The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Video Report

Democrats Demonstrate, Argue Outside DNC Meetings

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

Democratic Party members rally outside the site of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting. (Video by Ed O'Keefe / washingtonpost.com)

Posted at 12:41 PM ET on May 31, 2008  | Category:  Video Report
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: The RBC: Dean Pleads for Party Unity | Next: A Predictable Outcome?


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



As I said, Clinton supporters, don't be afraid to vote for McCain as a protest vote because the filibuster-proof Democratic-controlled Congress will keep him in check by overriding every veto he casts!

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 6:08 PM

HERE IS WHY HILLARY LOST. HER ONLY SUPPORTERS ARE DUMBASS RACISTS LIKE INSEARCHOFTRUTH WHO ARE A FEW IQ POINTS BELOW RETARDED AND ARE POOR, TO BOOT.

I THOUGHT HILLARY WAS BEING HARSH WHEN SHE CALLED HER SUPPORTERS IDIOT PAUPERS.

INSEARCHOFTRUTH PROVES SHE IS RIGHT!

INSEARCHOFTRUTH = ANOTHER DUMB POOR RACIST!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 10:55 PM

I hate Hillary Clinton now and her supporters are idiots.

It's so clear to everybody with a brain that she agreed to everything, lost fair-and-square and is now trying the CHEAT to change the outcome and STEAL the nomination.

Which in Crazypants Hillaryland, makes Obama the bad guy! Becuase that makes so much sense and all.

Well, Obama is clearly the nominee, and you dumb sweaty Hillary heifers can stampede to the polls and vote for a third Bush term because your prefeered candidate lost. We don't care. The millions of new Dems Obama brought in will more than make up for your idiotic little tantrum.

Hillary can go rot, along with the Clinton legacy she and Bill have destroyed.

Posted by: moi | May 31, 2008 4:06 PM

LOVE THIS POST!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 10:52 PM

"Now, he wants the DNC RBC to vote to allow the Florida delegation in such away that discounts Hillary's win and allow him to be the winner of the Democratic Nomination"

Obama is and would be the winner of the Democratic Nomination NO MATTER HOW THOSE VOTES FROM MI AND FL WERE TALLIED. LEARN HOW TO COUNT!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 10:46 PM

Let's be honest, would you vote against Hillary Clinton and in favor of John McCain if say Barack Obama or someone else, perhaps Harold Ford (of Tennesee) were asked to be her VP? Maybe there is a black general or high level retired military official she could consider as VP. Would you still vote against her if she had a black candidate on her ticket?

I will say this, I will vote for McCain even if Barack Obama gets a white woman (but less experienced than Hillary) as his VP.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 6:36 PM

Well, with all this talk of whites and blacks on tickets, it's sadly obvious that you're a racist. BUT--fortunately--most people are not and look behind the RACE of the Presidential and/or Vice Presidential Candidate. And Barack has more years of elective experience than Hillary. He, is thus, the more experienced public servant.

Being first lady and a corporate lawyer for over 15 years do not count as elective experience--in the case of the former--or public experience--in the case of the latter.

SO, WRONG ON EVERY POINT!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 10:44 PM

sorry

Posted by: Not voting for obimbo | May 31, 2008 10:40 PM

"Yes, I can support McCain even if Obama selects a woman as his VP because Obama will not select a woman as experienced as Hillary Clinton as his VP"

Since Hillary is SO experienced, I'd love to hear about some of her accomplishments. And over 15 years as a corporate lawyer is not public service, 8 years as first lady is not elective experience, a health care bill that she claims credit for that is Ted Kennedy's bill IS NOT HERS TO CLAIM. Love to hear it. Thanks!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 10:37 PM

This 1/2 vote for Florida (and probably Michigan) reminds me of how the black vote use to count for less than 1 vote (it was 2/3 or was it 3/5 of a vote?). How pathetic. The voters of Florida and Michigan and no matter how much Obama sweet talks to them, he won't make them forget that he could have supported a revote, but refused to do so.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 7:51 PM

Actually, he raised concerns about a revote that would be organized by a Clinton PAC. And where is your outrage toward the RNC which inacted the EXACT SAME SANCTIONS.

Not so much IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH THERE ARE YOU?

IF YOU'RE THIS OBSSESSED ABOUT YOUR VOTE COUNTING, PERHAPS YOU'D LIKE TO GET INVOLVED IN STATE POLITICS TO MAKE SURE YOUR STATE LEADERS DO NOT MOVE UP YOUR PRIMARY AGAINST THE RULES!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 10:33 PM

1/2 a vote equals being 1/2 a U.S. citizens. Flordians and people from Michigan are being told them are second-class citizens! And we're suppose to be the party that cares about the empowerment of all people??????

