Comments on: Bill Clinton: Caucuses ‘Killing Us’

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:13:18 +0000

Oh what a tangled web we weave.
hahahahahahahalolololololololol
She deserves what she gets

By: js

js — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:03:02 +0000

How can Barack win every caucus? Has anyone checked to see if he’s cheating???????
Something’s not right if they run about 50-50 in the primaries, how can she loose every caucus?

By: Arbuckle Doc

Arbuckle Doc — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:39:55 +0000

“Do the Clintons lie? Only when their lips are moving. Bill Clinton’s lying has led to his conviction for lying to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice.”
Posted by: Randle Bate | Mar 27, 2008 10:32:27 PM
As a matter of RECORD, which you seem to have thrown out the window, as Republicans are wont to do, Bill Clinton was ACCQUITED, in the US Senate, of lying to Congress!!! Why lie to everyone, in order to cover up the fact, that you are backing a LOSER, in Barack Obama!!! Why else, would he be so popular, among Independents and Republicans???? Among REGISTERED Democrats, Hillary Clinton has a HUGE lead, in public support!!! Does that just stick in your craw, or something, and make it necessary to LIE????

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:44:41 +0000

Someone in the comments goes into detail about why caucus should not matter but you know what? THEY DO. Period. And just as with the Clintons, you cannot change the rules near the end of a contest just because your a loser which is what the Clintons are attempting to do.
This has all been a part of what we call a democratic process. Hillary will lose unless she changes the rules at this late date but they would rather lie to the voters and hope that no one catches them until it is too late…much the way Bill won.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:41:13 +0000

The Clintons remind one of the Great Gatsby….screaming that they still matter and if you don’t believe them? Your a judus.
How sad. Hillary disenfranchises FL and MI and now that she needs them, they count.
The small states did not matter and now that she is losing? They still don’t matter.
The caucus votes? They may be democractic but now they don’t want them to matter.
Talk about disenfranchising voters? Heck the only ones that seem to matter to the Clintons are the ones that voted for her which don’t include:
The majority of States
The popular vote
Elected delegates
The Clinton retoric is all about disenfranchisment if one listens close enouge.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:30:30 +0000

Again a Clinton tries to change the rules LOL How predictable.

By: kasey

kasey — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:47:48 +0000

I’m amazed at the hypocrisy and lack of knowledge of history shown by all who have written in. These rules for selecting a nominee have not changed much since Truman ran for President in 1948.
Now all of a sudden, because of the expanded media coverage (t.v. radio, and Internet) the undemocratic rules are being exposed. You don’t change them now, but before the next election.
Both candidates signed detailed agreements with the Democratic Party to abide by these rules. Neither candidate can morally or legally “cry foul” only when these rules work against them.
Also, please note, Florida and Michigan Democrats didn’t set their primaries: the Republican controlled legislatures of those states set the early primaries knowing that the Demo delegates from those states faced “not being seated.” Legal but unethical tactics. Howard Dean should have found a way to fix that. Or one or both candidates should have found a way to remedy that harsh outcome and thus shown real leadership!
And if you want to talk about fair: the Conventions are not democratic. The delegates who attend who are “pledged” to vote for Obama or Clinton are “released” from that pledge after 4 ballots, if no candidate wins the majority. So now your party’s delegates are now making the decision that may be violative of what you thought you had voted for in the primaries: but I bet none of you knew about that bit of “inside party politics”.
And if you want more examples of undemocratic rules in process, look at these:
a. the residents of D.C. do not get to vote for President. Their election votes do not elect a voting Congressperson to the House or to the Senate; neither party can get a 2/3 vote through to change the Constitution. So those 300,000 residents merely vote for a “Delegate” to Congress who sits on Committees and watches! That is undemocratic;
b. your vote for President this fall is not a vote for your candidate. It is a vote for an unknown person who when the Electoral College meets two weeks later, votes for the candidate to whom they are pledged. That’s why George Bush won last time: he had more electorcal college votes but less actual votes cast for him. Neither party has the guts to change that undemocratic process installed by Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Hamilton. The idea was that the “delegates” to the electoral college would be the leading citizens of the community and would decide for the rest of us. This was a concept adopted from the Roman Empire and the “slave owning” founding fathers, fearing the chaos from non-land owners having a vote, established this system that to this day, reeks of dictatorship, not democracry.

By: timeforchange

timeforchange — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:49:31 +0000

just like a democrat always trying to change the system when it doesn’t work for them.. normally when it fails them against a republican, now dem vs dem? when will the circus stop?

By: ecampforts

ecampforts — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:52:51 +0000

The Clintons want to count votes in unfair elections (with nobody campaigning or the other party not on the ballot) and they want to disenfranchise votes from fair elections? And then, as President, they will be seen by the world nations of the teachers of democracy?
There are valid objections to caucuses, but why during this 35 years Clinton never mentioned them before, if she cares for democrac?

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:02:33 +0000

For BienAime,
True intimidation occurs in caucuses, not primaries, where votes are made in private. Additionally, there is a time factor with caucuses. Primaries have a voting window that allows for many more people to vote. Those who work, and don’t have the luxury to attend a caucus, appreciate the convenience (and fairness) of a primary. Your statement about fixed elections is ridiculous. Why do you even bother to vote if you think elections are always rigged?