Seriously, dude. Especially the part about rising to power and kicking smaller states in the process. Yep, the baddest video I’ve ever seen.
John Wayne is rolling in his grave.
This is a shout-out to all Clinton supporters, particularly those who understand the issues around seating the Florida and Michigan delegates. I sincerely need you to educate me.
It was a localized version of the Michigan/Florida debate in Grand Prairie today and once again, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters were at odds.
Local Clinton supporters advocated Thursday for unseating ALL of the Democratic delegates from Collin County because their senate district conventions were held on the wrong day.
Officials with the Collin County Democratic Party said they chose to hold the convention a day late because there wasn’t a large enough venue in the county available for the scheduled date of Saturday, March 29. Party officials warned at the time that the eligibility of their delegation may be challenged.
Collin County is MOMocrat Jenn’s territory. There was a lot of confusion leading up to that convention because they changed the day. Unfortunately, there was no choice. Faced with an unprecedented number of supporters, the choice of venue was limited, and accessible facilities were nowhere to be found on the actual scheduled day of the convention, forcing a reschedule to the following day in order to secure accessible facilities. The change was reported widely in local papers,it was posted on the Texas Democratic party website, and calls were made. There was an extensive discussion on Twitter about it with JavaJenn and other Texas delegates because of the concern that a challenge would be made or that it was an effort to confuse delegates so they wouldn’t show up on the correct day, but all concerns were laid to rest when it was made clear on the official state Democratic Party website that the change in venue was necessary in order to prevent any delegates from being unable to participate and/or attend because of the need for accessible facilities.
The convention lasted until the wee hours of the following morning because Clinton supporters challenged the credentials of every single delegate on the spot, and results were not reported out until well into the next day.
And now, THIS?
Clinton supporters, I am fighting to suppress my snark here. On the one hand, you have Senator Clinton out there fighting for “all votes to be counted”, while there’s a simultaneous effort to smack down voters in another state who didn’t vote for her? And worse yet, that challenge was brought by someone who wasn’t a resident of Collin County! Fortunately that small detail caused the challenge to be denied.
Seriously. Can any Clinton supporter tell me why they would be trying to disenfranchise Texas voters for voting on the wrong day at the very same time that they are fighting against voter disenfranchisement in Florida and Michigan for voting on the wrong day? Can anyone who supports Senator Clinton explain how this reconciles into “all votes must be counted”? Here is a statement by one of her supporters, Vijay Pothukanuri:
“If you follow rules it clearly states Collin county’s in violation of [electing their delegates on the wrong day]. we want to be sure to participate. We don’t want to disenfranchise any voters but at same time we want to make sure those who followed rules, both parties, on either side want them treated properly.”
Could I word this statement a bit differently and get the same result?
“If you follow rules it clearly states Michigan and Florida are in violation of [holding their election on the wrong day]. We don’t want to disenfranchise any voters, but at the same time we want to make sure those who followed rules, both parties, on either side, want them treated properly.“
I am truly at a loss on this. For now, I’m withholding judgment and hope that someone can help me understand how to reconcile what is happening in Texas with the Michigan/Florida dispute. My comments are open. Can someone from WomenCount PAC take a break from planning their Saturday Washington DC rallies intended to call attention to the possibility of voter disenfranchisement please help me understand this?
I do not want to assume that the motive here is winning by:
- disenfranchising voters in lost caucuses
- …While enfranchising voters in won primary states, including one…
- …where over 40% of the voters voted against Senator Clinton
- …but will be disenfranchised under the Clinton campaign proposal to…
- …fully seat delegates, and then…
- …claim popular vote victory by disenfranchising that 40% minority
I don’t want to assume that, so please help me understand. Because this issue really IS bigger than who gets the nomination. In the spirit of Senator Clinton, I remind that the issue raises the spectre of the 2000 election, the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, and every principle that we, as Democrats, hold at the core of our beliefs.
Donna Summer – She Works Hard For The Money
Street cash. It’s not illegal, but it does smell a little bit like buying the vote with a bit of palm-greasing, if not in reality, at least in appearance.
So when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign arrived in South Texas in February seeking an edge in its uphill battle against Senator Barack Obama, Ms. Espinoza was happy to oblige, for a price. The campaign paid her and seven other members of her family $100 to $200 each to knock on doors, deliver fliers and get voters to the polls for the Democratic primary on March 4, which Mrs. Clinton narrowly won.
Well, I have a little quibble here with the NY Times. She won the first round of voting, but not the caucuses, and Texas actually came out for Barack Obama, not the other way around.
And oops, it wasn’t just Texas:
The records show that Mrs. Clinton did something similar in Ohio, giving $38,300 to a state legislator, Eugene R. Miller, who says he used it to pay more than 200 people to get out the vote in predominantly black neighborhoods in Cleveland.
In the days leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama was questioned rather intensely about whether he would pay street cash to get out the vote in Philadelphia. It was asked as a trap — if he paid it, the door would be open for the Clinton campaign to accuse him of buying votes and playing good old fashioned politics just like everyone else, no matter what he claimed as a ‘change candidate’, and if he didn’t, he risked pushing up against a political machine used to receiving payoffs to get out the vote.
It is all legal — but Obama’s people are telling the local bosses he won’t pay.
That sets up a culture clash, pitting a candidate who promises to transform American politics against the realities of a local political system important to his presidential hopes. Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22.
Obama’s posture confounds neighborhood political leaders sympathetic to his cause. They caution that if the senator from Illinois withholds money that gubernatorial, mayoral and presidential candidates have willingly paid out for decades, there could be defections to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. And the Clinton campaign, in contrast, will oblige in forking over the money, these ward leaders predict.
“We’ve heard directly from the Obama organizer who organizes our ward, and he told us it’s an entirely volunteer organization and that I should not expect to see anything from the Obama campaign other than ads on TV and the support that volunteers are giving us,” said Greg Paulmier, a ward leader in the northwest part of the city.
Had he given into that expectation, here’s what it would have cost:
Carol Ann Campbell, a ward leader and Democratic superdelegate who supports Obama, estimated that the amount of street money Obama would need to lay out for election day is $400,000 to $500,000.
“This is a machine city, and ward leaders have to pay their committee people,” Campbell said. “Barack Obama’s campaign doesn’t pay workers, and I guarantee you if they don’t put up some money for those street workers, those leaders will most likely take Clinton money. It won’t stop him from winning Philadelphia, but he won’t come out with the numbers that he needs” to win the state.
And indeed, Barack Obama did not come out with the numbers he needed to win the state, which left the door open for the Clinton campaign to crow over the fact that he didn’t win ‘the big states’. He may not have won even if he had bowed to the machine, but the prophecy certainly did come to pass, didn’t it?
As a contributor to Obama’s campaign, I have to say that I’m grateful he didn’t waste that kind of money paying to get out the vote. Voting is a privilege as well as a right. It’s not for sale, not even for the sake of winning delegates.
Time for that machine to break.