Thunderbeach

"How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn"t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals...who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation."

27-year-old Hillary conspired to deny U.S. President Richard Nixon the right to counsel during his impeachment investigation? Wow. Clearly this is a woman knows no bounds. posted 04/02/2008 at 00:18:55

In 2000, George W. Bush argued successfully to stop the recount of votes in Florida. His linchpin argument was "rules are rules." Back then, a lot of the people on this site protested that Bush had stolen the presidency. They championed the rights of Florida voters and blamed the Supreme Court for not standing up against the self-serving and manipulative Bush campaign machine.

Here we are eight years later, and once again Florida voters are being disenfranchised. But this time, it's the Democratic Party doing the dirty work. More astonishingly, they are applying the same argument George W. Bush used so successfully in 2000: "rules are rules."

For the record, the good and loyal Democrats of Florida have committed no crime. A Republican controlled state government has hijacked them. But to support the cause of the disenfranchised Florida voter is to support Hillary and to oppose their right to vote moves Obama closer to the nomination.

How can we so easily look the other way when peoples inalienable rights are being violated for the sake of winning? It's not about seating Florida democrats. It's not about a do-over. It's about taking a look at ourselves and really seeing what we've become. The lessons of the Bush administration appear to make Karl Rove"s "Machiavelli for Dummies" principals available to the masses. We have become what we beheld, and until we face this simple fact, the Democratic Party and the nation cannot begin to heal. posted 03/27/2008 at 01:30:56

First , in Florida, the state leadership who approved defying the DNC "rules" is Republican, and they did it over the objections of the Democratic minority. Second, Obamaniacs feel that it's all right to disenfranchise innocent voters because "rules are rules." They carry no awareness that George W used the same "rules are rules" argument in the 2000 election in Florida to disenfranchised many of the same voters. Moreover, Obamaniacs have the gumption to then turn around and protest the rules that allow superdelegates to make their own independent decision. Rules that favor Obama are good; rules that favor Hillary are bad. This is the hypocrisy tearing at the soul of the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the legacy of Howard Dean as head of the Democratic National Committee will be the inauguration of John McCain in January 2009, a seemingly impossible feat considering the disastrous legacy of the Bush administration. posted 03/26/2008 at 23:07:25

Hey, it's okay if you don't like Hillary. That's your choice. I see two ground-breaking Democrats fighting it out for the nomination. But I refuse to overlook the hypocrisy of it all. I'm not saying that it's fair to seat the delegates from Florida. There is no easy answer for the dilemma created by the DNC's short-sighted, undemocratic penalty that allowed outsiders (the Florida Republican administration) the ability to effect the Democratic National Primary. That's because the Florida primary date move was not decided by Florida democrats. It was, in fact, decided by a Republican controlled administration. I am saying that a great many Obama supporters are disturbingly content to dismiss the disenfranchisement of millions of voters who had no part in moving the Florida primary date. And that draws a very definite connection to the 2000 election when George W championed that the rules shouldn't be changed even in the face of disenfranchising Florida voters. Obama supporters don't like the rules of the superdelegates being independent but they like the rules that disenfranchise Florida democrats. Richardson shouldn't be compelled to vote with his state because it wasn't a wide enough margin of victory for Clinton? How about Richardson has a duty to vote as he sees best with the consideration of his constituency as well as his experience. How about this may in fact be true for all superdelegates. posted 03/25/2008 at 23:38:05

Yes, Obama is presently in the lead by throwing out 3 million plus democratic votes in Florida and Michigan, ignoring the fact that there are still several more states left to vote, supporting the rule revising notion that superdelegates should be compelled to follow the popular vote unless that superdelegate is voting for Obama like Bill Richardson whose state backed Hillary.

Doesn't anyone appreciate the hypocrisy that George W. stole the election in 2000 with the same mantra about the Florida vote: "rules are rules." posted 03/25/2008 at 21:33:06

There is no doubt that the FL primary date change was a product of a Democratic minority powerless to override the will of the Republican controlled government. So in that sense, Republican manipulation has once again played a hand in disenfranchising a large number of FL Democrats. This is an extremely significant pattern in the last several elections. So the FL, MI debacle can be chalked up to inexperience.

At the time, the DNC leadership presumably believed that Super Tuesday would lock up the nomination. What the DNC needed was someone a little more acquainted with Murphy"s Law who would realize that the draconian and utterly undemocratic penalty being applied to keep the states from all moving their primary dates forward was a train wreck waiting to happen as the people whose voting rights were being stripped away had absolutely no say in the matter.

Regarding Hillary"s position going in. Let"s face it. As far as Hillary-haters go, she"s damned if she do and damned if she don"t. If she had been vocal in protesting the decision to disenfranchise the Democratic voters in two states, she would have received the same branding as a manipulator. And since I"m sure she was also blinded by light of victory as the front-runner, it must have appeared much easier to remain quite than risk challenge the DNC so early in the race.

Ultimately, it doesn"t matter what Obama or Clinton did or didn"t do back then. What matters is that the DNC is stripping the right to be heard from millions of loyal Democrats because "rules are rules." As I said in my original post, this rationale smacks of our current president in the 2000 election. It disgusted me then, and it disgusts me now. It does shine the light on human nature and our ability to hide behind morally unjust rules if they support the winning argument. Mr. Obama"s silence on the matter just proves that he is as determined to win this contest as George W was in 2000 and as Hillary is in 2008. Just don"t tell me he"s got the popular vote when you"ve thrown out millions of votes because rules are rules.
posted 03/22/2008 at 02:29:03

This is a contest between two dynamic individuals; two great candidates separated by a common goal. But damaging to the Democratic Party? Come on. Yes. This fight has gotten pretty intense, and given the prize, I would hope it would, and what lesson is there in accepting defeat because the road is difficult? She"s not exactly tilting at windmills here and ultimately all rumors about death are eventually true.

I cannot and will not take anything away from Mr. Obama. He is a pioneer on many levels, but is there another woman who could have navigated her way from the first ladies club to this spot in history? I don't think so.

For all the fuss about the superdelegates, I never believed there would be a problem because career politicians and party elite typically got where they are by knowing which way the wind blows. I never could imagine a large group of super-D's willing to go to the mat over Hillary unless they were absolutely certain she would win.
What's damaging to the Democratic Party is the hypocrisy of the accepted disenfranchisement of millions of voters in Florida and Michigan. When W was defending the Florida results in 2000, as thousands of votes were cast out because of irregularities like hanging chads, he claimed that the rules were the rules. And the Democratic Party cried foul and screamed that the Supreme Court assisted him in stealing the highest office in the land. Now, eight years later, there are so many Obama supporters echoing W's position, "rules are rules" and accept the disenfranchisement of those same voters to achieve their personal goal all the claiming the moral high ground that their candidate has captured the popular vote. Well let me say this, W didn't throw out as many votes to win in 2000. The Democratic Party is damaged when they stoop to the same soulless tactics as the GOP. The Democratic Party is damaged when it allows a pioneering woman politician to be smeared in the press with the same Republican talking points of the last two decades. Supporters crow that Mr. Obama has made inroads to young voters and independents. That's great. But it comes at the expense of loyal Democrats in Florida and Michigan whose votes are being resoundingly ignored. For Mr. Obama not to decry this deplorable situation is an outrage. For all the Hope and all the Change, it"s still politics as usual.
posted 03/21/2008 at 23:39:32