Can the DNC Forcibly Remove HRC as a Candidate?

This is it. This is the final straw.


No question about it. This will fracture the Democratic Party irrevocably. Is there a legal option available to remove her from the candidacy and take away her Senate seat under these circumstances? If so, it is time to act.

She is well within her rights to do this.

Which is why I'm all in favor of this.

about down race candidates. When African Americans and other Obama supporters feel that they have been screwed by the DNC and don't vote to teach the party a lesson?

Great idea. Even if Obama does lose it will be close. Do this you give McCain a mandate and probably the house and the senate. Think of Bush on steroids.

There is no way she can win the GE. She would anger Obama supporters and probably many of her own.


And this is on top of her already high negative ratings.

this is stacking the deck, she should make a convincing play to the superdelegates not just add to them.

I don't, which is why I'm asking the question.

Obama has not clinched the nomination yet.

Not illegal and not ethical. When you yourself said that something wouldn't count and pledged to agree to the rules set forth by the DNC than go back on that for your own interest that is an ethics question.

She can do it. Hell she can get the nomination doing it. She can also be buried next to Nixon in Yorba Linda after she cost the party the house, senate, supreme court after McCain wins 45-50 states gives the man a mandate and turns us into a 3rd world country.

This is perfectly ethical. Just because you want Obama to win the nomination without earning it doesn't mean it is unethical.

Saying you agree with the Primary rules publicly than fighting to change them after the primaries is unethical to me. She publicly declared she supported the DNC rules before this started. Makes me wonder what she would do with the Constitution if it doesn't fit her plans....seriously. I've endured 8 years of that. I don't need 4 more.

If she fought this before the primaries I could still support her. I can't support someone who doesn't believe the rules apply to her.

According to you Hillary suppressing votes, encouraging racial division, threatening or buying Superdelegates, threatening local party chairs, not paying suppliers, lying and all the other tawdry tricks of the corrupt are allowable because they are "not illegal"!

If Hillary made an independent run would you still back her because "Obama cannot win"?

The people who support Obama are reasonable. If she wins this fairly they will vote for her. However if it appears that some sort of party move was made to take the election away from Obama expect 40-50% his supporters simply to stay home roughly 20-25% of the party. That happens McCain could win Mass, Californina, and New York.

super that endorses her.

Oh no, she threatens to win and you threaten to quit...

fail

It's called political suicide by committing democratic fratricide in front of a watching world.

Whatever short-term gain Hillary would gain would be quickly subsumed in a vortex of collapsing Democratic party infrastructure and support.

Her own political fortunes would then swirl down that black hole as well.

And FAIL is the stupidest statement ever. Whenever I see this word, all I can think is that the poster has no argument to articulate. Its just plain lazy.

That is the same Rules Committee that sanctioned FL and MI. Edsall in his post links to DemConWatch, but there is nothing there about the make up of the rules committee.

I am doubtful about that figure of 50%

And was headed up by Sydney Blumenthal at the time.

the delegate lead, the popular vote lead, and the "electibility" lead. It's source is that area generally known as the anus.

please devote a lot of energy to getting the DNC to forcibly remove Clinton as a candidate.

When it's all you have left.

Not that it really matters considering how this state usually goes, but I will not vote for anyone who supports her.

This is a Democratic Board and it's mantra is to promote our Democratic candidates, not tear them down... I will support all Democrats this election.. Straight Dem ticket for this girl....

support for the Democrats.. I would never vote for a Republican.. Sure you are at the right place?????

In a Primary. GE different matter.

I don't have a candidate... I wish both of them the best of luck... I am a Democrat first and foremost... We will have to come together in November to beat the republicans and we need a Dem House and Dem Majority in the Senate... That calls for voting for Dems, all Democrats whether we like it or not, it is that simple....

I'd have to send the party a message with my vote for non of the above. However I would work my ass of for the lovely woman who is running against a GOP assclown in my district.

Anyone who blantly breaks the rules they pledged to abide by can't get my vote. If she does this with DNC rules I can't see her having much more respect for the Constitution as President.

