Run75441:

She supported both, but here's the MI quote:

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."

<link>

If there's anyone to blame, it's Michigan. No one told them to move their primary. They could have made it earlier and still played by the rules, but they chose not to. They wanted more influence; that's a self-interest move. They knew the consequences would affect the voters, and they did it anyway.

Obama played by the rules and is now setting up shop to campaign for the fall.

Do matter, hugely. Especially in a such an emotionally fraught election year/season. And Daveelias is stretching it a bit when he says that "now" she supports enfranchising Dem. voters in Mich and Fla ...she's been saying it for MONTHS, not just "now." run, I have to say, I wouldn't blame the Dems in MI. for not supporting the Dem. candidate -- why should they, after all? They've not been treated at all well, to put it mildly. btw & OT, did you ever get the new poem for the subject in San Francisco? I sent it a couple of weeks ago, I think. Thx.

her perseverance, endurance, stick-to-it-iveness (as our parents used to say), courage, energy and dedication are amazing. What a great President she would/could/will (?) make. Imho, Obama has NO interest in uniting the party, dear -- except to make it ALL vote for him. As we both know, that 'ain't gonna" happen. Many of us just will not be dictated to by the corrupt Party 'bosses,' and in my case, certainly not by a few turncoat females who have endorsed the WRONG "guy." If Janet Napolitano or Claire McGaskill show up here in the Fall to campaign for BO, I'll show up at their rallies just to throw tomatoes. :-) (metaphorically speaking, of course...)

Lunesta:

Do matter, hugely. Especially in a such an emotionally fraught election year/season. And Daveelias is stretching it a bit when he says that "now" she supports enfranchising Dem. voters in Mich and Fla ...she's been saying it for MONTHS, not just "now." run, I have to say, I wouldn't blame the Dems in MI. for not supporting the Dem. candidate -- why should they, after all? They've not been treated at all well, to put it mildly. btw & OT, did you ever get the new poem for the subject in San Francisco? I sent it a couple of weeks ago, I think. Thx.

Most people don't parse words so much and are aware that now means post election results: after the primary, when it was clear she really needed those votes; so, I'd say January...ish. Next time I'll spell it out a little more clearly for you.

"Parse words so much?" -- the difference between "now" and mid-January is HUGE, dave. But then, I am quickly learning that your posts have very little to do with accuracy or fairness and everything to do with lockstep, Kool-aid drinker cultish / slavish approval of The Inexperienced Neophyte. (**)

I.e., 'nice try but no cigar," ok? You don't need to "spell out anything more clearly" for ME, Mister -- but you might try being more careful in future with your words. (Btw, I know all the common little Internet insults & see you use them frequently, so have to ask, is originality also not in your kit bag/tool box?) And who are you to judge what/how "most people" write, interpret or read?

(**) That's why I don't usually post TO you, just as I didn't post TO you,here.

Although I can't agree w. you on that last sentence. Michelle Obama is hardly a throwback to the 50s, j! (Would that she WERE.... heh)

Laura Bush is the 'throwback to the '50s" as is her mother-in-law, who to be fair, came of age IN the 40s and 50s!

Your points about appearance counting for something more than just that are v. well-taken. Look at poor Barbara Walters, for just one example. With her history & accomplishments, shouldn't she just be able to be judged on them? And not on her looks? But my gawd, the woman's face has been 'worked on' so much, it's a miracle she can open her mouth at all. And the neck, too. I was told recently that she is 75, is that true? Well, good for her, if it is! But they dress her up (on The View and on her varous specials) as if she is 40 or 50 (on the outside) and do her make-up as if she is 30 or 35! Here she is in a position to Make A Statement to women about this issue and aging appropriately with dignity & grace, instead, she caves in, acts all girly & cutesy-wutesy (when in reality, she is ONE tough mother!) and flirtsy, etc. and insists on spending a fortune on Botox and plastic surgery. It is just SO sad. It is so damn sad.

As for Michelle Obama, she is a harridan of the first order, it's clear. But "a throwback to the 50s?" That I don't see. btw, where have you BEEN? We've missed you. "L."

