Typical Clinton

[Deity Dude]

First she strong arms the other candidates to pledge not to campaign in these states because they broke the "rules".


Then, miraculously, she is the ONLY candidate on the Michigan ballot.

Now this:

- Sen. Hillary Clinton, in an about-face, said on Friday she wants the Democratic Party delegates in two states that were barred by the national party to be reinstated and counted in the race to determine the party's U.S. presidential nominee.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080126/...ton_dispute_dc[/url]

I hope that this will finally allow all the blind people to finally see her character.

[Riesstiu IV]

I hope Obama doesn't get Clintowned.

[SlowwHand]

Yep. Pond scum.

[snoopy369]

I thought she was trying to avoid pissing off the DP leadership? Isn't that just what this will do?

[Dinner]

She's a self serving politician. They all are.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oerdin
She's a self serving politician. They all are.

Yes, but don't forget to vote for "change".

[Barnabas]

Vote Clinton

Vote for a second decade of GLORY

[Imran Siddiqui]

HAHA, Clinton

Obama now realizes he has to deal with a real campaign not some Alan Keyes pushover.

[chequita guevara]

The national Democratic Party assured local Democrats that their delegates would count at the convention. They're just trying to forestall every other state rushing to move its primary up this year.

The primary system is stupid. Throw rocks at it.

[Dinner]

The primary system is stupid. I especially hate the idea of super delegates where some people's votes count more then other people. It's just organized corruption.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oerdin
She's a self serving politician. They all are.

Yes, but some self serving politicians are more self serving than others. It's up to us to determine how much self serving is really too much self serving. We have to draw the line somewhere!

[Dinner]

Nice picture of Abu Abudai.

[thesilentone]

As a brit looking in from the outside I don't really understand why this process takes so long, it seems to encourage the later states to just go along with what the other states preferred. If I lived in one of the later voting states I'd be annoyed I hadn't got first refusal. I can understand the reasoning, the candidates all want to campaign in those areas for each vote but it seems you'd get a more honest answer as to what the nation really wants if you did a 1 day vote.

But I think the whole presidential vote is strange in the first place, the system we have here is far from perfect, we have the same 2 party problems but I think we have a very slightly greater emphasis on voting on the person we think is right, rather than the person we think will win. (we only vote on a representative for our own region, they in turn vote on their own leader. I realise you elect your own statesmen/congressman, i don't know the terminology but it seems they come under the power of the president more than ours do, correct me if i'm wrong).

In an ideal world we'd be voting based on one persons pledges/what he/she stands for. But too many people vote based on who they think is their best bet for their republican/conservative/labour/democrat allegiance.

Do away with the parties please, let everyone campaign on their own ideals. The problem with this of course is that government would become even less organised :/

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by thesilentone
As a brit looking in from the outside I don't really understand why this process takes so long, it seems to encourage the later states to just go along with what the other states preferred.

True, very true. The press a candidate gets from "winning" a state helps to propel them into the publics eye. Look at Rudy Guliani. He spent all his time campaigning in one state, a rather large electoral college state, but he's probably going to lose that state just because the other Republican candidates have done so well in the rest of the early primaries. The smart public does bet on the most electable candidate for each party, and that is based on popularity and prior wins, but they also will vote on who they like. It's a twofold combination. Is it fair? Well, sort of. Is it equitable? No, not really. If it was then the states with the most electoral votes would probably go first so as to weed out the losers.

The fact is that every four years we go through the VHS and Betmax wars, all over again. Electability is pitted against party ideology. Cost of campaigning is pitted against joe public likability. What's the outcome? McCain for Pres because he has universal appeal, Huckabee because he can bring out the base. Clinton (Obama?) for universal appeal, Edwards because he can bring out the base.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Nice picture of Abu Abudai.

Who's that directed to?