So ive been thinking for a while that the problem is the kinds of women that make it to power.
There have been some psych studies Im too lazy to dig up that essentially said that a woman acting commanding in a powerful position makes her seem bitchy whereas a man acting commanding in a powerful position just looks leader-like. Im starting to think the sexism doesnt lay in how people percieve powerful women, but that the sexism within the system of attaining power only allows for certain women to reach the top. And the type of females who can reach the top really are bitchy, not just subjectiviely mispercieved. Or perhaps women have to act that way when at the top.
When I think about other powerful media spotlight women, ranging from queens of England to PMs of Israel to nominees in the USA I get the feeling that theyre often percieved as being cold and heartless and perhaps they really were.
I feel this way due to exceptions Ive noticed to the overall argument of 'people are sexist towards women in power'. Condaleeza Rice is quite powerful, yet I dont think her femaninity is argued much for example. I wonder why is that? It seems more likely that shes an exception to the type of women who attain power than it is that the whole public has made an exception to acting sexist towards her.
I could be entirely wrong, feel free to rip apart my idea with examples to the contrary, but I dont think my imagining Hillary to be a royally cold hearted bitch is due to her gender.
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,†Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.â€
Except, as far as anyone seems to know, it was the Russians who liberated Auschwitz.
So he's admitting to be a commie?
The Soviets got most all of the Polish camps while the US got the German ones. Maybe he was thinking of Buchenwald instead of Birkenau?
Possibly his grandpa was under sniper fire at the time.
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,†Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.â€
Except, as far as anyone seems to know, it was the Russians who liberated Auschwitz.
So he's admitting to be a commie?
The Soviets got most all of the Polish camps while the US got the German ones. Maybe he was thinking of Buchenwald instead of Birkenau?
Possibly his grandpa was under sniper fire at the time.
To be fair, getting the risk and significance wrong (Bosnia) is worse than getting the exact location wrong. :P
Wait they're actually saying that some of the uncommitted delegates who correspond to votes that specifically did not choose Clinton should be given to Clinton?
Depravity
You must have missed the Shakespeare article arguing that giving Hillary all her MI delegates and then splitting uncommitted evenly between her and Obama was unfair. To Clinton. Because he didn't earn those.
Oh that's even better. We've departed from our tenuous link to reality and gone straight to blatantly admitting that not just giving her the election is unfair. This isn't even a participation award, it's flat out saying that numbers voters and will of the people be damned, this is about entitlement goddamnit.
So wait, have you all discussed the amusing "give half of the uncommitted MI vote to Clinton even though she was actually a vote choice" line her crew is throwing out?
Because I think that actually broke this campaign right into absolute absurdity.
That's the rebuttal that's currently linked from Lanny Davis' wikipedia page.
Those are some excellent links, and I recommend people read through them. The first is an excellent example of just how intellectually dishonest some of the Clinton supporters are being, and the second really clears up the confusion.
I really hope Obama and the Rules Committee just go with the 69:59 split in MI and whatever break down it is in Florida, then cut the delegates in half as per the DNC rules for states that run unsanctioned primaries.
EDIT: Here is an amazing example of why Obama took his name off of the MI Ballot
Michigan has tried holding early, illegal primaries since at least 1980. Back then, Carter and Kennedy pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, which meant that the Mitten State was the only primary state won by Jerry Brown that year.
Same thing happened in 2000: Michigan tried holding early primaries, and both major candidates Gore and Bradley pulled their names from the ballot, leaving "uncommitted" and Lyndon LaRouche as the top vote-getters. Dismayed at this turn of events, the Michigan Dem leadership quickly organized a caucus, which Gore won.
They wanted to try it again in 2004, but then-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe made Carl Levin back down. (Now, of course, Mac works for Hillary, so he's done a 180.)
When Michigan broke the rules AGAIN in 2008, Edwards, Richardson and Obama, and later Kucinich, all agreed to pull their names from the primary ballot in the state. Hillary, however, broke decades of precedent and chose to stay on the ballot.
So ive been thinking for a while that the problem is the kinds of women that make it to power.
