Clinton SD endorsers tried to influence the election before a single vote was cast!

[cali]

Clinton supporters were fine- make that thrilled- with the 200 SDs who endorsed her prior to a single vote being cast, and who were attempting to sway voters by piling on and making her look inevitable. Now they're furious about Dean, Pelosi, Reid and others urging SDs to come out and endorse now or in the near future. Mind you, none of them are urging any SD to endorse Hillary or Obama, but simply to endorse. So why was it just wonderful for SDs to endorse en masse for Hillary before the voting even began but it's an evil plot to wrest the nomination from hillary when party leaders ask SDs to endorse now at the end of the primary process? Where's the consistency or logic in that?

I'd love to see responses from Clinton supporteres. I doubt any will actually explain why this isn't just hypocrisy on the part of Clinton and her supporters.

Edited to make the subject line snappier.

[still_one]

1. The whole Clinton legacy is a fraud. She also agreed to the DNC rules

regarding states who were told not to hold their primaries early, and has gone back on her word on that

In my view, perpetual dishonesty has run within her campaign

Sorry, but I still have a major problem with her vote on the IWR. There were enough Democrats who realized that the War Powers Act created Congressional oversight, and that the IWR overturned that oversight

[cali]

2. I also have a huge problem with her self-serving

despicable IWR vote, and I had the same contempt for Kerry, Edwards, Biden and Dodd for voting for it- no matter how much I liked them.

I just find it a sterling example of cognitive dissonance that the same hill supporters who cheered all those early hill SD endorsements are having kittens over Dean et al, urging SDs to endorse now.

[krkaufman]

23. I waver between mildly amused and apoplectic when watching the media wholly ignore that fact ...

... that Hillary's continually shifting metrics and positions are ever at odds with her previous statements and pledges. She *should* be a laugh line on the news by now, but they've been treating her with kid gloves ever since SNL berated the media.

[krkaufman]

22. Aside from the IWR vote being insanely unproductive relative to what needed to be done ...

... which was to stay focused on Afghanistan, and rally the *world* to help in the cause. BushCo's Iraq push, to which Hillary Clinton signed-on, predictably destroyed our alliances and endangers the country. Bad foreign policy. Bad judgment.

[tabasco]

77. That's a wonderfully concise statement of the truth.

Well-written and I couldn't agree more.

[krkaufman]

83. Very kind of you to say. Thx. n/t

:toast:

[Kaleva]

3. Hopefully this will be over soon

before my head explodes trying to understand the ever changing arguments the Clinton campaign and her supporters are making.

[SKKY]

4. Here's the thing she's not getting about this...

...It's NOT the Super Delegates who are stealing her god-given right to be President from her hands- IT'S THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!! Until the pledged delegate or popular vote changes in her favor, her beef is with us, the normal voters. Why is it so hard for her to understand that? Does she really think she's doing herself or the Democratic party any favors?

[krkaufman]

24. Ugh. Please don't perpetuate the "popular vote" nonsense.

In a mixed selection process, the "popular vote" is meaningless because of the number of states that held caucuses, and especially since several of those states don't even have totals for the number of people who participated.

The Democratic delegate is selected based on elected pledged delegates, and superdelegates. And the superdelegates would be *wise* not to go against the will of the voters -- as gauged by the only metric available according to the party's selection rules, the elected pledged delegate majority.

[SKKY]

63. Spoken like a true Clintonite...

...caucuses don't matter because HRC didn't win one of them. :eyesroll: Still serving up the same old stale cheese.

[krkaufman]

67. Ummm... I think you either responded to the wrong post ...

... or you didn't read/comprehend my post -- whether the fault of the reader or author.

My comment was in regards to, and in opposition of, your "Clintonite" comment that the "popular vote" could be considered as a metric for deciding the nominee. I'm of the opinion, and I thought I expressed it above, that the "popular vote" metric is total crap, and should NOT be more than an historical footnote.

The "popular vote" effectively disenfranchises all the caucus states, and especially those several states that don't have ANY count of the participants in their caucuses.

edit: p.s. "The Democratic delegate" in my earlier post should have, of course, been "The Democratic nominee."

[Alii]

94. Absolutely...

Do you suppose that those not able to understand this very simple concept...might be able to understand the workings of the Electoral College?

Exasperating. Hillary's metrics, and her supporters belief in same, is unconscionable. She preys upon the uneducated...a large percentage of her demographic. Please people...educate thyself. Read, research...don't allow the MSM to decide for you.

p.s. Post 63. I rest my case.

