Like that helps any.  Those two quotes are her trying to justify not taking her name off the ballot.  Had nothing to do with counting the delegates.  And if she had wanted to count the delegates prior to the primaries starting, they would have counted.

waste you gifts on the beasiteboyz.  The don't reason and are only here to try to keep anyone from enjoying LindaSFNM's thoughtful diary and learning from her writing and from posters like you.  

The disrupters' job is to keep anyone from figuring out the Obama memes and how they do not accurately reflect other's intentions, actions, context and followup on events and issues.  We have seen the Obama camp, once again this weekend, take a quote, trim the context away, twist its meaning, fake outrage and blanket the press and supporters with the new Obama view of the twisted quote.  Issue the offended response from the spokesman, link to the replay of Keith Obermann's spewage on Hillary and then put out Obama to say he didn't find the comment offensive when the furor is dying down.

We know that in context, Hillary's intent was clear.  The Obama people yelled when they took his name off the Michigan ballot and led others to do so, that she was breaking the rules by leaving her's on.  Then on the last day he tried to get back on without telling Edwards and others, but failed to get all the paperwork in by the close of business.  Now that action gives some context to BO's comments.  But you won't hear it from the beastieboyz.  It looks too much like Obama double gaming the system.  Just like it turned out with the ads he ran that were supposed to cause him to forfit any delegates from the states in question.  They won't talk about that either.

You notice how they skip right over the 1.3 million.  They don't talk about the ads and pr push  in Michigan to try to get people to vote uncommitted, either.  That, in iteslf was a campaign. Clinton did not campaign in either state and she has said from the beginning that she would fight to help them get recognized.  Guess what?  She has.  That is the context her statements should be quoted in.

And anyone who wants to complain or call her on a negative on this needs to set up a comparative context, to be honest.  It sould map out BO's comments, choices and actions on the subject so that any negative dig at Clinton, whether through quote mining or not, can be set in comparison to  the totality of BO's record on the same subject.  If they pick some isolated or twisted quote and complain, that complaint should stand up nicely to the whole stack of actions taken by Obama to disrespect, game, manipulate and ultimatey discount the voters of Mi and FL.

If her character can be impugned on a twisted quote out of the context of her other words and all of her actions on the issue, then what can we do with Obama's character if the totality of his actions  on the subject show a gamer, for Iowa, dissing MI and FL, leading other candidates away and trying to sneak back on the ballot, criticising Clinton for being there, stopping the re-votes every time they came close to being araanged, even paid for, and still cheating and lying about it by running ads campaigning and denying it.

 So let's see how this stacks up.  One candidate says sone things at a particular time and then acts against them to the benefit of others and consistently so for months.  The other candidate says some things and acts against them consistantly for months to the detriment of others, and he cheats and lies to do it.  Hmmmmm.

If the posters who dive in to troll bomb and take over the threads in any diary positive to Hillary or negative to Obama, cannot broaden their thinking to include context like this, then they are either not capable of rational discourse or they can do it but for some perhaps nefarious motivation, they won't do it.  Either way you have really good stuff to say and your posting time is valuable to us.

If they prove to be intellectually unavailable or abusive, let them do it to each other and you can talk with the  posters who have real questions and concerns to share. A lot of us admire your work and LindaSFNM's and don't think ratings abuse and trolls should mar it.

So thanks, LindaSFNM and souvarine and all ot the other posters who will read, rec and comment on this diary without trying to hijack it,or distract  and abuse those who want to pursue and enjoy it.

It is getting difficult for a lot of people to even bother here any more, but that seems to be what the beastieboyz and strawman builders want.     They are a technological marvel and very dedicated to getting in the first word and the last word and to build the strawmen fast as they can and rec each other and troll rate and zero out the rest.  They need to "win" every little thread fragment and keep it up till all the real posters give up and shut up.  The start so soon that they don't have time to read the actual diaries and comments.  It is a marvel.  And it takes a lot of haystacks.

What would we do with these folks if they disrupted conversations in the physical world?  If , after we were polite for a moment, we found them more aggressive, disrespectful, bullying toward some in the group?  What would we think and how would we characterize their behaviour?

I hate that good people are leaving and am glad that the site owners are making some efforts to see the standards of site participation applied, but in the meantime, I'm thinking another poster had some good advice," Don't feed them".

The three of them go together.

"The reason why they never can even entertain this argument is because it would mean accepting the fact that Hillary broke a promise, one she put in writing, when she said these contests wouldn't count."

If you were familiar with this Four-State Pledge you're referencing you would know that there was no such "promise...when she said these contests wouldn't count."  The pledge was a (ceremonial, nonbinding) statement vowing not to campaign or participate.  The day after it was signed, Obama breached it by campaigning, by definition (the Rules definition, not mine).  

This quote people love to use against Hillary was snipped out of its context (see above) and made under completely different circumstances.  The Party was trying to get Michigan to revote on a different date and they would have, had Obama and his surrogates not actively blocked their efforts in both Michigan and Florida.  The guy opposed a mail-in ballot plan in Florida.  WTF!

Why is Obama so scared to seat those states when he's supposedly winning by almost 200 delegates?

Because per the rules, he would lose all of his delegates there for campaigning (more likely in Florida than Michigan).  Then there's the fact that 55 superdelegates come into play from both states and they are decidedly pissed at Obama for messing around with their elections.  Hillary's best case scenario isn't to gain a handful of delegates here and there; she's online for a +200 swing if the delegations are fully counted in proportion to the states' votes and appropriate penalties apply to Obama.  

rules are rules, must always be obeyed regardless of context or justification.  Check, comrade.

<crickets chirping>

Show your evidence that Obama is opposed to having them seated.

Do you have any?

He's criticizing her because she never stood up to defend the voters of Florida until she needed their delegates.

No.  He wins either way.  It's just a matter of how long the process will take.

Frankly, I think Obama should have encouraged revotes because he would have trounced her in MI and performed much better in FL than he did the first time.  He would be the nominee right now if he had.

Look here catfish, have you even looked at the numbers or are you just trolling? Please go to http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ right now and have a look at them.

Obama is ahead by almost 200 delegates right now (without Michigan and Florida). If you seat Michigan and Florida and merely give him the uncommitted from there, he'd still be almost 140 delegates ahead of Clinton.

So basically you can seat Florida and Michigan THREE TIMES EACH, and he'd still be ahead of Clinton.

Even if you give all the uncommited delegates to CLINTON, he's still ahead, and comfortably so.

If you don't know that you're misinformed -- I directed you at the site where you can get new info.

If on the other hand you did know it and you pretended you did not, then you're a dishonest debater and should be ashamed of yourself, and you disgrace all of Clinton's supporters in this manner.

Either way, shape up please. Either your knowledge or your sincerity ought be improved.