Posted by: gaypastor | May 31, 2008 9:42 PM

there is no argument why the votes should be counted, this is a private party matter not a government election so the argument for Hillary votes to be counted is moot. And what about the fact Hillary committed with Obama NOT to campaign in either state and were advised to take their names off the ballot? The only reason Hillary didn't do so according to her was because the votes wouldn't matter, so therefore it wouldn't matter if her name was on the ballot or not, don't believe me? hear it from the mouth of Hilldog herself:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg&feature=related

Posted by: HillaryLOST | May 31, 2008 9:42 PM

take it up with your STATE party leaders.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 9:30 PM

1/2 a vote equals being 1/2 a U.S. citizens. Flordians and people from Michigan are being told them are second-class citizens! And we're suppose to be the party that cares about the empowerment of all people??????

Posted by: gaypastor | May 31, 2008 9:42 PM

Well this equals the same punishment that the RNC doled and out and the fact that two parties--that agree on nothing--ultimately agreed upon the same sanctions speaks volumes. This is a country of rule and laws and they must be followed. If your vote was 'halved' take it up with your party leaders that moved up the primaries AGAINST THE RULES OF BOTH PARTIES.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 9:29 PM

InSearchOf..:
Why do you talk about obtaining support for McCain, you know, the guy who's famous for being a POW, to Hillary supporters? Do you think that they are ignorant? To take what Clinton believes in and cast it aside to vote for a Neanderthal like McCain? Why don't you blog at the Weekly Standard or the National Review. These are the publications that you read.

Posted by: tanaS | May 31, 2008 8:48 PM

The DNC is clueless and could care less about Hispanics, blue-collar workers, gays, Jewish folks and women. They'll simply keep doing what they've been doing, stand by and watch the national press choose our candidate for us.

Posted by: gaypastor | May 31, 2008 8:41 PM

It's silly season.Talk about experienced politicians. With inexperienced GWB with his retinue of liars, crooks and sycophants, who had decades of experience in government, why is oil selling at six times more than it was when the 'Favorite Son' took over? Why is there a unjust and useless war costing America $12 billion monthly? Why are AMericans worse off than they were 7 years ago? It's not experience that counts, but wisdom and moderation. Of course no one now could remotely infer that Bush and his cronies even meant well. It's always been about huge profits from oil and war.

Posted by: tanaS | May 31, 2008 8:30 PM

I cannot believe that the DNC RBC is considering on TAKING FOUR VOTES from Hillary Clinton and give them to Barack Obama. Talk about STEALING an election with the majority of the DNC RBC in your pocket. This is just another reason why I refuse to vote for Barack Obama!

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 7:55 PM

This 1/2 vote for Florida (and probably Michigan) reminds me of how the black vote use to count for less than 1 vote (it was 2/3 or was it 3/5 of a vote?). How pathetic. The voters of Florida and Michigan and no matter how much Obama sweet talks to them, he won't make them forget that he could have supported a revote, but refused to do so.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 7:51 PM

Since the DNC RBC refused Alice Huffman's motion to seat all the delegates with full voting rights, I think the Florida delegation should refuse to show up at the Convention and Floridians should vote for McCain as a protest vote since the DNC refuses to count their votes entirely!

I still believe that people are fed up with what Bush has done to the point that the Democrats will win their majority-proof majority and as a result, the Congress will override every veto that McCain casts.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 7:43 PM

Black Jack - I also want to add that I did enjoy speaking with you. I hope you realize I'm not the racist you have accused me to be. I would have no problems supporting a black candidate so long as they had more experience. How could I be considered a racist if I were even willing to vote for the supposed "moderate" Republican, Colin Powell, whom 100% black as opposed to only 50% black? The difference between Barack Obama and Colin Powell is that Colin Powell has more experience than Barack Obama. I hope you understand my position on this.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 7:33 PM

I wasn't attacking you. Yes, I sometimes can transpose my words, etc. In the case of your usage of "lunny," I was merely clarifying that you meant "loony." Perhaps I am wrong and you meant to use the word "lunny" but I do not know the meaning of such a word. If anything, you sound like you have a chip on your shoulder and view anything as an attack. I suggest you chill and relax instead of always assuming the worst.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 7:28 PM

InSearchofTruth - I was outta here until you tried to insult me with my typo or incorrect spelling. You need only look at your post to see that you too can make mistakes "improtant". Yet that is another subject. I mean this sincerely, it was nice talking with you. Good luck.

Posted by: Black Jack | May 31, 2008 7:22 PM

Pathetic.

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | May 31, 2008 7:10 PM

Black Jack - And here I thought maybe you were going to actually debate your position without lowering yourself into name-calling once again. Boy was I wrong.

I never said anything about the African community being snuckered into supporting a candidate just because he or (in the case of Hillary) she, appoints a black candidate. I said so long as she appoints either an experienced black candidate or, in Barack Obama's case, allowed him to gain more experience while serving as VP.

If you would rather vote for McCain even if Hillary had Barack Obama as his VP in order to gain more experience, or has a more experienced black to serve as her VP, then you are the one who appears to have lost his sanity.

At least I have been consistent all along in that experience is important for me. And I do not know of any female that is more experienced than Hillary Clinton, including Nancy Pelosi, who has only served as Speaker of the House for not even a year yet. Hillary has served over six years in the Senate and I believe all of that time she was on the foreign relations committee. Also, she has the added experiece of serving eight years as First Lady in the White House and knows all the things that Bill Clinton had to do in order to serve as President. I know of no other female Democrat that has that kind of experience, not including all her other earlier activism experience that adds to her 35 years of total experience.