[krkaufman]

128. I'm not sure post #63 can be taken at face value.

From what I can tell, the meaning of my post to which they were replying appears not to have made it across the Intertubes. The poster appears to be arguing against Sen. Clinton *and* hammering my anti-"popular vote" post. Most confusing.

[Bread and Circus]

5. That's a brilliant point Cali, I had never really thought of it that way before.

K and R!

[cali]

6. Thanks B&C and as usual

it's something the hillary supporters can't respond to. The way they avoid any challenges to their chosen narrative is very revealing.

:hi:

[Jensen]

7. K&R!

:kick:

[livetohike]

8. We should all know by now that rules only apply when they

favor the Clintons. If the rules don't favor the Clintons, then they will work to change them. It's all about them.

(From now on, I will not refer to Sen. Clinton as the candidate - it will be The Clintons = joint candidacy.)

[goclark]

114. Love it ~ The Clintons are running for President

[City Lights]

9. Great point, cali.

Someone here (sorry, can't remember who) made a similar point about Clinton and her supporters insisting that she stay in the race until the last primary is held in June, yet HRC and her supporters were singing a different tune when she predicted that the primary would be over on Super Tuesday. They didn't care about the races that came after ST when they thought Clinton would knock out her opponents early on. Their hypocrisy is stunning on many fronts.

Recommended.

[cali]

10. kick. c'mon hill supporters

at least try and defend your shifting position on SD endorsements.

[goclark]

11. K and R ~ if this is how she acts now, she would be a Bush Twin

if she got in office.

She is vicious and vendictive and has no bounds of loyality.

Those are flaws that can't be erased.

[cali]

12. well, I don't think she'd be a bush twin

but her behavior in the primaries hasn't exactly inspired confidence in her.

[goclark]

14. She lies and doesn't even care that she is caught in a lie

She seems to lack the "CARE GENE."

He does not have a CARE GENE, Cheney does not have a CARE GENE and IMO, she acts the same way....

Bosnia ~ "I misspoke" means "So what,let's keep on lieing."

Just a Speech = kept right on bashing in the same direction with the put downs.

Now that I think of it, you are right.

She is not a Bush Twin, she is worse because she is intelligent,he is not.

She knows better and still will stop at nothing to get her way.

Just my view.

[krkaufman]

26. I prefer to believe that she wouldn't be as bad as Bush/Cheney if she somehow maneuvered her way ...

... to the White House, but I'm damn certain that she'd be similar to Cheney in one respect... that she'd be of the opinion that she wasn't going to govern based on promises made in order to win the nomination or general election. We've already seen that pledges mean nothing to her, if they're inconvenient to her political goals.

[goclark]

87. Correct! nt

[SwampG8r]

13. logic left the clintons

on supertuesday
now they use desperation instead

[KaptBunnyPants]

15. There is no explanation. Only tortured justifications unbound by morality.

They intend to win by the same method that Bush won Florida.

[cali]

16. fortunately they can't

but you're right, there's no explanation, and the lack of responses from Clinton supporters demonstrates that.

[thewiseguy]

17. kick

[krkaufman]

27. PC police warning ... "stole" or quoted-"'won'" are acceptable framings

... for the 2000 Florida results. ;)

[The Magistrate]

18. The Hell You Say, Ma'am!

Are you actually telling me politicians sought advantage before the day on which ballots were cast?

How must Heaven weep, having never seen the like before upon this earth....

[ClassWarrior]

21. Yes, but you expect it more from Rape-Publican politicians.

NGU.

[The Magistrate]

25. What, Sir, Do You Suppose That Statement Actually Means?

The nearest to an interpretation of it my mind can produce is that you do not expect Democratic political figures to engage in politics, or expect them to engage in it in an amateurish and ineffective manner, and further, that you ascribe a positive value to either of these things....

"If there are such things as Angels, I hope they are organized along the lines of the Mafia."

[roguevalley]

33. the point isn't the 'politics' of the Clinton campaign as much as it

is the hypocracy of her supporters. this is classic. thank you, cali. the dearth of hillarites shows that they can't argue about this without exposing their hypocracy.

[ClassWarrior]

47. I "do not expect Democratic political figures to engage in" DIRTY politics.

And most don't. To say otherwise is to promote the RW cover meme, "They ALLLLLL do it..."

