Citing a 1982 Democratic Party rule, the Clinton campaign has now embarked on a new crusade to create doubt that Barack Obama has won a majority of pledged delegates.
Most states, the Clinton campaign says, do not compel their pledged delegates to honor their pledges. From CNN:
And among Clinton pledged delegates.
This news about Clinton’s gross exaggeration of the danger she faced in her trip to Bosnia simply won’t go away, especially as she stubbornly refuses to admit to the “whopperness” of her more recent recollections of that trip, just as she stubbornly refused to admit her mistake in voting for war in Iraq. She now claims that she made those remarks that attempted to revise history, several times, by all accounts, because she was tired. Do I need to ask whether Hillary Clinton tells lies when she is tired? When Hillary Clinton is tired, does she suffer lapses in judgement? Is Hillary Clinton ever tired at, say, 3 AM? How does that work?
This grasping at excuses reveals a character flaw in Hillary Clinton, something that we also have in our currently sitting president: stubborn refusal to admit to a mistake. Just how far would Hillary Clinton go not to admit a mistake? As far as George W. Bush has?
I hope not, but can we as a nation dare to take that chance again?
Others have pointed out still more instances of Hillary Clinton’s gross exaggerations on her impact on government policy and on the importance of her negotiations with foreign powers. I really think that is just overkill.
After all, once you catch someone, anyone, in a lie like the one we caught Hillary Clinton in, the tendency is not to want to believe that person ever again, isn’t it?
How then, is that different for a politician running for President of the United States?
It isn’t, and I will just bet that there are some former Clinton supporters out there, as well as
some Clinton “pledged delegates” (in quotes, because as Clinton’s own people say, they are not) who are now taking a second look at this candidate, and are coming away with doubts.
So as they say, “Let the birds fly as they may”. I’ll just bet that the Clinton campaign would no doubt be surprised by the result.
Most states, the Clinton campaign says, do not compel their pledged delegates to honor their pledges. From CNN:
“‘I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear was that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged,’ said [Clinton advisor, Harold] Ickes.”I think that the Clinton campaign makes a good point, but for other reasons than theirs. I am now in a place, a mindset let’s just say, that tells me that there might just be a little buyer’s remorse out there among the electorate.
“‘I mean obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate and that's permitted now under our rules ever since the 1980 convention.’”
And among Clinton pledged delegates.
This news about Clinton’s gross exaggeration of the danger she faced in her trip to Bosnia simply won’t go away, especially as she stubbornly refuses to admit to the “whopperness” of her more recent recollections of that trip, just as she stubbornly refused to admit her mistake in voting for war in Iraq. She now claims that she made those remarks that attempted to revise history, several times, by all accounts, because she was tired. Do I need to ask whether Hillary Clinton tells lies when she is tired? When Hillary Clinton is tired, does she suffer lapses in judgement? Is Hillary Clinton ever tired at, say, 3 AM? How does that work?
This grasping at excuses reveals a character flaw in Hillary Clinton, something that we also have in our currently sitting president: stubborn refusal to admit to a mistake. Just how far would Hillary Clinton go not to admit a mistake? As far as George W. Bush has?
I hope not, but can we as a nation dare to take that chance again?
Others have pointed out still more instances of Hillary Clinton’s gross exaggerations on her impact on government policy and on the importance of her negotiations with foreign powers. I really think that is just overkill.
After all, once you catch someone, anyone, in a lie like the one we caught Hillary Clinton in, the tendency is not to want to believe that person ever again, isn’t it?
How then, is that different for a politician running for President of the United States?
It isn’t, and I will just bet that there are some former Clinton supporters out there, as well as
some Clinton “pledged delegates” (in quotes, because as Clinton’s own people say, they are not) who are now taking a second look at this candidate, and are coming away with doubts.So as they say, “Let the birds fly as they may”. I’ll just bet that the Clinton campaign would no doubt be surprised by the result.
13 comments:
Sen. Clinton is banking on ignorant voters. She has not picked many Super Delegates since Super Tuesday. The only delegates she has picked up are from losing 15 of the lasSen. Clinton is banking on ignorant voters. She has not picked many Super Delegates since Super Tuesday. The only delegates she has picked up are from losing 15 of the last 17 primaries. I give Texas to Sen. Obama he did win the most delegates in that state. Since Super Tuesday Sen. Obama has picked up nearly 40 Super Delegates. She has been talking about the super delegates but I don't see many getting on her bandwagont 17 primaries. I give Texas to Sen. Obama he did win the mose delagates in that state. Since Super Teusday Sen. Obama has picked up nearly 40 Super Delegates. She has been talking about the super delegates but I don't see many getting on her bandwagon.
Whaaat??? This is downright un-American and anti-democratic! She just got done saying everyone's vote should be counted in FL and MI, and now she advocates a scenario where they don't count at all, anywhere!?!? This is utter nonsense... no, actually it is utter deviousness and shows she does not really care for the people. How could anyone seriously suggest this? And is she thinking of what the people would say if this happened? There would be, and SHOULD be, riots!