Yes, I know that it is about changing America for the better, and I belive Hillary Clinton will change America for the better. She has the advantage of learning from Bill Clinton's mistakes and his successes and as a result, will make even a better President than Bill Clinton.

Yes, I can support McCain even if Obama selects a woman as his VP because Obama will not select a woman as experienced as Hillary Clinton as his VP. So my argument has not gone into lunny [sic - I think you meant "loony"] because I have been consistent that experience is extremely improtant to me. Barack Obama is the least experienced candidate.

If anything, your argument just proves that experience means nothing to you (and all other Obama supporters) which will hurt our party and the country as a result. If anything, your arguemnt is completely irrational, stereotypical and harmful. Blacks will support another black person if that person supports change compared to what the Democrats have given us in addition to having some real experience.

And in your words, but directed to you, "I thought I was debating against someone is rational," but now I see that you support Barack Obama no matter how irrational that support is. If you are truly "outta here," let's see if you really mean it.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 7:07 PM

InSearchofTruth, this clearly makes my case. You and the Clintons think that we can be snuckered into supporting a candidate just because he or (in the case of Hillary) she, appoints a Black, Latino, Asian, man, woman, gay or any other important demographic to the Democratic party to a high position. This is fundamentally the argument. It is not about a person getting a GD job, it is about changing America for the better. Yet, you can support McCain even if Obama selects a woman as his VP. Your argument has just gone into the lunny and it demonstrates that you are hurt and saddened that your candidate will not win. This is not about what is best for America for you, it is inextricably about getting Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States. Your arguments are completely irrational, stereotypical and harmful. Blacks will not support another black person if they are not in congruence with the needs, hopes and desires of other blacks. Blacks want the same thing that whites want, a strong economy, freedom from the tyranny of the state, hope and opportunity. Not a job for some (expletive) insider. Wow!!!! I thought I was debating against someone is rational.

This time I am outta here!!!

Posted by: Black Jack | May 31, 2008 6:50 PM

Black Jack:

I thought you had left. I do not believe African Americans would turn against Hillary Clinton if she would to appoint either an experienced black politician as her VP or even consider allowing Barack Obama to gain some experience by offering him the VP position. The fact is, Clinton supporters want the Florida and Michigan disaster FAIRLY and no 50/50 split would be fair when Hillary won those primaries.
More importantly, it appears that most African Americans are engaging in identity politics. If this is so, then Hillary would get their vote so long as she asked a black candidate to be her VP.

Let's be honest, would you vote against Hillary Clinton and in favor of John McCain if say Barack Obama or someone else, perhaps Harold Ford (of Tennesee) were asked to be her VP? Maybe there is a black general or high level retired military official she could consider as VP. Would you still vote against her if she had a black candidate on her ticket?

I will say this, I will vote for McCain even if Barack Obama gets a white woman (but less experienced than Hillary) as his VP.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 6:36 PM

InSearchofTruth - You are assuming that African-Americans, who would believe completely that they were cheated out of a historic event, would vote. If they do not vote and congressional members throughout the southeast, south and mid-west are defeated, then there will not be a filibuster proof Democratic congress. In fact, the Republicans will have a landslide victory. You can believe, if you'd like, that Obama voters would vote for Hillary as the "polls" indicate, but this is far, and I mean far, from the truth. To have victory snatched from our hands would not sit well with most Black and young voters. Hillary would be swimming against a most powerful current.

As I said earlier, if you are going to find an innocuous and silly reason to support someone who is completely against the values that both you and I hold near and dear to our heart, go right ahead. Just remember that you took the straight talk express directly into the gutter. I saw someone say that if you believe that Democrats will be able to hold off anything McCain supports, just remember these two words, "Ronald Reagan." So again, vote for McCain and have a phenomenal four years.

Posted by: Black Jack | May 31, 2008 6:24 PM

They look and sound just like the FL goons of 2000 who were called up by Texas phone call banks. Another disaster in November for the democrat party and their empty suit candidates who tell whoppers and don't even know basic facts about America.

Posted by: putupjob | May 31, 2008 6:24 PM

InSearchOfBS:

McCain won't lose if Clinton supporters make their protest vote and prove Obama wrong with his arrogant claim that Clinton voters will rollover and vote for him in November after all that has happened with regards to Florida and Michigan.

As for my being a Republican, you are way off base boy. I have supportered and contributed to numerous Democratic Senators. I have contributed and voted for Kerry, Gore, and clinton. But if you are willing to accuse me (and others) of being Republicans and risk us voting Republican and contributing to Republicans, be my guest.

All I know is that there is no way I can be a Republican if I support Roe v. Wade and opposed Bush's illegal wire tapping of U.S. Citizens. I also opposed the Iraq War as well, but I refuse to roll over and vote for a candidate whom broke the rules by airing t.v. campaign ads in Florida and refused to any revotes in Florida and Michigan.

