Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

All the Way to the Convention?

By Perry Bacon Jr.
SUNRISE, Fla. -- Campaigning in Florida, Hillary Clinton again said she would not leave the race until there is some resolution to the impasse about the seating of delegates in Florida and Michigan.

In an interview with the Associated Press on Wednesday, Clinton was asked whether she would support Florida and Michigan if there is not an agreement on seating their delegates to the convention.

"Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this," Clinton said.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee is expected to rule on allowing superdelegates from Michigan and Florida as well as their so-called pledged delegates to participate. Clinton aides declined to say exactly what would be a satisfactory resolution, but they have been supportive of the proposals by DNC members to offer Michigan and Florida half of the delegates they otherwise have received, still leaving in place a punishment for the two states holding their primaries early. The Republican National Committee took a similar approach.

The Obama campaign says it is also looking to resolve this issue but the two sides have not reached an agreement. Many Democratic officials believe that committee is likely to resolve this issue and seat the delegations in some way, in part because Obama may emerge with enough of a lead by May 31 that seating the delegates won't affect the final outcome.

"She hopes this will be resolved by June 3 and will take stock of the situation then," said Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee. "She has said many time she hopes we have a nominee before the convention but she is prepared to go to the convention if we don't."

By Web Politics Editor  |  May 21, 2008; 5:24 PM ET
Categories:  Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Douglass Joins Obama Campaign
Next: McEntee Doubts Obama

Comments

Can we possibly fathom Obama doing the same thing if he was in Clinton's position? NOT! Because he is not a Clinton! Please let's stand up to her, show her we are strong and can fight too! I'm tired of the party being bullied by Clinton!

Even if she somehow steals the nomination from Obama, her latest sexism allegation has probably alienated enough male and female voters that she would lose in November.

Posted by: Cindy | May 23, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

We criticize Bush for his obsession on staying the course in Iraq. Yet we commend Clinton for her obsessive "not giving up" on her failed bid for the nomination. I say failed because she is toast. As both of the characters above appear flawed in denying reality, they shouldn't have or be President.

Posted by: Mike | May 22, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FROM INFORMED DEMOCRATS TO DNC

To: DNC Members
From: Informed Democrats
Re: Understanding of Florida Primary Rule Violations
Date: Until Michigan and Florida are Seated

Dear Governor Dean & Esteemed DNC Members,

STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING: As an informed Democrat, I am seeking to understand when will, we, Democratic voters see true equity in the Democratic Presidential Primary race?

RULES OF UNDERSTANDING: According to the rules of the Florida Democratic Presidential Primary, agreed to by all Democratic Presidential Primary candidates, no Democratic candidate was to advertise in Florida prior to the Florida primary.

FACTS OF UNDERSTANDING: Senator Barack Obama purchased national cable advertising and advertised HEAVILY in the State of Florida prior to the January presidential primary.

REQUEST OF OUTCOME BASED ON UNDERSTANDING: When will Senator Barack Obama and his campaign receive written (and publicized) notification he is; therefore, disqualified from receiving ANY of the delegates he and his campaign are seeking when Florida is ultimately seated, based on he and his campaign's failure to follow DNC rules?

EQUITY IN UNDERSTANDING: As a lifelong, Informed Democrat I know and understand you and the esteemed members of the DNC will do everything in your power to make an equitable decision in this matter, with liberty and justice for all.

THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING INFORMED DEMOCRATS REQUEST: Thank you in advance for the time and attention you and the esteemed members of the DNC have and will give to this matter, because we know you and the members, hold that all men and women are related equal in DNC decision-making. Right?

THE ONLY UNDERSTANDABLE OUTCOME: Seat Michigan and Florida, as they are currently counted, and award the only Democratic candidate who can win in November the nomination-Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Why embarrass the Democratic Party any further by awarding the nomination to the media created Manchurian Candidate Obama and wait for the Republicans and the 529 to unload to the world Obama's unelectable dirty laundry: Antoin Rezko, William Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Iraqi born Aiham Alsammarae, the former electricity minister convicted of corruption in Iraq and his deal with Obama and Rezko to build nuclear power plants in Iraq-a nation we are currently at war?

Democratically Yours,


Informed Democrat

Posted by: Informed Democrat | May 22, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary wants to hold hostage the process and the processors until it's too late for her Party to recover.

The healing needs to begin NOW.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

HRC insists on having her way no matter what. We all knew that this was going to the convention, the very moment she announced. She used sexism to punish her husband's girlfriends, and now she saying that sexism is the reason people don't want her to be our president.

