Bring It On!

I Thought No Meant No

May 29th, 2008 | by Cranky Liberal |

Silly me, I was always taught that no meant no. I can remember my mother “Cranky, when you’re out with a lady and she says No, that means No. Be respectful.” It’s a lesson that was drilled into my head. I learned it. My son is learning it. Why didn’t Hillary Clinton learn it?

America has said No to Hillary. Maybe not in a resounding knee in the balls kind of way, but loud and strong enough that the answer is clear. Sure we let her get a few bases past first (thanks WV, PA and KY you wanton little rapscallions) but the stop sign has been visible for a long time now. We do not want to go all the way with her. Why then does she keep trying to pressure us into consummating this relationship?

First she tried to sweet talk us into it. She bragged about her experience. Don’t worry baby, she crooned, just let Hillary take care of everything. I’ll make you feel good - you’ll love it. It wasn’t enough to convince us. Heck many of us started to question whether she was really all that experienced after all. She seemed all fumbley fingers when she tried to put the moves on us. “Oh yes I’m against NAFTA, I mean I was for it but now I’m against it. Kiss me” “Oh yes I’m against the war lover, don’t worry that I voted for it. That was just a [insert any word other than mistake here]. I need you bad.” “Oh dodging sniper fire in Bosnia makes me so revved up to lead you - let’s do it right now!”

When her sweet talking didn’t work, she tried to guilt trip and coerce us. Hillary entered the “Come on I bought you dinner, you owe me baby” part of her campaign when she accused everyone but God herself of being sexist. Her racist pro-working class white rhetoric smacked of “You don’t know how bad it hurts baby to be blue. If you don’t vote for me, we’ll lose the general campaign.”

And now, sadly, she has entered the dark and violent stage, the stage of a person who has never learned that no means no. She feels entitled to get what she wants. If she can’t have it willingly, she is ready to take the nomination by force. She is not only ready but willing to assault the electorate in a selfish and brutal attempt to have her way with the Democratic Party no matter how loud or how long we protest.

She is raping democracy. Pure and simple. That isn’t pretty to say, but it’s the truth.

She can justify it after the fact all she wants. “They were asking for it, if they didn’t want it they should have worn something different” never held water where I was from. NO means NO. If you keep going forward after you’ve been told that, it’s not about freedom and choice anymore, it’s about power and abuse.

You would think Hillary Clinton of all people would have known that.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 34 Responses to “I Thought No Meant No”

  2. By Jet Netwal on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    I like this analogy because the Clinton campaign of a year ago and what is presented today are very different. Not, mind you that any other campaign is stagnant, but when I saw Clinton speak in Chicago last year, I felt even then that there was an undercurrent of disingenuity. I walked out of the break-out session impressed by her grasp of topic, but convinced I would not vote for her. Today, I feel her abdication of truth is symbolic of a win at all costs strategy.

    That’s not a scenario with a rosy morning after.

  3. By Paul Merda on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Great analogy once again dude! Its a Classic.

  4. By Craig R. Harmon on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Hillary is raping democracy by…giving every voter in every state the opportunity to cast a vote that is meaningful and fighting to allow those who have voted in Michigan and Florida to count? That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. Honestly, Cranky, the silliest.

    Sorry, man. Your comparison between Hillary’s aspirations and a date rape are so beyond making sense, I’m almost at a loss for words.

    First of all, lots and lots of Democrats are saying ‘yes’ to Hillary and ‘no’ to Obama.

    Secondly, Democrats have not established a purely democratic system of selecting their candidate so, even if it were true that Hillary’s staying in the race were anti-democratic (and it’s not), you Democrats have deliberately established a system whereby it makes sense for Hillary to stay in the race until the Convention. Anti-democratic institution #1: superdelegates who are completely unrestrained by any vote in any state and may, even at the eleventh hour of the Convention, choose to go with someone that no one voted for (Gore, for example), let alone someone that did not win the simple majority of votes. Anti-democratic institution #2: regular delegates who, like their counterparts in the electoral college, are not required to cast their ballot for the candidate that won in their state but may, if their conscience so tells them, vote for someone else.

    Sorry man. If you Democrats feel raped by Hillary staying in the race, it’s because your ‘no’ doesn’t really mean no. It means, ‘Look, keep trying, girl! I may change my mind yet.’

