Posted by: iam0nly1 | August 3, 2008

Oh, Now He Get’s It: Obama Finally Supports Full Votes for FL, MI Delegates

Well, well, well. This is certainly not the Barack Obama we knew…or is it? Senator Obama, today, sent a letter to the Credentials Committee asking that, for unity’s sake, Florida and Michigan delegates are given a full vote. 

Hillary has issued this response:

“During the campaign, I strongly advocated for the Democratic Party to seat the Florida and Michigan delegation with their full votes. The Democratic Party has always stood up for the principle of counting every person’s vote. Today, Senator Obama has requested that the Credentials Committee give Florida and Michigan delegates their full votes. This is the right position for the Democratic Party and for the country and I urge the Credentials Committee to restore full votes to Florida and Michigan delegates.” 

This is more than a little angering for those of us who remember all too well the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting when Senator Obama’s campaign sent numerous surrogates to argue against full seating of the delegations…for unity’s sake. Who can forget Robert Wexler pounding the table in faux-indignation and manufactured intensity, claiming “we have achieved unity” and yelling for the RBC to “let us have unity”…by giving voters half a voice, and in the case of Michigan, ignoring it all together? 

Obama’s recent move further solidifies the view that he only supports Democracy when it can no longer effect him. It remains true that had the Florida and Michigan delegations been seated in full and in accordance with the primary results that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would have been the pledged delegate leader, and thus the presumptive nominee. Only now that Obama has been crowned “The Chosen One” does he deem it safe and appropriate to adhere to the rules of Democracy. Well, way too little, way too late, Senator Obama. This most recent flip-flop will appease no one. We understand all too well that you would not be doing this if it did not somehow benefit you. I suspect you’d like the 59 delegates you hijacked from Michigan to have full votes, or that you think this will make you look better to the Florida electorate, even though we know it will no longer make a difference. Counting the votes after you’ve declared yourself the winner is not Democracy, Senator Obama. 

If the Credentials Committee does decide to give the Michigan and Florida delegations a full vote, the magic number of delegates needed for nomination will no longer be 2,118, but 2,209. Wonder how that will play out at the Convention, or if it will even be acknowledged?

In other news, we’re still waiting for a letter from Senator Obama declining the “uncommitted” delegates from Michigan and the four that were taken from Senator Clinton and handed to him, and an assurance that Senator Clinton’s name will be put into nomination and that a full roll call vote will ensue.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. 1. Exactly. Supoorting someone who is inexperienced shows extremely poor judgment. I’m glad you agree.

    I do. Hillary is supporting the ‘inexperienced’ Obama, thus poor judgement on her part, no?

    How could we ever HAVE trusted that she’d make the right decisions if she is supporting him?

    Hmm….

    Yes, this is a poor choice on Hillary’s part. Which is why we disagree with her on this. As for how we could ever have trusted her, one bad choice out of one hundred good ones is a pretty good percentage.

    2. Know? I’m sorry, when did I saw I ‘knew’ they were doing anything?

    You’re right, you were only insinuating it heavily based on no evidence. Sorry, my mistake.

    No there is evidence. It’s an educated guess based on evidence. And yes, it’s your mistake, apology accepted.

    3. Who said I didn’t consider the possibility? We considered it, and we rejected it.

    Out of spite. Pride first, country & party second.

    No, out of Obama’s lack of experience, judgment, and character. Country first, Obama never.

    4. You need to educate yourself. Obama never voted against the Iraq war. Obama was not in Congress at the time of the Iraq war vote. Raising your family in a racist, anti-American church for two decades shows poor judgment and lack of character. Going to Harvard and traveling do not qualify you for the Presidency. And he hasn’t really ’served’ on any Senate committees since he’s been running for President the entire time he’s been in the Senate.

    Quote: Obama was an early opponent of the Bush administration’s policies on Iraq.[105] On October 2, 2002, the day President Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[106] Illinois State Senator Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally in Federal Plaza,[107] speaking out against the war.[108] On March 16, 2003, the day President Bush issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq before the U.S. invasion of Iraq,[109] Obama addressed an anti-Iraq War rally and told the crowd “It’s not too late” to stop the war.[110]

    Hmm…

    Once again, Obama never voted against the Iraq war. He wasn’t in the Senate at the time. Since he has been in the Senate he voted to fund and extend the war several times. His Iraq war opposition is a fairy tale. Please show where Obama, in your words “voted” against the war.