SNIPER FIRE!

Posted by: CC | May 22, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is not a true feminist. It's laughable to say she's some kind of feminist icon/trail blazer. She only became a serious presidential candidate because of her husband. She decided to stay with him, and endured a very public humiliation, all in order to have her own political career.

Feminist ideology on the subject of relationships is that women do not put up with philandering nonsense from the men in their lives. Yet Hillary chose to put up with same, tolerate same, and even enable same.

There will be a woman president someday. Whether that woman is Hillary Clinton remains to be seen. She may well run in the future, but it also remains to be seen how much excitement there will be among Democrats if she ran again in 2012 or 2016. She and Bill have aroused such animosity that it's hard to believe she will be a presumptive front-runner as she was this time around.

Posted by: Jackson | May 22, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

CLINTON AND CAPITULATION

It is NOT OVER until someone crosses the threshold in required delegates. Until then, the process should be allowed to proceed.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-and-capitulation.html

It would be undemocratic to do otherwise.

Posted by: PacificGatePost | May 22, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Rafael:

Calm down -- breathe -- she is not seeking to change the rules, but rather one specific and preliminary "ruling" that took away 100% of the delegates when the RULES provide for a 50% penalty. If she objects to the May 31st decision by the Rules Committee, she is entitled to appeal the decision to the Credentials Committee. If she wants to take the fight all the way to the Convention floor, she can do that too. All of that is "following the rules" already in place.

Ted Kennedy took the fight to the Conventional floor and he was 800 delegates behind Carter. That didn't "ruin" the Democratic Party, did it?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

SHE IS GOING TO RUIN OUR PARTY..SHE HAS HAD EVERY PASS GIVEN AND SHE IS NOW TAKING ADVANTAGE OF BEING A WOMEN i'AM NOT A SEXIST BUT SHE IS NOW PLAYING THAT CARD AND HOPE IT BACK FIRES NOW .HER POSITION SHE'S GOING TO DIVIDE US

Posted by: Rafael | May 21, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least its clear that Hillary is totally insane now, not just "going crazy", but fully "Bonkersville".

Howard Dean is worth less than lint in my pocket.

DNC in broken, and RNC is corrupt.

Canada invade quickly please!

Posted by: Jared | May 21, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Democrat for Life! | May 21, 2008 7:29 PM

To all TRUE Democratic Supporters and OBAMA supporters....go to the website of the DNC and let them know exactly how you feel about them stealing the nomination away from Mr. Obama.

------ Obama is only "playing by the rules" because those rules are working in his favor. If he was behind in votes, he would have convinced the DNC to have a revote in those states. That's the way politics works.

Posted by: Jason | May 21, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous at 7:59 PM:

That post was directed to "whatmereigster" -- explaining how I did not level a personal attack at him/her -- and, I am not leaving.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

ash:

True -- but what matters (obviously for effective enforcement) is whether the rest of us agree that is an appropriate State power -- even libertarians have to use common-sense once in a while ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Jaked..

Why did you stupidly stir up a hornet's nest if you can't stand getting stung? LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Good night (I will note that "stupidly" stirring up a hornets' next is not a personal attack either)

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Bad parents who have their children taken away by force often disagree with the state's power to do so.

Posted by: ash | May 21, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

The playing field in FL was level with both candidates on the ballot, neither campaigning, and the voters turning out in good faith. It should be treated as a legitimate primary for convention purposes. Anything less would be undemocratic.

Posted by: John | May 21, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Thanks for the well-wishes. Good luck with the whole gay marriage/abortion thing. I am happy to live in a state where the government's power is severely limited as per our constitution :-)

Posted by: ash | May 21, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else out there disagrees with the power of the State to TAKE AWAY children from careless parents by force of law?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that your mother was your slave!

Posted by: To whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

That last unsigned post was mine. Again, good evening to all.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

"Divorce is ruining marrige." Yeah and guns don't kill people, bullets do.

Posted by: JR | May 21, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: "You will note that I never resorted to personal attacks against you. Have a nice life."

Earlier, in response to my post that a 50-50 split of Florida and Michigan's delegates was the fairest recourse for the DNC to adopt, you said, "P.S. Refusing to seat any Florida or Michigan delegates (or, just as **stupidly**, a meaningless 50-50 Clinton-Obama split) will be the best way to GUARANTEE that Hillary takes the issue all the way to the Convention."