    You Dems have no one to blame but yourselves for this.

  5. By Cranky Liberal on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    She doesn’t want every vote to count. Thats a crock. She wants every vote for her to count. period. She agreed to the rules now when she cant get her way she is bitchign and moaning, fighting and yelling that they were wrong (not she was wrong mind you) and need ot be changed because why - it helps her get closer to winning. She wont take NO for an answer. She will not accept the fact that she tried her best and failed (or as I said was told NO) and now is going to try to pressure the committee to throw out the rules that Democrats agreed to to suit her.

    I stand by by analogy. Sorry I think you’re defense of her is the silliest thing I’ve heard.

  6. By Craig R. Harmon on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    You’re making assumptions not in evidence. You don’t have the slightest clue a to what, beyond to be president, Hillary wants. You can’t because no one, incapable of knowing the inner workings of another person’s mind, can ever say any more than “This is what I think.” And if said person is honest, said person will add, “Of course, I could be wrong; I really don’t know.”

    Motives aside, her actions are GIVING every voter a chance to cast a meaningful vote so, even if you are right, the effect of her actions are more democratic than the course of action you would have her take.

    And you have yet to deal with the fact, so far uncontested, that you Democrats have designed a non-democratic system which actually invites candidates to stay in the race for as long as possible. Hint: you’ve not yet dealt with the points I raised about superdelegates and delegates.

    I repeat: you’ve brought this upon yourselves. You deserve what you get.

  7. By Ken Grandlund on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    You’re right Craig- the Democratic Party’s nomination formulas don’t make much sense. The system in confusing to regular voters and party insiders alike. But they made it…they agreed to it…and they’re stuck with it.

    Having said that, Cranky is dead on in saying that Hillary is clinging to this race out of a personal sense of destiny, not out of an abiding love to serve the citizens of America. In nearly all measurable methods, she has no realistic chance of securing the Democratic nomination by this set of rules. Her only hope is disaster for Obama or trickery on her part. Neither would reveal true leadership qualities IMO.

    Is the Dem process flawed? You bet it is. But the GOP process ended long ago, leaving millions of McCain hating conservatives without a real choice either. So the GOP isn’t the “make every vote count” party here either.

  8. By Craig R. Harmon on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    I’ll grant you the last part, to be sure. All I’m saying is that (a) it ain’t over until it’s over; (b) by design, it ain’t yet over because Obama COULD implode — for example, the appearance of a note from Obama, in his own handwriting, to William Ayers, commenting on Ayers’ 9/11 comments to the effect that he didn’t regret setting bombs but that, rather, he thinks they didn’t do enough, said note saying something like, “You were absolutely right to set bombs. The American system needed and still needs to be totally remade and if Americans aren’t intelligent enough to do it through their political system, radicals like yourself and your wife were right to attempt to destroy it. Regards, Obama. P. S.: Congratulations on the publication of your latest book. I look forward to reading it. I expect I’ll agree with you 100%. P. P. S.: Please make sure that this note is never seen publicly. It would ruin my political career. You understand, I’m sure.” Okay, I’m fantasizing here — I can dream, can’t I? — but such a thing would blow Obama right out of the water, leaving Hillary the last man standing.

  9. By Jet Netwal on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    In the post, I don’t see where Cranky was discussing anything Hill wants besides being President, Craig. in his comment, he extrapolates based on the actions of her campaign.

    It seems to me that based on what you’re saying, since Nixon said he’s not a crook, the body of activities that lead to his impeachment can’t matter, because we can only infer his state of mind based on what he said.

    Eh, not buying it. What a person does counts, and is part of the public record and factors in the evaluation of such. There’s been plenty of well documented instances of the Clinton campaign reframing the results.

    Personally, I can give a rat’s ass if she stays in or not. She is not doing any favors to future women candidates by doing so, but hey, I don’t think that’s on her radar. She sees the misogyny she wants to see.

