MarkMiller

You could have done that a lot more graciously than that, considering I gave you a chance by specifically asking, "why that particular date." but I'll leave it at that with you on the subject.

MarkMiller

And Shee....you asked for an even closer date in Febuary.....so I really just couldn't believe you guys were really making it this easy for me with such outrage.

MarkMiller

RK, there may be some confusion on what the "Title" selections under "Post new thread" are to be be used as. I do not see a "Blog" selection. I just assumed if I wanted to make my own Op Ed (as many Op Ed pieces in News paper are not just part of the Editorial staff. I see Op Ed as where you can even post your own original Op Ed.

From Wiki;

An editorial, leader (UK), or leading article (UK) is an article in a newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher.

An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite editorial due to the tradition of newspapers placing such materials on the page opposite the editorial page, is similar in form and content to an editorial, but represents the opinion of an individual writer, who is sometimes but not always affiliated with the publication. Though these two terms are sometimes confused, they are quite distinct.

StillNoScript

We don't need Hillary's supporters.

__________________

HarperLee

I apologize, too.

It looks like Hillary changed her story after she defeated Uncommitted
in Michigan's January 15 primary:

During the past few days, Michigan Democratic Party leaders officially recognized what has been apparent for weeks. There is no reasonable chance to conduct a re-vote of the disputed Democratic primary on January 15. Therefore, the Michigan Dems are leaving matters in the hands of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Situations in Michigan and in Florida, where the January 29 vote also is disputed, are causing confusion for millions of Americans. My report is far more important than the various campaign rallies and speeches that have occurred in my home state of Michigan.

The main question is this: Does Hillary Clinton have the right to claim that she "won" Michigan back in January, and thereby deserves the majority of delegates in her tight race against Barack Obama.

Here is the background, in sequence:

(1) Two years ago, many states were pushing to move earlier onto the primary calendar. They felt Iowa and New Hampshire had unfair influence. Michigan's main argument was that Iowa and New Hampshire did not reflect the nation's racial and economic demographics.

(2) The DNC moved up South Carolina and Nevada, but denied the petitions of Michigan and other states.

(3) Michigan decided to move up on its own, defying the DNC.

(4) All major Democratic candidates, including Clinton, agreed not to campaign in Michigan. However, only Clinton left her name on the ballot. She told reporters last October that since Michigan's vote would not count anyway, she would leave her name on the ballot so as not to offend Michigan's electorate in the general election. Other candidates at the time criticized her for keeping her name on the ballot, with Senator Joe Biden calling her a "scab."

(5) Clinton in December told New Hampshire Public Radio, regarding Michigan, "Well, you know it's clear the election they're having is not going to count for anything."

(6) Clinton defeated "uncommitted" on Michigan's January 15 ballot. By the end of January, she was saying the votes should count for something, and that her delegates should be seated.


I had forgotten that it was very early in January that Obama had his
surprise victory in Iowa.

__________________
Oliver Stone on George W. Bush: "the banality of evil"

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

MarkMiller

I thought the scab remark was uncalled for. The two candidates are not unions workers on strike and Hillary did not have to do the same as anyone else. I happen to think that Obama and Edwards effectivly turned their back on those two states and I am proud that Hillary did not.

Screw Biden!

No matter how heated this or any other debate, discussion or....brawl here goes, It's nice to know we have members here who stick to and honor their words. Thank You.

Comicsartist

The DNC was, in effect, 'on strike' against Michigan. The scab remark fits since she 'crossed the picket line' and left her name on the ballot when no one else did.

__________________

MarkMiller

As a former union shop steward, no. There is no "in effect" and the incorrect use if the word was for Mr. Biden's on drama and effect. Hillary is not a scab and she did the RIGHT thing.

Comicsartist

So...Obama should be punished for obeying DNC guidelines?

She went unchallenged in Michigan, and won, so the delegates should go to her? Even when she agreed to go by DNC guidelines which stated Michigan and Florida wouldn't be seated?

__________________

MarkMiller

By remaining off the ticket Obama has done nothing to be punished for, but will have to face the consequences of his removing his name. The thing here is.....the DNC attempted to pressure the candidates into actions as NOT defined by rules set forth in any form or function. They were changing the rules. They had already announced in August that the two states were in violation and what the consequences were. They then attempted even more consequences to these two states by attempting to get candidates to not participate in a US democratic process by calling it against the rules and possibly illegal. Is it. Or is it just in violation of party rules. If it is illegal, than courts can and will over turn any decision that seats Michigan delegates. But as it stands the removal of names from ballot was not a part of any DNC rule. Obama should not receive full benefit of that election and as it stands, non decided vote was less than decided and Hillary name being the only one gave many a sense of "No other" choice, but they also knew it was just THEIR choices not the rest of the country and knew Obama was still in the race.

The DNC tried to stop the election going forward. Florida law stoped that attempt there and Clinton had a precedent set by that to which to answer to and defend.