Sorry, but in calling my suggestion stupid (which, of course, it isn't) you imply that I'm stupid. But go ahead and pretend to be thin-skinned if it helps you run from an argument you're obviously losing. It doesn't change the fact that wanting to outlaw the pill in order to protect unimplanted fertilized embryos is plainly nuts. Or "stupid," to use your preferred term.

In any case, I have a long drive home. I appreciate the debate, since it helps me hone my position, which is always a good thing. Helps keep the mind sharp. Good evening.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

ash:

Thanks for the answer. Have a nice life.

Megan:

Yes, and just imagine if there were actually MEN on Andrea Yates' jury?!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister:

No, actually, because one way I could be "more wrong" would be if the analogy was irrelevant AND the underlying premise i.e. a State can force a parent to take the child for medical treatment through the bone marrow registry) was incorrect statement of the law. That's why I asked. Thanks for the clarification now (not sure why that has to be like pulling teeth). You can rest assured that will be the last question I ever ask of you.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute JakeD, I voted for Obama three million times so that means he has the most votes of any candidate in history.

I'm not sure if they are going to be counted but it doesn't matter since I voted.

JR

Posted by: JR | May 21, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Of course murdering children is wrong. The difference between us is that you believe *human* life begins at conception. I don't. Thus, what you consider the murder of a child is not what I consider to be infanticide.

ps, My husband is a prosecutor for child welfare. We are strong advocates of children. It's just that we prefer to put our efforts into helping children that are in the world, not two-celled organisms.

Posted by: a | May 21, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Two men taking about what a woman can and can't do with their body.

Posted by: Megan | May 21, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Walter L. Johnson:

1) As long as there are brain tumors in the world, she has a chance of winning.

2) I actually agree with this one.

3) 17,639,952 votes (the most any primary candidate has ever gotten in U.S. history) is hardly my definition of "shallow" -- I hope most of those supporters do write-in her name -- there's nothing stronger than a massive group of lemmings going over the cliff.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: "Well, whatmeregister, I thought I was doing that, but obviously not so well -- it's fine if you don't want to answer my questions though -- I will try one last question: are you saying the State can, or cannot, force a parent to take a BORN child for medical treatment through the bone marrow registry (you said I couldn't be more wrong about that)?"

No, try re-reading what I wrote. I said you couldn't be more wrong on saying that "a more relevant analogy would be that the State can force a parent to take the child for medical treatment through the bone marrow registry." It's not analogous at all.

To restate: "You couldn't be more wrong. Again, the state forcing a parent to get treatment for a child is legitimate, since the child has rights as an individual. If a fetus is not yet viable (that is,if it cannot survive as an individual). neither it nor the state has a right to usurp another individual's body to continue to exist. You keep missing this very important and stark distinction. I'm not sure if it's deliberate, or that you simply cannot grasp it, but it's there and it's plain to see."

My answer to your question is plain, is it not? Why you think that repeating it and ignoring my earlier response will somehow elicit a new and more rebuttable one is beyond me. You either believe that an individual's right to physical inviolability is essential to freedom or you don't. And if you do, then to wish to constrain that right as it applies to WOMEN ONLY by making abortion illegal is plainly an anti-woman position. Period.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

ash:

The First Amendment protects your right to advocate against "my ilk" and I would strongly defend your right to do so : )

Maybe we can simply agree that the murder of BORN children is wrong?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton with her talk of a National Convention fight is only showing three things.

1) She has a weak grasp of facts, which explains why she never read the report used to justify the Iraq invasion. No political analyst thinks she has a chance of winning and her continuing hostility eliminates her chance at a Vice Presidential slot and probably as a Senate leader.

2) Women can be as much SOB's as men. Women politicians are just as aggressive as male politicians in going all out to win in politics or business.

3) Clinton's support is very shallow, since if polls are to be believed, her voters will not accept her recommendation to vote for Obama when he wins. That suggests her supporters are dependent in one degree or another on transfer income from federal tax revenue. They are voting only on what they perceive as their self-interest, rather than the party's interest or the national interest.

Posted by: Walter L. Johnson | May 21, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Democrat for Life!

Have you seen this website?

http://democratsforlife.org/

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You're an extremist and I'm happy to be working hard against your ilk. The tide is changing and women would revolt if their right to do as they wish with their uterus was taken away.

Posted by: ash | May 21, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister:

You will note that I never resorted to personal attacks against you. Have a nice life.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Ash and whatmeregister,

Jake uses his intellect to talk in circles and as soon as you start to make a valid point he drags a stinky red herring across the argument. Basically just changes the subject slightly to address something else. Thereby ducking and not addressing an issue that you got him over a barrel on.