There have been some psych studies Im too lazy to dig up that essentially said that a woman acting commanding in a powerful position makes her seem bitchy whereas a man acting commanding in a powerful position just looks leader-like. Im starting to think the sexism doesnt lay in how people percieve powerful women, but that the sexism within the system of attaining power only allows for certain women to reach the top. And the type of females who can reach the top really are bitchy, not just subjectiviely mispercieved. Or perhaps women have to act that way when at the top.
When I think about other powerful media spotlight women, ranging from queens of England to PMs of Israel to nominees in the USA I get the feeling that theyre often percieved as being cold and heartless and perhaps they really were.
I feel this way due to exceptions Ive noticed to the overall argument of 'people are sexist towards women in power'. Condaleeza Rice is quite powerful, yet I dont think her femaninity is argued much for example. I wonder why is that? It seems more likely that shes an exception to the type of women who attain power than it is that the whole public has made an exception to acting sexist towards her.
I could be entirely wrong, feel free to rip apart my idea with examples to the contrary, but I dont think my imagining Hillary to be a royally cold hearted bitch is due to her gender.
I could think of more than a handfull of leaders at the state level who don't come across as 'bitchy' or 'cold' so I'd say it's more dependent on the individual woman and her character.
And there are a lot of men who worked their way up to the reins of power that don't come across as 'strong leaders' but more arrogant and assholish. There's just a much bigger pool of men at the upper echelons to make them seem like outliers even if the percentage of jackasses are roughly the same.
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,†Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.â€
Except, as far as anyone seems to know, it was the Russians who liberated Auschwitz.
So he's admitting to be a commie?
The Soviets got most all of the Polish camps while the US got the German ones. Maybe he was thinking of Buchenwald instead of Birkenau?
Possibly his grandpa was under sniper fire at the time.
And I'm sure it was late at night when he told the story, and was probably pretty tired.
To be fair, getting the risk and significance wrong (Bosnia) is worse than getting the exact location wrong. :P
Also, getting wrong something that happened to you a few years ago is a lot different than botching the details of a "family legend" from 60 years ago involving a relative.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
John McCain is on CNN, talking about nuclear weapons and the need for the US to lead the charge to remove the danger of them.
By bombing Iran?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Awesome. What was his vote on the Obama-Lugar Non-Proliferation bill, because if he's being a hypocrite this will definitely get into the stump speech?
EDIT: Here is an amazing example of why Obama took his name off of the MI Ballot
Michigan has tried holding early, illegal primaries since at least 1980. Back then, Carter and Kennedy pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, which meant that the Mitten State was the only primary state won by Jerry Brown that year.
Same thing happened in 2000: Michigan tried holding early primaries, and both major candidates Gore and Bradley pulled their names from the ballot, leaving "uncommitted" and Lyndon LaRouche as the top vote-getters. Dismayed at this turn of events, the Michigan Dem leadership quickly organized a caucus, which Gore won.
They wanted to try it again in 2004, but then-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe made Carl Levin back down. (Now, of course, Mac works for Hillary, so he's done a 180.)
When Michigan broke the rules AGAIN in 2008, Edwards, Richardson and Obama, and later Kucinich, all agreed to pull their names from the primary ballot in the state. Hillary, however, broke decades of precedent and chose to stay on the ballot.
Wow. If they try this shit every single time, I'm doubtful of how effective any punishment can be.
I've been trying to find a direct quote for the Auschwitz story, with no luck yet. That article says that he says his uncle was one of the first US troops into the camp, which does not necessarily mean that the Russians weren't there first, although I'm not sure if even that could have happened.
My memory is fuzzy, what was Obama's position on the revotes? I knew that he had some legal concerns, but that's the extent of my knowledge on the subject. Anyone remember the specifics?
My memory is fuzzy, what was Obama's position on the revotes? I knew that he had some legal concerns, but that's the extent of my knowledge on the subject. Anyone remember the specifics?
His position was to not take a position until the DNC decided.