I would rather punish the DNC and the Democratic party by giving Obama a pass when he breaks their rules and well as disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan in part or completely by voting for McCain. I noticed you refused to acknowledge that a filibuster-proof Democratic Congress will greatly weaken a McCain presidency by overriding every veto he casts. Why is that? Maybe you should take your BS and take it elsewhere.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 6:21 PM

InSearhOF...:

McCain, your boy, will lose big this fall. But hey, you're a Republican attempting to scam the Dems posting here. Your crooks have had the Congress from '94 to '06. Where the hell is the prosperity,
industry and progress your side promised us in 1994?

Posted by: InSearchOfBS | May 31, 2008 6:08 PM

Once again I find yet another Obama supporter who is incapable of debating and expressing his opinion without engaging in name calling. Fortunately for Black Jack, I will not lower myself to his level and call him petty and lame.

As I said, Clinton supporters, don't be afraid to vote for McCain as a protest vote because the filibuster-proof Democratic-controlled Congress will keep him in check by overriding every veto he casts!

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 6:08 PM

Black Jack,

And you are obviously an advocate for your candidate as well.

How is it hard to see how having a nationally televised ad that went into Florida can be classified as "campaigning" in Florida? I know many Floridians that consider it campaigning and every four years we have presidential election, candidates campaign on television by running political ads. If running political ads is not considered campaigning, then why do all presidential candidates do it? What would you consider political television ads to be if not a form of campaigning?

If anything, I see your defense of Barack Obama running t.v. ads that aired in Florida as on "shaky ground."

Once again, I see another Obama supporter ignoring the fact that the Democrats are going to gain larger majorities in Congress. If Congress gets its filibuster-proof majority, then Congress can override all of McCain's vetoes. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that? So yes, if it is between Obama and McCain, I will vote for the more experienced candidate, Senator McCain. Too bad Colin Powell (100% black as opposed to 50% black) isn't running, I would vote for him instead.

Voting for McCain won't hurt our country because we will have a filibuster-proof Democratic Congress that can override every veto he casts. A vote for McCain as a protest vote will be good for our party and our country and it will show those that it is bad for our country to vote for the more inexperienced candidate just because he's 1/2 black.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 6:03 PM

InSearchOfTruth, you are soooooooo petty and lame. This is not even worth the time to have a conversation with you. I would support Governor Kathleen Sebelius (Obama Supporter), Senator Diane Feinstein (Clinton Supporter) or any other woman in the Democratic party. Hillary has lost favor with many in my community. I am outta here.

Posted by: Black Jack | May 31, 2008 5:54 PM

Wow, lots of name-calling on this board. Maybe I was lucky that my chosen candidate was eliminated so early, or people might be screaming that if Chris Dodd is the nominee, they will certainly vote for McCain!

Well, I'm not voting for McCain, and I don't care if the Democratic party decides to compromise by nominating Mike Gravel as a unity candidate...

As for those who think McCain can't do any damage because the Dems will have a large majority in Congress, I have two words for you: Ronald Reagan.

Think for a moment about what that man did to the Supreme Court, take a deep breath, and vote Democratic.

Thank you.

Posted by: Ancient_Mariner | May 31, 2008 5:47 PM

InSearchOfTruth, you are obviously an advocate for your candidate. It is hard to see how having a nationally televised ad that went into Florida can be classified as "campaigning" in Florida. You can try as best you can to make your position the right position. Unfortunately, you and those who are similarly situated to you are standing on shaky ground, at best. You are standing in the way of history. Either vote for McCain or Obama. The choice is yours. Support someone who was for the Iraq war, against choice for women, for keeping Americans in Iraq for 100 years, admittedly, doesn't know much about economics, has hundreds of supporters and campaign workers who are affiliated with and lobbyists for dictatorial regimes, and on, and on, and on. Go ahead vote for McCain!!!

Posted by: Black Jack | May 31, 2008 5:37 PM

Jack Black - My only comment is that it is interesting how you didn't include "white" in your description of the type of woman you would vote for. So the list of description you gave, were they the description in the order of importance? e.g. 1. Black; 2. Brown; 3. Charcoal; 4. Powder Blue; 5. Any Color (maybe white can get tucked in there at the end)?

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 5:34 PM

It is interesting how Donna Brazile, a closet Obama supporter, who expressed how not following the rules is considered cheating. Unfortunately, I do not hear Ms. Brazille speaking out how Obama broke the rules by air political campaign ads on television in Florida, which was also a violation of the rules. Since he broke the rules, does that mean he's a cheater? I think so.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 5:29 PM

Hey, as a black man, I am prepared to vote for a woman, black, brown, charcoal, powder blue any color. Women are the bedrock of the family and I am fully supportive of their efforts toward equality in the work place and beyond. Like I said, I'll vote for a woman, but not this woman. Hillary and Bill have completely demolished their reputation in the black community and beyond. We now know what some Republicans were talking about!!!

Posted by: Jack Black | May 31, 2008 5:27 PM

Andi, Sweetie...Haven't you heard? Clinton supporters value experience over fluff and flowery speaking skills. We can see the bigger picture in that experience will come in handy for the person who ends up being elected President as well for the good of the country.

