Handy Guide to Why Hillary is lying about the Michigan/Florida primary vote

In case there are any MSM pundits that are too lazy to do their own work or just people that want evidence PROVING that Hillary Clinton is opening lying when it comes to the Michigan and Florida primary votes and how she initially agreed to them not counting, this is for that purpose.

Here is the Four State Pledge:



Let's just say that Hillary Clinton figured she was going to win easily when she signed on to the Four State Pledge on September 1, 2007. She was going to be coronated, right? Well, it turns out...not so much. Just for poops and cackles, here's the initial press release:



Great! Hillary Clinton was playing by the rules of the Democratic National Committee that thinks that states can't just decide when they want to vote out of schedule. Rules...kind of neat things to follow. If you're running for President, following rules is a pretty cool thing to be known for. Right?

So things are moving along with Michigan and Florida Democratic Party "leaders" (after repeated warnings) decided to disenfranchise their own voters by breaking the DNC rules. Way to go! You screwed over your own constituents! Nicely played!

So the news continues to show Hillary Clinton's clear support for the DNC rules and the Four State Pledge:



Just so we know what Hillary Clinton's intentions were, let's look at last August, 2007:



So the DNC releases a press release in December, 2007 that Michigan and Florida did not comply with the Four State Pledge (that Hillary Clinton signed on and agreed to):



So, just to make sure everyone knew where she stood, Hillary Clinton is on record and in an audio document where she KNOWS the votes will not count:



So which Hillary Clinton are we to believe? Not only is Hillary Clinton trying to change the rules in the middle of the game, she is also lying about how she initially was for following the rules of the Democratic National Party.

She wants to pin the blame on everyone except herself. It appears that the only way she can "win" is to cheat and lie.

If you want to find out WHO is responsible for disenfranchising the voters in Michigan and Florida, here is the list of contacts:

Florida Democratic Party
214 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-222-3411
850-222-0916 (fax)
http://www.fladems.com /

Chair: Karen Thurman
Vice Chair: Rudolph Parker
Executive Director: Leonard Joseph

Michigan Democratic Party
http://www.michigandems.com//staff.html

Why so many people buy into her lies? Are they that gullible? The facts are out there for anyone to find if they really want to, so why are so many people buying into her crap?

in my opinion.

What I don't understand is why either the Obama campaign or the DNC is allowing Clinton to run around spewing lies and making a lot of gullible followers angry because they think that bad man Obama is keeping their votes from being counted.

...unless they're a step ahead of everyone and have something planned that's going to neutralize Clinton's arguments.

But even if that's the case, how do they change the minds of the gullible?

Its a train wreck.

She's 31 million in DEBT, and still she
goes on, and on and on.

Power is what they want.

They will leverage EVERY BIT of blood
they can.

:puke:

egging it on; but not for ratings. They wanted Hillary as the nominee against McCain. They are keeping this going to weaken Obama's chances.

told the truth hilary would have been gone a long time ago. Same with bush and the War On Iraq..all brought to us by the mediawhores of America.

and we all know it, some just choose to be disingenuous about it. Her desire to be President, or even Vice-President has overriden every good quality she might have. I sincerely hope she chooses to be an asset to the party after June 3.

:sarcasm:

I dunno, I always kind of figured that if I give my word I'm supposed to stand by it. Maybe I'm just not enough of a woman to ever be in Hil's camp.


Laura

If it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind, it is terribly sexist to object when she does.

Or something like that.

a thing to say. Give her a break.

We all really need a break from her lies and her brainwashing her supporters. Sheesh there it is in black and white (living color really).
x(

I can't even make some joke about "I take her at her word" because
you CAN'T take her at her word -- her word doesn't mean S***T.

ballots is set in stone, or did you argue that every vote should count?

Edit to state that this refers to 2000 election.

And is that a legitimate reason to change the rules?

Nice of you to openly admit that you think the rules should only apply when it benefits Her Majesty.

she started losing when she thought she'd have the whole nomination wrapped up, I'd say your comparison is not applicable.

When the only reason that *she* has changed her mind on this issue is that it no longer helps her win to stand by her previous beliefs and statements, you have to admit, that is just being a plain ol sore losing hypocrite.. what other circumstances have changed since she agreed to abide by that statement? Can you please inform me? I want to know what real issue has all of the sudden made her re-evaluate her support of that pledge.

threaten our chances in Nov.

...were in states that followed the rules.

This "argument" that disenfranching millions of voters in Michigan and Florida because their leadership broke the rules is specious at best. Do you think that a Democrat with all of their wits would vote for McCain because their party leadership decided to screw them over?

Better yet, should those voters whose states followed the rules be penalized and told rules can be changed midstream depending on how desperate one candidate is to get the nomination?

