1. If Obama was able to get his name off of the ballot in MI, why did he and John Edwards not also take their names off of the ballot in FL? Why was he in FL in the week prior to the election? You could make the argument that he was not actively campaigning. The same argument could be made for Clinton. There were no rallies held that I'm aware of for either. There was fundraising for both. I don't live in MI so I can't say for sure. I would guess that there was no active campaigning there either by Obama, Clinton, or Edwards. The only difference is Clinton's name was on the ballot in MI and the other 2 weren't.

2. If Obama wins the majic number of delegates and the popular vote, then I agree that he deserves to win. If he fails to win the popular vote and still manages to win the delegate vote w/o FL or MI delegates being sat at the convention, there will be controversy. It cuts both ways. There would be contraversy if Clinton won under similar circumstances. Btw, I'd be more likely to stay home if Clinton won. If Obama wins, I'm voting for McCain.

3. The difference between now and the 2000 election is in 2000 it was about the rule of law. This year it's about the rules of the DNC and to a lesser extent, the RNC. At least with the RNC, there will still be representation of these 2 states. Let's just be honest here too. We're talking about 7 days here. give me a break. The reason for the rule was and always been so that the smaller states like NH and IA will have some amount of say in the decision of who becomes the nominee. There were no states marginalized by FL holding their primary 7 days early. Every state that had their primary on a traditionally early date had already had their primary at that point with SC being the last on the 26th of Jan. I do not support anarchy but I do support challenging bad decisions. This is one of those cases.

4. Refer to #1 for a response to your 4th paragraph. Once again there are really only 2 differences between Clinton and Obama in the above contraversy. 1. Clinton was on the ballot in both states; Obama was on the ballot in just one of them. 2. Clinton won big in both states, Obama lost huge in only FL.

Show any news report where Obama was in Florida, I haven't seen them.

The legustics of getting your name off the ballot are different state to state I assume. The question is why did Obama and Edwards do as the party asked and honor what they agreed to and Clinton didn't.

The facts are simple 3 candidates made an agreement to follow DNC rules, one backtracked after they started losing, Clinton.

When Senator Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, she said that states like Michigan and Florida that won’t award delegates, "don’t count for anything.’" Now that Senator Clinton has lost badly in South Carolina, she’s trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred. --Bill Burton


Delegates determine the nominee, that's how the system is designed in the RNC and DNC. We use the similiar concept, electoral college in the general election. Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college.

Obama leads and will win the popular vote, delegate count, and the most states. Not seating Fl or MI makes no differnece b/c their delegates will not create a difference that would allow Clinton to over take Obama. In a proportional delegate system there is no way for Clinton to catch up, even she knows the delegate math doesn''t work for her.

It's a big deal. It means that states can selectively follow the rules of the party. it undermines the ability of the parties to run elections for the nomination. The rules were known to them 1 1/2 years before the primary. They chose to purposely defy them as their decision was made much after the rules were in place. That is anarchy and arrogance to believe that rules apply to every state, but them. Other states faced with the same option moved to Feb 5th within the rules of the RNC and DNC..[/quote]

Clinton beat uncommitted which got 40% in MI, what an accomplishment.
Florida she "won" on name recognition as every state that Obama actually campaigns in his numbers go up and her numbers go down. Example Texas, she was up by 20% 3 weeks before and won by 3%.

Obama's gonna win, no sense in getting into pointless arguments. Clinton is full of fear and false promises. Republitards had the last 8 years to ruin this country, voting for McCain would be Un-American.

__________________
There is no chance, no fate, no destiny that can circumvent, or hinder, or control a firm resolve of a determined soul.

"I've got a degree in Homeopathic Medicine!....You've got a degree in baloney" -Futurama

"...you should take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort...Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap" -Futurama

big changes coming. hopefully no swiftboating at the last minute this time.

__________________
But remember that, even when those who move you be kings or men of power, your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God you cannot say "but I was told by others to do thus" or that "virtue was not convenient at the time." This will not suffice. Remember that.

both the democratic candidates are going to be extremely easy targets for swiftboating. whether or not the swiftboating claims are founded or not doesnt matter, its probably going to happen.

just off the top of my head.... possible swift topics:

obama is a muslim with his "hussein" middle name
obama will meet with castro, ahmedinajad, kim jon il, bin laden, etc
obama will pull our troops from everywhere, from iraq, afghanistan, korea
hillary and whitewater
hillary and her thesis
hillary and the driver licenses for illegal immigrants
hillary and her locked up tax and white house records

whether or not any of these ideas are founded doesnt matter, what matters is that these will be used to scare away independant voters.

i still think obama killed his chances for carrying florida because of his comment about meeting castro. there is probably a swift boat ad already made ready to run in florida about this.

__________________
Dr. Scott
Internal Medicine
PGY-1

AUC Forum Moderator

Florida is not going to go to a Dem no matter what. The state has become increasingly republican. The Pan handle is a lost cost and the soon the better people stop pandering to the ridiculous Cuban factions. So what Cuba is communist, China is communist and they make 1/2 of are goods, are the 2nd largest holder of US debt, and we do 100 of billions of business with them. Yet, we have this riduculous embargo on Cuba. Commen sense overtaken by pandering to these people. If they want to change Cuba go back and change it from within. How many other communist countries rose up in E. Europe over the last 20 years t odepose thier leaders. It's much easier for these loud mouths to complain and get pandered to.

well, i disagree with you regarding florida as a republican lock. it did go for clinton back in 1996. if you dems took florida, it would be very hard for the republicans to make it up. i think it was a foolish mistake to not "pander" the cuban vote.

dont forget, it IS politics afterall. politics is all about pandering to many different groups.

__________________
Dr. Scott
Internal Medicine
PGY-1

AUC Forum Moderator

I am joining this discussion quite late-- but I'd like people's opinions-- why do you not like Hillary? (I am genuinely asking, not being trite here.) I have actually spent the time to read through all the CNN Election discussion of the various candidates and their campaign issues.... and Obama and Hillary's stances are highly similar on many issues. (Though it seems Hillary is a proponent of universal health care while Obama was extended coverage.) That's why I really can't decide.

I've read comments by those who are anti-Hillary... and most of them say stupid things about her 'shrieking voice' or something blatantly sexist. Or they make some dumb comment about the Bush and Clinton families alternative being in power for the last 20 years or so, and how we should break that trend. While it may be true that the same 2 families would be in power for many years, I don't think it's totally relevant because different people are at the helm (and one can't assume that their roles as president would be totally the same). People also criticize Bill's scandals... but I don't think that necessarily indicates how Hillary would be as president. None of these reasons are convincing, but rather show how judgmental and superficial people can be.

I have not heard one good reason for being anti-Hillary, but would certainly be open to hearing some of the pros and cons for both Clinton and Obama-- if someone is kind enough to share this without being sarcastic towards me, since this is a genuine question.

My limited experience with US politics, and particularly 'presidential' politics, is the extreme lack in differentiation between parties, candidates, platforms, rhetoric...etc. You will find "issues" being used by one side or the other for nice pavlovian responses: abortion, global warming, terrorism, gay marriage...etc. All a bunch of hot air in my opinion. We have a choice ultimately between either a Democrat or a Republican (thou shalt not expose the American political system to free market forces). And what kind of choice is that? Both parties live or die according to funding from political action committees (lobbies). So who is being "represented" by either Obama or Clinton? The same people being "represented" by Romney or McCain.

So take your pick...

I am wondering how the Spitzer scandal is going to affect the Democrats in the Presidential race. This could not have happened at more terrible time for them.