Sunday January 20, 2008, 9:25 am
This is just not right. The votes for delegates are being fixed by my own party now! WAHHHHH!!!!

Sunday January 20, 2008, 10:07 am
Not happy about it, but noted. : ( Thanks Kate.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 10:10 am
Now he knows how Dennis Kucinich feels, he has been cheated since the start of Elections.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 10:12 am
cate, as i understand it, in a caucus there is no uncommitted... you have a first and second choice and that is it...edwards did not have to go into the nevada caucus he could have withdrawn like he did in michigan... noted...:)

Sunday January 20, 2008, 10:40 am
Noted. Thanx Cate.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 10:42 am
This whole caucus business is unconstitutional and no states should be allowed to vote this way where the majority of the state doesn't even have a chance to vote and votes are switched on a second round of voting.One person one vote system is the democratic way not this bull crap caucus monkey business and delegate votes .
They will get who they want no matter what it takes to get that person elected be it unfair caucus's ,voter intimidation or rigged voting machines .Throw all the bums out of office and lets start over with our elected president Kucinich who isn't a Corporate shill.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 10:48 am
Richard...I agree with you totally....Dennis Kucinick was the most " true " Dem party candiate running.....unfortunately the system in place is tainted.....all the canidates should be in the running at every caucas..no one cut till the American public picks their person...
Only the public vote should counted....that is a really form of democracy..then we we really hear the voice of the American citzen...

Sunday January 20, 2008, 10:54 am
Amen Linda!!!!!

I live in Washington State. Here we have both a caucus and a primary (don't ask me why). In the past the state has always issued their delegates in a combination of who won the primary and who won the caucus. The Republicans are going to continue to do that BUT the Democratic party has decided that this time they will be casting ALL of their votes according to who wins the caucus. So in other words if you vote in the primaries and you're a Dem in this state...your vote doesn't count!!!! And they actually had the nerve to come out and explain that decision by saying that Caucus goers are generally better informed and more committed voters so the Party is more interested in making sure those peoples voices are heard!!!!!!! I guess the rest of us can just go get screwed.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 10:57 am
Noted with thanks, Cate. The whole system needs to be re-structured!

Sunday January 20, 2008, 11:37 am
I'd had my mind firmly made up to vote
for Dennis Kucinich. Then, when he did
not participate in the Iowa Caucuses,
and told all his supporters to go to
Barack Obama, I felt abandoned.
Then, I began to take another look at
John Edwards. But it seems now that the
Powers That Be have decided the Dem. nominee
will be either Hillary or Obama, and I can't
vote for either of them.
Hillary is as bad and as much of a Corporate
Tool as all the others. I am hearing much of the
same about Barack Obama. I really don't know
who to vote for now, probably John Edwards in the
primaries, but this November?.....I may just stay
home that day.....*sigh*....how much more screwed
can we possibly get?
Thanks, Cate.
noted.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 11:55 am
I think we all feel kind of the same way Tim. Also Thank You Laurie I totally agree with you. But the Government behind the Government, is going to put who they want in!! I was looking to vote for Kucinich when it all started then with whats happened to Him, I started thinking Republican, and there Ron Paul has my Vote. But their doing the same to Him as they are to Kucinich. I would love to see them 2 run together, then with them it would matter who got what because They would both get my approval. But what scares me is the electronic voting. It doesn't matter who counts the votes, its how the votes are counted. I have a article out today in Gov. & Politics about how Las Vegas news reports Ron Paul finishing 2nd in Neveda, but NETWORK T.V. has him coming in 4th on the polls.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 11:59 am
Sorry I have to correct my above. I meant to say I wouldn't care which one got what, because they would both make good Presidents or Vice Presidents. Thanks

Sunday January 20, 2008, 12:07 pm
Noted! I am so mad over this that I am shaking. Through my work and personal contacts, I have met all three of these people in question. Most of you know what I do for a living and I would like to think that I have some common sense to go with all of the education I have. Please understand what I am saying is without prejudice, just observation over a period of time. Out of these three people, I think John Edwards is the only electable candidate. I dont think the people in this country are ready for a woman president no matter who she is.and this is sad but more likely fact. I also don't think this country is ready for an African America and that is equally sad. However, having said that, remember the next president has to clean up the mess that the Bush Bunch left. I feel that John Edwards wants to restore the rights of people to have the neccessities in life ie, affordable health care, decent living wages, cutting the stronghold corporations have on the working people, deflating the lobbiest and their influence on the way Congress votes. I could go on and on and I am sure that I will get backlash from this comment as I have from other comments I have made. What it comes right down to is this the way WE THE PEOPLE want things done? I certainly don't! If I had been in Nevada at the time of the caucus and saw what was happening, I would have raised so much hell that I would be commenting on this story from a jail cell.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 12:24 pm

Viewing the death rattle of our form of government and if we can't wake up these selfish, childish morons around us we have zero chance of changing things.