  10. By Craig R. Harmon on May 29, 2008 | Reply


    The post posits that Hillary staying in the race amounts to raping democracy. Surely it cannot be irrelevant to testing that thesis to point out that the Democrats have established a selection process that is, in many ways, not just not democratic but is anti-democratic and so that it is not democracy that is having anything at all done to it, let alone being raped. Further, pointing out that the very anti-democratic institutions built, by design by Democrats, into their own selection process are the very institutions that are encouraging Hillary to stay in the race make calling her staying in the race ‘rape’ seriously into question. Those things I think I’ve established without question. Saying otherwise is like saying that a woman on a date, saying ‘no’ while guiding her date’s erect penis into her vagina, really does mean no and he is therefore raping her. At most, the woman is giving, um, mixed signals shall we say? Just as the Democratic party is giving to Hillary. Under these circumstances, calling Hillary remaining in the race ‘rape’ is doing violence to language, in my opinion.

    I am not actually saying that Hillary is staying in the race BECAUSE she wants to make every vote count, although I do think that she thinks doing so will bolster her case for being the Democratic presidential nominee. My point is, really, that her staying in the race actually DOES RESULT in every vote having meaning and that, therefore, her course of action actually benefits the voters and makes the process more democratic.

    And finally, in his comments he does, as you say, extrapolate from the actions of Hillary’s campaign but, in my opinion, he draws an unwarranted conclusion. And it is a conclusion that he cannot possibly know, human beings not being able to see the thoughts and motives of another human being, with the degree of certainty that he seems to say he has. Namely, he asserts that Hillary does not want every vote to count in a meaningful way. I look at the same acts of her campaign and conclude that she may, very well, as an adjunct to her ambition to be president, want every vote to meaningfully count. I have no idea which of us is right but then, I don’t claim to know what Hillary wants and does not want, apart from her obvious desire to be the next Democratic presidential nominee.

    Finally, I have no objection to your stated position that you don’t care if Hillary stays or goes. No problem at all. I only object when people claim to know what they cannot possibly know and when they misuse language to say that a process that actively encourages candidates to remain in the race until the convention is being raped by Hillary staying in the race until the convention.

  11. By Cranky Liberal on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Language my friend was not misused and say what you want about not claiming to know what what I don’t know - but that rings hollow.

  12. By Jet Netwal on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Ooookay. Is it somehow MORE demcratic to agree to be bound by a set of rules and then try to change those rules 3/4 of the way through?

  13. By rube cretin on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    “She is raping democracy. Pure and simple. That isn’t pretty to say, but it’s the truth.”

    I can give a rat’s ass if she stays in or not. She is not doing any favors to future women candidates by doing so, but hey, I don’t think that’s on her radar. She sees the misogyny she wants to see.

    Ya’ll help me. Would either of you vote for Hillary if the tables were turned and she was the likely party nominee? Based on what you have written you really could not in good conscience. Me, I suspect more is going on here than meets the eye. Democrats better be very careful. Why would a winning candidates supporters be spewing so much venom at the losing candidate?

  14. By Craig R. Harmon on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Ooookay. Is it somehow MORE demcratic to agree to be bound by a set of rules and then try to change those rules 3/4 of the way through?

    No. It is more democratic to let the votes of the people count for something for that is the meaning of democracy. Voting when only one name is on the ballot is not democracy. Ignoring the votes of the people in two states is raping democracy. A system that allows even designated delegates to abandon the candidate that was assigned according to a fair and open election rapes democracy. Allowing superdelegates to ignore the mandate of a free vote rapes democracy. Or perhaps you’re not clear on what the word ‘democracy’ means: rule by the will of the people. If anyone is raping democracy in the Democratic selection process, it is not Hillary, it is those who set up the Democratic selection process. If they had any respect for democracy, they’d hold a vote. The candidate with the most votes would win. That’s democracy. What you’ve got now isn’t even an empty shell of democracy.

  15. By Cranky Liberal on May 29, 2008 | Reply


    That is a question I cannot answer. Why? Because she isn’t the winner. My first THREE choices were eliminated from this campaign, and I have rallied around the winner. When Biden left, when Richardson left and when Edwards left I didn’t spew hate and venom even though I like all three of those peopel and think they would have made excellent leaders.

    THis is not about supporting Candidate A over Candidate B. This is about a person who wants her way come hell or high water. This is about a person who is willing to throw her party under the bus, demand a rules change 3/4 of the way through and possibly ruin our chances of winning in Novemember by carrying this fight to the convention in August if she doesn’t get her way.