EDIT: Here is an amazing example of why Obama took his name off of the MI Ballot
Michigan has tried holding early, illegal primaries since at least 1980. Back then, Carter and Kennedy pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, which meant that the Mitten State was the only primary state won by Jerry Brown that year.
Same thing happened in 2000: Michigan tried holding early primaries, and both major candidates Gore and Bradley pulled their names from the ballot, leaving "uncommitted" and Lyndon LaRouche as the top vote-getters. Dismayed at this turn of events, the Michigan Dem leadership quickly organized a caucus, which Gore won.
They wanted to try it again in 2004, but then-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe made Carl Levin back down. (Now, of course, Mac works for Hillary, so he's done a 180.)
When Michigan broke the rules AGAIN in 2008, Edwards, Richardson and Obama, and later Kucinich, all agreed to pull their names from the primary ballot in the state. Hillary, however, broke decades of precedent and chose to stay on the ballot.
Wow. If they try this shit every single time, I'm doubtful of how effective any punishment can be.
To be fair, Hillary didn't really break decades of precedent. She just followed the precedent set by Lyndon LaRouche. Which is so much more amusing.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
EDIT: Here is an amazing example of why Obama took his name off of the MI Ballot
Michigan has tried holding early, illegal primaries since at least 1980. Back then, Carter and Kennedy pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, which meant that the Mitten State was the only primary state won by Jerry Brown that year.
Same thing happened in 2000: Michigan tried holding early primaries, and both major candidates Gore and Bradley pulled their names from the ballot, leaving "uncommitted" and Lyndon LaRouche as the top vote-getters. Dismayed at this turn of events, the Michigan Dem leadership quickly organized a caucus, which Gore won.
They wanted to try it again in 2004, but then-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe made Carl Levin back down. (Now, of course, Mac works for Hillary, so he's done a 180.)
When Michigan broke the rules AGAIN in 2008, Edwards, Richardson and Obama, and later Kucinich, all agreed to pull their names from the primary ballot in the state. Hillary, however, broke decades of precedent and chose to stay on the ballot.
Wow. If they try this shit every single time, I'm doubtful of how effective any punishment can be.
Thats just it, because every single time in the past the punishment worked, and they re-held the election properly. Except now, because one of the major candidates didnt remove their name, so they got free "votes" and imaginary delegates that they wont give up, and wont let Michigan redo their primary/caucus like MI wanted to do.
I've been trying to find a direct quote for the Auschwitz story, with no luck yet. That article says that he says his uncle was one of the first US troops into the camp, which does not necessarily mean that the Russians weren't there first, although I'm not sure if even that could have happened.
Yeah, it looks like it was just some REALLY stupid quoting by CBS. Way to go Media!!
"In World War Two we didn't have the concept of post traumatic stress syndrome. People had to basically handle it on their own," he said. Referring to an uncle who had been one of the first U.S. troops into Auschwitz, the concentration camp, Obama said: "The story in the family is he came home and just went up in the attic."
My memory is fuzzy, what was Obama's position on the revotes? I knew that he had some legal concerns, but that's the extent of my knowledge on the subject. Anyone remember the specifics?
Mostly he was silent on it. Two of his supporters in the state brought up legal concerns on one revote proposal that said if you voted R in the primaries you couldn't vote in the revote (which would be against federal law apparently by adding a precondition to voting), which was a perfectly valid "hey, we're happy to listen to ideas, but that one's flat out illegal" stance.
Also, I read a bit of H44 today. The Civil War post is.. shocking. Amazing. They think they're the north, and a war is being waged against them.
edit: Actually, I think the No Preconditions law was MI State law that said their own proposal was a non starter.
We've been hearing rumblings to this effect for awhile, but continued (if unsourced) confirmation is good to hear.
Neither the Clinton nor the Obama campaign is clear what the DNC's rules and bylaws committee will do on May 31; depending upon how or whether they re-allocate delegates, Obama could wind up within to 20 to 30 votes of the nomination -- a situation rectifiable by a piddling performance in Puerto RIco, South Dakota and Montana -- or more than 100 delegates short, requiring solid performances in those states plus a few dozen superdelegate endorsements to put him over the top.