Obviously what we have been doing is not working. I'm not saying we all aren't doing good in many ways, but we're losing our country and our world.

Does ANYBODY have any ideas of how to get through to people?

Sunday January 20, 2008, 12:49 pm

I don't understand Obama not pledging Allegiance to the country. Is he just emphasizing the hypocrisy of his peers?

Jon Stewart needs to bring him on his show to explain this. Will he pledge allegiance to the NWO instead?

Sunday January 20, 2008, 1:02 pm
Where is the power to change?? One must learn how this convoluted election process really works...where the grassroots guy/gal can make the most influence....this essay started my education.........

The Near-Impossibility Of A Brokered Convention

by Chris Bowers

Before I became a political activist, I was simply a political junkie who followed politics much in the same way I followed sports: studying stats, watching the returns on game night, and cheering for the team I liked, but otherwise not doing much. Like any political junkie, just like any sports junkie, it is easy to yearn for the highly unusual moment, for the unexpected situation, for the nail-biter, for the big upset, for the result no one else saw coming and for the simply extraordinary. In politics, a brokered convention--where the nominee is determined at the convention and not beforehand in the state primaries and caucuses--would be the equivalent of an extraordinary event like someone breaking the single-season home run record, or of a mid-major Cinderella winning the NCAA tournament. Now, I would love for this happen. In fact, my dream would be for both the Democratic and Republican parties to hold "brokered" conventions. This way, Democrats are not "hurt" by a brokered convention, the political drama could not be any higher, and both parties would probably agree to some sort of major primary reform as a result of the predicament in which they found themselves. Truly, it would be a political junkie's dream come true.

However, as much as I would like for a brokered convention to take place, I just don't think that it will happen. The basic reason is that unless two candidates are virtually even in delegates, there will be a lot of insider, super delegate pressure on the candidate trailing in delegates to drop out and endorse the leader. Further, it will be extremely difficult for any two candidates to really be all that close in terms of delegates, for several reasons which I explain in the extended entry:

* The winner of a state caucus / primary receives delegates in a disproportional amount relative to his or her vote percentage. For example, in 2004, the winner of 29 of 30 states to hold events on or before March 2nd received a higher percentage of delegates than he received at the ballot box. Overall, Kerry received 75.9% of elected delegates, despite only receiving 50.2% of the caucus vote, and 61.0% of the primary vote. Every other candidate received a lower percentage of delegates than s/he received at the ballot box. Even small victories can allow a candidate to rack up large delegate advantages.

* Over one-quarter of delegates are not elected. Even as the delegate system allows a candidate a larger lead among elected delegates than s/he received in terms of votes at the ballot box / caucus location, with nearly one-third of all delegates not elected (the super delegates), party insiders can easily apply enough pressure on a second-place candidate to force him or her to drop out long before the convention (or, at least remove any chance s/he might have at winning the convention). Insiders would be scared to death of the nominee being decided at the convention, as they fear it would seriously damage the chances of the party to win back the White House. As such, a leading candidate does not need to win 50% of delegates in the states: s/he will only require a minimum lead of, say 150 or 200 delegates, and support of the super delegates, in order to warp things up early on.

* Intra-party voting blocks dissipating. In past nomination processes, the election has dragged out because some candidates were exceptionally strong among some regions and demographics within the primary electorate. For example, in 1988 Al Gore had tremendous strength among southern whites, allowing him to win many primaries, and Jesse Jackson was dominant among African-Americans, allowing him to win many primaries. Further, neither candidate ever did very well in a state without a large concentration of their best-performing demographic. As a result, the primary electoral was fragmented into voting blocks, and it was extremely difficult for any one candidate to sweep several states in a row. However, the Democratic Party just is not as fragmented as it once was, and don't expect wide, regional and demographic swings in favor of one candidate or another. In other words, if someone has a national lead, even if small, that candidate will probably lead in every single state as well. For example, despite a lead of only around 11% nationwide, Clinton leads in every single state in the nation, with the exception of Iowa and the home states of most other candidates. Among the Democratic primary electorate, regional and demographic differences are just not as meaningful to voting tendencies as they once were. Pew has more data on this here, and I have written about this in the past.

* No candidate has "hard" support. Simply put, no candidate's base of supporters is so strong and unyielding that s/he won't suffer major defections in s/he does poorly in early states. A recent Pew poll put the percentage of true undecideds in the Democratic electorate at 71%, and I actually think it might be a little higher than that. Factor in that many candidates will drop out before February 5th, and that the supporters of the candidates who drop out will flock disproportionately to the candidate in the lead, and the possibility of a virtually tied campaign going into February 5th becomes even more remote.