He really isn't worth your time. You both want him to address one topic and to admit he is wrong once you have destroyed his arguments (which you have repeatedly done), but he will not do that.

Nice to see you challenging him and to see him exercise more than his usual outspoken bigoted tripe, but he holds onto his beliefs and uses intellectual discourse to deflect different perspective to avoid reassessing his own internal inconsistencies.

Posted by: Mike in Sac | May 21, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Vance McDaniel:

Your welcome.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

To all TRUE Democratic Supporters and OBAMA supporters....go to the website of the DNC and let them know exactly how you feel about them stealing the nomination away from Mr. Obama. You can communicate directly to them. Mr. Obama has played by the rules and to steal the nomination from him just to crown the Clintons is an act of cowardness and weakness of our Party. I urge all Obama supporters to go to this website. They will actually respond to you. The website is http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues. See you guys at the Convention in August. Democrat for Life!

My email is listed below: Keep up the good fight Obama Supporters...we'll all get through this...just keep your eyes on the prize...Luv Ya!

All of my family members and myself have been lifelong democrats and we have always committed ourselves to the needs and successes of the Democratic Party. We supported President Bill Clinton during his impeachment days and have always stuck with the Democratic party through the good times and the bad times. We have several generations of Democrats in our family and have NEVER crossed the party lines. As an African American female, I am totally appalled and hurt with the trickery and abuse that the "Democratic Powerhouses - The Clintons" are doing and continue to do to Mr. Barak Obama. Mr. Obama has played by the party rules, he sought out to win the most pledged delegates because he knew that was the rule of the DNC in order to win the nomination. The Clintons have under-estimated Mr. Obama's brillance, determination, and dedication to the DNC Party and now have posiitoned themselves in a a way to overthrow the will of the People and the Party while the leaders in the DNC stand idly by and watch. I will agree that Mr. Obama have withstood the harsh rhetoric and character assasination brought on by the Clintons, their surrogates, and supporters but this have probably made Mr. Obama a stronger candidate. However, it is now time to cut the cord on all of this nonsense, sit the Clintons down, and let them know in no uncertain terms that Mr. Obama has played by the DNC rules and have obtained the majority of the pledge delegates and it's now time to win back the White House. The more the leaders of the DNC stand idley by because they are afraid to go against the Clinton Machine is a sign of cowardness and weakness..and I certainly hope that is not the type of party that my family and I have supported though many years. I hope that you do not allow Hillary and her campaign to continue to divide the party and use the rhetoric against the party just to clench the nomination. I, as a Democrat hope that you don't take the nomination from Mr. Obama just to appease the Clintons. I would expect that Florida and Michigan who didn't play by the rules be punished as the DNC pledgd to do at the onset of the primary race. If you have to seat them, then I would hope that you do what the Republicans did and take 50% of the delegates away and do not seat either state as they voted. I have Democratic family members in both Michiganand Florida that followed the rules and did not vote because they felt that their vote would not count. Therefore you would be disenfranchizing all of those voters in Florida and Michigan that followed the rules, stayed home and didn't vote because they thought that their votes won't count. To try and appease the Clintons with a back room deal would be of great disservice to the democratic voters who trusted your system and supports Mr. Obama. I look forward to your response and an answer of how the DNC plans to move forward with the nomination of Mr. Barak Obama. Thank you very much for allowing me to voice my concerns.

Posted by: Democrat for Life! | May 21, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Well, whatmeregister, I thought I was doing that, but obviously not so well -- it's fine if you don't want to answer my questions though -- I will try one last question: are you saying the State can, or cannot, force a parent to take a BORN child for medical treatment through the bone marrow registry (you said I couldn't be more wrong about that)?

If I can't even clarify what you are saying, though, I think I'll stick with "ash" for now. It is clear that you've made up your mind, just as I have mine. And, while you graciously "recognize" the State has the right to protect unborn life after viability, that sure seems hollow to me when you turn right around and use the mother's "right to personal physical inviolability" to trump any effective means of protection. It also does not address the advances in medical technology since Roe v. Wade. We are saving the lives of incredibly pre-mature babies now a days -- maybe someday when medical technology finally catches up with our morality, you will admit that you were wrong -- hopefully, for instance, we will soon be able to transplant one-day old embryos. Then we can outlaw abortion forever and not be accused of being anti-women.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Jake D..

Once again, you fuel my script witting. I love this place. So much material!

Gays will Marry
Divorce will remain legal
A womans right to choose will be protected.

Oh, Jake D. as to ABORTION.. I have no problem calling it ABORTION... Want something harsher? FETUS MURDER? BABY KILLING?