As a result, many of us are willing to vote for McCain for the fact that he is more experienced. However, to counter McCain, we will vote Democratic for those candidates running for Congress. As a result, it is my strong belief that Democrats will get their filibuster-proof majority, thereby making a McCain presidency weak. This will force McCain to compromise with the Democrats, or they will just run the government without McCain constantly overriding his vetoes.

So quit your fear-mongering about what McCain will do to the country because you are forgetting the fundraising advantage and positive name recognition that Democrats running for Congres have. As a result, a vote for McCain as a protest vote against the DNC/RBC and the mainstream media will do the Democratic Party some good, particularly if the DNC goes forward with disenfranchising in part or entirely the voters and the delegations of Michigan and Florida.

Hillary Supporters do not fear voting for McCain because the Democrats will override all of his vetoes if he refuses to work with the Democrats and compromise, this includes any Supreme Court Justices he may get the opportunity to nominate.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 5:12 PM

carolinagirl - Unfortunately for you, more Clinton supporters have said they would vote for McCain over Obama than Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 3:43 PM
-------------------------------------------
Sweetie...Haven't you heard? Obama supporters are more educated. We can see the bigger picture, the need to get Republicans out of the White House. Hillary supporters who help McCain get elected deserve what they will get when he wins.

Posted by: Andi | May 31, 2008 5:00 PM

DNC's spineless non-execution of the primary rules reminds me of the same pattern with our illegal immigration problems.

No wonder DNC strongly supports illegal immigration.

We should get rid of the Congress, IF laws are meant to be broken without consequences.

We should vote Dems out of the Congress, as they will turn our nation into lawless territory.

BTW, I am an Independent fed up with too much soap opera in this election.
I want issues to be the center of this election, not this ridiculous B.S.
Please join me and turn Independent.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 4:57 PM

If the DNC RBC does not count the votes and seat the entire delegations of Michigan and Florida, they will be disenfranchising the voters from both of those states. They will be sending a message to the people of those states (and other states) that the Democratic Party is willing to disenfranchise voters, causing many to vote Republican as a pro-test vote. The American people are familiar with divided governemnt and realize divided government will not harm our country and instead will keep both the Congress and the President in check of each other. So if the DNC RBC refuses to count all of the votes and seat the entire delegations of those two states, they do so at the Party's peril.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 4:54 PM

It's obvious from your posts that you're a GOP voter. Why bother with the Dems? Obama will be the nominee, and you will vote for McCain. You're white and and would nver vote for Obama. I will vote for Obama because he's the best individual who can win in '08 and because he is black. I vote identity politics just like you.

Posted by: tanaS | May 31, 2008 4:52 PM

Any attempt by the DNC to corrupt the political process by seating even ONE of the Michigan or Florida delegates is a hijacking of the process. It ought to be a crime. The rules were laid out before the primary season, and the Party made it clear that delegates must arise from elections held according to the schedule set by the Party in advance.

RULES ARE MEANT TO BE BROKEN

LAWS ARE MEANT TO BE BROKEN

These two statements, in different arenas, are essentially saying that agreements, whether the social contract of ethics, or party rules that guide our process, or laws by which our cities and states keep the social order, are merely "suggestions" not to be taken seriously.

Hillary Clinton is the favorite of many party insiders, many of whom are unwilling to play by the rules, in their pursuit of a Hillary candidacy, and favoritism. I hold in question their respect for the law.

This government of Men (and now certain Women), but not of laws is anti-American, anti-democratic and anti-Democratic. It is offensive to any lover of liberty, of the concept of law, and of our constitution. It is just unfair.

This abuse of power by our elected leaders and party bigwigs is as blatant as it is frustrating. What happened to
honesty in government, and pubic life? This is how the minority party, the Bolsheviks, took over Russia, by changing the rules when they lost the election, and this is why George W. Bush is in the White House today, messing with Florida after the game was over.

Why should anyone, particularly a minority candidate, believe in this government, when party leaders, black and white,
are willing to subvert the system in favor of a rich, influential white woman, who makes no secret of her contempt for the rules?

Shame on them all for even meeting today.


The way not to repeat the mistakes of 2000 in Florida, is to not break the rules.

What the DNC is trying to do, by monkeying with the vote, after the fact, reminds me of what the GOP and supreme court did in 2000, i.e., changing the rules, after the fact.

Voters in FL and MI were not disenfranchised, but they excluded themselves by holding a "primary" that broke the party rules, and now they want to cheat to FIX the nomination. Hillary agreed to the rules, but having lost the nomination to a black man, she wants to tilt the playing field, traditionally, in her favor.

Florida and Michigan delegates were not elected by the party's primary rules, and should not be seated.

Posted by: an honest man | May 31, 2008 4:32 PM

I want to congratulate the majority of Hillary Clinton supporters for the civility and logical explanation for supporting Hillary Clinton as opposed to far more Obama supporters who have engaged in name-calling and expressions of hate for those with whom they disagree. Please continue in supporting Hillary Clinton while keeping above the Obama hate-mongering fray such as the following post made by an Obama supporter:

I hate Hillary Clinton now and her supporters are idiots.

