She wants to be selected, not elected.
Blacks would sit home and NOT vote if she wins after a thing like that IMO.
((((PING))))
More:
“Make book on it: no matter who wins the voting, Mrs. Clinton will be the nominee.” ~ Rush 02/12/2008
7 posted on 02/12/2008 5:45:29 PM EST by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1969279/posts?page=7#7
“Rush is right. 800 of those delegates to the convention are party officials.
How many FBI files do you think Hillary and Bill have on them. It was nice to have the goods on Republican party officials, but it was a mandatory that the Clintons have the goods on Democrats.
They will either give the nomination to Hillary or there will be a huge increase in the number of former Democratic party officials serving time in our prison system.
Hillary will win Ohio and Texas as well as Pennsylvania. ..”
16 posted on 02/12/2008 5:52:12 PM EST by Common Tator
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1969279/posts?page=16#16
“....With his wins in Virginia, Maryland and The District, Barack Obama is now officially on a roll. If the Clintons can’t find some way to stop him and stop him quickly, the Democratic race may be over much sooner than we thought only a week ago.
Here’s something we know: A Clinton cornered is a very, very dangerous political animal. Obama’s supporters would be wise not to start celebrating too early.”
~ Rich Galen - 02/13/2008 Mullings.com http://www.mullings.com/dr_02-13-08.htm
I guess Rich Galen hasn’t heard that Al Sharpton will lead a March ( A riot) if that happens.
Maybe. But this logic fails to take into consideration that many of those superdelegates will feel the shift in the D power base away from the Clintons toward Obama and the next generation. Many who are elected themselves will decide based on “what’s in it for me”.
As the mortician says, “Remains to be seen”
I mean, AFTER the riots
You'll have to leave a message, as he's on a speaking tour in the islands at the moment.
So, the next question is:
Hillary raised funds for:
a) the primary battle
b) the general election
Each of these pools of cash could not be used interchangeably for pre/post uses.
The (post) general funding was eported to be in excess of $40,000,000.
So if she loses/folds/drops out, what happens to these mega millions of funds earmarked for the general election????
Does her re-election committee keep it??
Does the Clinton Foundation get it ???
Do these scumbag individuals get to launder it and then put it in their pockets??
Enquiring minds want to know!!
Fox radio news just reported Rep. John Lewis will cast his superdelegate vote for Barack Obama. He had endorsed Hillary.
This will be a very interesting election.
Hope this is correct. She will then lose to McCain because even Dems will smell the rat at election time.
Ah, telling the big, big lies.
It's the Rodham-Clinton way, n'est ce pas?
Huck was a joke from the start and it looks like he doesn't mind continuing to be a joke.The extra chromosome crowd is still occupied attacking Romney but McCain has to let the Huck voters play out and do like the rest of us and figure out who is the best of the lot.
A related cross link:
Superdelegates get campaign cash (Culture of Bribery)
boston.com ^ | 02/14/2008 | Foon Rhee via Drudge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1970665/posts
am i reading this wrong ?
There won’t be any riots in Denver. Blacks might be angry, but there aren’t many in Denver, and there won’t be huge busloads coming in. Hillary’s Hispanic plan might pay off.
That's bogus. Hillary broke her promise and stayed on the ballot. Obama played by the rules. There's no way of knowing what the outcome would have been if Obama had campaigned or just left his name on the ballot. I don't think this will fly. Certainly not with black voters.
The logic of this is totally flawed. The whole country will see the tactics you described as theft of the nomination and nobody will be fooled. If Obama takes the majority of the pledged delegates secured by votes in the state primaries and caucuses and is denied the nomination, YOU WILL SEE A RIOT IN DENVER!
This is a very good thing, although not enough to save the dying political parties.
Primary elections with low/no bar to voter participation are the last nail in the coffin of the 19th century "political party". The voters, maybe a majority of them, have no interest in, or conception of, the well-being of the party. It is FAR more likely that elected officials or other big shots do.
Take the New Hampshire Democratic party for example (please).
On January 8, 2008, I was a registered Democrat for 7.5 minutes. I voted for Obama in a (vain) attempt to cripple Hillary.
What kind of sense does it make for me to have the same voice in what they do as the former governor, or an elected congressthing?
None, that's how much.
Voting with no barrier to participation makes sense (barely) in November, because it's a binary contest where A or B is an answer.
But to nominate the candidate of a specific political party, uninvolved or barely involved voters, whether they are "registered" or not, should have nothing to do with it.
Bring back the smoke-filled room.