# Hillary is crying sour grapes against caucusers



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Hillary Clinton analyzes her losses in Washington and elsewhere:



> WHITE MARSH, Maryland (CNN) - Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.
> She told reporters who had gathered to watch her tour a General Motors plant here that "everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were."
> 
> "These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."
> ...


Sooo..... She is basically saying that she loses in places where you need to energize and organize voters to your cause.

Um, isn't that what someone who is running for president is supposed to do? What's the purpose of a campaign if not to effectively familiarize the public with a candidate's accomplishments and thus excite people enough to get involved? I mean, is her campaign running on the assumption that it's the duty of people to spontaneously be inspired to act and come to her? And then shrug it off when they don't?

I had zero respect for her before... I've lost even more respect for her after this...

Talk about pathetic!

Ryan


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Ryan....I'm not sideing with her but this statement is very true....

"Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

She is saying most people(the electorate) are not active in political parties.Voters in a caucus make up miniscule numbers compared to those who actually vote in November.That is what she is saying.

And that caucus voting is always smaller than primary voting numbers.Caucuses are basically a pep rally for a political party Primaries are more like regular November voting.That is what she is saying also.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ken it is also why we end up with the choices we do many times from both parties. It is why I dislike Iowa being the first in the nation. It really does not reflect the true nature and choice of the people.

It skews the election shutting out candidates who do not have at the start the deep pockets. It also skews the outcome towards those with deep pockets. Thus taking someone like Richardson out of the running before the bulk of the voting takes place.


----------



## Benelliman (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Ken it is also why we end up with the choices we do many times from both parties. It is why I dislike Iowa being the first in the nation. It really does not reflect the true nature and choice of the people.
> 
> It skews the election shutting out candidates who do not have at the start the deep pockets. It also skews the outcome towards those with deep pockets. Thus taking someone like Richardson out of the running before the bulk of the voting takes place.


I agree with Ron on this. Ron Paul is another classic example. I've heard that it is or was done to limit the choices on the national ticket to a viable candidate that represented choice from both sides.

It is precisely why R and D's do not want to change the system and have a 3rd or 4th official political party to water down their system, and why it will be impossible to ever have a Green party or Independent Party candidate be a viable choice.

With the disenfranchisement of the youth in politics today, and with the current political climate of the country, the time is ripe for a 3rd party candidate to be a viable choice.

Unfortunately the old folks who are entrenched with power in the process will never allow this to happen. Why would they give away their power?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

well, Romney thought he could buy his way in, didn't work. i guess Bloomberg is next, i don't see him being successful either, not by me.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Benelliman said:


> Ron Gilmore said:
> 
> 
> > Ken it is also why we end up with the choices we do many times from both parties. It is why I dislike Iowa being the first in the nation. It really does not reflect the true nature and choice of the people.
> ...


Ron Paul made the choice to file as Rep. He has and will it seems compete in each primary. Thus at least in those states we see what percentage of people want him and it is not very large. He was not shut out in any primary. Caucus states maybe, but not primary.

Third parties can have caucuses and participate in the primary as well. I do not see them being shut out except for lack of support. As long as I have been voting for Pres of the US, I have had up to 5 or 6 choices to select from. Most if not all of the time, none of those people have had any appeal to me and have never garnered a vote from me.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Ken it is also why we end up with the choices we do many times from both parties. It is why I dislike Iowa being the first in the nation. It really does not reflect the true nature and choice of the people.
> 
> It skews the election shutting out candidates who do not have at the start the deep pockets. It also skews the outcome towards those with deep pockets. Thus taking someone like Richardson out of the running before the bulk of the voting takes place.


You're right Ron.It is probably why with the system we have it won't change.Which is why it is really hard to believe that McCain is actually winning.Maybe the far righties aren't as strong as they thought when it comes to controlling the Republican Party.And all those far righty broadcasters like Limbaugh and his cohorts aren't as big of an influence as we thought.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Here she is breaking the law:


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Wow, can you say Teflon! :******:


----------