Whatever definition make sit seem the worst to you is fine by me.

IT SHOULD BE LEGAL... It should no be a form of birth control, and people should try to avoid it at all cost.

BUT LEGAL IT SHOULD REMAIN.

Had I been aborted, much the same as when I die. I wont know the difference.

Harsh? Perhaps... Ce La VIE... or death as it were.

Now, will someone tell Hillary, "Great Job, but it's time to move on. "

Posted by: Vance McDaniel | May 21, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: "Of course (unless it could be shown to ONLY reduce the chances for ovulation but be completely safe for a fertilized embryo otherwise)."

My God. You actually believe that a fertilized embryo has some sort of right to implantation? And that that right should supercede the ability to obtain safe and effective birth control for literally millions of women? Now I know you're nuts.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Pray look better, Sen. Clinton. Those things yonder are no giants, but windmills.

Posted by: Sancho | May 21, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Same reason I do not think there can be any SECULAR opposition to condoms for married couples.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

"I agree that the State cannot compel a parent to donate bone marrow to a born child for a transplant -- but, that's not what I'm talking about here -- a more relevant analogy would be that the State can force a parent to take the child for medical treatment through the bone marrow registry."

You couldn't be more wrong. Again, the state forcing a parent to get treatment for a child is legitimate, since the child has rights as an individual. If a fetus is not yet viable (that is,if it cannot survive as an individual). neither it nor the state has a right to usurp another individual's body to continue to exist. You keep missing this very important and stark distinction. I'm not sure if it's deliberate, or that you simply cannot grasp it, but it's there and it's plain to see.

JakeD: "Of course, we are talking about a unique situation within the mother's womb until viability (I assume you are not O.K. with the State forcing a mother to undergo a C-section to remove a viable fetus?), so any analogy fails at some point."

Once a fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb (whether or not it actually IS ouside the womb at that point), it has the right to life. The Supreme Court recognized this as far back as Roe v. Wade: viability = an individual with rights. And for the record, if a fetus is viable and the mother is taking actions (drug or alcohol use, for example) that unquestionably will cause harm to her unborn child, the state does have a right to protect that child, since it IS a viable being.

JakeD: "If the State can force a mother to nourish and keep BORN babies safe -- or take him/her away -- then my argument is the State can force a mother to nourish and keep UNBORN babies safe."

The first case does not impinge on the individual's right to personal physical inviolability; the second plainly does. Granting the state the right to force women to involuntarily provide their bodies for uses they do not approve of is, again, a form of state slavery. And again, no clever rhetoric can change that fact.

JakeD: "Let me guess, you are upset with Laci and Connor Peterson's Law or any attempt to prosecute mothers who abuse drugs and accidentally kill their own kids?"

You are conflating abortion with other issues such as infanticide and involuntary feticide. Again, could you stop trying to drag other subjects into this and address how making abortion illegal is not anti-woman? Thank you.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

ash:

Of course (unless it could be shown to ONLY reduce the chances for ovulation but be completely safe for a fertilized embryo otherwise).

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

P.S. -- I do not you think I make my "argument" weaker when I use the most extreme analogy available -- especially since some "philosophers" are advocating birth control to actually include euthanasia of up to two-year old BORN children. Partial-birth abortion was actually WORSE, morally, than leaving a newborn on the curb (at least on the curb there's some chance for survival).

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Yes, yes JakeD, I know all of this. A mega-dosage of the pill can be arrived at by taking more than the normal prescribed dosage. Since that possibility exists, wouldn't individuals like you, who are against abortion, want to make the pill illegal to avoid women self medicating, thereby preventing the implantation of an zygote?

Posted by: ash | May 21, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Mrs Clinton is using her whip to make Senator Obama to EARN every vote.

Her psiquiatry must remains her that Senator Obama is not the one who ask for oral sx from monica lewinsky.

The convention is a threat of:
I will Lynch senator Obama if he does not comply with my wishes.

Posted by: alma ludivina | May 21, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"The Pill" is a combination of an estrogen (oestrogen) and a progestin (progestogen), taken by mouth to inhibit normal female fertility. This usually works by the prevention of ovulation, and if there's no egg to fertilize, there can be no secular objection that I am aware of. As you may, or may not, know -- a secondary mechanism of "The Pill" (and why mega-doses of "The Pill" are used as emergency birth control) make implantation of a fertilized egg more difficult due to endometrial effects. Pro-life groups therefore consider such a mechanism to be abortifacient. Perhaps you've heard of some babies who actually do survive all of that and are born even though women are using "The Pill"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

P.S. -- I have not relied on any Biblical injunctions and other religious "appeals to authority".