    Let us not forget her close advisor and friend Harold Ickes voted to STRIP my vote as a Floridian but now thinks it should count? No sir. Who knows what would have happened if FLorida and Michigan had been in play as real states? Any results now is invalid in my mind.

  16. By Cranky Liberal on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    No Craig no obeying the rules of the game is raping democracy. As the courts rules yesterday Parties have the right to make the rules for the election. Peopel join the party. People make up the leaders of the party. People vote for the rules. Had they wanted a change, they had ample opportunity to change it. When the primary season started WE the democrats in this country knew the rules. We may not have liked them but we agreed to them. Florida, MY STATE, knew our votes aould not count. Chaning the rules to benefit ONE candidate at the expense of the other is raping democracy. Democracy has never been one person one vote in this country, there have always been rules. You have the be a resident of a state. You have to fill out paperwork. You have to be of age. You have to have your rights restored if you are a felon. If you win by following the rules you are the winner. If you win by changing the rules 3/4 of the way into the process you are a thug. You are a thief. You have brutalized the process and taken what was not yours to have.

  17. By rube cretin on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Greetings from a fellow Floridian. “Who knows what would have happened if FLorida and Michigan had been in play as real states? Any results now is invalid in my mind.”

    Florida and Michigan are real states and what is on your mind is what concerns me. Ask yourself, would you like to have the electoral votes of these states in the general? How did you feel in 2000 when they were not counted in Florida? Now you want them not to be counted when you know as well as i that the Florida primary election this year was well publicized and over a million Dems turned out even though they were already aware of the problems with the arcane rules. Did you vote? I did and so did most democrats i know. Frankly, i don’t really think the upcoming election makes a fucking bit of difference considering what is coming down the pipe. I personally believe Obama has a socialist slant and i believe that is where we are going in the future and i will vote for him. But I have a lot of friends who are Hillary fans and i have been personally impressed with her tenacity and knowledge. If Obama has some bad skeleton in his closet and the repugs are waiting until after the convention to release it the Dems could be in big trouble. Having had a little experience in politics i can tell you if there is something bad out there on Obama, Hillary knows it. That is what Op research is all about. She may not be able to use it because she has already seen how obvious issues such as race, which is out there like it or not, has been received by a large contingent of Dem voters. No she is doing the correct thing. That fucking Gore should have fought those bastards to the death, something tells me Hillary would. But then so will Obama in my opinion. Listen to obama’s speeches lately. He has praised Hillary. Suggest you get your head out of your ass and get on board for a Dem victory in Nov. Cheers.

  18. By Craig R. Harmon on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Who’s not obeying the rules? Surely there are no rules against lobbying party leaders to change what one feels to be fundamentally unfair rules that void the votes of Democrats. After all, protesting rules that silence the voice of others is pretty much what the folks here at BIO! are doing every day. So why is it noble when you all do it here at BIO! but rape when Hillary does it? Sorry man. I think you’ve lost sight of the very meaning of your party: to empower everyone and make every voice heard. That meaning suffers when you make rules that invalidate the votes of members of your own party. Or that’s the way I see it, anyway.

    And, well, guess what? Party leaders seem to be in talks to make some sort of compromise to at least restore some meaning to those votes so, apparently, there’s some flexibility in the rules, no? I mean, even laws can be changed when the laws seem less than optimal. So why should mere party rules be inviolable?

    But why would they be talking about compromise if not for the fact that Hillary’s got a darn good point: namely that party rules of a party named “Democratic” and which repeatedly maligns Republicans for disenfranchising voters, ought not to be disenfranchising voters. There’s a certain hypocrisy in that, I think.

  19. By admin on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Oh rube my head isn’t in my ass. I’m rallied around the winner. You’re asking questions that amount to “if my aunt had balls would she be mu uncle”

    If something “bad” comes out about Obama then it comes out. We know there is shit in Hillary’s past that will come out (and has) so what difference does it make. That’s the chance you take with any WINNER of a primary. And make no mistake about it he is the legitimate winner even if you use her absurd and tortured logic to seat ALL Florida delegates, all Michigan delgates and give her the votes per the results - no compromise, no settlement. She still is the LOSER with all of that breaking in her favor.

