So is this the thread where you engage the multiple substantive arguments against the talking points you've posted for the last week?

It's America too, dammit!!!!

is this snark?

and she speaks with conviction, intent, and challenge.  A few points worth noting:

--She will always stand for people's votes--it doesn't matter WHO they vote for.  That is a simple proposition and reflects confidence--let the people vote. It also reflects a mature understanding of what happened in 2000 and 2004 (OH), and a growing understanding of the consequences of the DNC rules.  I think this means that if she is the nominee or not, she, like many others, will work to reform the DNC rules (i.e., caucuses, primary schedule) to more truly reflect the will of the people.

--Revisiting the Obama response to the revote proposal. I know the obama excuses for not agreeing were something about who was going to pay for it (HRC affiliated), and "not wanting to break the rules"...and then after having removed his name from the ballot, still using that as a reason to somehow block a revote. It seems his response to the revote was not well thought out. And I believe Obama is a voting rights attorney, isn't he?

--Anyway, to reject a revote, in retrospect, now seems a clear strategy to deny HRC any chance at the nomination--cold, calculated politics.  The victim included not only HRC, but Michigan voters.  This is the risk he took, and now it is even more clear that Michigan and Florida votes would have challenged his campaign to truly work for the nomination instead of "riding the wave" to it.  This is one of those risks that has come back to haunt him, and seriously challenge his nomination prospects, making it even more clear how closely divided the country is between the two candidates.

Well, HRC has certainly earned my vote now and in November.  And yes, my vote does represent the hopes and dreams for my children and their future.

But its ok that she went back on her position to NOT SEAT THEM from earlier in the races.  Notice you fail to ever comment on that.  

Ah.  You voted in Florida.

Many didn't, because they trusted Hillary Clinton, the other candidates, and the DNC when they said that the Florida election wouldn't count for anything.

Why should those people lose their right to have a say in the process, simply because they trusted Hillary Clinton, the other candidates, and the DNC?

T'rate for abusing the troll rate abuse on every single diary.

Finally you appear.

You got to keep you ballot?

on this:

Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

When jerks are right, they are right!

Hillary's people voted to disenfranchise you. Every .. single .. one of them.

The only person who stood up for you at the DNC was an Obama supporter from Florida.

More here.

Just thought you might want to know.

lol, they don't care.  As long as HRC wins, they don't care if Alaska has the first primary two years before the convention.  Whaddaya gonna do--disenfrachise 'em?

uprated to counter ridiculous and unpunished ratings abuse.

He's admirable in his own crazy way.

he could sew this up so easily. Yet he continues to try to smear his opponent by contacting the press and misinterpreting her RFK remarks...odd. He continues to trash the reputation of a two-term Democratic Senator and two-term Democratic President.

He could come out in favor of seating the delegates, but he's hanging back, trying to kick the can down the road.

Maybe like he said a while ago, he wants more experience in the Senate before being president.

If anything I think at least those three need to loose their votes at the convention.

they have none.  It's like the Republicans' "that was before 9/11" argument.

You mean like this:

...Obama spokesman Bill Burton offered a reminder that the primaries in Michigan and Florida will "have no bearing on the Democratic nomination contest" because the states won't have any delegates at the national convention.

Not so fast, says the Clinton campaign. In a memo just circulated in response, the Clinton campaign denies the charge that it's planning to campaign in Florida; says the Obama campaign is pushing the Michigan-doesn't-matter line only because its efforts to get Democrats to vote "uncommitted" isn't working; and seems to be hinting that it may fight to have delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention after all.

"While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."

No -- because this isn't about delegates anymore.

This is about sabotaging the Democrats in 2008 unless she gets the nomination.

I'm going to donate $200 to the most credible primary opponent she has in her 2012 Senate Race unless she either get the nomination or quits by July 1. She's worse than Lieberman at this rate.

I believe that's called opportunism.

The one with the most delegates wins.

If John Kerry had gotten 70,000 more of Bush's votes in Ohio, he would have been elected President, but still lost the popular vote.

Would you have protested that as well?

that is a bs rationale. Obama never even tried to get on the MI ballot because he thought he would not be able to compete there and instead focussed on Iowa. After winning Iowa he decided to campaignin MI through surrogates. In FL both candidates had their name on ballot and Obama was the one who campaigned there breaking his pledge. So nice try at revisionism.

to round up troops eh?

What better way to counter "Hillary smut" than to further push progressive policies out of national government for another 8 years!

Yes.  Please direct the readers to hillaryis44.

I'd think neutral readers who see that cesspool would be much less inclined to ally themselves with the racists and hatemongers that post over there.

(I support Obama.)

These rabid Hillary supporters scare me. I fear they will cost the democrats the election, with a little propoganda from the C-Team.

So be there or be square
you silly old coots,
and remeber to wear
your fuzzy pink suits!

That way they'll know
that we're nuts to the core,
we're the low of the low
from Hillaryis44!

Which reminds me, there was a substantive question I posed, oh, almost a week ago, in response to the "she won the first half" diary. I think Elsinora had one, too. Maybe someday we'll even get answers to them...