I will be right back re: The Pill, ash ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I agree that the State cannot compel a parent to donate bone marrow to a born child for a transplant -- but, that's not what I'm talking about here -- a more relevant analogy would be that the State can force a parent to take the child for medical treatment through the bone marrow registry. Of course, we are talking about a unique situation within the mother's womb until viability (I assume you are not O.K. with the State forcing a mother to undergo a C-section to remove a viable fetus?), so any analogy fails at some point. If the State can force a mother to nourish and keep BORN babies safe -- or take him/her away -- then my argument is the State can force a mother to nourish and keep UNBORN babies safe. Let me guess, you are upset with Laci and Connor Peterson's Law or any attempt to prosecute mothers who abuse drugs and accidentally kill their own kids?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

"I would love to make divorce illegal, but I also understand the priority right now is just banning same-sex marriage (again)."

Tsk. You're just full of internal inconsistencies today. How does banning more marriages somehow make marriage stronger? If anything, those relatively few homosexual and lesbian couples who are committed enough to each other in today's virulently anti-gay environment to openly marry would be far less likely to divorce than the flaky Britney Spears types who treat marriage as lightly as a weekend getaway to, well, Vegas.

Again, if you can stick to facts and not Biblical injunctions and other religious "appeals to authority," it would be appreciated.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Before this election, a lot of people did not realize the major differences in how the states elect a nominee to run for president.

- There are states that allow voters to vote only for candidates of their party.
- There are states that allow voters from each party to cross over and vote for the other party.
- There are states that don't allow Independents to vote in the primaries.
- There are states that allow early voting at the polls days before the primary date.
- There are states that allow voters to mail their ballots in before the date of the primary.
- There are states that only absentee ballots are accepted before the date of the primary.
- Then there are the caucuses that elect delegates but do not reveal the number of votes that the candidates receive.
- Then there is the Texas two-step, another caucus that doesn't reveal the number of votes the candidates receive and is a caucus where the voters vote twice.
- Then there's Oregon where all voters mail in their ballots or drop them off at specified places by the designated date/time.
- I'm sure there are others.

Is there anyone out there who can explain the advantage to these differences -- other than "each state has the right to do what they want?"

Posted by: mafox1 | May 21, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Don't you think you make your "argument" weaker when you use the most extreme analogy available? No legal form of birth control today includes leaving a newborn on the curb. I have a harder time being convinced of your point with the obvious use of hyperbole. Try making your point with the most widely used birth control today: The Pill.

Posted by: ash | May 21, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: "Because I already stated my opinion that pro-life is not anti-woman (remember the post about how females are aborted disproportionately to males?)."

You have indeed stated your opinion. I have yet to see any convincing counter-argument using FACTS that explains how using the government to force women (and ONLY women) to carry another potential being inside them is not anti-woman. Any chance of that in the near future?

JakeD: "Now, can you answer my question? Or, did you see the trap (i.e. if the State can TAKE AWAY children from parents by force of law -- and I think we all know it can whether you want to admit right now or not -- the same State certainly can force parents to KEEP children)? Exact same reasoning: "best interests of the child" standard. I was getting at your visions of slavery, subjugating the freedom of one person to the needs of another, etc."

There's no trap there unless you're a simpleton and think that a fetus and a two-year-old are equally viable. Of course the government can remove a child (a breathing, eating entity that can survive without being physically dependent on another person's very body for their own existence) from its parents for its own good. But that government can't even compel a parent to donate bone marrow to that child for a transplant; again, an individual's physical inviolability is paramount to a free society. Otherwise the state could legally force you, me or anyone else to donate blood, tissue, etc. whenever it found it vital to save the life of another. So for that government to claim the right to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will is a form of state slavery; no one person, even one's own child, has a legitimate legal claim to supercede the physical inviolability of another individual.

Your "argument" is truly disappointing, especially coming from a self-professed Stanford law graduate. I suspect even you can see you have no legitimate argument save to appeal to sentiment rather than reason. But please prove me wrong, if you can.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone else out there who disagrees with the power of the State to TAKE AWAY children from parents by force of law?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Huh:

We may just get to 160 comments yet ; )

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

No, ash, to both questions. I would love to make divorce illegal, but I also understand the priority right now is just banning same-sex marriage (again). If we can't even stop the tide there, getting rid of heterosexual divorce is a lost cause. As for abortion, in Roman times, an accepted method of "birth control" was to leave the newborn child outside for the wolves to eat. I would be against that being legalized here too. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Since you're against gay marriage, are you diligently working to make divorce illegal in CA? And back to my original post, don't you think women should have a right to choose what birth control suits them best, a choice that would be greatly curtailed by legislation that stated life as beginning at birth?