    I’m really sorry Florida and Michigan don’t count. At any point either state could have had a do-over and had every vote count. They could have had a caucus, a new primary even a straw-poll and their delegates woudl have been seated. Instead neither state wanted to pony up the money to FIX the problems THEY started and Clinton’s friends voted to SUPPORT. So yeah, sorry their votes don’t count. Your’s, mine, my wifes, my friends etc. They don’t count. Sucks to be us, but those are the rules. Why not just let 14 years olds have a say if we are going to change the rules at the end.

    If Hillary supporters will not rally around Obama, then they get the government they deserve. If Hillary continues to feed to flames of divisiveness by running her campaign the way she has lately then it will be on her shoulders not mine. I’m not the one who wants to change the rules, references Bobby Kennedy’s assassination, makes up events, etc. I’m not the one who lost the election. She is. Being a graceful loser is her job now and she isn’t up to the challenge.

  20. By admin on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Oh Craig if only the world was a rosy for me as it was for you. If only I could believe that Hillary was really just trying to have my voice heard (but not the 40% of Michigan voters who voted against her), if only I believed she was just trying to be “fair” when she now argues that the rules her team agreed to at the begining are unfair I’d live in a much nicer world.

    Oh when my Indians were up 3-2 against Boston last year, if we could have just lobbied Major League Baseball to end the series there, we could have played in the World Series. We should ask for an extra game because our losing wasn’t fair. If my Cavs had only just had 5 more minutes at the end of their series against Boston we would have beaten them. Lets change the rules so that they can keep playing. If my Browns had been allowed to kick that field-goal again against the Raiders we would have made the playoffs. Someone call commissioner Godell now and tell him to change history since MY team didn’t win.

    I know I’m being silly and sarcastic. Well if you think that’s asinine how can you in good conscience argue what Hillary Clinton is doing is any different. She is a political opportunist looking for any way to win at any cost.

    Rules. You agree to them, you live by them, you die by them. If you want them changed do it before the season or after it - not during no matter how stupid the rule is.

  21. By Craig R. Harmon on May 29, 2008 | Reply


    Rules are just arbitrary decisions, set up by people who have only an imperfect idea of what the repercussions of those rules might be in the future. They are like Senate rules. Some committee decides that this rule would be good. Later it is found that the rule results in some bizar outcome, like disenfranchising the votes of representatives of several states. Why should mere rules that result in some unjust end be set in stone? Look. The goal here is simple, isn’t it? To establish a system where every adult citizen gets equal opportunity to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice. The current rules disenfranchise voters. I honestly cannot believe that I am arguing with Democrats that they ought not disenfranchise their own voters or that re-enfranchising those votes is clearly the right thing to do. That in itself is bizar to me.

    To die by rules that disenfranchise your own people is not something I think any American should stand by, let alone any Democrat. Bad rules need to be changed, not defended to the death. You agree to rules until the rules lead to untenable results. When that happens, you change the rules. You guys are supposed to be the progressives, leading the charge for change. I’m the conservative, for crying out loud.

  22. By Ken Grandlund on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    I have to side with Tom’s last comment here Craig- she knew the rules going in and agreed to abide by them before the official primary season began. (And then she didn’t abide by them by campaigning in FL and MI anyway.) She should live by them now.

    But changing the rules should be the first order of business for party officials once this primary has concluded.

  23. By rube cretin on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Cranky or Admin what ever your name is. Looks like the curtain hiding the wizard has been pulled back.

    “If something “bad” comes out about Obama then it comes out.” Now what kind of person would take that position?

    “We know there is shit in Hillary’s past that will come out.” Would you care to list the repug talking points at this time? I have lots of time.

    “I’m really sorry Florida and Michigan don’t count.” Are you sure about that statement as a good democrat? Was that your position in 2000?

    “If Hillary supporters will not rally around Obama, then they get the government they deserve.” Think about that statement very carefully, when natural law says everything is connected.

    “If Hillary continues to feed to flames of divisiveness by running her campaign the way she has lately then it will be on her shoulders not mine.” Now that really scares me. Why don’t you just say you would never vote for her.

    “I’m not the one who wants to change the rules, references Bobby Kennedy’s assassination,…”
    Facts are facts. Just what month was Bobby
    assassinated in?