Are rules just suggestions?

and petition. The Rule Committee meets on the 31st to consider changes, all done by the book. If you and Obama don't like those rules, tough, he signed on to them when

he decided to run as a Democrat.

Obama should follow the rules that he signed on for, but she gets a free pass on any rules that she agreed to.

Funny! just funny!

Committee to decide what the final outcome will be regarding the delegate alloction for FL and MI. It is the Obama folk who are arguing to keep the people's voices

silenced, Hillary is on the people's side, not the fat cat party leaders side.

confident that they will not just give Hillary whatever she wants, so if that is what you are waiting for, and once they come to their conclusion you and Hillary and her supporters are going to accept what they say, then fine.

I have no problem with that. The problem, of course, is that the goalposts WILL be moved again if they decide anything that SHE doesn't believe to be fair TO HER.

I have to go take my last final now, so my lack of responses for a few hours will be because of that...

cheers. :toast: I'm looking forward to us all being on the same team again.... whenever that happens to happen.

conclusion, she will take it to the convention floor.

something that she is waiting for to see if it helps her. figures.

If irony were a laxative, you'd be living in your bathroom.

She is making her case to the Rules Committee, they have the power to effect how or even if punishment will be handed down for the 2 states.

Obama says says snuff out the voices of millions of people, Hillary is advocating for the will of the people to prevail.

The time to do that is BEFORE the vote--not after.


How can the "will of the people prevail" if the candidates aren't allowed to fully campaign in the state?

It's in the rules.

Really, you're hilarious. :rofl:

which is why she will lose at the rules comittee

issue, it would have been before when she agreed with the pledge and when it was going to benefit her.

She is only making it a 'real issue' now that she is losing which clearly shows it is just a TOOL for her to use.

She is using the idea of disenfranchising voters as a TOOL to get what she wants when she was gung-ho on the idea when it seemed to benefit her. It makes me even more angry when people pretend to be helping people when in reality they only have their own interests at heart. It is disingenuous to say the least.

countries best interest.

Don't you?

but herself. And i certainly don't want ANOTHER president like that, had one for 8 years now thank you very much.

is the best choice for our country and our people.

That's some interesting company with whom Team Clinton wants to hang.

Hillary should have used this "tool" BEFORE the primary season started if she was serious about the issue. But like everything else about her campaign, it's just a big fat load of crap.

With logic such as this, it's no wonder her campaign has gone from a virtual lock on the nomination to a national punchline in just 6 months time. Top job!

Hillary doesn't give a fiddlers fart about the voters of Florida or Michigan except she can wring a few extra votes and delegates out of them. Do you think she would give a crap about Michigan and Florida if she were in Obama's shoes right now? Do not insult our intelligence that way!:wtf:

votes that were cast in an INVALID election would
only COMPOUND the injury.

I say this as a Michigan voter...

Let's have fire-house caucuses in both states,
or not count the delegates from either state.

You know your comparison is false, yet you keep making it ... over, and over, and over ...

If you are referring to Florida in 2000, all the candidates were allowed to campaign. All the candidates had their names on the ballot. All the candidates followed the rules (well...you know what I mean).

Fast forward to the Florida primary where it was agreed that Florida BROKE THE RULES and their vote didn't count. Look at the Democratic leadership in Michigan and Florida for disenfranchising the voters. They broke the rules. They screwed over their citizens.

silencing of millions of voters stand so that some petty state level politicians get their comeuppance.

Surely I guess you think that Hillary Clinton should try to wink and nod and whisper in their ears to get her little way and no complaints about how "silencing of millions of voters" that overwhelmingly voted for Obama should be within dialogue.

If the Rules Committee thinks rules are to be conveniently broken, we will surely take it to the next step.

change parties or work to change them.

It's beyond anyone's reasonable comprehension that the Rules Committee would overrule its own rules it set for 2008...unless someone wants to cheat and steal away what has obviously been set.

If the Democratic Party Rules Committee overrules its own rules it set for this primary season, then it is not a party. It is nothing more than something hellbent on being destroyed by its own hand.

it's over. Buyer beware. She can't switch the rules in the middle of the game. Imagine the super bowl where one team decides they need to change the rules because they're losing. It doesn't work like that or it's not fair to those who played by the rules right?

edit spelling

The affairs of men are not ruled by unyielding universal laws set in stone.

She isn't a poor homeowner or have trouble reading contracts does she? I think for now she has to play by the rules. Maybe Fl and Michigan can get federal aid to hold a new election instead.

and to what extent. I am saying that there were punishments proposed for the 2 states that will be considered on the 31st, they can decide how to handle the situation.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/highlights_of_t.php

If they are willing to break the very rules they set, then they should be immediately pulled from their positions and thrown out into the street.