NGU.

[The Magistrate]

50. 'DIRTY politcs', Sir

Admits of an extraordinary variety and flexibility of interpretations. The nearest thing to a unifying element throughout their range is 'actions by a political figure the user of the term does not support and does not much like'.

[ClassWarrior]

52. So you support DIRTY politics.

Okay, there you go.

NGU.

[The Magistrate]

54. You Would Need To Provide A Definition Of It, Sir

Before you could make that statement, and this you have failed to do in any manner. It may well be that what you consider foul does not seem so to me, but that is hardly a ground on which you could get me to agree with your statement above....

[fascisthunter]

100. We Expect a Bit of Ethics from Our Public Servants

Hiding behavior like that by "labeling" it as mere "politics" is a further shame. There are folks in this country who do expect the bar to be higher than you do.

[The Magistrate]

116. They Have, Ma'am, My Deepest Sympathies In The Bitterness Of Their Continual Disappointment

It must be a special sort of Hell, living in the hope human beings will be something else....

"People are fucking people, and that is fucked up."

[fascisthunter]

126. Just a note

I'm a "sir", but there is no need nor desire to be addressed so formerly. My silly name is enough.

[krkaufman]

I believe the point is ... the irony of the pre-Iowa commitment of delegates ...

... with associated appreciation and fanfare from the Clinton campaign, with nary a "will of the voter" having been expressed, when compared to the current decrying of any superdelegates that might now dare to voice their support for an opposing candidate.

[cali]

29. yes, the rain in Spain does mainly fall upon the plain and

by george, you got it.

:thumbsup:

[krkaufman]

31. Not so difficult to get, eh?

It's not exactly something I'll go around bragging about, since it's about as advanced as 1+1=2. The contortions people go through to avoid the obvious can be painful to witness.

(And nice closing w/ the "perspicacity" comment. I was going to say something similar, since I had a hard time believing the poster could have missed your fairly straightfoward point.)

[The Magistrate]

35. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

Do you often encounter people who do other than act and argue in manners that they expect will advance their own interests at some particular moment?

[krkaufman]

39. Dude, what's up with all the "Sir" and "Ma'am" stuff?

If it's supposed to communicate respect, it doesn't.

As for your question, I'll respond. No, we often encounter such people in our lives... say, for example, like when people respond to a fairly obvious point on which most rational people could agree with some tangential abstracted concept in an attempt to foster further argument.

The point remains... Clinton's current and past positions are contrary, hypocritical and humorously ironic. And the media could be having a field day with the nearly endless list of contrary and illogical positions the Clinton campaign and its surrogates have put forth, but appear to be, instead, merely echoing the latest release of the ever-changing metrics in their best "we've always been at war with Eastasia" manner.

[The Magistrate]

51. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Mr. Kaufman

Do you often feel compelled to instruct people you meet on how they should speak and otherwise conduct themselves?

How does that work out for you, in physical practice?

"Go into the street and give the first man you meet a lecture on moral improvement, and the second a shilling, and see tomorrow which will own you as his friend."

[krkaufman]

55. Hey, take it or leave it. Sorry if it came across the wrong way ...

... if my attempt at constructive criticism seemed "inartful" or insincere, and it *was* sincere, but I can definitely see how my "it doesn't" may have come across. To me, a response however polite in address and tone is not respectful if it fails in carrying on a basic dialogue on the subject at hand.

As for instructing others, your posts generally seem to be instructing others in how they might think more "effectively", let's say, so I don't see any lines being crossed that haven't already been trodden over. I say potato, you say "sir" or "ma'am", let's call the whole thing off.

Good day.

[krkaufman]

57. p.s. It's not like I'm going around telling you that you spelled 'curiosity' wrong.

;)

[The Magistrate]

58. "I Have Little Respect For A Man Who Can Spell A Word Only One Way"

Doubtless you would find other variants, Sir, on close inspection.

A pleasure to make your acquaintance.

[krkaufman]

65. I would think an infinite number of variants are possible ...

But my roommate wishing to call a point "mute" didn't make his comment correct, nor did it make me a bad person for pointing-out the correct pronunciation, in the hopes of helping him avoid similar misuse in a more formal, business setting. The fact that he responded in a fashion similar to you with "Ok, but I don't care!" and continued to mispronounce the word to the point of using the wrong word made him seem childishly obstinate -- though I'm sure some might call him resolute.