    “Being a graceful loser is her job now and she isn’t up to the challenge.” So you want her to be like Gore?

    Listen I don’t know who you are, but i can tell you this thing is being handled exactly like the opposition party would like. Once again, get your head our of your ass!

  24. By Craig R. Harmon on May 29, 2008 | Reply


    Oh rube my head isn’t in my ass. I’m rallied around the winner.

    The winner has not been selected yet. By the rules of your own party, the popular vote could be ignored entirely and delegates and super-delegates could decide in the end to make Al Gore its presidential candidate. The game isn’t over, yet.

  25. By Ken Grandlund on May 29, 2008 | Reply


    This should really be a simple discussion. I don’t think anyone here is saying that the current rules in place by the democratic party for the primary contests are good rules- but they are the rules for this contest and everyone knew them before they began. As such, they should abide by the outcomes of the game as played by those rules. That one candidate now wants to alter the rules in an effort to bolster her sagging campaign smells like poor sportsmanship, and frankly, we’ve had enough of that kind of “leadership” to last several lifetimes.

  26. By Craig R. Harmon on May 29, 2008 | Reply


    Choosing presidents isn’t a game. In my opinion, it’s too important to be analogizing as a game or pretending that disenfranchising voters is of no more importance than who wins the Super Bowl. It’s about the future of this country and basic fairness and how those in power treat those they are supposed to be working for. If rules suck, in my opinion, the voters oughtn’t be punished because the rules suck. If the rules suck, you change them.

    Happily, the party seems to be at least willing to talk about doing that. Whether they will or not, remains to be seen but the argument is strong enough that they are at least talking about making this right.

    And I’m not arguing for Hillary. I no more believe that Hillary will be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 than I think snow is hot and water is dry and there are polls out there that say Hillary would have a better chance of beating McCain than Obama so I’m not arguing as I am in order to secure a surer win for McCain, whom I don’t think has much of a chance against either of the Democratic candidates.

    I’m arguing for the Democratic voters of two states, for inclusion, for recognition that the voters of two states are more important than arcane rules that almost no one understands and which, in this case, has reached, in my opinion, a very bad result, not just for the voters of the state or for the Democratic Party but for the country and its electoral process.

  27. By rube cretin on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    “your own party,” Was that a Freudian slip?

    “That one candidate now wants to alter the rules in an effort to bolster her sagging campaign smells like poor sportsmanship, and frankly, we’ve had enough of that kind of “leadership” to last several lifetimes.” Screw sportsmanship, i want to win. This ain’t bean bag. That is just the kind of thinking that has got us 8 years of hell. Now tell me, if all of the super delegates voted for Hillary would you support their position? The nominee would have been elected by the rules. No, you would bitch and moan and vote for the repug or stay home. That is the problem the dems are struggling with in this election and the MSM and repugs have orchestrated the whole thing. Now tell me how many times have the Dems not nominated the person who has received the votes of the most delegates. Well, no one has the majority of the delegates yet. Would you quit if you were still in the race by the numbers, even if you were behind in the current count? I wouldn’t.

    This is the point of this whole delusional rant of mine. The dems are very close to turning off many of their voters and if they are not careful. Obama already knows this. Listen to his recent comments about Hillary. He knows he is in trouble if Hillary’s supporters do not get on board. His supporters, who do not recognize the nomination is over, and get over it, are pissing off alot of folks who will be needed in Nov.

  28. By Ken Grandlund on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Out of curiousity…did you present a similar argument in 2000 when the whole “hanging chad” nonsense was going on or was it “too bad for those idiots who can’t mark a ballot properly?”

    Out of curiousity…did you present a similar argument when in 2004 multiple irregularities were discovered in the Ohio election process or was it “too bad, so sad for them?”

    Or how about when Bush-Cheney were busy approving torture and domestic eavesdropping w/o any voter approval of any sort whatsoever?

    Did you rail against the inherent unfairness of any of those actions?