It's so clear to everybody with a brain that she agreed to everything, lost fair-and-square and is now trying the CHEAT to change the outcome and STEAL the nomination.

Which in Crazypants Hillaryland, makes Obama the bad guy! Becuase that makes so much sense and all.

Well, Obama is clearly the nominee, and you dumb sweaty Hillary heifers can stampede to the polls and vote for a third Bush term because your prefeered candidate lost. We don't care. The millions of new Dems Obama brought in will more than make up for your idiotic little tantrum.

Hillary can go rot, along with the Clinton legacy she and Bill have destroyed.

Posted by: moi | May 31, 2008 4:06 PM

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 4:30 PM

What a waste of time, effort, and money (Obama is the inevitable nominee) just to appease Hillary! She is an attention addict; feverishly fighting to get just one more fix!

All-or-nothing Hillary supporters claim they will defect and vote for McCain (or not vote at all) because Hillary is an also-ran!

Is Hillary a loyal Democrat or the head of a cult?

Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

http://klintons.com

Posted by: Bob | May 31, 2008 4:19 PM

Hillary supporters are the new 9/11 Conspiracy nuts. "Its been stolen", "Dean and Pelosi are fixing it", and on and on.

Just admit you lost and give it up. Cut the crap.

Posted by: TheGribbler | May 31, 2008 4:15 PM

Someone here refered to Obama as an experienced senator? He has not even finished his first term!

Posted by: Heather | May 31, 2008 4:14 PM

InSearchOfBS:
Hills wants the entire delegate count of Florida and Michigan. Now we know that Hills did not get 100% of the vote in either; therefore it would be disenfranchising the Uncommitted and Obama voters of Florida and Michigan. Care to comment?

Posted by: tanaS | May 31, 2008 4:14 PM

Sherry creid, "CAN HILLARY CREATE A NEW POLITICAL PARTY TO REPRESENT THE WOMEN AND WORKING CLASS IN THE GENERAL ELECTION? MILLIONS OF VOTERS HOPE SO."
________

LOL!

Hey dingbat - Obama leads Democratic women and blue collar voters nationally. The entire country isn't between the Mississippi River and Appalachia, you know.

We are so tired of your imaginary victimhood. Women of course have not been remotely ignored in this election except that a woman lost. Deal with it. You are making women look very stupid and shrill.

So do your worst, new Republican. Try to cut your nose off to spite your face by voting for an ACTUAL sexist and oppressive political party. But you'll still lose. Your angry white woman and hillbilly coaltion is nothing.


Posted by: Shawn | May 31, 2008 4:13 PM

David S. Robins:

For your information, I am not menopausal (and I'm college-educated) so your description of Clinton supporters is inaccurate. Also, explan how Obama engaged in "effective" campaigning by being permitted to air television ads in Florida before the Florida's primary? To me, that sounds like Obama was breaking the rules but got a pass from the DNC for there mere fact that he was biracial or 1/2 black. What other reason would the DNC allow Barack Obama to air "nation-wide" television ads that aired in Florida?Instead of "effective" campaigning, it sounds like cheating to me, unfortunately Florida voters recognized his cheating and voted in larger part for Clinton. Now Obama wants to not count all the votes and seat the Florida delegation in its entirety.

Instead of worrying about Hillary think she's entitled to the Democratic Nomination, maybe you ought to consider that Barack Obama thinks he's "entitled" the nominee as a result of affirmative action on the part of the DNC (and the media) by giving him too many free passes.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 4:10 PM


I hate Hillary Clinton now and her supporters are idiots.

It's so clear to everybody with a brain that she agreed to everything, lost fair-and-square and is now trying the CHEAT to change the outcome and STEAL the nomination.

Which in Crazypants Hillaryland, makes Obama the bad guy! Becuase that makes so much sense and all.

Well, Obama is clearly the nominee, and you dumb sweaty Hillary heifers can stampede to the polls and vote for a third Bush term because your prefeered candidate lost. We don't care. The millions of new Dems Obama brought in will more than make up for your idiotic little tantrum.

Hillary can go rot, along with the Clinton legacy she and Bill have destroyed.

Posted by: moi | May 31, 2008 4:06 PM

CAN HILLARY CREATE A NEW POLITICAL PARTY TO REPRESENT THE WOMEN AND WORKING CLASS IN THE GENERAL ELECTION? MILLIONS OF VOTERS HOPE SO.
The DNC has made it clear that they have a nominee that represents blacks and college kids and that they don't care about women and working class voters. Obama's supporters have made that abundantly clear in their comments to these blogs. What hasn't yet dawned on women and working folks is that the democratic party no longer represents their interests - which means a new political party has splintered off from the democrats - a working class and women party to be exact. Hillary Clinton represents that constituency. Since the democrats will not be able to convince these voters - the ones that Obama has blatantly and consistently insulted - to accept the lesser of 2 evils - McCain vs. Obama - they will either change parties or vote for the lesser of 2 evils - McCain. The DNC has forced a split in the party - by its reckless disregard for women and working class voters - thank God Hillary is there to represent them.