Put this all together, and I just can't think of any other scenario where the delegate count will be close after February 5th. In order for a brokered convention to take place, you need a situation where the narrow leader of the elected delegates after February 5th is different than the narrow, or even not so narrow, leader of the non-elected super-delegates. Not only is it difficult to get a narrow leader in elected delegates, it is also necessary for the elected and unelected delegates to disagree on their preference. That is a rare situation to come by, and so the only possibility of a brokered convention I see is if the pre-Iowa national poll leader is also the clear favorite of party insiders, but that person is shut out of the early states (and even in that situation, a brokered convention is still just a possibility, not a guarantee). If someone trails in elected delegates and among party insiders after February 5th, it is over, whether or not the leader has a majority of delegates, and even if the lead is narrow. If the frontrunner in national polls wins any of the early states, then that person is basically assured of a series of big wins on February 5th, and the race will be over. If the favorite of insiders trails in national polls going into the early states, and does poorly in the early states, that person will be abandoned by insiders after February 5th. If the national and New Hampshire polling scenarios are both tight going into Iowa, then whoever wins Iowa will win become the presumptive nominee, because that person will probably sweep every state with ever growing momentum. And I could go on and on.

So, in summary, while I would like to see a "brokered" convention for both sides where the nomination is determined at the convention and not in the states, it just strikes me as an extremely narrow possibility. Be prepared for the presumptive nominee to be crowned on February 5th, or possibly even earlier.


http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/5/142652/1481


I found this article at this site.....check it out....knowledge is power.....

http://www.mydd.com/

Sunday January 20, 2008, 1:05 pm
This makes me wonder why I shouldn't change my affiliation to Indpendent. I am a registered republican but I don't believe in voting along the party lines most times. In fact, the last few elections I have simply voted for the lesser of two evils since neither would be the best for the job and it seems that money is what it is all about. The one with the most money wins, Someday all of the taxpayers will wakeup and realize that the the best person isn't the richest person. Hell, I have known poor people that were smarter and could do a much better job at running this country.
An old story about independents: "Every time I think about becoming a Republican, the Republicans do something too greedy. But then when I think about becoming a Democrat, the Democrats do something too stupid."

Sunday January 20, 2008, 1:11 pm
Learn the Rules!

Convention delegates not bound to candidates

by msn1, Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:00:34 PM EST

Matt here from 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. As Oreo said, thanks to Jerome for letting us spread our delegate and Democratic Convention obsession to a wider audience.

For those of us who have been around a while, the last time a Democratic Convention had even a little suspense was 1980, in Madison Square Garden, New York. Ted Kennedy was making a last attempt to try and get the nomination from President Carter. The problem: Rule F(3)(c), which officially bound delegates to the candidate they had been elected for on the first ballot. But with a weak Carter campaign on the horizon, Kennedy thought that if the delegates were released from their pledges, he could get enough votes to get the nomination. The problem was, Carter still had a majority of the delegates, and they voted not to overturn the rule, and Kennedy's campaign was over.

But subsequently, the rules were changed, and now convention delegates are free to vote for whomever they want to. The Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states:

VIII C(7)(c) Delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination.

The Delegate Selection Rules state:

12 I: No delegate at any level of the delegate selection process shall be mandated by law or Party rule to vote contrary to that person's presidential choice as expressed at the time the delegate is elected.

12 J. Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.

But nowhere does it state that delegates are bound, either legally, or by rule, to vote for the candidate they were elected for, whether on the first ballot, or any subsequent ballot.

Now lets be realistic. The campaigns who put the delegate slates together are not going to put anybody but the most committed loyalists on the ballot. But once those delegates get to the convention they are free to vote for whomever they want. In reality the only way for a candidate to lose those delegates would be for some major political damage to happen to a candidate between the time he or she secures a majority of votes and the convention, and for the candidate to refuse to withdraw. In that scenario, you could see delegates being pressured to change their vote, and they would be able to under the rules. The 796 superdelegates would also be under the same pressure to revoke any endorsements they had made. It's an unlikely scenario, but, the point is, it is possible. Delegates are not bound to the candidates.

http://www.mydd.com/

Sunday January 20, 2008, 1:44 pm
We need speak out to our local media, file an FEC complaint. The powers that be have all but given Hillary the nod. A vote for her and obama is a vote for the GOP Candidate.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 2:14 pm
As a conservative I see no distinction between Clinton and Bush - both know how to prevent people from voting and have sold out to corporate America. Personally on the Democratic ticket I liked Carol Moseley Braun. Why isn't she running?

Sunday January 20, 2008, 2:19 pm
elle j why do you think it is sad for the usa not ready for a black?? if you look at all the blacks do to run down the usa and then they have miss black america,black hbo,black starz ,bet,black nurses union, black chamber of commerse, and alot of other black stuff and the whites cant have anything white!! well i sure could see what would happen if a black were in there also look at sharpton,naacp,uncf they are all racist groups!! they are for one group of people only black!!!!

