When will Hillary quit?

45degreeN · Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: Questions about Hillary

Well its nearly June and Hillary is still 'in' the race. Is there anyone who believes she will drop out before the convention?

Well she sue the party after the convention is all over to get the nomination?

Is she some monomaniac that needs therapy or just misguided?

What part of the rules concerning Michigan and Florida does she not understand? Or maybe they just dont apply to her?

Who would want a president like this? Oh yeah Bush is one isn't he?

Pondering · Lion King Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 1297

[quote="45degreeN"]Well its nearly June and Hillary is still 'in' the race. Is there anyone who believes she will drop out before the convention?

45degreeN · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 4:38 am Post subject:

Actually Bush is also a monomaniac when he sets his mind on war nothing will stop him, not facts, not the UN, nothing. His place in history as a "great" president is at stake, since only wartime presidents get that honor. ("better than his father")

Hillary is just on the opposite side of the aisle but still the same type of person. Some of us knew that in the 90's when her husband was president.

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

When our constitution was drafted the southern states were an agrarian society. They did not have nearly the amount of the voting population as the northern states and were, rightably so, concerned about the power these states would yield in the house which is proportioned based on population. In order to compromise on this issue, slaves were counted into the apportioned states, but only counted as 60% of the aggregate totals. This accommodation which was part of the constitutional process was known as the 3/5s Compromise.
Today, the people of Florida and Michigan are also relegated to the same class as the slaves.... actually lesser, as their votes only count as 50%. In essence, Howey Dean gets to tell the largest turn out in Floridian Primary history, they only get half of their votes accounted for.... the same goes for Michigan.
As mush as I despise and resent what Hillary Clinton stands for... I do feel a sense of pity for the Floridians and Michigonians that were essentially told that they are only half people now because they voted when they wanted too.
Typical behavior from the party of the working man. Rolling Eyes

45degreeN · Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:13 am Post subject:

Well I have to take Michigan a Florida as somewhat different.

First off both Hillary and Obama promised not to campaign in either state since the democratic committee determined that both of those states violated the rules about setting an early primary.

Secondly Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and for any of those who voted had no choice to vote for someone they obviously wanted so I have little sympathy for the delegates from MI. Hillary might have chosen to remove her name but she didn't.

Florida being somewhat different since the state was capable of only have both primaries at the same time and the democrats were going to have their primary at the same time as the republicans anyway, so I do feel somewhat reluctant to reject this one summarily.

Ultimately it seems it is delegates who nominate a candidate not the actual voters, nor the "states" and it seems most of the delegates will be for Obama. This country is not a pure democracy it is a republic and those who represent us (the delegates) have always been the ones who make the choices. It seems most of the other elected officials prefer to campaign with Obama not Hillary anyway. Unless those delegates are somehow eliminated they will always have some role in nominations.

Hillary has always had a high negative mark against her from the get go. Obama started with a clean slate and since not very many people knew him it took a while and therefore those early primaries were of necessity harder for him since he just didn't have the chance to get them acquainted.

Hillary's behavior during this primary season has not been the paragon of virtue and I will not vote for her in any possible event no matter if she does get the nomination. (I dont even want to know how she might but in that event). While Obama's affiliations have done him badly it was not the candidate himself.

So this might just split the party and let McCain into the white house, I dont know but I sincerely hope not.

Pondering · Lion King Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 1297

Trinity,
understand your point, but here 45 is more correct...none of the votes from Michigan or Florida should count...at all. The party said "here are the rules"...2 states violated those rules (why? probably to get the advertising $$$)...so the message is, We don't have any actual control over our nominating process you states do whatever you want and we'll clean up the mess later...This is why I'll never vote for a Dem..zero conviction much less the courage to defend them..actually they do have conviction...but usually the criminal kinds Wink

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

Pondering · Lion King Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 1297

agree that I'd love to see her drag this out in court...

However, 14th Ammendment doesn't apply. This is a party process (sort of a club; i.e. "private" organization)...If I'm a registered Republican, then I can't vote in the Democratic primary in most states, and certainly wouldn't be a rep in a caucus state...yet no one claims that I'm disenfranchised.

The National party sets the rules...no citizen has been denied the right to vote in the national election, only the party nomination. All those MI and FL voters are free to vote for or write in whomever they choose during the national election...

Still..the whole thing makes me once again think how appropriate is the mascot of the democratic party...heeee hawwww.

45degreeN · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:17 am Post subject:

Being "disenfranchised" is a loaded word and one that is so un-forgiving.

I remember times in the past when I voted after the nominee was chosen (because of the state I lived in had a late primary)and even though I voted the same person it took a little off the feeling of participation. I didn't feel ripped off though, and didn't go around claiming I was due something for my "suffering".

It seems that if the party's candidates are new to the electorate it is best to have late primaries and if they are well known candidates than an early one is best. If one is newer and the other older you get what we have now a mess. But I really never did support the idea of January primaries in any case , its just to early in the election year.

This is just the results of having a republic instead of some "ideal pure" democracy. I find it amazing that people forget this. I do expect changes though before the next primary season.

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

I agree that the longer this drags out the better. I got to listen to some of Harold Ickies comments yesterday when speaking at that convention that decided this thing. He stated that Hillary reserves the right to appeal this to the commissioning committee at the convention. Wouldn't that be quality entertainment? Waiting all the way until August to have a clear nominee.

I still believe that since this is the only process available to nominate or at least have your candidate appear on a ballot within your party... and ergo receive all of the benefits of the party... she and the voters of Michigan and Florida would have a good chance... especially in a Californian court. Wink

45degreeN · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:02 am Post subject:

Actually the dems have had a clear nominee now for almost a month, Hillary just wont fess up. It merely a matter of how much damage she does before the Republicans get their chance at Obama.

Hillary is the republican's secret weapon. She should go back to being a Goldwater supporter like she was in her youth.

Plotinus · Tiger Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 843 Location: Canada

It is difficult to believe that this has dragged on as long as it has. I heard on the news that Obama has HRC on his short list for VP. Is this posturing or is it real do you think? It is hard to believe that the two of them could establish a working relationship. And what about the Bill factor?

45degreeN · Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:03 am Post subject:

I take Obama at his word for including HRC, but yes it very well might be posturing. One of the pundits called this short episode a Kabuki dance, full of posturing back and forth until a VP is chosen and who knows for sure if she is willing even. The VP slot can be a very lonely position without any power and just waiting in the wings. If Obama offers her the HHS position it might give her the bully pulpit to take the health care issues and run with them.

The question seems to be vetting Bill's finances since his presidency, and those who supported his library.

Plotinus · Tiger Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 843 Location: Canada

You make some good points here. So far my money is on someone else for VP. But he is going to have to offer her an olive branch of some kind. My wife, who is an American citizen, an Obama fan and a voting Democrat, has been on the edge of her seat. I am also interested, but unlike her I am not a US citizen voting in a primary or the election.

45degreeN · Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:24 am Post subject:

That's probably a safe bet.