> "A pleasure to make your acquaintance."

And this final comment nicely reinforces my earlier point. That pro forma politeness when transparently insincere is not respectful and does nothing to further actual polite dialogue.

Good day.

[The Magistrate]

68. As You Wish, Sir....

"It is wrong to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

[krkaufman]

73. Nicely done. You have brought us together, in complete agreement ...

... in words, at least, if not in their object.

[Adelante]

85. The Magistrate will do that

He is a sly one :D

[krkaufman]

89. "Sly" is a word.

;)

[Cheap_Trick]

113. egads, did I ever get in an argument one time with my aunt

over the usage of Mute vs Moot... She was insisting on mute. Even getting the dictionary didn't convince her.

Anyone else remember the Saturday Night Live sketch with Jesse Jackson? He was hosting a game show "The Question is Moot".

Upon further digging, here is a video of the sketch: http://menino.com/mirror/question-is-moot.mov

[krkaufman]

130. I hope you and your aunt reconciled. : )

And thanks for the link to the SNL clip. HI-larious!! I'm missing the background for why this particular sketch was paired with Jesse (was this sort of response common during his campaign?), but that doesn't affect its hilarity.

[Cheap_Trick]

134. oh yeah, it was more of a heated disagreement

over and forgotten in an hour. Thanks:hi:

[Cha]

103. And, a good point it is..

"The point remains... Clinton's current and past positions are contrary, hypocritical and humorously ironic. And the media could be having a field day with the nearly endless list of contrary and illogical positions the Clinton campaign and its surrogates have put forth, but appear to be, instead, merely echoing the latest release of the ever-changing metrics in their best "we've always been at war with Eastasia" manner."

That's why people are turning to the net to get their news instead of turning on the media who brought them bush and the War ON Iraq.

[krkaufman]

106. Thanks, and ... yep. And turning to Colbert and Stewart.

The basic attraction of Colbert and Stewart is their willingness to take advantage of the almost continual stream of humorously ironic posturing of politicians. It's easy work and makes for entertaining fair for their audiences.

[Cha]

108. Exactly...they have the "field"

practically to themselves because the m$$$fm is too bogged down carrying water for their corporate masters.

[krkaufman]

111. Yep. It's only a little bit surprising that no one aside from Bill Maher and KO ...

... have really picked-up on the market demand. (Both KO and Maher, in my opinion, benefit *heavily* from a dearth of competition on TV in the left-of-center spectrum; but I'm grateful for their efforts.)

[druidity33]

119. i believe

it would be "entertaining fare"...


:)

[krkaufman]

127. Indeed. Thanks for the correction/editing.

Though some would say "doubtless you would find other variants"; I'll accept the helpful criticism, and adapt. (My incomplete -lazy- thought left me straddling the circus/fair entertainment aspect of the shows and the fact that the phrasing used communicates consumption of the media content.)

[cali]

28. No sir. you miss my obvious point, but feeling kindly, I will spell it out again.

Quite simply there's a lot of gnashing of teeth on the part of Clinton supporters, and complaints from the candidate herself, that SDs endorsing now would be unfair. Those same people did not hold the view that SDs endorsing then was unfair. Indeed, as I point out, they were quite pleased by said event. It's simply interesting to watch folks spin on a dime.

And you, with your fabled perspicacity, surely knew what I was saying.

[The Magistrate]

36. So What, Ma'am?

This is a universal trait, found in all persons and a feature of all sustained arguments.

When the question was Jim Crow laws in various states, my allegiance was to Federal authority over all, and my practice to denounce States' Rights with vigor. When the question is, say, Oregon's legalization of assisted suicide, my position is that the State has every right to make its own laws, and the Federal government no right whatever to interfere in its business. Clearly, my hypocrisy knows no bounds....

"An argument is principled if it appeals to a principle. It need not always be the same principle."

[cali]

40. so such things are mildly interesting being part of the warp and woof

of the campaign tapestry. And alas, your comparison of Federal v States' Rights to the arguments about the ongoing dem primary, although lofty, is not terribly germane. Lovely that you're such a strong and independent thinker, sir, but what hath States' rights to do with the matter at hand? Your position on civil rights and assisted suicide, is not, in fact inconsistent or hypocritical.

