i clearly stated that in respect to outside observations,

his refusal to approve any plans suggested, like the mail in ballot, while only responding with I'll do whatever the DNC decides while the DNC approving revotes, came to be seen as a rally against revotes.

We shall never know what truly happened in MI, just as we shall never know what truly happened to the uncounted FL votes in 2000....

Im waiting for the True Hollywood Story.

these numbers do not include FL and MI, these were the numbers before they had even voted.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/2 5/america/Clinton-Florida-Delegates.php# top

if you can link your credible source disproving mine, I will definetely concede the point, however until then my case that this was one of her arguements before she was losing is still on the table.




Congrats for the big turnout. Same case here in West Texas (El Paso, pretty damn close to NM). IN previous precincts only two people would show up to caucuses, now 200. Its amazing and will definetly help in Nov.


It is hard for many to see the path, but it does exist and is tremendously narrow. like tight rope narrow, but I believe that as long as she has steadfast and dedicated supporters, she will continue her fight for the nomination. Her supporters have hope in her path, which speaks volumes and will continue to fuel her candidacy on the tight rope walk.

ahh, lets leave the insults at the door.




Im sure no one decides to run for president thinking its easy, most of all HRC. duh, im not sure what you are arguing.

Is it that:

-you beleive she is disengenious about her arguement for the seatment of FL & MI even before she was losing

or

-???

[ahh yes France, how I wish to some day visit]

Come on. Lets leave that crying thing in the fiction department were it belongs.

Her voice cracked up a bit. And some claims exists that her eyes might have gone a little misty while that didn't show conclusively on the video.

It detracts towards a reasonable discussion.

Yes, they did fight it, until the Republicans attached funding for new voting machines to the bill with the early primary date.
It would have been stupid, after what happened in 2000, not to have new voting machines in place in Florida for the GE.

Party leaders, Chairwoman Thurman and members of Congress then lobbied Democratic members of the Legislature through a variety of means to prevent the primary from moving earlier than February 5th.  Party leadership and staff spent countless hours discussing our opposition to and the ramifications of a pre-February 5th primary with legislators, former and current Congressional members, DNC members, DNC staff, donors, activists, county leaders, media, legislative staff, Congressional staff, municipal elected officials, constituency leaders, labor leaders and counterparts in other state parties.  In response to the Party's efforts, Senate Democratic Leaders Geller and Wilson and House Democratic Leaders Gelber and Cusack introduced amendments to CS/HB 537 to hold the Presidential Preference Primary on the first Tuesday in February, instead of January 29th. These were both defeated by the overwhelming Republican majority in each house.

The primary bill, which at this point had been rolled into a larger legislation train, went to a vote in both houses. It passed almost unanimously. The final bill contained a whole host of elections legislation, much of which Democrats did not support. However, in legislative bodies, the majority party can shove bad omnibus legislation down the minority's throats by attaching a couple of things that made the whole bill very difficult, if not impossible, to vote against. This is what the Republicans did in Florida, including a vital provision to require a paper trail for Florida elections. There was no way that any Florida Democratic Party official or Democratic legislative leader could ask our Democratic members, especially those in the Florida Legislative Black Caucus, to vote against a paper trail for our elections. It would have been embarrassing, futile, and, moreover, against Democratic principles.

http://www.fladems.com/page/content/make itcount-faqs/#q3

"Obama won 12 contests in row."

And in my opinion, THAT is when he won the nomination. If the talking heads in the MSM had admitted that, it probably would have ended long ago. Hillary has basically just been treading water ever since then.

the delegates were approximately split on S.T., allowing Obama to continue

a split hardly seems like a knockout.

I get how she would want an upper hand in the narrative in MSM, but if she was to win FL wouldn't that provide positive MSM narratives, anyways.

But why argue for FL before you have won it, If your theory is true,  then seemingly she would henceably argue after the results. not prior unless she already knew the FL results.

[correct me if im wrong, i kept having to go back and forth between your posts and have seemingly confused myself]

Al: the narrative is not "did she support the exclusion then, and now she needs the delegates (and prolonging the indecision until the convention)so she changes her mind (that's the obvious story) and demands the delegates be seated.

No, the narrative is there was a calculated effort by the Clinton forces in Michigan and Florida, two states she had the lead in and was the strongest going into January to pry them out of the schedule and get a win even if it turned
into  "straw poll/ beauty contest" kind of wins.
She calculated she could dispense with their delegates because the tidalwave would be rolling and she would easily reach the finish line once the Super Tuesday wins and others fell her way.
She needed Iowa and NH to fall, then MI and FL, then SC if possible, but she would have momentum into Super Tuesday with the 4/5 and leave all behind.

It was an ambitious attacking strategy, but it had the risk of failing early and leaving her a very hard catch up process.

sorry but youll have to provide links before I concede any ground to you. Accordingto my link, the delegate total had HRC winning (a total in which supers were included).

You suggest that after finishing third in Iowa she was effectvely done? the delegate total begs to differ. Provide your links.

The diarist was trying to prove that HRC did not care for MI and FL, the comment I provided showed that HRC had stated that she wished to see the delegation seated therefore 'caring' about MI and FL; a stark contrast to the quotes the diarist provided.

Furthermore, Im not arguing that she has never changed her position on MI and FL, rather my arguement is the circumstance that surround the change in her MI and FL stance.

Clinton's position was either inconsistent or she was going along with the party narrative intended to persuade legislatures in MI & FL to hold a revote.  

I don't doubt that there's an element of self-interest in seating the delegations.  I also don't doubt that there's an element of self-interest on Barack's part in trying to suppress them.  

I do know which position is a stronger argument.

"Count all the votes."

v.

"Exclude 2.3 million voters because of a technicality."

she said it.

Unfair was refering to the fact that he discounts the later statement made by Sen. Clinton. and the remarks regarding how the Sen. doesnt care about the voters.

i thought the whole diary was about MI and FL.

in response to Sniper fire jokes on Jay Leno, ....she was making fun of yourself, realizing how inredibly stupid the comments were. How you infer she was making light of sniper fire victims is fuzzy.