"Parse words so much?" -- the difference between "now" and mid-January is HUGE, dave. But then, I am quickly learning that your posts have very little to do with accuracy or fairness and everything to do with lockstep, Kool-aid drinker cultish / slavish approval of The Inexperienced Neophyte. (**)

Ha. Funny stuff.

Especially because you're posting in another thread that the reason so many people went to the Portland Obama rally was because the Decemberists were playing. Because, apparently it's a fact, that only you know.

Get over yourself.

will benefit from Mrs. Clinton's courage, gutsiness and sheer energy & tenacity in trying to break this largest & most important of all the Glass Ceilings in the U.S. For now, it looks like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg & I are going to have to suffice, with Justice O'Connor in retirement. Thank you for a fine post here and as always, "Thank you for your support!"

An excellent post, thank you for your perspective. I wonder if you feel, as I do, that not only is it true that "hating women is still a relative invisible mainstream precept in today's society" but also that hating women is actually an acceptable behavior -- still -- in contemporary American society? Opening up your links will have to wait until later but I will do so. Thank you.

Hi scooter ..I didn't get time yesterday to reply to this last post to me of yours. It's a cogent argument you make and it's the same argument we hear day in and day out from MSNBC and CNN..the argument that yes, he has the most current pledeged delegates and without Florida and Michigan he leads in the votes.

But I guess the point that Obama supporters and these two cable news outlets MSNBC and CNN that also seem solidly to be supporting him, is that the opposition to this argument ,the Hillary supporters ,and the Hillarys' own argument is also valid for her and for them and it has not only resonance but actually a good deal of logic behind it.

That obvious part of the argument is largely being ignored by MSNBC and CNN and also by the Obama supporters naturally.

In other words..she continues to make speeches on the Populist Message of the rights of voters to have their votes counted regardless of the mistakes of the DNC that so mishandled the setting up up the primaries for these states.

Sure you are so correct..he does hold more pledged delegates without Michigan and Florida. and he was winning in all the caucus states before Wright.

Her argument is thus:now things have changed since The Wright debacle..and she has been winning all the key electoral college states. and her argument is also that she is more electable based on those facts.

The media continues to be blind to the fact that in spite of these great pilgramges he gets by ads on the radio and getting his camapign funds to promote these big events for Obama...he no longer is pulling in the sort of wins he should be as the now presumptive nominee.

The media flat out igmnores that he no longer wins since the Wright Debacle in any significant voters count in the last 8-10 primaries.

The media ignores that things in his ability to win have changed..by the results of the last 8-10 primaries.

The media continues to down play her arguments and just continues to say what you just posted: Here it is The Obama fans mantra.....in so many words... 'it's the delegate count!", "Florida and Michigan?..F### em!"" Cuz Rules Are Rules!"

Now does that sound like a winning strategy to win hearts and minds?

That may all well and good be true...but all I am saying is as the Obama supporting media MSNBC and CNN and the Obama fans continue this same message to HRC and her supporters there may well be a growing resentment.

People do get understand that the DNC screwed up in setting up the primaries..they KNOW it isn't the voters fault..and they know the voters then should have their will counted...

..and conversely to the negative "Fuck Florida and Michigan mantra from the Obam,a supporters you have Hillarys' populist message of :"The People's Votes should not be denied simply because the DNC and HRC and Obama themlselves signed on to Rules they had no idea would matter so much to this two key swing states at the time they set those rules in motion'....

That's the problem...do you really think Michigan and Florida and many others in other states watching this happen will not cry foul and feel that Obama is just being pushed through to the nomination by ignoring the will of the voters in two huge swing states?

They will notice this as an inequity.

Whether real or not( I beleive it's a real inequity, but I know you do not) But regardless of the who is right on whether it is a legitimate argument or not..that isn't the point...the point is...potentially you have millions and millions of Americans that will and DO believe that Florida and Michigan had to be shut out of the process in order to secure a nominiation for Obama.

Right or wrong..that is a very big problem for Obama to overcome.

You want everyone to just not think about it..to just get on board the peace train with Obama..but I don't know that these millions upon millions of Americans who view this as unfair will do so.

Maybe they will because as you say it is just so important to get out the liar , George Bush.

But if millions of Americans are looking at Obama as a uspurper of voter's rights..how will they feel he is any more honest?

That's a big problem for your side.

Whether you want it to be or not.

Or again whether it's correct or right or wrong or not.

That's how millions see that situation.

I can't fix your problem for you. I'm only showing what it is you need to address and overcome..how you are going to change the view of this situation..Obama supporters just saying "F these states!, probably isn't a good idea.

That's all I'm saying.

Anyway best to you and best wishes in all your endeavors.

Hi Davelias. I heard on the TV that the Obama Campaign spent huge sums of money on promotion with radio and TV ads prior to the big turn outs they recently had.

In other words they touted this event as something akin to "The Beatles Are Coming, The Beatles Are Coming!" sort of rank promotion that Capitol records utilized a month or so before The Fab Four hit JFK airport.

It's amazing what a little promotion can do,eh?

The girls went wild at JFK airport too..for these four unknown guys from Liverpool, who they really had never even heard of .
But we all jumped on board, anyway. It's was fun.

LaurieAnn:

You're very polite, which is nice. :-)

I'm not sure what you mean with The Beatles reference, but undoubtedly true. Nonetheless....:

In other words..she continues to make speeches on the Populist Message of the rights of voters to have their votes counted regardless of the mistakes of the DNC that so mishandled the setting up up the primaries for these states.

This is the point of contention. The fact that before the primary she did not care about the peoples' votes. Since the results have come in and she realizes that she does infact need them, this is when we here the "every voice must be heard" trumpeting. To boot, in all of her fuzzy math to calculate the popular vote she disregards the caucus states. That's not every voice being heard.

It's the blatant double-speak that most Obama supporters despise. Obama's no saint, but he doesn't take it to the level Clinton does.

Thanks Davelias...I appreciate that. Because it's better to just discuss everything that's going on here in the election in a nice way because it is a really amazing and fascinating election.

So it's fun and no need to be rude.

And I understand what the Obama's side of the argument on the agreement to campaign or not campaign in these two states due to the fact that these two states were placed in a very untenable postition and actually could not easily move their primary dates as the DNC wanted them to due to their republican legislatures.

It wasn't the voters fault.

Obama supporters say Rules are Rules. HRC's Camp says it wasn't the voters' faults so the DNC should find a way to count them.

Then the next question the Obama supporters ask is: 'well how they count them when no one especially Obama even campaigned there?"

Here's what I heard on MSNC today in answer to that question, by a black female congresswoman and HRC supporter from Florida...'she said: that the whole argument from the Obama camp that the Florida votes and delegates should not be counted because they say no one campaigned there is specious or of no matter.. because today people get their info. from the internet, TV, radio , newspapers etc.

She said: 'This isn't 1864 anymore where candidates need to come to the state for people to get an idea of who they are and make a choice to vote for."

"Therefore,Florida be counted in it's entirety" she said.

..I suppose in Michigan they will also say voters could have written Obama's name in if they wanted him..afterall they knew all about him when they cast their vote for Hillary in Michigan.

So they are claiming no one needed to campaign there anyway for voters to make a choice and vote.

They are disputing that canard in that manner.

I honestly can not believe it Dave..but it looks like she is still fighting on! I really didn't think she would.

LaurieAnn:

I understand the FL and MI voters dismay, but neither election was fair or in any way accurate of the voting consensus.

Residents were told that the elections would not count, therefore many either stayed home; possibly voted out of spite, or just cast a goof ballot, and some voted their conscience. But the results do not truly represent the voters, due to all of the complications.

A fair revote was not very plausible: it was to be financed by private funds and those who voted Republican in the initial election would not have been allowed to participate in the revote. It's a sticky situation. The only really fair answer is a 50/50 division.

Go ahead.

Include Florida and Michigan.

Hillary still lost the election.

But it isn't her fault. It's the misogyny.

Yeah...

That's the ticket!