[The Magistrate]

45. But My Means Of Arguing In Their Favor Is Quite Inconsistent, Ma'am

It does not bother me that this is so, but it is a fact it is only proper for me to acknowledge. The consistency is in the object of my arguments, namely the increase of human liberty in accord with my personal ideals of same, and my ascription to this of a high value as a good thing.

Similarly, the arguments of political figures in a campaign are consistent in their object, namely gaining the advantage for themselves in the contest with an opponent or opponents, and that the form of the particular arguments by which this is pursued may differ from time to time and circumstance to circumstance is a trifle. It will of course be seized on by opponents, who generally can be found engaged in precisely the same practice themselves, and is merely a species of 'gotcha' histrionics. Which, of course, you will find me playing myself at times when it suits me to do so....

[cali]

46. No indeedy it is not, your honor.

As Mr Kaufman pointed out the common and overarching theme is support for Human Rights. That puts the matter in another light, does it not? You are being consistent with your positions on both issues.

[The Magistrate]

49. No More Consistent, Ma'am, Than A Politician Campaigning For Victory

Each is an over-riding concern of the person engaged in the endeavor. The test of whether something is consistent in itself is not whether it is consistent with one's own views.

[cali]

56. ack. you are stubborn but conflating such issues with how a politician

campaigns- as if they all campaigned in the same exact way- is too silly for me; though I know it's silly season. And with this, I bid you farewell. Thanks for the exchange.

[The Magistrate]

59. This Is A Question Of Taxonomy, Ma'am

You might as well speak of conflating mice and whales because both are regarded as mammals owing to very basic similarities in internal structure and function.

[krkaufman]

41. It might be more accurate to say your framing has bounds.

Were you really a *believer* in States' Rights or Federal Authority, or were you simply classifying your position using the most readily-available framing labels? In both cases, weren't you taking a position promoting Human Rights? The States' Rights framing, just like "activist judges", "tax reform" and all the other Right Wing framing, are traps to avoid.

[cali]

42. hey, I like how you

think. Really good point about supporting human rights being the important aspect of both civil rights and states rights in the two examples given.

[krkaufman]

43. Well thanks, cali. Very kind of you to say so.

And the same...

Just don't look too hard, please; I'm sure I've said something here over which we could violently disagree. :)

[The Magistrate]

53. And Again, Sir

A politician seeking advantage in a contest against an opponent has precisely that sort of consistency, and simply employs different 'frames', as you say, according to their suitability to the purpose in the particular situation in that contest he or she is in at any present moment. The politician's desire to win, and my attachment to expanding human liberty, are both over-arching drives consistently pursued, often by quite inconsistent styles and grounds of argument. That you may approve of expanding human liberty, and do not approve of some particular politician winning, does not alter this.

[krkaufman]

61. Consistency of purpose is one thing; consistency of argument is another.

... especially when one's argument is wildly inconsistent in pursuit of a particular purpose, as in the case of Sen. Clinton's campaign -- and was evidently NOT the case for you in regards to your Jim Crow opposition and assisted suicide support. I take it that you were at least consistent in argument in pursuit of each of these distinct purposes -- as not being so sort of erodes one's credibility rather rapidly.

I don't really see what candidate preference has to do with it. I would think one's preference of candidate wouldn't preclude the ability to recognize the hypocrisy in Clinton's argument, or "contrary nature of the arguments over time" let's say, to keep things light, and take some humorous enjoyment -- especially if one is a Clinton supporter and the tactic is having some success.

Being of free will, I will retain my right to view the Clinton campaign's Ping Pong-like changing of their arguments regarding nomination goalposts and metrics as ironically humorous, whether the media comments on it or not, and whether or not it is deemed as apropos by the judges of others.

[The Magistrate]

74. But We Have Established, Sir, And You Have Just Acknowledged Here

That pursuing a consistent purpose by means of inconsistent arguments is not to be classed as inconsistency, at least when the person doing the classification considers the consistent purpose worthy of approval. A candidate's pursuit of advantage is no less consistent than my favor towards liberty, and my willingness to argue the primacy of Federal authority or States' Rights according to which might advance my goal no less inconsistent than a candidate arguing for delegates to commit before all the votes are in at one point in a campaign, and for them not to do so at another point in it.

[krkaufman]

75. Your saying I've acknowledge something doesn't make it so ...

... especially when you fail to communicate exactly what I've acknowledged and in what manner or specific words I have done the acknowledging.