Posted by: ash | May 21, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

But, to answer your question (the way you are defining "anti-woman"), yes. If I similarly defined the abolitionist movement as anti-black, maybe you would see my objeection.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

ash:

It was worth a shot (since you seemed to agree that divorce is ruining marriage). No harm, no foul.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister:

Because I already stated my opinion that pro-life is not anti-woman (remember the post about how females are aborted disproportionately to males?).

Now, can you answer my question? Or, did you see the trap (i.e. if the State can TAKE AWAY children from parents by force of law -- and I think we all know it can whether you want to admit right now or not -- the same State certainly can force parents to KEEP children)? Exact same reasoning: "best interests of the child" standard. I was getting at your visions of slavery, subjugating the freedom of one person to the needs of another, etc.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

What part of living in a fiercely libertarian state did you not understand? I don't believe the government has any right to tell me who I should or should not be with. I mention the lack of advocacy against divorce by people that are against gay marriage to show their hypocrisy.

Posted by: ash | May 21, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
wot

Obama finalizes plans for gender change in Brazil, upon consultations with Howard Dean, on how best to qualify two political quota requirements in one election.


wot
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted by: way out there | May 21, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

In an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall, Clinton explained why she was the only candidate who did not agree to New Hampshire's request that she take her name off the ballot in Michigan.
"It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot," she said.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859

Posted by: Fordy | May 21, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"Am I missing something here or is this a despicable individual with no integrity whatever?"

I hope you didn't just reach this conclusion ;).

She is a stark raving madwoman. How many different ways can you lose the nomination? Has anyone calculated this?

Hill-arious doesn't care about party unity - she's just biding time to frantically create more spin and crazy math scenarios.

Hillary, please stop wasting our time. You haven't taken care of the people in your "own" state of NY, but now you are sticking it out for all of us to be heard? The only problem is YOU are the one not listening.

C'mon Super Dels, for the good of us all, put the nail in the coffin already.

Posted by: First Ladies Man Bill | May 21, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

yo howard, you's got the down bro!

Posted by: am | May 21, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Why are you asking new questions before acknowledging the fact that making abortion illegal is an anti-woman act? Clumsily trying to change the subject is hardly conducive to valid debate.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

ash:

Maybe we would agree, then, on doing away with no-fault divorce?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

In the year that a "Refrigerator can supposedly beat the Republicans in November", Howard Dean has decided he would rather have a Bi-Racial Male in the White House, than a White Woman!

Howard Dean, makes the call!

Posted by: Johnny Democracy | May 21, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I posted this in The Fix awhile back. It seems even more appropriate now:

Hillary won't drop out because, psychologically, she's incapable of doing it. Everything she is is invested in this shot. She's following a storyline that she formulated all the way back in 1998 when she made the decision to stay with Bill and discard her self-respect and dignity for an eventual shot at the presidency. Instead of divorcing him, she swallowed her (considerable) pride and stuck by him, and in exchange she was rewarded with a carpetbagged Senate seat in New York, a powerful state that would be immensely beneficial to her eventual presidential campaign.

And everything for the past eight years has been focused on that goal: Hillary in the White House. Tragically (and I mean that in the literal sense), now that that goal is unattainable, she is totally unable to accept that she has wasted an entire decade attached to a man she despises for nothing. She sold her soul for the presidency, and she'll never reach it. As I said, psychologically she can't walk away from this race; that would mean facing the next logical step she has managed to avoid since her public humiliation in 1998, namely, leaving Bill and making a life for herself undefined by his presence. So she stays in, and fights more and more bitterly so that she can delay the inevitable. And we Americans get to sit through one more installment of that great '90s viewing pastime, The Clinton Family Psychodrama.

Please God, it's time to change the channel already.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Bodo:

As Al Gore found out, too, the popular vote does not matter in the Electoral College. Were you O.K. with that result in 2000?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You're right about that. If anything destroys marriage, it's divorce, not gays. Of course, the people so adamantly against gay marriage are doing nothing to propose to make divorce illegal.

I live in MT and would like to choose my birth control as I see fit. The views of some on when life begins should determine their actions, not mine.

ps, here in MT, we're fierce libertarians.