Sunday January 20, 2008, 2:23 pm
Face it people. The whole process is rigged and getting more stupid as time wears on. You and I can complain, write letters to the editor, threaten not to vote and quess what? Unless you are the CEO of a giant multi-national corporation your opinion doesn't count for beans. Every presidential election we are given a number of candidates to chose from in either party. Two or three in each party get enough corporate and media backing to actually be viable candidates. Others are just thrown in to appease the lunatic fring of either party. Rarely will one of these fringe candidates emerge as viable and rarely will a viable candidate fail to gain general public support. Actually we may be seeing this this year with the Republicans. Huckabee seems to be enough of a populist that he is appealing to more than the fanatical Christian right and people seem to agree with what I said months ago about Rudy Guilliani - making him president just because he was Mayor of New York City during 9/11 is like making someone the fire chief because their house burnt down.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 2:38 pm
"If you choose between the lesser of two
evils, you are still choosing evil."
-Ralph Nader, 2000

Sunday January 20, 2008, 3:48 pm
Noted; I like what Tim has said:). Amen th that; one IS still choosing EVIL; by making that choice. I'd Boycott or Protest Before I'd Give In to "Them." Thanks.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 3:48 pm
The Electoral College is the root of all this mess. If we didn't have to choose "delegates" and it was one person, one vote, there would be less campaign time, hopefully less money spent, NO TRAVELING to states that have big caucuses or primaries. The candidates would have to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters and it would force them to run in a whole new way.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 3:50 pm
While I'm not yet an expert on the history of oligarchies, I do not imagine that the conversion (clearly underway) to this type of government will be good for most Americans. To respond to RR, I think a very large assembly of citizens in D.C., everyone of us wrapped up in a copy of the US constitution, demanding verifiable voting, might open some eyes!

I also urge all possible support for Kucinich in the name of preserving our constitution and democtatic form of Govt.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 3:51 pm
Cate...Brilliant. I always like your comments! I'd Vote YOU in; Peace:).

Sunday January 20, 2008, 4:04 pm
Cate Groves 2012!!
Wha'dya say, Madame President?

Sunday January 20, 2008, 4:35 pm
With the Corporatoracy, Pultocracy, Oligarchy or whatever holding all the cards and putting in the lesser of two evils, either way they win, for they have all the top contenders of either party in their back pockets. After the 2000 and 2004 election aftermath and the evidentiality of what has happened any way one looks, one more like those and the way it is shapeing up to happen again in 2008, and our goose is cooked. So we had best rebel now. IMO Kucinich and Edwards are the only two running fit for the job...but Alas!

Sunday January 20, 2008, 6:04 pm
Dennis Kucinich was denied to participate in the Democratic debate. For this and other reasons I have changed my voter registration to undermined! It is the same as registering as an Independent. Massachusetts does not have an Independent Party. Just Dems or Repubs.

John Edwards is probably the most viable candidate for president. He has not accepted any corporate donations or special interest money. Clinton on the other hand has a shady background, and knows about William Jefferson Clinton's conncetions to illegal activities while he was president. He was well aware of the CIA drug connections and money laundering through US banks, namely: CitiGroup, The Bank Of America, The Bank of New York, and AIG laundered drug money for the CIA and it still continues today. Before Bush invaded Iraq there were absolutely no drugs in the country, now that the CIA has covert operators in Iraq the Cocaine and Heroin trade is flourishing like a Rose in summer. It is becoming just as much of a problem in Iraq as it is in the states. The CIA takes in around $600 billion a yr. in drug trafficking and then has the money laundered through the banks I have just mentioned above. This has been going of for yrs, and yrs, and they have got away with it. Corporate controlled media never reports what is really going on in our own country or any other country. They only report what their employers allow them to report and nothing more. Not that they are not aware of this information, they are, but they are not allowed to report it to the public at large. And We The People have a right to know what is going on.

I'm sick of this crap, and this government and administrations before the Bushes.

If you want to read what is really going contact your local library and ask if they the book:Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert. It is an excellent book, and Michael Ruppert tells like it is. He is the founder of FTW( www.fromthewilderness.com Check out his web site. It is well worth it. Some of the links to verify his sources no longer work as they have been removed from the web site, but other links do work.

Thanks Cate.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 6:22 pm
it brings up my blood pressure

Sunday January 20, 2008, 6:56 pm
Noted.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 7:39 pm
Noted I can't believe it either. Thanks Cate!

Sunday January 20, 2008, 8:52 pm
Noted. Thanks Cate for a great story.

Sunday January 20, 2008, 9:39 pm
Noted and great comments by all, I feel I no longer have a party, I really cannot tell the difference anyway? I hate to say this because I think it is a loooong shot but maybe, just maybe we should go to Get out of our house and find a different candidate, one from no parties? Wouldn't that be different?