    One might argue staying with someone who cheats on you repeatedly shows poor judgement and character too.

    Simply being the President’s wife for 8 years isn’t exactly qualifications to be President either.

    Hillary was de facto vice President, the most important advisor in Bill Clinton’s white house, with an office bigger and more important than Al Gore. One might also argue that taking your marriage vows seriously shows great strength of character and strength of moral. Of course, this is beyond the comprehension of left-wing Obama voters who lack morals and family values.

    5. I’m sorry, but anyone who has friends who are domestic terrorists does not represent my values.

    Define ‘friends’. Define ‘domestic terrorists’. Who are you referring to?

    Bill Ayers, Obama’s friend, and a domestic terrorist.

    6. No, they haven’t. But nice try.

    Seems like they’ve got you well trained. What’s the next directive, ‘Vote for Palin’? ‘Sure she’s a Republican, but hell any women, regardless of what she believes, should be in the White House’.

    Funny, it probably is, isn’t it?

    Obama voters are the ones who are brainwashed and well trained. Hillary voters can think for themselves. Therefore, I’m not directing anybody to do anything but not support inexperience at the top of the ticket. So you’re wrong, and you fail (again).

  2. 1. You are right, supporting someone you think is inexperienced doesn’t take away from your experience it just shows either poor judgement or complete insincerity.

    Exactly. Supoorting someone who is inexperienced shows extremely poor judgment. I’m glad you agree.

    2. How exactly do you know Obama and his wife are ‘pretending’ to do all those things? Can you read their minds?

    Know? I’m sorry, when did I saw I ‘knew’ they were doing anything?

    3. What does Obama supporters believing in Clinton have to do with anything? No one says as a supporter you have to do anything and everything a politician says, however, her good judgement and experience has led her to support Obama. As someone who has valued her opinion and viewpoint throughout the campaign, shouldn’t you at least consider the possibility that she is making a wise decision?

    Who said I didn’t consider the possibility? We considered it, and we rejected it.

    4. I’m also mystified as to how someone who voted against the Iraq war can be said to be lacking judgement. How someone who chose to help those in desperate need instead of a cushy, well-paid job can be said to be lacking character. How someone who attended Harvard Law, became president of the Harvard Law Review, taught constitutional law, ran for the senate, won 70% of the vote, has been to eastern europe, the middle east, and africa, served on the foreign relations committee, can be said to be lacking experience.

    You need to educate yourself. Obama never voted against the Iraq war. Obama was not in Congress at the time of the Iraq war vote. Raising your family in a racist, anti-American church for two decades shows poor judgment and lack of character. Going to Harvard and traveling do not qualify you for the Presidency. And he hasn’t really ‘served’ on any Senate committees since he’s been running for President the entire time he’s been in the Senate.

    He represents ‘our values’ in the greatest sense! He represents ‘The American Dream’, where individuals regardless of race, creed, colour, gender, etc all have a chance to succeed and live up to their full potential.

    I’m sorry, but anyone who has friends who are domestic terrorists does not represent my values.

    Hope your puma ‘talking points’ have been corrected.

    No, they haven’t. But nice try.

  3. Hey,

    Just some honest questions:

    If Hillary is now supporting Barack Obama, who we believe to be a bad guy, doesn’t that mean she is bad for supporting him?

    If she is just pretending, however, or doing it for the sake of the party but really feels differently, wouldn’t that make her a fake/phony/hypocrite/fraud/liar?

    If she is geniune in her support, and we believe in her experience and judgement, shouldn’t we then support a candidate she supports and not sit at home/vote for someone else who doesn’t represent our values?

    I would really appreciate any honest answers to these questions.

    Thanks.
    ________________________
    For starters, I don’t know what you mean by Obama being “bad.” That sounds like the way you describe a spoiled child. However, he is inexperienced, and clearly supporting an inexperienced person doesn’t take away your own experience. So your question really makes no sense. I’m not sure how voting for someone causes you to lose your qualities and take on theirs. Please explain.

