Now back to the topic. From an Obama press release today:
"Working Americans are looking for a President who will be consistent in standing up for American workers--and have the integrity to be consistent in his or her views. Senator Clinton has failed that test: though she now rails against NAFTA on the campaign trail, her records as first lady show that she actively lobbied for NAFTA's passage.
Thousands of pages of Hillary Clinton's White House schedules released yesterday show that she was one of the administration's top proponents of NAFTA, attending at least four meetings to advocate for its passage.
That was then. Now that she's running for President, Clinton has changed her tune. Less than a month ago, Clinton said at a debate that "I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic."
Really? Attendees at the 1993 NAFTA briefing where Clinton served as the closing act say that she was "totally pro-NAFTA and what a good thing it would be for the economy."
"THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008)."
Name-calling is not productive. And to some extent, this is standard politics unfortunately: press any possible advantage. But you're spot-on about the hypocrisy of it, and that's entirely fair to point out.
"expect Clinton to remind people that Obama took himself off the ballot for the January MI contest"
As did Edwards, Dodd, and Gravel. Team players, who understand the importance of the rejuvenated DNC and our 50-state strategy.
First Senator Clinton's campaign said this:
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.
Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."
But you know, they're just words.
"Clinton said last October that the Michigan primary was meaningless, but she left her name on the ballot. Obama and the other major Democratic candidates removed their names from the ballot in a gesture of good faith to early-voting states whose primaries were officially allowed by the Democratic Party."
Having's one cake and eating it too is pretty standard politics. But now that FL and MI have decided against a do-over, how can Senator Clinton argue honestly that the delegates should be seated?
Do we want to alienate them? Of course not. And you're right to point out that these are two states we would least like to have in this situation.
So what do we do now? Both states have now decided--repeatedly--that they have neither the will, time, nor organizational capacity to actually vote again. That's done. It's not going to happen. Seating their delegates as-is would be a horrific sham.
So clearly all we're left with now is...blaming Obama? That's where we part ways.
I'm not seeing the mysogyny, but I'll take your word for it.
The distinction is that while Obama has attacked Clinton, he has not done so by praising Republican ideas, and certainly not by elevating John McCain above Senator Clinton. Obama said some rather boneheaded compliments about Reagan's leadership, and I'm one of those who thinks his "post-partisan" rhetoric is mindless, but he's never said McCain would be a better choice than HRC. That's what Senator Clinton is communicating, however.
if there are no revotes, there goes any chance of capturing these states in the fall.
Why? Because FL and MI Democrats will be so pissed off at not having their delegates seated at the preliminary dance that they'll stay home out of spite? Not having a re-vote is disappointing, but I think you're overstating things.
And you can drop the "if" from such comments. It's over, really it is. There isn't going to be a do-over in Florida or Michigan. That's what those two states have decided. It wasn't up to us, and now it's done.
At 11 this morning the Michigan Senate Democrats concluded their meeting about re-vote, with no one changing their positions. So the re-vote isn't even going to be presented to the MI Senate for consideration. This is the third (fourth?) time they've repeated this dance.
When we start to see general election ads repeating "Even Senator Obama's fellow Democrat, Hillary Clinton, said John McCain was [stronger on security issues] | [ready to lead on day 1] | [doesn't stack up to McCain]," then I hope you'll reconsider whether or not Team Clinton is using a damaging, short-sighted strategy.