<p>Thanks Celtic I thought she went to Yale which prepares their students very well for the bar exams. I am really surprised she failed.</p>
<p>Stockmarket:</p>
<p>The Huffington Post article referenced above is a pretty solid account of the DNC shenanigans over the Mich/Florida disenfranchisement.</p>
<p>It’s hard to give you more links because you really had to be following the action on the hardcore Democratic and political blogs on daily basis last August. None of this was being widely covered by the mainstream media.</p>
<p>I never, in my wildest dreams, thought last August that the DNC would actually disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. My assumption was that they would leave the draconian sanctions in place until the primary calendar was settled with no more jumping up in line (which it was) and then a solution would be found. Dean repeatedly said in interviews, “we’ll work it out…” It was just unthinkable that the Democrats would shoot themselves in the foot.</p>
<p>It was only when January came along and no solution put in place that I realized Dean, Brazille, and the DNC fully intended to try to steal the nomination for Obama.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She passed the Arkansas bar exam, where she planned to live with Bill Clinton, at roughly the same time.</p>
<p>To understand the extent of the Florida problem for the Democrats in November, look at the Rasmussen poll earlier this month:</p>
<p>McCain: 53
Obama: 38</p>
<p>McCain: 44
Clinton: 45</p>
<p>Remember, 200 votes in Florida and the Supreme Court decision not to allow a recount was the difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush being President for the last eight years. </p>
<p>The Democrats simply cannot write off Florida and have any prayer of remaining a nationally viable party.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We have more than THREE Democrats, I know of at least FOUR, although they are all trial lawyers, and I have no idea what their opinion of Jane Fonda is, but they appear too old to have draft cards.</p>
<p>Just kidding - how ya’ doing ID?? Is your offspring graduating soon?? Send me a PM.</p>
<p>
At this point McCain could steamroll Obama in all the midwest swing states, colorado, & new mexico. Florida would be the least of Obama’s problems.</p>
<p>Ha ha. Fair enough. Four Democrats left in Alabama. Point being that the Democratic party is not exactly a powerhouse in some of these states. The odds of a Democratic Senate or Presidential win in Alabama are exactly zero. Lurleen Wallace (bless her heart) could come back from the grave and run as a Democrat and she’d lose!</p>
<p>The impact of Dean’s so-called 50-state strategy at the DNC is to dilute the influence of states (like Florida and Michigan and New York and California and Pennsylvania) that are vitally important to the Democratic party taking a a national majority.</p>
<p>Mr. Payne:</p>
<p>Yep. Obama could kiss off Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and propbably New Jersey.</p>
<p>I think McCain would even have a fighting chance of beating Obama in Massachusetts…or at least force him to spend money defending his turf. Rank n’ file. Democrats here are mad as hell at our state Democratic party officials. The Clinton win here in the primary was an in-your-face slapdown of Kerry and Kennedy. We’ve already seen Obama in the form of his stablemate, Deval Patrick. Gives a purdy speech about unicorns and puppies and gathering round for a chorus of kumbaya. Waltzes into the governors office and proceeds to be incompetent due to his lack of political experience. Didn’t even bother to show up to lobby the day of the big vote on his unpopular casino gambling referendum – he was in New York pitching his book deal.</p>
<p>Of course, if Obama had to fight for Massachusetts, we’d be looking at a landslide of Dukakis proportions…in an election the Democrats should have had in the bag. Bush fatigue. Horrible economy. And a never ending Republican war.</p>
<p>1of42,
I am glad to see my posts have really impacted you. I am not sure why.
Too bad you aren’t voting! 
I am glad to see once again that you are consistent in directing your anger toward me (for some odd reason), and ignoring the vitriol spewed toward Obama by others.:eek:</p>
<p>“Glad to see once again you are consistent in directing your anger toward me”</p>
<p>he would have been gentle if you were his crazy aunt for the past 19 years of his life.</p>
<p>^ Maybe I was his crazy aunt for the past 19 years…and I just don’t know it. :o</p>
<p>(I think there may be some missing nieces / nephews somewhere in our family.;))</p>
<p>…Who knows, the poster could even be friends with my son. My son is not voting for Hillary or Obama either. He voted in the primary, and most certainly will be voting in the general election. He and I do have some very interesting political discussions.</p>
<p>1sokkermom: You haven’t really impacted me, and I don’t ignore the vitriol spewed towards Obama by others (having at least a couple of times defended him when some of the more Republican posters here made more or less vacuous attacks), it’s just that the quantity and severity of the vitriol you spew towards Hillary beats out any that has been spewed at Obama. I mean, really - look at your post history: of your last 60 posts, exactly 3 involve something other than you supporting Obama or denigrating Hillary any way you can. When someone posts 95% of the time on the exact same issue in the exact same way, I call it like I see it.</p>
<p>As for my not being able to vote, my answer to people pointing that out is that their vote is inevitably going to be canceled out by some idiot voting for the person they oppose for basically stupid reasons. Oh well. :)</p>
<p>“Maybe I was his crazy aunt for the past 19 years…and I just don’t know it.”</p>
<p>So one thing we agree on: You are crazy.</p>
<p>(How do you make those symbols?)</p>
<p>Quote: “As for my not being able to vote, my answer to people pointing that out is that their vote is inevitably going to be canceled out by some idiot voting for the person they oppose for basically stupid reasons.”</p>
<p>Well, let’s not forget, it takes a village to make an idiot! ;)</p>
<p>Indeed. It took a village to elect and re-elect GWB.</p>
<p>I just can’t believe that Obama was naive enough to think this wouldn’t end up biting him in the butt.</p>
<p>Back to the overwrought hand-wringing about voters in Florida and Michigan being “disenfranchised” and how it means that the Democrats will lose those states in November:</p>
<p>Please.</p>
<p>Nobody is being “disinfranchised.” Everyone gets to vote in November. As to the nomination, as a Caifornian I never had an opportunity to cast a vote that mattered in determining the nominee before this year. It never kept me from voting Dem. in the general election in the past. Why should Floridians and Michiganders throw a hissy fit and refuse to vote this time because of this kerfluffel? There’s no “way out” which doesn’t screw some people in each state - whether it be the ones who voted for Clinton or the ones who didn’t vote for Obama because they were told their votes wouldn’t count. (By Clinton as well as Obama.) The place to lay the blame is also clear: on the self centered morons running the state parties who elected not to follow the party rules. What part of “break the rules, suffer consequences” did they not understand? </p>
<p>Anyone who moans about the horrible problem of “disenfranched” voters in Michigan and Florida can’t see the reality for the spin, IMHO.</p>
<p>kluge ^^^^ Well said.</p>
<p>The party rules called for a 50% reduction in delegates. The party rules were over-ridden by the DNC rules committee in an effort to steal the nomination.</p>
<p>From the Huffington Post article cited above:</p>
<p>"As much as the DNC tries to pretend otherwise, it had choices. In fact, it later showed understandable leniency to three other states who changed their primary dates–New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina – seating all their delegates. The tough love treatment was reserved for Michigan and Florida. </p>
<p>The national party had tried – before New Hampshire’s case wound up on its docket – to leave the impression that zero tolerance was automatic once violations of the schedule occur. Back in June, a DNC spokeswoman, for example, told the Associated Press that neither Dean nor the Rules Committee “has the power to waive the rules for any state,” explaining that “these rules can be changed only by the full DNC.” Yet a few months later, on the same day that the Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it waived the rules for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, each of which had also moved up their primaries."</p>