Wish Chris Matthews and Olberman would finish Rev Wright’s sentence. They keep repeating that he said “God Damn America” Wright said

“God Damn America for killing innnocent people”

All the other 48 states have NOT “followed the rules”, as others moved up and gee, get to be counted. Including, IIRC, Iowa which was Obama’s ‘big boost’. And HRC wasn’t the only one who left their name on. But O did. Boo hoo. Once again, MI voters get their big birds flipped to them. “We’re taking our names off because we don’t want to upset the leadership in the other states.” People voted, Jason. Does that matter to you? Apparently not….anything in the ‘defense’ of your chosen one.

The rules in fact say, they can have votes counted. They go to the credentials committee to get their delegates seated. Or they could have let private donors fund the revote, which is also in the rules.

A pledge is not a rule. Get the distinction? Obama figured out too late that he screwed up with Michigan, so he spent money in the state on fliers and an email/phone blast. to no avail. So much for that pledge to not campaign in MI. Oops, he broke the rules too. boo hoo.

The rules also say, no money to be spent in FL, but oops, what about those ads in FL markets? No problemo for the o-trons.

Yeah, “deal with it”. Good answer. But you don’t have to tell me, tell the millions in FL/MI whose votes you’re flushing down the shitter to ‘save’ your anointed one for the sacrificial slaughter in November. Bravo.

The rules say Florida and MI, because of their actions, get no delegates.

Do you really not understand the distinctions?

Any position you have about who would win in a revote and whether or not it would be “handily” is speculation and irrelevant.

In the span of two posts its now grown from “one Obama minion saying…” to “two MI legislators say on national TV…”

Which is it? Again, you people just keep making up facts, while its amusing it makes me wonder.

And yes, there are 50 states. The 48 that were capable of following the rules get to have delegates, just like non-states Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands.

The ones that can’t get their shit together don’t, deal with it.

There was no RULE to not run in Michigan. Obama thought it was good strategy to do so, and yet, still run huge amounts of money in the state to get people to vote uncommitted.

It was HIS choice.

Having two MI legislators say on national TV that “it’s good to be in the lead” about questions about a revote is not just them being glad they thought O was in the lead. It was them saying, “f. off, we don’t want to count the votes because we want to keep Obama in the lead, even though if we counted our constituents votes (again or at all) Obama would lose the state, handily.”

The US of A had 50 states, Jason. Something I thought you’d learn in the fourth grade.

The rules don’t need changed. The rules already allow for seating and counting FL and MI. The rules have been inconsistently applied to MI/FL. Other states, like Obama’s Iowa win, also moved their primary up, and they get counted.

So this is not about appointing anyone. This is not about giving anyone the win. This is about giving the people, all the people, their say.

But Obama knows that when FL (at least) is counted, he’s losing.

You cling to the DNC rules like they trump the constitution or something. We the 48 States of Obama.

She said in interviews, that she had “access” (my word) to money to pay for the revote.

And here you’re worried about is she said she had money or if donors had it…..

The point is THERE WAS/IS MONEY TO PAY for a revote, but Sen. Obama and his supporters (inc apparently Dean and Pelosi, and esp. Brazille) have done everything they can to BLOCK a revote.

Stop trolling, please.

But specifically, SHE did not offer to pay it, some of her backers did.

You people lie as much as your candidate does.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-19-michigan_N.htm

So Jason, STFU. YOU’RE making s. up.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Because he said he’d be willing to attack Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, which is a far cry from him saying he would nuke Iran.

You do see there is a fundamental difference between going after specific terrorist targets and killing civilians, right?

Thats the thing with nuclear weapons, they don’t really discriminate very well, hence the term “weapon of mass destruction”.

With nuclear threats you are holding innocent civilians hostage.

Do you understand the difference between a civilian and a “high value terrorist target?”