We have two separate objects...

purpose

argument

One's consistent purpose can become discredited and even laughable if pursued with inconsistent -- and especially contradictory -- arguments.



edit: added hyphenated caveat; and corrected an ironic typo

[CaptJasHook]

112. Your point is understood, your Lordship, but...

in the context of this particular campaign, you still overlook the difficulty for which inconsistency and hypocrisy can indeed invalidate the candidates ability to win in the long term.

If Senator Clinton's campaign is indeed in pursuit of advantage in this election cycle then whether or not their tactics are effective in advancing her goal are indeed in question. She not only has to win the Primary, but the General election as well. If her tactics can be easily framed in negative terms, then she hurts her chances of being elected in the long term. If her tactics are successful in the short term and win her the party nomination in September, she will still face difficulty in the General in November if she has cut off a large percentage of her base.

So the relevance of her inconsistent arguments comes into play, because it hurts her overall objective. Just as if you argued for Federal intervention, an thusly strengthened Federal authority, and then had to work more intensely to overcome that Federal Authority when presenting an argument from a States Rights perspective.

That said, maybe the Clinton campaign is gambling right now. Perhaps they believe that what is said in March and April will be forgotten in November. Perhaps they believe that hypocrisy and inconsistency are values that the Democratic voting base find attractive, or at the very least will not be a big enough problem for them in the Fall. This, of course, flies in the face of all logic, as the Right has consistently used those two labels to destroy Democratic candidates in the past.

[krkaufman]

19. I'm not sure about "200 SDs" but that's what I've been saying for a while now

All of Clinton's hypocrisy is tough to keep-up with, but you've touched on one of my favorites.

Sen. Clinton decries the superdelegates preempting the voting and ignoring the "will of the voters" in the remaining states, however...

(1) She didn't have a problem in early January with 160+ superdelegates committing to her candidacy before a single vote was ever cast, so no "will of the voters" could have been part of *their* decision; and

(2) She didn't have a problem with the race ending on Feb 5th. Until she saw where she stood on Feb 6th.

(3) Her entire campaign now relies on the superdelegates to override the "will of the voters", given that Obama will have the elected pledged delegate majority.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Clinton.

[JBoy]

20. Very good point, Cali.

[RiverStone]

30. Thanks for making a great point Cali. Have not heard it before - makes lots of sense.

:hi:

K&R!

[Hansel]

32. Excellent point.

[cali]

34. thanks, and welcome to DU

Hansel.

:hi:

[Terri S]

37. Distrust was my number one problem with her at the beginning

She has always changed with the wind and I always felt I could never trust anything she said. Unfortunately, this campaign has only reinforced that opinion and added so much more to her negatives.

[Cha]

38. It's amazing..some people like

yourself can see right through her and others like say.. Maya Angelou, writes that she's "honest" which I know not to be true.

[Liquorice]

69. Maya Angelou has known Hillary Clinton personally for

over 20 years. You've probably never even shook Hillary Clinton's hand and certainly have no personal relationship with her. And yet, you see right through this woman you've never met, and Maya, who counts Hillary her friend, is just fooled I guess. Or maybe you're just wrong?

[Cha]

79. Oh, you are calling on the wrong person for

this kind a talk..I have shaken hilary's hand and took her pic on May 24, 2001, in Mohawk, New York.

And then on Oct 10, 2002 hilary disregarded the wishes of her constituents in New York and voted for the IWR..since then she's done nothing but shill for the bushes and now in this primary her true lie colors are hanging out for all to see.

"Why Hillary’s Lies are Important"

- March 24, 2008, 9:53PM
Hillary Clinton has been caught in a series of lies and misrepresentations during the primary campaign. To some of her supporters, these lies may seem trivial and insignificant and even politics-as-usual. However, please consider the serious impact of these lies by placing them in the context of the past seven years of the Bush Administration and the legacy of expanded executive power that he leaves behind. In particular, consider the dangerous message that the Clinton campaign sends by employing similar tactics to achieve her political goals.

1. The Florida and Michigan Primaries / The Delegate Count
Hillary agreed to honor the DNC’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates after their primaries were moved up into January in express violation of the DNC rules. She did not change her position on the validity of these primaries until she found herself unexpectedly behind in the delegate count and desperately needed to claim the delegates that she had won in these unsanctioned contests. As her chances of winning the nomination became increasingly slim in recent weeks, we have been presented with threatening and desperate lines of reasoning for why these primary results should count as is. At the same time, Clinton and her surrogates continue to propose different metrics for determining who should win the nomination even though there is and has been a clearly defined process in place for several decades.