    I agree that electing a president is not a game- too bad the majority of politicians/media/voters don’t share that opinion or we’d have a much higher calibre of candidates to begin with. All of that however is beside the point- namely being that each candidate and each state party agreed to this set of rules in advance. Each knew the consequences of breaking the rules. There were no surprises here, unless you count the fact that one candidate decided to ignore the rules after the fact- could have done so just to create this eventuality were she to falter in the vote count. And in fact, those voters who cast ballots in FL and MI are not disenfranchised in reality- they cast their vote and made their choice known. The record stands even if it has no role in the convention outcome. Except for all those “Other” voters in MI. I don’t hear Hillary clamoring to seat those as Obama delegates. They couldn’t even put their vote with a name because all the candidates EXCEPT Hillary took their names off the ballot to COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF THE PARTY.

    As I stated before, the rules need to be changed. But not in the last quarter.

    And don’t cry to me about the unfairness of the result and its dire consequences for the nation or democracy- not after supporting Bush policies for two terms. Pick any one of his actions and you’ll find much more dire effects to our country than this petty party squabble.

    That this process is flawed has no more serious consequences than any number of inane congressional actions over the years, and in fact, is much less detrimental to American democracy than those things which our government does daily to undermine American prestige around the world and to devestate our childrens future domestically.

  29. By Ken Grandlund on May 29, 2008 | Reply


    Given that I can’t stomach another 4 years of Bush-style politics, I would not vote for McCain were Hillary the eventual Democratic candidate. Neither would I stay home. I’d hold my nose and mark the box next to her name and then live with the fact. Just like I did in 2004. And in 2000. At the end of the day, removing the cancer that has been the GOP is tantamount in my mind. So you are wrong to say I would bitch and moan and vote “repug” or just stay home. My vote hasn’t always been for the winner, but I’ve never sat out an election and wouldn’t do so in those circumstances.

    The problem is though that Hillary is cut from the same cloth as those we need to rid ourselves of- politically speaking.

    My whole political life has been spent trying to break this horrid excuse we have for “representation” and get people back in control of their government and national destiny. Obama has best espoused those political philosophies this cycle and thus has my support.

    As to “what I would do” were I in the situation Hillary is in? It depends of course. Were I of the “it’s my turn dammit” mentality that Hillary seems to be in I’d do as she is doing. But if I were to be true to myself- and more importantly, true to the citizens I was seeking to represent- and were I to recognize that my actions to remain in the race come hell or high water could actually end in the result of another 4 years of GOP dominance in the White House, I’d step out, mend the fence, and campaign like hell for the nominee.

  30. By admin on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    if Hillary’s supporters want to throw away their reproductive freedom then let them. Pout and whine that your candidate didn’t win and don’t vote for the person who has the MAJORITY of elected delegates (and can’t be caught).

    Oh yeah and one more thing, if Hillary somehow steals this, kis the election goodbye anyhow. Last I looked the African American community votes about 92% Dem and make up a large part of our base. I’m pretty sure they won’t take kindly to having the winner cheated out of an election thanks to a 4th quarter rules change.

  31. By admin on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Rube if Obama doesn’t win the nomination because of something like you described, then it’s over anyhow.

    I mean really what other party but the freaking Dems would even have this issue. All the Republicans could vote for Mitt Romney at their convention but it won’t happen. Any other candidate would have had the grace to bow out by now once it was it became an a convoluted nightmare of illogic to win the nomination.

  32. By rube cretin on May 29, 2008 | Reply

    Sorry, I have got to go to bed. I will meet you here at 3:30 am tomorrow if you desire. You see “its my turn dammit” is something i’m not sure she would have said. The lady is a warrior and anyone who thinks other wise has not paid attention to her campaign and the struggle she has waged. Obama is a rock star and will be the nominee and likely the next president. But, my friend, Hillary is a unique lady and anyone who does not recognize that fact is …

  33. By Craig R. Harmon on May 29, 2008 | Reply


    I wasn’t online in 2000. I could only shake my head at the whole fiasco. I am for free and fair elections. I think voter irregularities should be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate under the law.

    Anyway, I’m whooshed. Night all!

  34. By rube cretin on May 30, 2008 | Reply

    “Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?”

  35. By Craig R. Harmon on May 30, 2008 | Reply

    See, this is the sort of picture that I don’t think Democrats want to be seen as having any part in causing. This is your Brand we’re talking about. Ignoring this can do you no good.

Post a Comment