I'd rather lose for 4 years than have someone from my party shit all over the constitution.

will survive 4 more years of the same... The only way to effect change is to put as many Democrats in Office as we can whether we like them or not, they will vote together as a unit.. Otherwise we can expect not just more of the same, but worse...

Someone who would go against her own written and spoken pledge to the party she's sworn allegiance to would protect and serve the constitution of the US or honor the pledges she's made as a candidate? She would have no honor. We've had 8 years of someone who is dishonarable and views the pledges he's made and the constitution with contempt.

the office whether it is Obama or Clinton... I don't have a candidate, it is easy to see I just support the Democratic Party and to further that cause...

These primaries have been vicious to say the least, hard feelings on both sides... We will have to come together in November to beat the Republican candidate and if that means holding your nose, then buy a bag of clothespins because the alternative is so much worse....

I tend to be more liberal than most, so no, perhaps I am not in the right place.

in office as we can... We need to have the Majority in The House and The Senate and a Democratic President to fix the mess we are in...

The democratic party I believe can remove her but that does not Include her seat in the senate.

Anger? yes

Disgust? yes

Big difference.

couldn't be used to impeach the president

why didn't she fight for us when it counted?

She didn't run in 2004 when it could have made a difference. Instead she waited 4 years because she was sure 2008 would be a shoo-in. How many soldiers died so she could have her "guaranteed" win?

If the majority really are for Obama (as the reports have said), that would eliminate her as a candidate with any viable chance to still win.

Couple that with a few favors called in by Dean and other important Dems with the MSM to get them to stop paying attention to her campaign would probably be all they could do.

But Im with you, she needs to be forced to end her campaign.

Not just for our party, but to stop her from further damaging her own reputation too.

There is No other viable option other than having the Supers

move to Obama and take away any chance that Clinton

can win. The party would fracture.

If Hillary cared one bit about the party, she would leave NOW

It is a crying shame, the circus that this primary has become.

She will never get my vote....

I'll vote for her. If this happens...well sometimes you have to take a loss to teach the people you support a lesson.

i personally did not like the "proud to be american" from michelle. it bothers me. as does a lot of stuff that hrc does, and her husband, and obama as well for that matter. but it's fucking lame of her to say, i think she has a chip on her shoulder and i sure as hell would bring it up myself.

I can't see her doing this. If she succeeds John McCain wins 45-50 states and she goes down as a bigger loser than Mondale. McCain has a mandate and the coddering old fool turns us into a third world country. She'll lose her senate seat in 2012 and be one of the most villified politians in history. She might as well request to be buried next to Nixon in Yorba Linda. Bill is smart enough to talk her out of it because his legacy is attached to hers.

If she bows out somewhat graciously she's at the least a Senior Party Member who has a place at the table at all times if Obama wins or a front runner in 2012 if he loses.

She's crazy...not that crazy. This is a threat to show how gracefull she is when she loses nothing more.

It was the end of last weeks show.

But at one time those seats were her goal, but today I don't know where her goalpost is located - she moves it everyday.

The meeting of the RBC is May 31, 3 days before the last primary.

I doubt 50% of the committee is loyal to Clinton that much.

You know what's going on in Florida a lot more than I do.

There is some reason why you think some organization (the DNC, apparently) can and should remove Senator Clinton from the the running for the GE and from the Senate. Yet you make no case as to why or how this might take place. :shrug:

On edit, regarding this: With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations.

They are keepers of the rules first, supporters of Clinton second. I have little concern that they will do what you suggest.

by the Party.

It's looking like the Clinton philosophy has become, "If I can't have it, nobody can."

The rule is..."if I can't have it..nobody can"

It shows so clearly, the integrity of the candidate

what a shame, there was a point in time where I admired Sen. Clinton

No Longer...she will never get my vote....ever

When did you first feel these totalitarian tendencies?

The Constitution of the United States makes removal of a Senator a STATES RIGHTS issue.

Educate thyself. The precedent you favor is a direct attack on the Constitution.

O-thoritarianism. Screw the voters.

I'm not sure where you get off making that statement.