Sunday January 20, 2008, 11:52 pm
Ok thanks Cate for the great post, and for all who says they don't think they will vote for we may not have a good choice then your biting your nose off to spike your face. For then it gives the Republican party more votes. Is this going to happen again let them have the country for another 4 years or more to destroy it longer than they already have? Think hard and wise on this and who we choose. For I was right when Bush went in I knew that he would cheat his way in, be in war before he was in office a year, and spend all the money and try to kill off the middle class, and he has done just that.... The republican party hates the middle class and yes we need to get them out, so if the dog catcher wants to run for the poor man and middle class I am going to vote for him. Lets hope that we get a true person in office this time that will fight for all of us. So go to the polls and vote to keep the Republicans out of the office this term so the middle class can come back..

Monday January 21, 2008, 12:16 am
Anns got a great point, we do not need republicans in there again

Monday January 21, 2008, 1:10 am
Who is creating Republican votes? Hillary. Who will be a Republican in Democrat clothes? Hillary
Who is a criminal co-conspirator to destroy the Constitution? Hillary I'm a life long Democrat, who is DEFINITELY considering changing to Independant. The media denial of candidates who connect with people and THEIR ISSUES, not the media issues, or the Partys' issues, to participate in meaningful debate and the other candidates silence on THIS ISSUE, shows how CORRUPT the whole system has become.
It doesn't matter which Republicrat or Democan you choose, they are the same. They all think they are better than YOU! ENOUGH! ENOUGH! ENOUGH! Everyone needs to grow the hell up, and take responsibility for the mess we are leaving the generations to come, if there ARE any future generations. THE PARTY IS OVER, DONE, KAPUT!

Monday January 21, 2008, 5:47 am
I really hate to burst every ones bubble, but the American people, IN MOST CASES, the American people whether they be Democrat or Republican, actually play a very small part in the selection of those running for office.

You have heard of those smoke filled rooms where the power brokers sit, argue, negotiate, and cajole to make the decision as to whom will be blessed. It is true. I was a part of that process at one time.

I was to be the blessed one to unseat the incumbent Congressman. I sat through all those meetings, and it was a learning experience ... a strange, but nonetheless, and experience that opened my eyes to how American politics actually works.

It was necessary for me to drop out of that blessing, because I felt it was important that they knew I was gay. It was agreed that it would be detrimental to the "Party" to have a gay run for office. After that, I became a member of that inner circle. I wasn't a decision maker, but a runner ... a fly on the wall ... a kid whose whole concept of the political process was blowing up in his face.

I think the straw that broke the camel's back was the Dole selection. It was understood the Dole would be the nominee many months prior to the first primary. The "machines" were to do their tricks to assure his selection. When I asked my mentor why he was to be the nominee, because there were others, who to me, would make a better president. I was told, "It's his turn. He's paid his dues and if he doesn't run now, he never will be able to because of his age."

That was the end of my involvement. My eyes were opened and my innocent belief in the American system of government was destroyed. Understand, this is not just happening in the Republican Party. The Democrats has the same system. The only person to almost buck the system was Ross Perot, until he self-destructed.

Believe me, as I have told James in our support of Ron Paul, the decision has been made. I've lost my connections to the inner works, but I would almost bet you, the blessed one is McCain, and Obama for the Democrats. He is more controllable.

One day, the parties will self-destruct. Bush is a living example of the beginning, but the Democrat controlled Congress keeps allowing him make his way down the yellow brick road. The difference between the two parties are almost nil, as you can tell. One day, they will do enough to anger the American public to cause the destruction of the machines and then ... possibly, well maybe ... there will be a true process where the voters make the decisions.

I know there are those of you who are naive enough not to believe what I just wrote, but all you have to do is look at the State of Florida and the elections of 2000 and 2004. Nuff said!!

Monday January 21, 2008, 7:35 am
I'm saddened and mad that our country is obviously going to hold another election where the winner is decided by the news media.All of the candidates should be in all of the races!But the news media is only showing us Hillary and Obama.What is happening to picking the best person for the job.It seems to me that this is becoming a contest for lack of a better word,between race and gender.I am not trying to annoy anymore with that statement,thats just how I see it.If you read the articles and listen to the news that is what is being talked about.

Monday January 21, 2008, 7:37 am
The powers that be want Clinton or Obama to be nominated because they will be the easiest for the Republicans to beat. I don't believe it will work, however. I believe the Republicans will lose this election because they are so silly.

Monday January 21, 2008, 8:20 am

Why & what & who is doing the thinking, if any at all. This began in the 80's with Thatcher, 90's CLINTON, & after 9/11 the final implementation.

This was on BBC as a Documentary. with several parts... Below in Part 3 you will see the results and reasons there is no difference and it is frightening.. A MUST LISTEN TOO. Then you might want to retrieve earlier parts I & II..
Please take time for this. It explains a great deal of the Govt's (plural) workings.
if you like, comment at link after viewing what you have time for.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/239636036/607996
THE TRAP
...Out of this economic necessity..
1999 Blair – just war – 5:44 mins 9/11 reorder this world around us. (6 mins) 7:33 cheney liberators when we do it…10 mins…resulted corruption huge scale..Am corp…12 mins turned to torture…..