Please think about the implications of changing election rules after the fact. We have suffered through at least one stolen presidential election and the manipulation of untold numbers of Congressional and state elections through various vote tampering and voter intimidation schemes used by the Republicans and their allies. The American people (and especially Democratic voters) have lost faith in the integrity of the election process. The Clinton strategy to continually change the rules for determining the Democratic Party nominee sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to increasingly un-Democratic elections in the future if it is allowed to succeed. If anything, we need more transparency and methods of accountability in our elections in order to repair the damage done in recent years and to restore our confidence in the Government.

2. The Bosnia Fabrication / Exaggerated Experience Claims
Hillary fabricated a story about a dangerous, life-risking visit to Bosnia in order to gain stature as an experienced negotiator in international conflicts and war. While this type of embellishment can seem almost comical, it represents a willingness to distort reality in order to influence the public perception. This is the same type of distortion that the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq, although the magnitude of the lie is certainly on a different scale. The Bush administration falsified reports, cherry-picked intelligence, used unreliable sources, and employed fear-mongering tactics to convince the American public that our safety was at risk and as such, you were either with us or with the terrorists. The lies used by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeachable offenses and should be condemned by all Americans. Sadly, the Clinton campaign seems to have shown a shocking willingness to employ the same tactics to create a more favorable reality and to rely on divide-and-conquer rhetoric to weaken opposition. Her attempts to frighten the American people by conjuring up 3 AM phone calls are bad enough, but her vote of confidence in John McCain over Barack Obama should be seen as treason against the Democratic Party.

3. NAFTA
Hillary lied about her position on NAFTA and used her lies in a calculated way to influence the Ohio primary. Recently released White House documents confirm that Hillary had been an active proponent of NAFTA prior to its passage, and she has continued to support it publicly in her speeches and memoir. However, while campaigning in Ohio, she claimed to have been privately against NAFTA during the Clinton presidency and believes that it should be rewritten to protect American jobs and workers. This type of maneuvering is reminiscent of the behind-closed-doors policy-making that the Bush administration has used during the past seven years. Specifically, Bush and Cheney have made policy decisions without providing transparency to Congress or the public, and President Bush has repeatedly ignored the rule of law by issuing signing statements and disregarding the parts of the laws that he doesn’t agree with. If we cannot trust Hillary to be truthful about her positions on critical legislative issues now, how can we trust that she will be truthful as president?

These are just three examples that illustrate the concerns we should have with a candidate who demonstrates a sense of entitlement to the nomination and is willing to lie, misrepresent, threaten, and divide in order to obtain the nomination. President Bush and the neoconservative movement have greatly harmed this country by the creation of an imperial-like presidency. This election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. The framers of the Constitution were in such fear of an imperial president that mechanisms for impeachment are prominently and explicitly included in the Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-h ...

<snip>

"Her response to being caught lying to a military audience, when she invented a story about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, was to say it wasn't surprising she got some things wrong, seeing how she spoke millions of words every day. What a magnificent idea, that if you say lots of words some of them are bound to be fantastic lies. So if you listen carefully to horse-racing commentators they say things like "And it's Teddy's Boy still leading three furlongs out as they come up to the fourth last fence with Nip and Tuck two lengths behind by the way I fought a tiger once, punched it clean out and they're all safely over."


<lots more>
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article3 ...

"It's not that lying to pad the resume, avoid Indictment or to advance her political fortune is anything new for Hillary Clinton. She famously said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (debunked); she told New Yorkers she was a Yankee fan when she lived in Chicago (debunked); she told rural New Yorkers that she was a "duck hunter" (debunked); she claimed that her daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center at the time of the 9/11 attack (debunked by Chelsea herself.) And, those subpoenaed Rose Law billing records just happened to show up one day on a hallway table in the most monitored home in America!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[sniffa]

92. BAM!

:thumbsup:

[krkaufman]

82. Or ... Hillary's interactions with this particular person, Maya Angelou, have been honest ....

... while Hillary's interactions with others, like say... MoveOn.org membership, have been less-than-honest.

Let's not forget that Hillary has been quoted as valuing those who are politically useful to her more than those who are not, so I'm sure Maya gets better "treatment" than the average bear from Hillary.

[Cha]

102. Right...but, in my pov..

Maya Angelou could be a little bit more compassionate for the country.

