I wonder why, if MI and FL are so important to her, she was agreeing to abide by the rules of the DNC and joined with her other candidates in pledge to that effect?
Why in December was she saying that the race would be over on Feb. 5th but when it wasn't, when it became clear the arrogance of the Clinton camp - so certain that they couldn't possibly lose the nomination - led them to not plan for the states after 2/5, she suddenly picked up the mantle of defending voters in MI and FL?
If she was so dedicated to that cause, why was she going along with the DNC last Fall?
Of course, it's an easy question to answer - She never thought for a minute, prior to 2/5, that she would lose. She only latched on to MI and FL when she needed them, not because she gives a shit about someone's voting rights(not that those were violated in MI and FL, because courts have ruled that nominating contests are set by the parties).
It's called "Hillary cannot possibly pass him in pledged delegates, cannot fight at the convention because she won't control the committees(unless she really wants to make a scene) and will not be coronated by the Superdelegates because she's been losing that battle badly since February 5th."
It's too bad Clinton supporters haven't caught on that she will never be president.
This was her shot. She blew it. Ran a pathetic, nasty campaign. And her and her degenerate husband will probably cost us the election in November because, well, that's just the kind of self-serving, self-absorbed, lying sociopaths they are.
If anyone wanted four more years of Bush, just vote for the power-hungery, secretive, untrustworthy Clinton in the race.
...with someone people consider untrustworthy, which would most certainly be one of the attacks against Clinton from Republicans?
Oh, and they will. They'd call her a liar everyday until the election. And it would stick. And it would hurt her chances significantly. In fact, it would make her unbelievably unelectable.
It fascinates me that the current reasoning why Hillary is more electable is built upon the fact that she is losing the nominating contest. That is an astounding leap of faith.
So is putting much stock in general election polls seven months before the election. Why? Because of passages from articles like this:
Michael S. Dukakis is capitalizing on deep public doubts about Vice President Bush and the Reagan Administration's handling of key issues and has emerged as the early favorite for the Presidential election in November, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
Mr. Dukakis, the probable Democratic nominee, ran ahead of Mr. Bush, the almost certain Republican candidate, by 49 percent to 39 percent among 1,056 registered voters.
Nothing short of a miracle would do it, but for the sake of argument...
How do you intend to get a liar elected? And don't refer to W, because people trusted him at one point. But people don't trust Hillary.
I think it's a fair point because you can bet the Republicans are going to make a point of reminding voters that they don't trust.
Also, don't refer to the current crop of polls on the front page, because when they've favored Obama, the Clinton camp dismisses them as meaningless. So, I want to make sure you folks are consistent. Wouldn't want anyone to say there's a double standard in the Clinton camp.
And as to this diary, you know that it's not the same. Hillary has not had her patriotism impugned; she's not undermined with suggestions that she might be "too white."
Yes, she's been called out on Tuzla and some other tales she's told, but that's pretty fair game. I mean, when you tell a story repeatedly and it doesn't reflect the truth but digresses from time after time, there's a pretty good reason to assume that someone is not telling the truth.
But honestly, a flag pin? Who the fuck cares?
As long as there are Democrats like yourself who tolerate these sort of tactics against Democrats, this country will never change.
The courts have ruled that political partyies are free to establish guidelines/rules for managing intraparty contests. So, it's not entirely accurate to suggest that anyone's right to vote has been violated. It's a party election, not a government election.
So, there's nothing that's really happened in MI or FL that is illegal or crooked. People might not like it; they might strongly disagree with it, but the Democratic Party is allowed to set the rules to select their nominee(obviously, so long as they do not violate state/federal laws) and to mete out punishment when those rules are violated. The Democratic Party isn't keeping anyone from voting in the Fall elections.
That's just my opinion. But for those reasons, I don't think it's fair to lash out at Carter. Nepal is just beginning its democracy; the matters they are concerned about and might face are a little more serious than our's. I don't mean to belittle voters' rights; not at all. In fact, I'm fairly certain that Carter has spoken up in recent years regarding "irregularities" with our elections. It's simply that we are not talking about the same thing when we are discussing MI and FL. Again, you might strongly disagree with that sentiment but with regards to the law, it is viewed as a matter for the Democratic Party to resolve.
As registered Democrats, we are certainly free to disagree with the rules and procedures of our party. However, when we choose to disregard those rules and their consequences, we undermine the party; and when we undermine the party, we undermine all Democratic voters.
To fault Howard Dean or Obama for supporting the party's rules, which the Clinton campaign had also agreed to, is considerably unfair. The point of establishing rules in the first place is to prevent one faction from trying to impose its will on another. When factions such as the Obama camp and the Clinton camp have a disagreement or dispute with regards to the nominating process itself, the entire purpose of agreeing to the rules in the first place is so that there is something to guide a resolution. If the Clinton camp disagreed with that, they should have spoken up much sooner. Instead, Sen. Clinton was on record months ago, stating with some confidence, that the whole thing would be over by February 5th.
The point is, that there was a time and a process when and by which the Clinton camp could have and should have raised the matter of MI and FL. It undermined it's purpose on that regard by failing to do so sooner.
And therin lie the incongruity of the Clinton camp's position on MI and FL - they did not speak up until it became politically expedient. When the campaign beleived that there was no way they could possibly lose, that it would all be wrapped up on February 5th, they were conspicuously quiet.
Beyond that, it is hardly fair of them to blame the DNC, or any other Democratic leader, for standing by the rules of the party.
Velcro doesn't really work that way. It's not something you "shake" off.
You want something more like what we call in W. PA a burr(it's spikey, round little ball that comes of a certain plant). It might be called that elsewhere...I don't know. I only really know about the place where I live, so I try not to say things about places I've never lived.
The point is, that's more in line with what you're going for because the little buggers are hard to shake off.