I found this astounding and amazing and very eye opening..
Here are other parts...

Part II....http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7849982478877371384
Part I...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8372545413887273321

...........PART III is in 3 parts.. The first link is 3 of III and an overview...

Monday January 21, 2008, 9:46 am
Kate, I am with you! Abolish the Electoral College! It makes it EASIER to steal an election.

Monday January 21, 2008, 9:48 am
Oops! Cate NOT Kate! I know better than that too! Just typing too fast.

Monday January 21, 2008, 12:54 pm
I can't believe it either Cate...I can't understand why they vote the way they do...they have the caucus but it doesn't mean anything if others vote another way...that is not right...if they are voted in then that is the way it should stay...never mind the electoral votes...why do they need this...thanks...noted with confusion

Monday January 21, 2008, 1:25 pm
Thanks Cate and noted.

Monday January 21, 2008, 3:23 pm
With all due respect to the people who say that not
voting at all is "cutting off one's nose to spite
your face", and that son voting at all is letting the
"machine" win:
I am of the solid opinion that elections in America
have become charades held solely for the purpose of
maintaining the illusion that We The People are still
in charge of deciding who are elected officials are to be.
Clearly, we are not. When I skip a vote, I DO feel guilty
but I also feel that I have successfully allowed myself
to NOT be played.
If we assume right now, for the sake of the argument,
that McCain and Clinton are the "presumptive nominees",
(I HATE that phrase!) then where's the sense in voting
in the primaries? The sheeple of this country will go vote
in the primaries, vote for either McCain or Clinton, because
they are the "presumptive nominees". Same deal with the General
in November. Even without voting, the mainstream media and talking
heads on Fox and CNN are subliminally deciding FOR us!
When the decision as to who the next President of the United
States will be, why bother playing their game and vote at all?
This is NOT to say I won't vote; I haven't decided yet, but....
If I do, I'll feel like a puppet on a string.

Monday January 21, 2008, 3:27 pm
Tim, for the RepubliCON$ to think it's important for them to stop minorities and poor people from voting at all . . . votes still have power!

Monday January 21, 2008, 6:55 pm
The Democratic candidate was decided three years ago. It's all a sham. They won't even let Dennis debate. The pockets of all the major candidates are so full. The pockets of the American public are empty, but the full pockets have never recognized the need for $$ in the pockets of us, the peons.

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 4:12 am
I know:)
I got an email from the DNC asking me to sign something stating I would support whichever democratic candidate that won. (funny I get the feeling the rig is in) I wrote them back stating I'm following the man not the party. I hope Dennis Kucinich runs with Ron Paul on the Independent ticket.

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 5:27 am
Hey Mary,

Now you know how we Ron Paul supporters feel. The man raises more money than the leaders ... it's just and Internet thing ... he comes in second in Nevada .. it's a shallow showing.

The military/industrial complex as well as the mainstream media are afraid of him. Let's face it. Should a miracle happen and he should receive the necessary delegates, he probably won't live long enough to win, and should he survive that, he won't live long enough to serve.

Some of you probably still believe President Kennedy was killed by a single assassin... :-)

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 8:18 am
this is BS..... I'm even pondering IF I will vote this year. BUT i probably WILL due to I don't want another BUSH in the Whitehouse!

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 9:49 am
I'm exceptionally irritated as well...

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 11:52 am
This is all so sad and has been for such a long, long time. Thank you Elle, Cate, and others for speaking out with your views. i cannot type long enough to do so.

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 5:31 pm
I do have to note that the bit about Obama not saying the Pledge of Allegiance is just one of many lies going around the internet. Before spreading lies and getting offended by them, you really should check the facts. ANYTIME I hear something really negative and unpatriotic about any candidtate, I check the facts. You cannot trust the smear machines that count on people listening to lies and no bothering to think for themselves. Here is just one of HUNDREDS of sites putting the truth to that stupid lie.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/obama_nabbed_by_the_patriotic.html

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 5:40 pm
If anyone has any ideas how to object to Edwards being shut out, spill the beans and let's make our voices heard!!!!!!!!!! I will not vote for Hillary or Obama period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 5:45 pm
Hello All:
I am a Nevadan and was my precincts' secretary last Saturday. I did 3 caucus trainings to get there, and YES, I had posted an Uncommitted sign for those wishing to stand there AND they could be viable if if they had the correct number - which in our case was 12. However, the other two parties teams, Cllinton and Obama were downright rude and pushy. Our Captain and myself felt they were quite out of place.