You seem to paying attention to this subject a great deal and I honestly want to know.

I hope you are indeed kidding.

for the uniformed...

What constitutes "participation" that's not covered by the word "campaign"??? Ask yourselves that. If a candidate doesn't campaign, then what might they do to participate that isn't campaigning? How about leaving their name on the ballot? (Wel, in Florida they couldn't remove their names.) How about claiming some 'entitlement' to the votes??? Yup. That's clearly 'participation.' Hillary Clinton and her campaign don't keep their word. They're liars and cheats.

In case the Democratic Party Rules and By-Laws Committee seems to forget, these are the rules that were set in 2006 for the 2008 primary race.



The DNC Rules and By-Laws Committee will meet at the end of this month to review what they agreed to for this primary. If they want to break the rules that were agreed to, then we will know that they don't respect the Party and it rules they engaged and agreed upon.

Hardball that Hillary never signed a pledge to the DNC.. only to the first four states; therefore, both elections were legitimate, she broke no pledge. As to campaigning, she said that didn't matter because we have the internet now and candidates don't need to campaign in 2008.

Seriously. That's what they're saying now.

The first reason that Wasserman/Clinton would be wrong is that they agreed to the Four State Pledge. If that means they didn't sign anything, the intent of the pledge is to have an agreement to keep Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina as the first four states.

Secondly, what would be the intent of a pledge to follow the rules if it didn't consider that its meaning not be followed? If the Clinton campaign wants to pull a "it depends on what the meaning of a pledge is" and then try to steal the nomination, the obvious reaction of a destroyed Democratic party would occur...and the Clintons would be run out of town.

the truth does get known about this and how she wasted everyone's time and money.

You don't do that to anyone, hilary, especially Americans.

When we present facts that contradict her position of the week, then we're labeled as haters. So you must be a super hater. Thanks for putting it together.

in the pledge could reasonably include "benefit from".

Seating the Florida and Michigan delegates would be a breach of contract, just that simple. All the candidates agreed to not campaign in these states on the basis that there would be no delegates coming from these contests. Seating any of these delegates now would be a breach of that promise on the part of the DNC. The DNC should be good to its word. Settlement should not be even an option. Florida Dems litigated against the DNC to have the rules overturned. This was a waste of time and money better spent to challenge the repugs.

As a Florida voter, I say no delegates for me please. We conducted no delegate selection process that complies with DNC delegate selection rules. It is fair to conclude that we selected no delegates to send to the convention, so none should go.

However as a compromise position, the DNC could offer to seat Florida "representatives", with the right to attend the committee meetings and all the various parties, but have no vote on the nomination. Florida democrats remain democrats and deserve representation at the convention, the only thing we screwed up was the nomination process, so our participation there should be barred.

Terry McAulliffe's own words show exactly what would appear to be a fantastical hypocris. From Terry McAuliffe's own book "What a Party!", he managed to explain how going out of a predetermined schedule would be "chaos" when Senator Levin wanted to change the Michigan primary date:



So what is it, Terry? Chaos if states break the rules?

The Clintons are showing their true colors in a big way. Everything I rejected people saying about them before - and worse - is being acted out before our eyes. Denial isn't an option for Democrats. Not this time. Not this election. Barack has taken on the mantle of the party and is now the leader and standard-bearer. A change is coming. :D

The Clintons are unfortunately what the Repigs have been saying all along, as is evident with the recent events. I just can't imagine how they think they could get away with what they are attempting to do without realizing they would be run out of town.

To think of all those years where I defended these people in the 90's...

A change is coming...indeed. :thumbsup:

Tweety and Olbermann are having a competition who has "the biggest thrill up their leg" over this guy.

Can you refute ANYTHING in the OP?

Your "contributions" are less than useless ... not even usable manure.

again

and a vote for the DNC to kill her campaign asap. it's sickening at this point.

The more inexperienced of the two in this case is Obama:

Rezco? I don't know no stinkin' Rezco.

Wright? He sat through at least 900 sermons during his 20 year membership in this church...and never listened to one of them.

Care to continue this discussion?

Obama lies like a rug when it benefits HIM. So much for Faith, Hope, and Change--the most overused political words since ancient Greece.

:eyes:

....their national ads still showed up in both states. And ....

The two state Democratic parties decided to hold their elections anyway and the Democratic party voters did what good Democrats do - they came and voted in an election exercising their guaranteed rights as members of the Democratic Party.

Now count their votes! And seat the delegates they elected. The Democratic Party Charter says those 2.3 million Democrats have the guaranteed right to participate fully and equally in the nominating process.

The DNC rules regarding punishing the states for early elections violate the Democratic Party Charter which can only be changed by a Democratic Party Convention.