To prepare for that eventuality, the Obama campaign has, for the first time, really, begun to bank delegates. Sources close to the campaign estimate that as many as three dozen Democratic superdelegates have privately pledged to announce their support for Obama on June 4 or 5. The campaign is determined that Obama not end the first week in June without securing the support of delegates numbering 2026 -- or 2210, as the case may be.
Mostly he was silent on it. Two of his supporters in the state brought up legal concerns on one revote proposal that said if you voted R in the primaries you couldn't vote in the revote (which would be against federal law apparently by adding a precondition to voting), which was a perfectly valid "hey, we're happy to listen to ideas, but that one's flat out illegal" stance.
Also, I read a bit of H44 today. The Civil War post is.. shocking. Amazing. They think they're the north, and a war is being waged against them.
edit: Actually, I think the No Preconditions law was MI State law that said their own proposal was a non starter.
Wait, the Obama's campaign's objection was pointing out barring Operation Chaos voters was illegal?
Yes, because no Republicans are disaffected nor would tney support Obama. That would lead to some sort of crazed hybrid of impossible dread machinations. A Repubama or something.
Yes, because no Republicans are disaffected nor would tney support Obama. That would lead to some sort of crazed hybrid of impossible dread machinations. A Repubama or something.
Trust me, I understand Obama's cross party appeal but that's not the story that was playing then and it's not he story now. They really should have come out better on this.
Yes, because no Republicans are disaffected nor would tney support Obama. That would lead to some sort of crazed hybrid of impossible dread machinations. A Repubama or something.
Yes, because no Republicans are disaffected nor would tney support Obama. That would lead to some sort of crazed hybrid of impossible dread machinations. A Repubama or something.
Trust me, I understand Obama's cross party appeal but that's not the story that was playing then and it's not he story now. They really should have come out better on this.
Here I thought it was that letting people who voted in the Republican primary participate in the Democrat re-vote would be giving them 2 votes.
Wasn't there just one ballot? The only way of keeping Republicans out would have been to make the re-vote a closed primary. And that screws the Independents (and the Republicans who want to vote for a Democrat, regardless of their reasoning).
Yes, because no Republicans are disaffected nor would tney support Obama. That would lead to some sort of crazed hybrid of impossible dread machinations. A Repubama or something.
Trust me, I understand Obama's cross party appeal but that's not the story that was playing then and it's not he story now. They really should have come out better on this.
Here I thought it was that letting people who voted in the Republican primary participate in the Democrat re-vote would be giving them 2 votes.
Wasn't there just one ballot? The only way of keeping Republicans out would have been to make the re-vote a closed primary. And that screws the Independents (and the Republicans who want to vote for a Democrat, regardless of their reasoning).
Even if it was a closed primary, there was democrats that voted republican for the open republican primary in michigan because their democratic vote wouldnt have mattered.
Its a huge fucking mess because Hillary wouldnt take her name off the ballot, and flip flopped on whether the votes would matter there.
Yes, because no Republicans are disaffected nor would tney support Obama. That would lead to some sort of crazed hybrid of impossible dread machinations. A Repubama or something.
Mostly he was silent on it. Two of his supporters in the state brought up legal concerns on one revote proposal that said if you voted R in the primaries you couldn't vote in the revote (which would be against federal law apparently by adding a precondition to voting), which was a perfectly valid "hey, we're happy to listen to ideas, but that one's flat out illegal" stance.
Also, I read a bit of H44 today. The Civil War post is.. shocking. Amazing. They think they're the north, and a war is being waged against them.
edit: Actually, I think the No Preconditions law was MI State law that said their own proposal was a non starter.
Wait, the Obama's campaign's objection was pointing out barring Operation Chaos voters was illegal?
That bastard!
Other way. Disaffected Dems voting R since the dem primary wouldn't count and their candidate wasn't on the ballot would not be allowed to vote as they would have in a real primary (where they'd have voted for the dem they wanted)
Personal Peeve: If you wrote in Obama/Edwards/Whatnot, your ballot was DISCARDED, not tallied as uncommitted.