So in reading the beginning article, I can see why these pushy people were doing what they did. Everyone at the caucus had a choice and if Edwards didn't become viable, they could either walk out or go to Undecided. I personally coached a friend , who believes in Edwards, that if he didn't become viable in her precinct, to go to Undecided and try to make it viable. She did just that, and when it received a delegate, she took it, because she wanted it for Edwards. But most of the people that went to caucus in Nevada ( it was our FIRST time ) didn't understand all this. So the pushy Clintons and Obamas pushed, telling them they HAD to stand by a candidate. This is not right. And I for one wished we had had a primary, where you just couldn't see how people were voting! Voting is our right.

What I don''t understand is how easily swayed the public is by mass media????

Stick with Edwards if you believe in him, help his campaign anyway you can and screw the media!!
http://www.johnedwards.com

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 5:47 pm
Realistically, Edwards is not a contender. I like him, so don't jump on me for being the voice of reason here. What you are going to see is him getting delegates from the primary states and then see what he is going to do with them. This is the purpose of him staying the course now. Those delegates are going to give him the power to get a powerful position in someones campaign. He would make a great Attorney General. How much you want to bet that he will be throwing his support and his delegates behind the candidate that treats him best?

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 5:55 pm
Daniel P. The reason I think it is sad that an African American has no chance if winning is because we have not made as much progress as we should have in race relations. I understand the exclusive black organizations. However, I think we should have a level playing friend regardless of race or gender. Cate, I completely agree with you about the electoral college. The whole system is archaic and should be abolished. I have to wonder how many good people slip throught the cracks because of money. Campaigns wouldn't have to be so lenghy if we cleaned up the system. After last night's debate in Myrtle Beach, I thought Clinton and Obama behaved like children. John Edwards clearly came out on top because of his demeanor. That was politics at its worst. We must have an electable Democrat as the nominee. If not, the next president will be John McCain and for me that is scary. Lord knows what the poor man went through during his years as a POW. The focus will more than likely be on security of the United States. That is all well and good but we are so lax in that area. I suggest that all of you, if you have not, see the movie "The Sum of All Fears". Yes, it is a movie but the possibilities of that happening with the ports like they are is more than remote. Judge for yourself, rent the movie. I will vote for John Edwards on super Tuesday, February 5th because I think he is the right man for the job.

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 6:04 pm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp This is for Carol W and all of the people who believed the story about Barak Obama. I sent this link to all of the people on my friends' list with a heading "Setting the Record Straight. I suggest that any of you that doubt Barak Obama is a Christian and an American, please read the full story. By the way, he didn't place his hand over his heart during the NATIONAL ANTHEM not the Pledge of Alligence. It is perfectly acceptable to stand with your hands to your side or folded at parade rest . If the military isnt in uniform, they generally stand at parade rest. That is just for the record.

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 6:20 pm
tp://www.johnedwardsphonebank.com/
Here's how anyone who truly wishes to help JOHN EDWARDS can help, from anywhere in the US.
And please, stop listening to the news and blogs - follow your heart!

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 7:43 pm
SO long as American voters ALLOW the government to "get away" with this type of dirty tricks--then we will have dirty elections and NO HONEST RESULTS. Just as GORE lost to Conservative corruption, WE GAVE UP THE RIGHT to get honest elections when we allowed this to happen and then RE-ELECTED these people!!
WAKE UP and vote for the issues and NOT their looks or sex/race!

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 8:21 pm
Elle J: I have to agree with you. Whether I, or anyone, agrees or not, this country is just not ready for either a woman or a black man to be president. As vice-president maybe, but not president. I don't say this with any kind of prejudice or malice, I just feel it's the truth. Therefore, if either Hillary or Barak get the Democratic nomination, then the next president WILL BE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE!! People who don't want to see/admit this better wake up. IMHO, a vote for Hillary or Barak IS a vote for the Republican party.

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 8:21 pm
Elle J: I have to agree with you. Whether I, or anyone, agrees or not, this country is just not ready for either a woman or a black man to be president. As vice-president maybe, but not president. I don't say this with any kind of prejudice or malice, I just feel it's the truth. Therefore, if either Hillary or Barak get the Democratic nomination, then the next president WILL BE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE!! People who don't want to see/admit this better wake up. IMHO, a vote for Hillary or Barak IS a vote for the Republican party.

Tuesday January 22, 2008, 11:46 pm
Elle J.:

My husband and I support everything you wrote about John Edwards. We think that he has the compassion and the political will to be a great president in wake of G.W. Bush's disastrous reign. This country needs John Edward to lead its restoration.

Husband is a Republican and I am an unhappy Nevadan Democrat. I feel cheated and demeaned by Saturday's caucus. The Clinton and Obama teams were rude and rapacious. News reports and personal testimonies abound about their tactics in preventing John Edwards’ supporters from establishing “viable” numbers.

The viability rule is stupid and unconstitutional. It takes votes from less popular candidates and “gives” them to front runners. This is plain thievery. The Nevada Democratic Party shrugged off any complaints. A spokeswoman said that for every complainer, there was a very satisfied caucus participant. A 50% satisfaction rate in real world equals failure.

