Unacceptable Dishonesty That Insults The Intelligence
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on April 4th, 2008 in 2008 Presidential, HillaryHillary “At All Costs” Clinton continues to press for the delegates who were “elected” from Florida and Michigan to be seated at the Democratic National Convention.
The latest development is an e-mail petition circulated by the Clinton campaign. The email declaims:
It is a bedrock American principle: we are all equal in the voting booth. No matter where you were born or how much money you were born into, no matter the color of your skin or where you worship, your vote deserves to count.
But millions of people in Florida and Michigan who went to the polls aren’t being heard. The delegates they elected won’t be seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August — and that’s just not fair to those voters.
Candidates running for political office are, of course, expected to make self-serving statements. But there’s a point at which self-serving statements cross the line and become unacceptable dishonesty. As far as I’m concerned, Hillary Clinton crossed that line long ago.
Not only that, she also insults our intelligence when she dishonestly ignores the fact that millions of people in Florida and Michigan did not bother to vote only because the Democratic party had announced in no uncertain terms that the results of the election would not count. Don’t they deserve to have their votes count too, by the same bedrock principle?
It was a mock election, Hillary. Mock elections shouldn’t count. Counting them makes a mockery of the whole election process, of the bedrock principles which you claim to hold so sacrosanct.
Apparently, as far as Hillary’s concerned, your vote deserves to count only if it can be used to increase her delegate count at Obama’s expense. That seems to be her only real principle; everything else is strategy and window dressing.
(What’s kind of funny is that two weeks ago, Hillary was using almost the identical language to press her case for a re-vote in Michigan. In that context, the language made some sense. In the context of seating the originally “elected” delegates, though, it’s blatantly dishonest.)
I’ve come to the conclusion that there is entirely too much George Bush in Hillary Clinton for my liking. And I’m damned if I want any more of George Bush in the Oval Office in any guise, whether it’s the John McCain incarnation or the Hillary Clinton one.
Foon Rhee, writing in the Boston Globe’s “Political Intelligence” blog about this petition, starts the post by saying: “You can’t blame her for trying.” I think you jolly well can. And I think you should.
Jimmy wrote:
“there’s a point at which self-serving statements cross the line and become unacceptable dishonesty.”
Yes, “very candidate does that” and Obama is no different. Do you really think that if the circumstances were reversed Obama wouldn’t have the “exact same stance” on MI/FL that Clinton does? Of course he would. Just “one” of Obama’s recent examples: He states superdelegates should vote with their state (unless of course a superdelegate from a Clinton won state wants to come to his side).
How about Obama first saying he never witnessed Wright doing one of his “controversial” sermons and then (when called on it) saying: “oh yea” I guess I did see a few of those but I disagreed with him on those points (I just didn’t “say” anything or “leave”. In fact, he had Wright do my Wedding and the baptism of my kids…) Oh great!
“What’s kind of funny is that two weeks ago, Hillary was using almost the identical language to press her case for a re-vote in Michigan. In that context, the language made some sense. In the context of seating the originally “elected†delegates, though, it’s blatantly dishonest”
She tried to get the right thing done by supporting a re-vote in MI. It should be either a re-vote (should have been done) “or” seat them as is (again, she pushed for the re-vote until it was too late for that option). Fl should count regardless (as has been posted on this blog site (and stated on various radio/TV programs) by a few people (record turnout and all names on ballot).
McCain is looking better and better vs. Obama (who loves “talking about concepts” but lacks details for those “concepts”). Up until February I never would have thought the Republicans stood a chance of taking the Presidency but the Democrats may just succeed in giving it away (again)…
Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 12:32 pm ¶
Jimmy wrote:
It appears as though the last comment didn’t go through so here it is again:
“there’s a point at which self-serving statements cross the line and become unacceptable dishonesty.”
Yes, “very candidate does that” and Obama is no different. Do you really think that if the circumstances were reversed Obama wouldn’t have the “exact same stance” on MI/FL that Clinton does? Of course he would. Just “one” of Obama’s recent examples: He states superdelegates should vote with their state (unless of course a superdelegate from a Clinton won state wants to come to his side).
How about Obama first saying he never witnessed Wright doing one of his “controversial” sermons and then (when called on it) saying: “oh yea” I guess I did see a few of those but I disagreed with him on those points (I just didn’t “say” anything or “leave”. In fact, he had Wright do my Wedding and the baptism of my kids…) Oh great!
“What’s kind of funny is that two weeks ago, Hillary was using almost the identical language to press her case for a re-vote in Michigan. In that context, the language made some sense. In the context of seating the originally “elected†delegates, though, it’s blatantly dishonest”
She tried to get the right thing done by supporting a re-vote in MI. It should be either a re-vote (should have been done) “or” seat them as is (again, she pushed for the re-vote until it was too late for that option). Fl should count regardless (as has been posted on this blog site (and stated on various radio/TV programs) by a few people (record turnout and all names on ballot).
McCain is looking better and better vs. Obama (who loves “talking about concepts” but lacks details for those “concepts”). Up until February I never would have thought the Republicans stood a chance of taking the Presidency but the Democrats may just succeed in giving it away (again)…
Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 12:38 pm ¶
Shawn B wrote:
@Jimmy
Troll away, dude. The idea the Obama lacks details compared to McCain is laughable. Almost every McCain position amounts to “I don’t know much about it, when I’m President, we’ll just get people together and talk it through.”
He had a press conf last week to talk about the economic situation (a concept), would you care to list the details that he listed in support of this concept?
There’s also this “concept” of the war that’s going sideways killing American soldiers every day, care to enlighten us to his details about how we’re going to deal with that other than to just ride it out?
I could go on…
Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 5:17 pm ¶
matt wrote:
yeah, this didn’t work out so well in the time of bush.
however, i’d feel a lot better if obama’s position on so many issues didn’t amount to “we’ll figure out a bi-partisan solution.”
feel like defending obama? defend obama. just because he’s “better” than mccain doesn’t mean anything.
I wasn’t joking.
Posted 04 Apr 2008 at 5:33 pm ¶