(Untitled)

May 31, 2008 19:21

Leave a comment

Comments 4

(The comment has been removed)

absinthea June 1 2008, 02:46:26 UTC
Because they seated them. Basically it sends the message that says "break our rules in spite of the threatened punishments because we won't REALLY hold you to it". If I were a MI or FL voter, I'd have been madder than hell that my state's democrat leaders would think that moving the primary up was a good idea. Hold those assholes accountable.

I also think it was pretty damn greedy of the Clinton camp to try to say that she was entitled to ALL the delegates because Obama wasn't listed on the ballot (which I thought the candidates pledged to all do--withdraw their names--because of the primary date tomfoolery).

Reply


tac_neural May 31 2008, 23:50:50 UTC
Personally, I disagree.

I think the right decision was made. We've had enough rule-breaking in American politics/government, so I'm glad to see the party stood up and said "Hey, you were warned this would happen. Deal with it."

Reply

absinthea June 1 2008, 02:49:52 UTC
Agreed that there is rampant rule-breaking (which is not right at all), but I also think the people responsible should be held personally accountable. In the real world natural consequences are rarely that forgiving.

Reply


moria73 June 1 2008, 15:57:26 UTC
I just wanna know when Clinton is finally going to stop idiotically destroying the whole damn party's chance of winning the election by refusing to face the reality *there's no bloody way she's going to win*!!!

Fer cryin' out loud... Obama only needs 65 more delegates to win. Hill needs *240*!

GIVE IT UP ALREADY

Reply


Leave a comment

Up