I'm trying to educate myself, which is why I asked the question.

Comprende? Or is it just easier for you to attack like Hillary?

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Expulsion_Censure.htm

US Senators are Federal, not state, officials and the Constitution governs how they may be removed from office.

Let's see...knowingly damaging the Democratic Party and slandering a fellow member of the Senate for political gain. Sounds like disorderly behavior to me.

The tendency toward brownshirtedness is disturbing.

They are so well-mannered.

And no, they did not teach me in school whether a candidate can be forcibly removed from continuing his or her campaign. It's why I asked the question.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0801c.asp

The Martial Law Act of 2006
by James Bovard, Posted April 9, 2008

Martial law is perhaps the ultimate stomping of freedom. And yet, on September 30, 2006, Congress passed a provision in a 591-page bill that will make it easy for President Bush to impose martial law in response to a terrorist “incident.” It also empowers him to effectively declare martial law in response to what he or other federal officials label a shortfall of “public order” — whatever that means.

It took only a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened those restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the United States without the express permission of Congress. (This act was passed after the depredations of the U.S. military throughout the Southern states during Reconstruction.)

But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act aim to deter dictatorship while permitting a narrow window for the president to temporarily use the military at home. But the 2006 reforms basically threw any concern about dictatorial abuses out the window.

(snip)

There is no Honesty-in-Absolute-Power mandate in the federal statute books. The more power government seizes, the more easily it can suppress the truth. There is nothing to prevent a president from declaring martial law on false pretexts — any more than there is to prevent him from launching a foreign war on false pretenses. And when the lies become exposed years later, it could be far too late to resurrect lost liberties.

Is ridiculous...running a primary opponent against her in 2012 if she does this is not.

I'm sure you can find one that fits your response.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

First you plan on shutting down (even "indicting") right-wing talk radio once Obama becomes President* and now you want to "forcibly remove" Hillary from the race? :wtf:



*Barack Obama's becoming President only valid in certain alternate realities. Offer void in Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and possibly in Pennsylvaina and Michigan as well.

and it gets attributed to all of us every single time. She can't be removed from her senate seat till 2012. Than if she has done something to damage the party a primary candidate can be run against her.

She can be forced from the race by Obama reaching 2025 delegates. Other than that she is in her right to do what she wishes. In your right doesn't necessarily mean its a good idea.

the right to vote for the candidate they prefer. As for her Senate seat....wow. I barely know what to say. Why would the DNC have the right to overturn a U.S. Senate race in NY? She won 67% of the vote.

Steve

What about the other 48 states that followed the rules?

the states still to come and whether the DNC could force Hillary to leave the race. Second, states set election dates, they don't "break rules" laid down by the DNC and RNC. FL and MI had every right to hold new elections after Feb 5 and Barack Obama blocked them from happening by finding fault with every plan brought to him. Which means that we have to use the original results in some way.

Steve

Then you might lose states like New York, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and so for (in other words, the big states that usually go democratic and many of the smaller states like mine would bolt too). Shutting down a candidate that has half the votes for political reasons will not keep the party faithful. I say this as someone who has voted for the democratic candidate for president since 1968. This would piss me off enough to go vote and to pull the lever (in addition to voting for Steny against the bible thumper). By the way, my old cat Sparkie is soo much better today: she sends her hisses to certain persons.

would find that many of her colleagues would not want anything to do with her. It would be a very tense working relationship. She would probably rather leave than work in that environment.

the State of New York suports her. So dream on about her losing her seat.

and they have every bit as much talent as freepers do for ove reacting ans post foolish and naive things designed, it would seem, merely to piss people off- and ironically, to make themselves look ridiculous in the process.

Indeed, I often wonder how many really are freepers with remedial grammar.

If not, I hope they keep their simple mindedness and low emotional IQ's far away from ANY progressive campaign- because they'll end up doing a LOT more harm than good.

I agree with you. People need to let this play out and see what happens Tuesday. Everyone is getting a little stir crazy with the primary battle, they need to just calm down and find an alternative way to deal with the negative stuff instead of venting.