Mostly he was silent on it. Two of his supporters in the state brought up legal concerns on one revote proposal that said if you voted R in the primaries you couldn't vote in the revote (which would be against federal law apparently by adding a precondition to voting), which was a perfectly valid "hey, we're happy to listen to ideas, but that one's flat out illegal" stance.
Also, I read a bit of H44 today. The Civil War post is.. shocking. Amazing. They think they're the north, and a war is being waged against them.
edit: Actually, I think the No Preconditions law was MI State law that said their own proposal was a non starter.
Wait, the Obama's campaign's objection was pointing out barring Operation Chaos voters was illegal?
That bastard!
Other way. Disaffected Dems voting R since the dem primary wouldn't count and their candidate wasn't on the ballot would not be allowed to vote as they would have in a real primary (where they'd have voted for the dem they wanted)
Personal Peeve: If you wrote in Obama/Edwards/Whatnot, your ballot was DISCARDED, not tallied as uncommitted.
Could someone explain to me how, when the general election hasn't even started yet, Hillary could be winning it?
The same way she was inevitable in December, polls said so.
Duh.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited May 2008
If this does go to the convention, what is the danger of just letting those delegates from MI remain uncommitted, and letting them vote on the floor? If so many of these uncommitted delegates belong to Obama, would they not simply vote for him once he was an option for them?
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If this does go to the convention, what is the danger of just letting those delegates from MI remain uncommitted, and letting them vote on the floor? If so many of these uncommitted delegates belong to Obama, would they not simply vote for him once he was an option for them?
The convention is in August. We give up that much campaigning time to McCain, with Hillary sniping at Obama the whole time, we're fucked.
John McCain is on CNN, talking about nuclear weapons and the need for the US to lead the charge to remove the danger of them.
By bombing Iran?
I'd almost vote for him if he said that.... I wouldn't but I'd almost.
Ah yes... Iran... America's single greatest enemy who has yet to do anything but say things that are stupid.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
If this does go to the convention, what is the danger of just letting those delegates from MI remain uncommitted, and letting them vote on the floor? If so many of these uncommitted delegates belong to Obama, would they not simply vote for him once he was an option for them?
How can uncommitted pledged delegates "belong" to Obama..?
Posts
But he didn't say either.. There's no direct quote in the article featuring him saying Auschwitz, though.
There have been some psych studies Im too lazy to dig up that essentially said that a woman acting commanding in a powerful position makes her seem bitchy whereas a man acting commanding in a powerful position just looks leader-like. Im starting to think the sexism doesnt lay in how people percieve powerful women, but that the sexism within the system of attaining power only allows for certain women to reach the top. And the type of females who can reach the top really are bitchy, not just subjectiviely mispercieved. Or perhaps women have to act that way when at the top.
When I think about other powerful media spotlight women, ranging from queens of England to PMs of Israel to nominees in the USA I get the feeling that theyre often percieved as being cold and heartless and perhaps they really were.
I feel this way due to exceptions Ive noticed to the overall argument of 'people are sexist towards women in power'. Condaleeza Rice is quite powerful, yet I dont think her femaninity is argued much for example. I wonder why is that? It seems more likely that shes an exception to the type of women who attain power than it is that the whole public has made an exception to acting sexist towards her.
I could be entirely wrong, feel free to rip apart my idea with examples to the contrary, but I dont think my imagining Hillary to be a royally cold hearted bitch is due to her gender.
Surprised nobody in his campaign caught this, though.
In any case, his point is valid.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Possibly his grandpa was under sniper fire at the time.
To be fair, getting the risk and significance wrong (Bosnia) is worse than getting the exact location wrong. :P
Oh that's even better. We've departed from our tenuous link to reality and gone straight to blatantly admitting that not just giving her the election is unfair. This isn't even a participation award, it's flat out saying that numbers voters and will of the people be damned, this is about entitlement goddamnit.