    If she is just pretending, it could make her a fake/fraud/hypocrite/liar, but then again, no more than Obama and his wife are fakes/frauds/hypocrites/liars for pretending to honor her legacy, complimenting her, and claiming they are inspired by her. Or it could make them all good team players, loyal to the party. I guess it depends on how you look at it, doesn’t it?

    If she is genuine, I’m not sure how that means everybody should automatically agree with everything she says. I’m also not sure why all of sudden Hillary voters should believe in her experience and judgment and do everything she says, when Obama supporters have never believed in her nor done what she says. I am also not sure how supporting a politician means you suddenly lose the ability to think and reason for yourself and make your own decisions. But then again, I thought we lived in a free democracy where voters dictate to politicians and not vice versa.

    I’m also mystified as to how someone who lacks judgment, character, experience, constantly plays the race card and hangs out with terrorists and anti-American pastors “represents our values” since this is quite out of line with our values. Please clarify.

    Hope your questions are answered.

  4. This comment is totally off topic onlyone (I agree with your points about Obama’s commitment to democracy only extending to aspects of democracy that he thinks might further his ambition though)

    You asked on a response to a comment I left you if mt name “the boggart” was anything to do with the Boggarts in harry Potter.

    Well yes and no. I’ve only red the first two in the HP series so I do not recall coming across any Boggarts.

    These water spirits are however part of British Celtic folklore. As a Scot J.K. is fully familiar with Boggarts (mischevious water spirits usually manifesting in the form of ugly hags) Kelpies, Bogles, Buggains, Wights, Hobs and Brownies.

    It was my love of this folklore that prompted me to name my own website after the most famous boggart, Jenny Greenteeth. (pictue: Greenteeth Multi Media ) On hearing of this Jenny graciously agreed to become CEO (Chief Ectoplasmic Officer ) leaving me to take the more exciting role of Chief Visionary Office.

    As I can’t send a PM here, or at least don’t see any simple way to do it, visit me a Boggart Blog UK ( Boggart Blog where the content is very English humour but where it’s easier to leave a personal message.

    Then you can ask me anything about boggarts etc. and I’ll answer if I can.

    best,
    Ian Thorpe (the short, non swimming one)

    BTW If you haven’t already seen this I think you will like it.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-curtis/summer-love-fall-freak-ou_b_119681.html

    I’m glad reality is starting to sink in now, I have been very annoyed by Obamamaniacs who accuse me of supporting McCain when i make fun of their darling. I’m a British socialist, no way would I support McCain. I would have liked to see a Democrat in The White House but in being railroaded by the Politically Correct Stormtroopers the Democrats have made sure it will not happen this time. There is no good reason why a Black man should not be President, but to be successful will require a little more from the candidate than being Black.

  5. What we need to do is start a grass root’s campaign like Ron Paul is doing & what Wesley Clark supporters did.

    I will only vote an Obama/Clinton ticket if the DNC ignores the will of the people then I’m more than willing to put Clinton in as a Write in Candidate.

    They will NOT allow a roll call vote because they know Obama WILL LOSE. They are already filling the convention with Obama supporters & only letting a small group of Clinton supporters in.

    What Clinton NEEDS to do is start sparking rumors she plans on running as an Independent. It’s risky but it worked for Lieberman.

    If 301 delegates believe Clinton would win as an Independent they will switch rather than lose the election.

    Had the Libertarians been smart they would have
    Gone to Clinton check in hand to pay off her debt.
    Then get her to switch parties.

    Ike

  6. So now, when, as Obama thinks, he doesn’t need more delegates to be a nominee, he says that the MI & FL delegations should be seated in full and with full voting rights. So he acknowledges that the popular vote is clearly on Hillary’s side – better later than never.

    It’s easy to tell now why is this rush – the polls show clearly that Florida is leaning towards McCain more and more, and Michigan is again a on a table. And in this heat I believe Clinton should use the situation without much hesitation and urge for a roll call during the convention. Let’s see who will get more delegates at the finish.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: