Hillary to win the nomination contest.

Now don't get me wrong, I am a Hillary supporter and have been one since the Clinton presidency. For personally vindictive and 'feel good' reasons I would like to see her win the nomination just so that the DNC could fear her eventual retribution for the way in which they tried to job her, and, of course, I would love to hear the howls of anguish from horrified and disappointed Obamacrats as their fantasy world crashed around their ears.

But for a variety of reasons that are more important to me than vindictiveness I would like to see her lose this nomination.

First, I think that this nation is sliding into a minor economic depression [not a mere recession] and it is inevitable that the new president will get the blame for that, not G.W. Bush, the president that caused it. Second, no matter the decisions made in Afghanistan and Iraq there is every probability that two-thirds of the citizens of this nation are going to be very unhappy indeed with the new president's war venture policies.

Be it McCain, Obama, or Hillary the next president is going to go through four years of hell on earth and is probably going to be reviled in the end as a loser.

In point of fact I have had enough of the Clintons being blamed by an unfair national press corps for breathing. I don't want to see what they [the press] will finish doing to the Clinton name should she become president. G.W. Bush [his handlers really] have set things up so that no matter if it is a republican or democrat following in his wake that man or woman is going to face a living nightmare of gigantic proportions.

I'd rather see McCain or Obama get ruined over this. Hillary, if she still feels froggish four or eight years from now can try it again. OR she and Bill can begin the long process of establishing a viable third party to act as true competition to the Conservative and Liberal Parties since the Republican and Democratic Parties no longer really exist now that extremists are in control of both political bodies.

It really does not matter to me if it is McCain or Obama that wins the 2008 presidential contest. I consider both men to be deeply flawed.

I confess I have felt the same way recently; let Hillary win it for the very same reasons! However, unlike you, I do not consider Clinton and McCain equally flawed. But then again, I vote on party platform...you know, little things like ending the war, protecting Roe vs. Wade, improving the economy, Universal Health Care. These issues drive my vote more than personal bias.

How, specifically, do you believe the Bush Administration has caused the economic depression you predict?

Gatewood:

It really does not matter to me if it is McCain or Obama that wins the 2008 presidential contest. I consider both men to be deeply flawed.

Curious, then....why is it, I miss "all those" Gatewood posts criticizing John McCain?

but easily find all the ones that go after Obama?

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks much for that thewolf05827. You are a hoot and a half. Someone want to 'splain the consequences of borrowing trillions of dollars to finance two war ventures WHILE giving tax breaks to the wealthy while removing as many restrictions as possible from the banking industry so that the Savings and Loans ['scuse me, wrong Bush family scandal] sub prime interest scam could circulate throughout the nation . . . and a goodly number of other things as well?

I don't feel like teaching morons today.

apparently you HAVE missed those times that I have pointed out the possibility of McCain's incipient senility and his mighty reputation as a policy flip-flopper. I wonder why. Could it be that you are primed to see only what you expect to see? Yes . . . could be.

So in other words, you don't have the first fucking idea what you're jabbering about.

Got it.

moderate republican that failsafes hard when pushed hard. That's not great, but he does have a 'real' history of striving to achieve compromise with people on both sides of the political aisle. He may be demonstrating the first signs of senility, although I am not yet convinced of that. He is a known serial flip-flopper.

Obama, on the other hand, is an entirely unknown quantity. We know what he SAYS he intends to do, but there is no record of him actually ever doing anything of any significance. His background associations and statements tend to hint at him being somewhat of a radical liberal. This is not necessarily good for the nation at this point in time.

Just because we have suffered for eight years under radical conservatism does NOT MEAN that the solution is to swing just as hard and radically full tilt Left.

So I am ambivalent between the two men. As for my personal vote I intend to vote a straight democrat ticket and then write in Hillary's name for president.

Gatewood, what you do with your vote, and how you plan to waste it, is of no concern to me.

Gatewood:

I have pointed out the possibility of McCain's incipient senility

LOL, old people suck!

Gatewood:

Re: A confession; I don't want Hillary to win the nomination contest.

Congratulations!!! You get your wish!

Gatewood:

of course, I would love to hear the howls of anguish from horrified and disappointed Obamacrats as their fantasy world crashed around their ears.

I know exactly how you feel. I certainly have enjoyed hearing your howls of anguish as the HRC fantasy world crashes around the ears of you and the rest of the shuffling, porous-boned old hags.

ZiggyTosh, contrary to what you may think, not all "porous-boned old hags" support Clinton. In fact some of us have hauled our porous bones around in different states on Obama's behalf.

ps. just a tip, we have something called hormone replacement therapy now...our bones are pretty strong. :-)

Delegate Voting

.

Delegates are asked to “in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

All delegates – both pledged and unpledged – formally cast their votes at the Convention.

The votes of unpledged delegates cast at the Convention do count towards a candidate securing the nomination.

In past nominating cycles, individual unpledged delegates have endorsed a specific presidential candidate.

Regardless of such endorsement, unpledged delegates are able to cast their vote for any presidential candidate at the Convention.

Pledged delegates are not bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the Convention or on the first ballot.

A pledged delegate goes to the Convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate.

At the Convention, while it is assumed that delegates will cast their votes for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.

Under the Delegate Selection Rules, a delegate is asked to “in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

This provision is designed in part to make the Convention a deliberative body.

Most former candidates “release” their delegates from voting for them; however, this is only symbolic. Delegates can vote for another presidential candidate with or without being “released.”

When a candidate decides to leave the presidential race, a candidate is entitled to keep any district-level delegates that were awarded to the candidate and any district-level delegates that might be awarded in future contests.

If pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates and at-large delegates have been selected prior to the candidate withdrawing from the race, the candidate is also allowed to keep those delegates.

However, if a candidate leaves the race prior to the selection of pledged PLEO and at-large delegates, those delegate positions are reallocated to the candidates still in the race.

.

Delegates are not legally “bound” to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent.

They can, and have in the past, cast a vote for another presidential candidate at the Convention.

As a sign of good faith, most former candidates have “released” their delegates from voting for them; however, this is not required, and only has a symbolic meaning.

Delegates can vote for another presidential candidate with or without being “released.”

The last time the presidential nomination required more than one ballot was at the 1952 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

If neither candidate reaches a majority of delegate votes on the first ballot for president, the nomination and the race for delegates becomes competitive.

The last time the presidential nomination required more than one ballot was at the 1952 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

At the 1952 Convention, 11 names were placed in nomination in a heated contest between Adlai Stevenson, Estes Kefauver, Richard Russell, Averell Harriman and Paul Dever. Adlai Stevenson became the nominee on the third ballot with 617 ½ votes.

Paid for by 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc. - 1560 Broadway, Denver, CO 80202 www.demconvention.com
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. To contact the DNCC: 720-DNC-2008 (362-2008) or info@demconvention.com. Copyright © 2008 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc.
<link>

This must be a bone just to shut up all these Hillary zombies.

entj4sure:

ZiggyTosh, contrary to what you may think, not all "porous-boned old hags" support Clinton. In fact some of us have hauled our porous bones around in different states on Obama's behalf.

ps. just a tip, we have something called hormone replacement therapy now...our bones are pretty strong. :-)

I am duly chastened. Keep up the good work!