary's response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, 'Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!'

(mocks crying)

She wasn't the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!

I'm sorry. I don't want in any more trouble. The live-streaming just went out again."

The argument that 401(k) accounts are inherent representations of white supremacy will be news to many, many Americans.

So what is the response from Team Obama going to be? That he didn't know Pfleger was capable of this kind of rhetoric, either?