Those are some excellent links, and I recommend people read through them. The first is an excellent example of just how intellectually dishonest some of the Clinton supporters are being, and the second really clears up the confusion.
I really hope Obama and the Rules Committee just go with the 69:59 split in MI and whatever break down it is in Florida, then cut the delegates in half as per the DNC rules for states that run unsanctioned primaries.
EDIT: Here is an amazing example of why Obama took his name off of the MI Ballot
MWO: Adamski
I could think of more than a handfull of leaders at the state level who don't come across as 'bitchy' or 'cold' so I'd say it's more dependent on the individual woman and her character.
And there are a lot of men who worked their way up to the reins of power that don't come across as 'strong leaders' but more arrogant and assholish. There's just a much bigger pool of men at the upper echelons to make them seem like outliers even if the percentage of jackasses are roughly the same.
And I'm sure it was late at night when he told the story, and was probably pretty tired.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Also, getting wrong something that happened to you a few years ago is a lot different than botching the details of a "family legend" from 60 years ago involving a relative.
By bombing Iran?
Wow. If they try this shit every single time, I'm doubtful of how effective any punishment can be.
I've been trying to find a direct quote for the Auschwitz story, with no luck yet. That article says that he says his uncle was one of the first US troops into the camp, which does not necessarily mean that the Russians weren't there first, although I'm not sure if even that could have happened.
My memory is fuzzy, what was Obama's position on the revotes? I knew that he had some legal concerns, but that's the extent of my knowledge on the subject. Anyone remember the specifics?
His position was to not take a position until the DNC decided.
Which means that he hates democracy or something.
To be fair, Hillary didn't really break decades of precedent. She just followed the precedent set by Lyndon LaRouche. Which is so much more amusing.
Thats just it, because every single time in the past the punishment worked, and they re-held the election properly. Except now, because one of the major candidates didnt remove their name, so they got free "votes" and imaginary delegates that they wont give up, and wont let Michigan redo their primary/caucus like MI wanted to do.
MWO: Adamski
Yeah, it looks like it was just some REALLY stupid quoting by CBS. Way to go Media!!
http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/detail.jsp?key=236609&rc=trail_po&p=0
SLIGHT difference between "liberate" and "say".
Mostly he was silent on it. Two of his supporters in the state brought up legal concerns on one revote proposal that said if you voted R in the primaries you couldn't vote in the revote (which would be against federal law apparently by adding a precondition to voting), which was a perfectly valid "hey, we're happy to listen to ideas, but that one's flat out illegal" stance.
Also, I read a bit of H44 today. The Civil War post is.. shocking. Amazing. They think they're the north, and a war is being waged against them.
edit: Actually, I think the No Preconditions law was MI State law that said their own proposal was a non starter.
That bastard!
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_clinton_mccain_join_forces
Here I thought it was that letting people who voted in the Republican primary participate in the Democrat re-vote would be giving them 2 votes.
Wasn't there just one ballot? The only way of keeping Republicans out would have been to make the re-vote a closed primary. And that screws the Independents (and the Republicans who want to vote for a Democrat, regardless of their reasoning).
Even if it was a closed primary, there was democrats that voted republican for the open republican primary in michigan because their democratic vote wouldnt have mattered.
Its a huge fucking mess because Hillary wouldnt take her name off the ballot, and flip flopped on whether the votes would matter there.
MWO: Adamski
Other way. Disaffected Dems voting R since the dem primary wouldn't count and their candidate wasn't on the ballot would not be allowed to vote as they would have in a real primary (where they'd have voted for the dem they wanted)
Personal Peeve: If you wrote in Obama/Edwards/Whatnot, your ballot was DISCARDED, not tallied as uncommitted.
Thats even worse
MWO: Adamski
The same way she was inevitable in December, polls said so.
Duh.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'd almost vote for him if he said that.... I wouldn't but I'd almost.
Karl Rove drawed a map. And he clearly would provide an unbiased opinion of what will happen in November.
Ah yes... Iran... America's single greatest enemy who has yet to do anything but say things that are stupid.
How can uncommitted pledged delegates "belong" to Obama..?