Posted by: Sherry | May 31, 2008 4:00 PM

tanaS:

Me and my "ilk"? I love how you incapable of debating and expressing your opinions on here without attacking others with whom you disagree. Have I attacked you? No.

As for your arrogant "anaysis" that I "really don't oppose one of the best educated and, yes, experienced members of Congress because he is a freshman Senator. You oppose him because he is gifted, educated and black." You are a mistaken.

For instance, if Colin Powell, with all the experience he has were running for President, I would vote for him whether he was a Democrat or even a Republican. So how can you accuse me of being a racist when I am willing to vote for someone who is as experienced as Colin Powell?

The fact is, Barack Obama may be highly intelligent and is college educated, but he does lack the kind of experience to run for President. How long has he served in the Senate? What 2-3 years? That's not even one complete term. How manh votes has he voted "Present" in the Senate as well as the Chicago Statehouse? Quite a lot from what I hear.

Instead, you sound like you are the racist one in that you are willing to vote for an inexperienced person for the mere fact that he is Black. Vote for the black inexperienced candidate over the white experienced woman. In practically your words, "don't give some diversionary reason other that than you don't want a white woman president, and why you are willing to vote an inexperienced candidate for the mere fact that he is an intelligent, well-spoken BLACK man.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 3:56 PM

carolinagirl - Unfortunately for you, more Clinton supporters have said they would vote for McCain over Obama than Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 3:43 PM

cboy08 - No, but the DNC Rules allowed for revotes. Howard Dean was going to agree to a primary revote (whether it was a mail-in revote or not) so long as the Obama and Clinton campaigns agreed. The Clinton campaign agreed and even agreed to raise 1/2 the amount of the cost for the revote in both states, but the Obama campaign refused. Barack Obama realized that he was in a much stronger position by not having a revote than having one. That is what I blame Barack Obama for, the fact that he didn't want a revote and instead would rather disenfranchise voters from both Michigan and Florida initially.

Now, he wants the DNC RBC to vote to allow the Florida delegation in such away that discounts Hillary's win and allow him to be the winner of the Democratic Nomination, ignoring the fact that he was given a pass by being the ONLY Democratic candidate allowed to air political campaign ads on television in Florida. How is that fair of Barack Obama? The fact is, it isn't fair and it shows how Barack Obama will do anything to be president, even support the disenfranchisement of voters.

By the way, insulting Clinton supporters doesn't help your cause. There are many of us, including myself, whom are college-educated and highly intelligent voters who prefer a more experienced candidate to become president as opposed to an inexperienced candidate. If that means voting for McCain as a protest vote because he has more experience than Barack Obama, then so be it.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 3:24 PM

"I don't understand Hillary supporters. You are all either ignorant or just plain stupid. How can you blame Obama for what happened in Mich and Fl? "

obama promised that he would seat the fl and mich,,, now he fights it, and he fought a revote too.

he's pondscum

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 3:23 PM

If Obama is not the nominee, I will hold my breath until November and then vote for McCain. WAIT. . . Obama is the nominee so I won't have to make a fool of myself. Thank Goodness!!

Posted by: carolinagirl | May 31, 2008 3:21 PM

I wonder if Hillary's protestors know 100% of Hillary's people voted to sanction MI and FL? Do they wonder why Hillary never spoke up to count their votes until Hillary was looooosing? Hillary has been caught telling her husband, "Screw the public, they don't know anything." I wonder who she was talking about? Her wonderful supporters, of course! :)

Posted by: Andi | May 31, 2008 3:17 PM

I don't understand Hillary supporters. You are all either ignorant or just plain stupid. How can you blame Obama for what happened in Mich and Fl? Obama did not try to move up the primary dates. The republican party in Fl sent up the bill to move up the dates. And the Dems you elected in Fl voted for it to pass, along with the republicans. So where do you all get off blaming Obama. And it is the DNC bylaws that say if rules are broken, the most you can get is half the delegate count. But you and your candidate want to break those rules also. I hope it is just ignorance of the system and how it works on your part. But it's starting to look like you all are just stupid!

Posted by: cboy08 | May 31, 2008 3:16 PM

Some GOP voters, pretending to care about Hillary's woes,cast the charge of racism if black voters vote for a black candidate. Such identity politics have always been part of American politics. The German immigrants voted for their own. The Irish voted for, of course, Irish politicians. Italians, in the 1930s voted for the 'Little Flower' or LeGuardia for mayor of New York. Now when blacks vote for Obama, some whites, see identity voting as racist. Such critics are referring their racism onto black voters. Because I vote for a black candidate - I am black- doesn't mean I'm a racist; but if I would not vote for a white candidate because he's white THEN I would be a racist. So you racists may pull purely fantasy charges against Obama as a reason you will vote for McCain, the real reason is that you do not want a black politician to be President.

Posted by: tanaS | May 31, 2008 3:13 PM

I voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry in the past presidential elections. I have donated money to Democratic candidates in the past decade. However, if the RBC of the DNC rules unfairly by not restoring the full votes and delegations of both states, thereby disinfranchising voters from these two states, then I will no longer donate to the Democrats during this election season and I will vote for McCain as my protest vote as to what has been going on.

