|
Obama seems more confident, composed and careful.
It's a shame the Clinton's didn't complain about the current Dem nomination system when they were winning back in 1992. Bill + Hill ran and won under almost the exact same system we have now, and they liked it well enough that they did nothing to change it at all even though they were instrumental in picking party leadership from 1992 until 2004
Now that Hill is losing big under that same system, suddenly she doesn't like it as much as she did.
Cry me a river, cry me a river, I already cried a river over you!
And I did. The Clinton years were hell for Democratic Party members across the country, save the chosen few who ran the party into the ground for 8-12 years.
i think we should atone for when African Americans only got three fifths of a vote and give them 2/5 more for an equal time period.
Wouldn't that seem fair?
I don't think Clinton or her supporters would find that fair, but such a scheme reminds me of the Clinton camps FL and MI fantasy. It's a contrived argument designed to benefit your candidate over my candidate.
The DNC, our elected central committee has been clear, consistent, and concise since long before the voting began that state Democratic Political Organizations who attempted to selfishly and unilaterally undermine the agreed upon plan of our elected Party Central Committee, the DNC, would face loss of seating of their delegates to the National Party Convention.
It's the DNC's job to co-ordinate the primaries, and the only tool they have to enforce compliance for the common good of the party is loss of delegates to the convention. So I salute the DNC for first establishing rules agreed upon by organized state parties and national candidates, and then enforcing those agreed upon rules.
As a citizen of Montana, I'm kinda pissed off at Michigan stepping all over Montana's and S. Dakota's "last in the nation" status through there selfish short-sighted attempt at personal political gain, but if that's when they can vote then OK. I wish they'd move it up or back a week though and leave us some political space.
The reason we have rules that we all agree to before the campaigns begin is to whatever degree possible to prevent chaos.
Chaos Clinton's Crazy Campaign We don't need Chaos Clinton's Crazy Campaign creating chaos by litigating, protesting and nit picking every previously agreed upon rule.
Hillary's campaign has already run out of money once and required a self loaned infusion of 5 million dollars. That's crazy.
Hillary's crazy chaos campaign keeps putting out special perspectives on the election as to which state's votes count and which state's votes don't count, and even if leading in delegates is as important as leading in popular vote. As Clinton and her camp attempt to shape a perception out of thin air of how people should view a race that already has actual rules and political realities, it becomes clearer and clearer to people that crazy, Clinton, and chaos are pretty well intertwined.
Consistent rumors, off the record interviews, published first hand reports and on the record interviews with people close to the campaign paints a picture of constant chaos, bickering, infighting, incompetence and possibly corruption.
This atmosphere of constant catty contention is beginning to permeate the party.
What does that say about how Hillary would run the country? We don't need more chaos, we need less chaos. After 8 years of bush chaos we don't need more chaos. We don't need more hidden papers and more propaganda. We need less chaos, less drama.
Obama strikes me as the low-drama candidate left in the race. And he's winning in delegates, popular vote and states won, under the same system crash-cart Bill Clinton won under in 1992. Which led Hill to repeatedly float the Obama as VP to Hill balloon. You can't make up crazy like this folks. This is to-the-bone crazy.
Out with the drama, in with Obama!
|