Hillary complains bitterly about voters in MI and FL being disenfranchised, but her plan to change the measure of success from pledged delegates to popular vote severely disenfranchises ALL the states that decided to hold caucuses instead of primaries.

She wants to count the two states that knew their votes would not count because they broke the rules but she wants to virtually ignore the caucus states even though they all played by the rules. This is Clinton in a nutshell.

What a misleading headline.

He did not hint at anything.

He said what is very obvious -- Clinton needs to achieve a majority in the popular vote.

Hillary Clinton has chosen to associate herself with The Family (also known as the Fellowship), a very conservative, fundamentalist organization started by Abraham Vereide...In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of "biblical capitalism," military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, Doug Coe, the Family's current leader, declares, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't." The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power - cultivating it, building it and networking it...Google: Hillary's Religion Scary....WHY ISN'T THE MEDIA EXPOSING HER 'RELIGION'

THE CLINTON INSURGENCY IS IN FULL SWING

CALLS FOR HER WITHDRAWAL ONLY FEED IT!

BIG-STATE GOVS OF NJ, OH, & PA WILL HAVE TO CAMPAIGN AS HARD FOR OUR NOMINEE AS THEY HAVE FOR HILLARY

Fueling the current Clinton Insurgency against Obama AND the entire DEM party is the Clintons" belief THEY were robbed of this nomination.

This belief provides them internal psychic comfort and external rationalization for ANY and EVERY behavior we have seen and may keep seeing RIGHT THROUGH 2012.

Does anyone think this ends at the Convention? The Clinton Insurgency may just go underground to expand their support of McCain's candidacy. If unsuccessful, it will move to the Senate where Hillary as Lieberman REDUX, could caucus with McCain to deny President Obama any success.

Last month the Campaign to Elect Hillary officially became the Campaign to Defeat Obama via this new political Insurgency.
Indeed, Hillary's campaign is a daily quest, not for the nomination (she knows that's already lost), but to deny Obama the Presidency itself, and anything that would aid him.

Insurgencies like hers define victory in prolonging the battle and denying the favorite his expected result, while spoiling it so that ultimate victory is worth less each day it continues. This new Clinton campaign can only be by design of our Chief Democratic Architect, former President Clinton, himself.

We all know this in our hearts. The only question facing loyal DEMS, to paraphrase Sean Connery from "The Untouchables" is: What are WE prepared to do?

Oops- I meant crap !

Hillary Clinton will change the rules as they suit her. This is no longer a primary about the issues (as Obama is trying to make it) it has become Gee How can we get Hillary to win? What fuzzy math can we do to Make Hillary win. If you have to do all that to get a candidate to win then perhaps you have the WRONG candidate. If the American people wanted Hillary Clinton, she would have won by Feb.4th as she thought. The fact that her campaign spends more time trying to "figure" out how they can make her win without the vote of the American people is very telling. I think this has become the Hillary Show. It is becoming more and more obvious to me that I would never vote for her. She does not play well with others and I can't imagine for one minute that she could lead this nation. She is the least trustworthy of All 3 candidates, Obama is the MOST trustworty. I think all this other carp is just noise.

The trick with this is that the Democratic party is a political organization and not a constitutionally imbued body. Hence there is no "One man, one vote" component to this. If you don't like the party go start your own or take over the leadership and change the rules and if others don't like the rules then they can leave. It is established that political parties can make and apply their own rules, that's why you won't see a legal challenge to the MI & FL contests.

Parties put forth their candidates based on their own rules and the leadership could make the rules such that they simply select a candidate. The state party components each have their own rules of selecting delegates for representation at the national convention to officially select the party nominee according to the rules currently in place. Popular vote has no place in this because, as has been frequently pointed out, some states use a caucus process which really has no popular vote component.

This is a delegate contest and the candidate with at least 2,024 delegates wins.

this is so frustrating to see the Clinton campaign wanting to emphasize popular vote for two reasons:
1. It doesn't take into account states that have caucases
2. If it was about pop vote, wouldn't you change your campaign strategy.

This just all seems so seedy to me...

She needs to win the popular vote..
And, have all the votes count..

Let's see. Clinton is trying to get super-delegates to ignore the will of the majority of voters and nominate her. So by doing that she's encouraging disloyalty and saying it would be a good thing when it benefits her.

But then, the Clintons are apoplectic because they think Bill Richardson was disloyal for endorsing Obama. And they just can't get over this perceived disloyalty.

Why does anyone still trust those people?

I support counting Florida's vote totals, but how can you count Michigan's?

Michigan is just not a legit vote, given that people had a choice of voting for someone (Hillary) or voting for no one (Uncommitted)?

I'm sorry that their state government did that to them, and I hope anyone who supported moving that primary up is now in their final term in public off EVER -- the voters should completely rout them out of office the first chance they get.

But it's ridiculous to think you can *legitimately* count votes when their was one name on the ballot.

Like people can't figure out that no one wants to be on the losing side! Give me a break!

:

Put your seat belt On and drive on over to Obama...!

But watch Your Speed.


:

Another breathlessly hyperbolic HuffPo headline for a ho-hum story (who writes these things?). All Corzine is saying is that when he gets to the convention, he's going to vote in accordance with the will of Democratic voters. Wow, what a revelation! Could it be that he wants to keep his job? Duh!

What we're seeing here is the result of a large number of SD's who jumped on the Clinton bandwagon VERY early in the primary season based on the "inevitability" of her nomination. Now that it's becoming clear that she probably won't get it, they're starting to fret. Most of these people are elected officials, and feel obligated to vote with their constituents. Others are appointees, and they're hoping for ambassadorships to warm sunny countries, or at least to have a middle school named after them or something. So they're trying to position themselves to move into the winner's column, even if they didn't sign up with the winner in the first place. It's all politics, it's all exactly what we should expect.

What it's not, in this case, is news....

Hillary's bluffing. She ain't got sh--, and she's too quacked out to admit it.