The Republican caucus was less insufferable. In his precinct, my husband was the only one to choose Mike Huckabee. No one jeered his choice, nor was he required to make another choice. The officers tabulated the votes and sent the people home. Under one hour.

This week I am changing my party affiliation from a Democrat to an Independent.

Wednesday January 23, 2008, 12:08 am
In 2000, before he became a Bush clone, my wife and I attended a Washington state Republican caucus to support John McCain. As soon as I got home, I turned on the TV and found that George had won the state. Since there was no way that the votes from here in eastern Washington could have been tabulated that soon, it was obvious that the party had preordained that Bush would win our state.

I then attended our county Republican convention. A platform containing several points that I considered reprehensible was presented. However attendees were informed that there would be no discussion and that they could only vote yea or nay. Since this has apparently become the Republican idea of democracy, good luck at getting my support for one of them again.

Unfortunately, the actions of Congress since the 2006 election indicate that the new majority will ignore the will of the people, just like the old one did. It seems to me that for most of our illustrious politicians it's become "anything for reelection and to hell with what's ethical or best for the nation."

Wednesday January 23, 2008, 7:18 pm
John Edwards is our last shot of bringing back a little decency and normality to this country at present. Thx Cate! Its not too late for him!! close but not too late!

Thursday January 24, 2008, 12:09 am
The republicans WANT Hillary and/or Obama to win, they think they will keep the "house if they run against these 2, sadly, they might do it. I am not against them by all means but, I am a drop of water in the ocean. I am guessing that Ron Paul will end up has an independent? Does this mean that he will be a wolf in sheeps clothes?? In the end, I do not think that Hillary or Obama would win, we do need to get the others out to the fore front. My question is, why are they not already there? I smell something rotten, and it smells like Media and Republicans.

Thursday January 24, 2008, 12:13 am
But do not listen to me, I voted for Perot, now I wonder if he may had been "cheated"?

Thursday January 24, 2008, 11:42 pm
I'm reading this and its scary, I don't understand the causus thing. Though it was like the primaries, and you could vote for who you wanted. Yes Kucinich was the best choice but since he is out Edwards is the other best choice. I'm in Florida, and voting for Edwards next Tuesday. But whatever happens in the end will still vote Democrat. The rotten republican's have a big hand on this. We need to stop them.

And please please please, don't be fooled there's not a single Republican running that is not the same as what we have now and will complete ruining this country. We will have total caos and most likely another Depression as worst as the 1930's. And probably wwIII.
My prediction is Bush clone McCain is the one the GOP is getting in one way or the other.
If you care for this country, vote for Edwards in the primaries. But in NOVEMBER 4 VOTE DEMOCRAT NO MATTER WHO.

Do not vote independent please. I voted for Nader in 2000 and will carry that in my conscience for the rest of my life.

Friday January 25, 2008, 12:10 am
This goes to Tim Redfern and all those undecided Dems. Think, go back to 2000 and what happened because many of us did not like Gore. We voted for Nader or stayed home and now we have a senseless endless war. A war for oil. Horrible economy and less freedom.
Gore would not have taken us to a war in Iraq with no relation to 9/11. Maybe 9/11 would not have happened. But its to late for the past but we cannot let it happen again. Enough is enough.

Friday January 25, 2008, 12:46 am
Sean Martin if another republican wins next Nov. things are going to be ugly for this country. Many citizens will not take it any more, and the war will here.
There's too many people losing their homes. because their jobs are beign outsourced outside the country.
Losing their homes because of unfair tactics used by the lenders. Gas price gauging.
Citizens put on the do not fly list for no reason. Unconstitutional spying of citizens is rampant. And the list goes on and on.
Large assembly of citizens in D.C., that would be great. But there are a lot of people way too upset and things could get ugly, real ugly.

Friday January 25, 2008, 1:23 am
Bush wants to abolish the constitution, just as Fidel abolished it in Cuba. A Bush clone would just complete the process. Democracy will be gone.

Friday January 25, 2008, 1:28 am
We need all states unified, eliminate the caucus. Just have primaries and have a national primary day. One day everybody votes, just like the presidential elections.

Friday January 25, 2008, 1:54 am
Hummm, good idea Alina!!

Friday January 25, 2008, 4:31 am
Alina ... a war for oil... Oh my .. Oh dear... that is not true my dearest one... The president and Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense .. well the whole damn family of inbreds who run this country, said NO .. this is not a war on oil... It is .. was ... continues to be a war of something really important. They just don't know what it is!!!

As our President ... our Commander and Chief told the world, "He tried to kill my daddy." Now if that isn't enough to plunge this country into bankruptcy and to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens and thousands of American troops, then by damn, what is!!?? :-)

{Oh God .. give me strength}