Dick Morris: “Blood in the streets” if Hillary wins
|
|
Published May 1st, 2008
Dick Morris says “they’ll be blood in the streets” if Superdelegates override Barack Obama’s delegate lead and hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton. This is a great video with Morris taking on Geraldo Rivera!
Geraldo thinks superdelegates should override caucus victories by Obama and reward Clinton’s big-state wins. Morris goes nuts! “We live in a democracy, Geraldo. Ya ever heard of that? Elections?”
on 
J.R.
You’re just enjoying the already existing blood.
LD -
You did it a second time…first on Norms post on Bobby Jindal, and now here. This post was put up by Brian Kirwin. The author is always at the top of the post, for future reference.
And just what the hell do you mean by your comment? I get the sense that it was highly-charged and completely irrelevant to the post.
As for the post, I loved Morris’ comment: For all you 35 million people who voted, we’re going to let 800 people decide the outcome for you. “That’s really progressive, man!”
Brian (and JR),
Neither you nor Morris is taking into account the possibility that Clinton will win more popular votes than Obama.
That’s a real possibility if she pulls the upset in NC.
DJ-
If Clinton has more pledged delegates from the popular vote than Obama, I agree, she should win.
What I don’t agree with, and all that Morris is saying, is that 800 people should decide the fate of the party.
All I can say is that I’m glad I’m Republican.
DJ, I wouldn’t be surprised if Clinton wins the popular vote, but what the heck does that matter. Some states were caucuses instead of primaries. In Texas, people were allowed to vote twice, once in the primary and once in the caucus.
The nomination goes to the one with a majority of delegates. If Obama winds up with more delegates than Hillary, and the superdelegates break for Hillary and give her the majority, that means party officials nullified the voters.
If there were 50 primaries, popular vote would’ve been somewhat relevant, but with such a mix of caucuses and primaries, it’s totally irrelevant.
But, having not been alive in 1968, I appreciate the Democrats going to the trouble of re-enacting it for me.
Who cares what Geraldo thinks? I didn’t even realize he still had a job after that whole reporting our military’s tactical moves fiasco during the invasion of Iraq. Not smart Mr. Geraldo, not smart at all.
This is only slightly dumber…
J.R.
Sorry about the screw up on who I addressed the comment to.
If my comment was “highly charged” perhaps it was in an attempt to balance out the original “highly charged” piece by Brian.
As for it being irrelevant, often times the continuing Democratic Party nomination campaign has been described as being divisive, creating bad blood, etc etc, so I feel my comment was relevant to the original post.
The post represents the video accurately, although admittedly, I did so most excellently.
LD-
We still don’t know what you mean. Who are you referring to and why?
J.R.
I am wondering if you are trying to play thick with me or something. OK, let me take out my brick:
I think Republicans are enjoying the bloodletting that is going on in the continuing Democratic nomination process.
Is that clear enough now?
Read your comments again, LD, and see if they make sense at all. No subject. No reference. How the hell are we supposed to know what you’re talking about?
All you said is that we must be enjoying the existing blood. What are we supposed to think that means? Who’s blood? Morris was talking about riots on the scale of Chicago in ‘68 possibly on the way for Denver this year. That’s real, tangible blood. So, I was wondering what riot or bloodshed you were talking about.
I assumed you were talking about Iraq and Afghanistan and how Republicans must be “enjoying” that existing blood. As you can imagine, that sort of ticked me off.
I appreciate your clarification, but there’s no need to be a jerk about it. That’s Kirwin’s job.
And, yes, Republicans are loving the fact that the Democrats can’t seem to get their act together. But I am convinced that this is much ado about nothing. After a candidate is selected, Dems will unite behind their chosen candidate. Whether or not that candidate is chosen by 800 superdelegates or 35 million voters.
J.R.
I am glad that you understood my clarification. I will take it under advisement that I need to be more clear in the future.
My problem is that I am motivated towards brevity. You’ve seen the posts that irritate me I am sure, the long winded ones that take forever to get to the point.
Perhaps I am guilty of overcompensating?