Posted by: ash | May 21, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

whatmeregister:

Are you O.K. with the State taking born children away from parents?

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Hypocritical? A Clinton? Impossible!

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Clinton looks like a whiny little baby

Posted by: Alex | May 21, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

If this is such a big deal, why did she agree to the rules stripping FL and MI before the primary began? Seems very hypocritical to me.

Posted by: Lee | May 21, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Which State is that, ash? Here is California, enough signatures have already been collected -- just waiting for certification -- to overrule the same-sex marriage decision out of our Supreme Court. I suspect we wouldn't see eye-to-eye on that either ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, I assume that you wish to have abortion made illegal. If so, then only women will be physically affected by such legislation, unless I completely misunderstood my eighth-grade biology teacher. That's discriminatory against one gender: females.

Also, since you wish to force a woman to carry another individual within her body against her will--involuntarily providing life-support until birth--then that's a form of slavery, subjugating the freedom of one person to the needs of another. Sorry, but if freedom means anything, it means the right to have my person physically inviolate. Even if I were to run over someone in the street and crush his kidneys with my car, I cannot be legally forced to donate one of my kidneys to sustain his life. Yet you propose that a not-even-fully-formed maybe-person has the right to hijack a woman's body. That's anti-woman. And just as barbaric in its way as abortion itself.

Pro-life is ultimately anti-woman. No rhetoric can alter that fact.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's claims regarding the popular vote are pointless. As President Carter said on Larry King Live, in primaries the popular vote is totally "meaningless", since Republicans voted in the primaries in many states. ONLY DELEGATES COUNT, he added.

Posted by: Bodo | May 21, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

P.S. Refusing to seat any Florida or Michigan delegates (or, just as stupidly, a meaningless 50-50 Clinton-Obama split) will be the best way to GUARANTEE that Hillary takes the issue all the way to the Convention -- keep it up, though, Dems!

http://www.yahoo.com/s/885588

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

I'm working diligently in my state to prevent a proposition from being voted on in November that would define life as beginning at conception. It would make illegal many forms of birth control. I find that grossly anti-woman.

Posted by: ash | May 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Pro-life is not anti-woman. In fact, females and African-American children are aborted disproportionately. And, if anything, the pro-choice position is violently anti-father.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Anti-woman = pro-life, BTW, not anti-Hillary. Just to be clear on that.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

So, JakeD, are you saying you find it more acceptable to be anti-woman than anti-black? :-)

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The simplest, fairest, and most ethical solution would be to simply seat the Florida and Michigan delegations with each delegations consisting of a 50-50 Clinton-Obama split. This way the two states have a physical "presence" at the convention but their delegations will have absolutely no influence on the outcome. Additionally, no superdelegates from either one of these states should be seated, as it was the elected officials themselves who helped create this mess. They should be censured, not rewarded, for their idiocy.

No other solution makes sense. Since there's absolutely no way of knowing what the outcome of a contested primary (rather than an absentee one) would have been, the delegations should be absolutely neutral in their makeup. The convention should also ratify this procedure as official party procedure when dealing with any similar future situation where a state party holds a primary or caucus in direct contravention of DNC rules. This would serve as an effective, and unambiguous, deterrent to future mischief of the type Florida and Michigan engaged in earlier this year.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

For the record, the reason I am not voting for Barack HUSSEIN Obama (or Hillary DIANE Clinton) is because I am pro-life, not because of the color of his skin.

Posted by: JakeD | May 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

A historic martyrdom campaign. She has been done wrong by a free and fair election whose rules were approved by her campaign and her party well in advance of any voting. Oh, the injustice!

Her problem is that she actually believes the claptrap her campaign spinners put out. I have lost much of the respect I had for her. She runs the risk of ruining a career worth of achievement by acting like a two-year old that lost its favorite toy.

Posted by: steve boyington | May 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Naaah, Jim, you're not missing anything. That pretty much sums it up, all right.

Posted by: whatmeregister | May 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight: last Fall, when she didn't need the votes, Clinton agreed to not seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Now she does a complete turnabout? Am I missing something here or is this a despicable individual with no integrity whatever?

Posted by: Jim | May 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton was SO concerned about Michigan and Florida, why didn't she fight for them LAST FALL when she AGREED to the stripping of their delegates?!

She's a hypocrite, just like her philandering husband.

Posted by: Dude | May 21, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

that would be "why aren't there..."

Posted by: Huh | May 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

This has been up for 2 minutes now! Why are there 160 comments from each side (Obama/Clinton). You guys are slipping!

Posted by: Huh | May 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company