TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

Double Standards | 96 comments (96 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Could you explain this more? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:34:15 AM EST

Which rules exactly is Clinton trying to break? Please provide links and solid evidence to back up your statement.

[ Parent ]

: I think the commenter is referring to (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:45:53 AM EST

Clinton campaign's request the eligibility of TX caucus voters be verified. However, she raised the same concern before the TX primary/caucuses.

[ Parent ]
: None (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST

Clinton is proposing any rule. The rules have always held that a state that is stripped of it's delegates has the right to appeals to the credentialing committee or develop a process to seat it's delegates i.e. vote. The states, candidates and DNC are going throught the process. The credentials committee will be unable to reach a supermajority decision as the committee is sat according to delegate apportionment. Stalling is being used so no process can be developed in time.

[ Parent ]
: In reality (none / 0) (#97)
by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM EST

No one, including the Obama campaign, thought the pledge required the campaigns to take their names off the Michigan ballot. This has been discussed many times here.

[ Parent ]
: No (none / 0) (#99)
by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:58:43 PM EST

It means I do not run ads, campaign, etc. Which none of them did in MI. It does NOT say "I shall remove my name to make people in Iowa and New Hampshire like me more." It also does not say that if that short sighted move backfires later I get to claim the votes don't count.

[ Parent ]

Double Standards | 96 comments (96 topical)