I will still vote Democratic for Congressional and local positions to help keep McCain in check if he were win the presidency, thus weakening his presidency. But I will still vote for McCain as a protest vote if the DNC basically gives this election to Barack Obama by giving him a pass on his airing television ads in Florida and then allow the Florida votes and delegation to only be reinstated in part to Obama's liking as well as reinstating the Michigan votes and delegation to Obama's liking as well.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 3:04 PM

to watch an unedited, uncut interview with a member of the DNC RBC committee please link below:

http://thevote.abc13.com/2008/05/gonzalez-uncu-1.html

Posted by: tomabrahams | May 31, 2008 3:03 PM

Did you see Rep. Robert Wexler's lame non-answer in response to Tina Flournoy's questions "would you oppose full resotoration of Florida's entire delegation with a full vote?" and "So you would not oppose full votes, full delegation?"

Rep. Wexler also refused to answer the another the question posed to him by DNC Rules Committee Member Alice Huffman "Why would that be disunity" to reinstate Florida's entire delegation and full vote? "Why if we were to vote" [to allow the reinstatement of the entire Florida delegation, why this would be disunity be the Democratic Party]?

This Obama guy is a master of obfuscation and apparently prefers the DNC Rules Committee to treat Democrats the same way the Republicans treated their Florida Republican voters.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 2:53 PM

Count My Vote, or I'll vote McCain!!!

Posted by: Scott D | May 31, 2008 2:44 PM

Did you see Rep. Robert Wexler's lame non-answer in response to Tina Flournoy's questions "would you oppose full resotoration of Florida's entire delegation with a full vote?" and "So you would not oppose full votes, full delegation?"

Rep. Wexler also refused to answer another the question posed to him by another member on "how reinstating Florida's entire delegation and full vote would be disunity to the Democratic Party?"
This Obama guy is a master of obfuscation!

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 2:41 PM

It's no surprise there are a lot of menopausal women out there demonstrating in favor of changing the rules at the last minute to the benefit of Hillary Clinton. Like Hillary herself, these gals are sexist and cranky. Older women going through change of life often get that way. They also expect special treatment all the time claiming that Hillary is "entitled" to be the nominee. Well, fortunately, in America it doesn't work that way. Nominees earn their positions by hard and effective campaigning. That's why Barack Obama will be the nominee and the next President.

Posted by: David S. Robins | May 31, 2008 2:39 PM

InSearchOfTruth:
You and your ilk really don't oppose one of the best educated and, yes, experienced members of Congress because he is a freshman Senator. You oppose him because he is gifted, educated and black. Vote for the white candidate; don't give some diversionary reason other that than you don't want a black President.

Posted by: tanaS | May 31, 2008 2:32 PM

Put this in your favorites and check frequently.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 2:21 PM

I am so proud of them for speaking out that the DNC should count their votes. I am just disappointed that I did not see any signs pointing out that Barack Obama did have the advantage of airing television campaign ads in Florida, whereas Hillary Clinton did not have the luxury. I am so tired of reading about and seeing Barack Obama supporters (the DNC/RBC and the media) ignore that fact. Instead these people and the media have given Barack Obama a free pass by allowing him to air television ads in Florida and yet say that he did not campaign in Florida. Such statements are lies being told to the American people!

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | May 31, 2008 2:12 PM

I too will vote for McCain for a whole host of reasons. Unfair campaign - he won most states and a majority of delegates.He keeps his cool - which makes us Hillary supporters so mad.He wants the DNC not to accept Hillary's math like 1+1=12. Also he is black; many of us Hillary supporters figure that since he's black he MUST be racist. See our logic?

Posted by: tanaS | May 31, 2008 2:12 PM

Why did Michigan and Florida Democrat leaders got us into this mess in the first place? They should be fired, to begin with. It's rather unfair that Clinton had agreed to disregard those state results, and later wished to change the rules.

Posted by: Tina | May 31, 2008 2:08 PM

I am a Florida voter who voted for Clinton. I demand my vote be counted in full. Like most FL voters, I was not able to attend the protest since like most FL voters I have a job and responsibilities which do not allow me to uproot and jump on a plane. Any way I wish all of us could have been there and I appreciate the efforts of others on my behalf.

Rules are meant to be broken if they serve to screw over voters. Every vote must be counted OR ELSE...imagine the repercussions. Obama has already damaged his image severely by thwarting the voters. I believe Obama has already lost by his own actions.

Posted by: Nexxus7 | May 31, 2008 2:04 PM

Even if Hillary got everything she wants (and doesn't deserve) she would still be behind in delegates. She still won't get the nomination. Go home, Hillary and take all 25 of your illiterate supporters with you.

Posted by: GoHome | May 31, 2008 1:54 PM

This protest is so lame. If they can only get a few hundred people to demonstrate for her in June, imagine how successful their efforts to stop Obama will be in Novemeber. NOT!

Posted by: freerider | May 31, 2008 1:52 PM

Hillary supporters are such losers. Now if they would only learn how to lose gracefully!

Posted by: carolinagirl | May 31, 2008 12:51 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company