What will it take for this to stop? ... Until she ruins the whole election for the Democratic party?
I am so disappointed in Hillary a woman contender and how her campaign will be remembered in history. She is 1st woman as a presidential candidate and somehow the way her campaign is run, the way she conducts herself is not what exemplifies womanhood for me (of course this is only my opinion). Her behavior appears unbalanced, and sulky like some spoiled, bullying child. When she is challenged on her years in the white house, it is either none of our business, oh you can never understand (high and mighty) or give me a break (get off myback). It is not the American publics fault that what was done by heror her husband in the white house is our business, and we will continue to ask. Whenever she is confronted with her own issues, her response is never to address them but to blame anyone other than herself or husband. Then next immediately she attacks the other candidates as if to say look over here. Well not only is she attempting to destroy he party. She and no other woman can be proud of this race, but it will stay with us since history is being made. She has brought even the role of a presidential candidate down to some stereotypes woman have strived to overcome for ages. Those are the witch, the shrew, the gold digger, and the snappish, uptight ticking bomb. Me myself, I would have even preferred the blonde bombshell.
I started campain cycle at the Hillary event here in Des Moines. At that time I wanted her to win. However, I met Obama at a very small event where he gave us the same attention and passion he gives in the bigger states. At that time it was still a civil campain between the candidates. When Barrack won in Iowa I watched as Bill and Hillary took it to a negative campain. It was effective in New Hampshire and she won, by a small margin. This is why I can't vote for her, or any republican. If the only way a person can be elected is to devide the nation and party, then I have no use for them as my leader. This is how Bush has led this country in to the sad shape we are in. I am solid behind Obama and will not vote for Hillary no matter what happens. She and/or Mc Cain would be bad for our Countrie's furture
I started campain cycle at the Hillary event here in Des Moines. At that time I wanted her to win. However, I met Obama at a very small event where he gave us the same attention and passion he gives in the bigger states. At that time it was still a civil campain between the candidates. When Barrack won in Iowa I watched as Bill and Hillary took it to a negative campain. It was effective in New Hampshire and she won, by a small margin. This is why I can't vote for her, or any republican. If the only way a person can be elected is to devide the nation and party, then I have no use for them as my leader. This is how Bush has led this country in to the sad shape we are in. I am solid behind Obama and will not vote for Hillary no matter what happens. She and/or Mc Cain would be bad for our Countrie's furture
Until this point, I considered Sen. Clinton to be a reasonable presidential candidate. I have now officially "had it" with her complaints about the MI and FL delegates on top of these ridiculous, anti-Democratic musings about the pledged delegates being free to change their minds. If these are her feelings, why even have primaries? Why even have pledged delegates. This is dirty politics, and she should get out of the race now.
In the words of David Plouffe:
"When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's 'a contest for delegates.'
When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.
When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.
When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.
When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.
And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count."
And does it stop? No!
Now the Clinton campaign wants us to follow the notion that the votes of the American people don't matter. Does this sound American to you?
For those of you who have not voted yet, let her know that YOUR VOTE COUNTS when you cast your vote for Obama!
Sadly, Mr. Obama will forever be linked to the following statements:
"God Damn America"
"the U S of KKK"
"For the first time in my life I am proud 2 B American”
Unfortunately, no amount of speeches will earn back the confidence of Independents, Middle-America Whites, Jewish-Americans ,and wayward Republicans lost as a result of the Mr. Obama’s 20 year relationship with his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
For this reason he will be UN-electable in the General Election.
For this reason we must accept that Mr. Obama fought a courageous campaign but will unfortunately need to step aside. I truly wish that Mr. Obama would have considered this fiasco prior to taking America down this path.
It is pretty simple..if a delegate does not support the candidate any longer that their fellow party members asked them to, then they should let someone else go as the representative for their delegation.
She is here, she is there, she is everywhere in her attempts to steal this nomination. It is not an entitlement. This is not an inheritance. If the superdelegates have any sense, they ought to stop the rubbishing of their party. If she has any sense and still wants to be relevant in the party, this is the time to quit. She is making a caricature of herself.
Tim, isn't it a sad commentary on our times that we hear someone's pastor say but three small sentences in his long, long career, and that becomes the sum total of how we are to judge not only the pastor, but each and every person who sat listening to him in the audience for 30 years. None of these people must be fit to serve as president.
From now on, must we all worry about whose speeches and sermons we listen to lest they come back to haunt us, even if we weren't there to hear an offending remark?
No, Tim, I look at this diatribe of yours just as I take anything that Senator Clinton says from now on, with a grain of salt.
It's getting worse, too: "Top Clinton Backers Threaten Pelosi."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080327.htm
I think Hillary must be running for Queen of the Lepers--even if she isn't elected to the position, she's sure gonna get NOMINATED real good!
Hal, thanks for bringing a little balance to Tim's argument.
Post a Comment