Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Nas wrote:
Superdelegates. Obama had a small delegate lead and Hillary had more votes. The Superdelegates chose the guy with the delegate advantage. Both had an argument.
Hillary only had more votes because people in Michigan couldn't vote for Obama.
Crooked Hillary supporters.
Hilllary would've still had more votes than Obama. What, you think if they'd had Obama on the ballot Hillary would've polled 0 votes in Michigan? wtf.
The exit polls in Michigan showed 46% for Hillary, 35% for Obama, 12% for John Edwards that year (Crazy Joe Biden and Smokin' Bill Richardson also polled a few %)--had all been on the ballot. I think they ended up assigning delegates from Michigan to Clinton, Obama and Edwards based on those percentages at the convention. This is still before the press got around to admitting Edwards was lying through his teeth about his affair and love-child. one of the weird side-stories of 2008. everyone in the media knew Edwards had an affair but no on would admit it (Except National Enquirer, which also published details of the Lewinsky scandal first? at least among the printed press). So the press stood around blankly drooling on their notepads while Edwards told them with a straight face that one of his campaign staffers was the father of his love-child. and the campaign staffer went along with it. fucking weird. Anthony Weiner has nothing on John Edwards. Edwards was having his campaign staff steal shitty diapers for DNA tests and paying off doctors to fake the DNA test when the results came back that it was Edwards kid
it wasn't until Obama was rumored to be considering Edwards for the VP slot that the press piped up and said "
hold on, hold on, there's something we've known about John Edwards for the last year but didn't feel like saying anything about til now"
very weird story in American politics, press's complicity with politicians, silent complicity in this case, and politicians being fucking weirdos. wasn't reported on that much and isn't brought up much since then cuz it makes the press look like dolts who'll go along with anything a politician says, until confronted with overwhelming, indisputable evidence to the contrary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwa ... tal_affairtwitter had barely started then. late 2006 = twitter launch, but they didn't really start to gain traction outside tech users til late 2008. nowadays with twitter, i don't think John Edwards weird love-child story gets drug out for a year or even years the way it did.