[krkaufman]

107. Yeah, that was a hole in my theory. It's difficult to explain Maya's indifference ...

... to how others are treated dishonestly by the Clintons, and that she would remain committed to Sen. Clinton.

[Maddy McCall]

44. I'd love to discuss this with someone who wishes to do so civilly....

but from your OP, it appears that you've made foregone conclusions, so I don't think I'll waste my time here.

[cali]

48. I'm sorry if you took offense. I really would like to know

how you think it was OK then but isn't now.

[SoCalDem]

60. 200 SDs + MI + FL + NH + CA + NY= Feb5 victory

That was the plan...and the FL & MI miscalculation made the train derail...

She never had ANY plan to campaign after Feb 5.

So ANY state after Feb 5 did not matter to her at ALL.. She had planned to have the lion's share of DELEGATES before anyone else had a chance to really compete.

MI & FL HAD to be moved up for her plan to work, because a string of southern states just MIGHT give a boost to Edwards or Obama, and she planned to shut them both out before they knew what hit them..

When MI & FL were out of the picture, and Edwards and the rest dropped out, that left an open field for Obama to operate in, and by then his surprise Iowa win and Bill's big mouth fired up people who did not want a "Queen"..so his fundraising kicked in and she got buried in an avalanche of Obama money and enthusiasm..

[cali]

62. absolutely.

but talk about lousy planning.....

[SoCalDem]

70. and that mentality is why we keep losing.

Only planning for "the big states" is elitism at its highest level.

Every cycle, our candidates drag out that old red-blue map and try to figure out how to win without FL,OH,PA...and every cycle a shitload of money is spent in those states, playing tug-o-war and keeping fingers crossed at "counting time"...and usually LOSING one of those states and handing over the whole enchilada to the republicans..

Obama's plan is brilliant.. Choose a handful of smaller leaning-dem or weak-republican, and FLIP them.. It costs less to campaign in smaller states, and by not cedeing them, it forces republicans to waste money in areas they have had all to themselves for far too long..

Using Bill Clinton's 92 race to compare things to , is not rational, since Perot handed him the presidency.. Have Perot not run, Poppy would have been re-elected.. Clinton was not as good as he thought he was.. he was LUCKY..

win Colorado..win Virginia..win the blue parts of Nebraska (they have split EC votes)...use Richardson to help us get NM and NV...use Testor to help us get Montana..and all of a sudden OH, PA & FL become far less "important"... we still want them, but it's no longer do-or-die..

Even Alaska is in play..Ron Paul beat McCain and they are not all that pleased with the Stevens or Murkowski clans..

Obama PROVED that a lot of small numbers really DO "add up"..

The republicans are not fired up for Mc Cain...they are not happy about much these days..uninspired, turned-off people often do not even vote..

[Aloha Spirit]

76. +1

[SoCalDem]

78. ?

+1?

[Aloha Spirit]

80. Just sayin I agree completely.

[SoCalDem]

81. ahh. i thought you had another state for me

:rofl:

[Aloha Spirit]

84. the state of denial?

[SoCalDem]

86. She won that one hands down.. by 150%

:rofl:

[ClayZ]

64. K and R

:kick:

[Tribetime]

66. I didn't know it was before any votes

doesn't surprise me K&R

[SoCalDem]

72. A radio commentator said he thought the handwriting was on the wall when ONLY 200

of 800 SDs jumped on her bandwagon.. He said that one would expect a LOT more of them to have piled on...since she was an experienced senator with a high profile, a ton of money and a former first lady WITH her president husband out there campaigning for her. he thought at least 1/2 should have lined up for her immediately..

[clevbot]

71. kick. good post.

[Yurovsky]

88. K&R! awesome post ...

thanks!

[shadowknows69]

90. Too big a query for their brains cali

But the childish barbs thrown at you should be fun to read. :popcorn:

[graycem]

91. Ah, but

there's your first mistake. Asking for a logical explanation. :P

[lisa58]

93. They just want to win for winnings sake....

...however that happens is fine with them and they don't care how they get there and won't understand what possible offense you could take from it.

Obama is going to to show the party that he played by the rules and won.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

95. I'm embarrasses to admit...

as a life long Democrat I had never heard of a "Super Delegate." I briefly brought it up at caucus and the others in my area looked as clueless as myself.

Now, I feel as if I'm being held hostage by my own parties Super Delegate Ace in the hole. Seriously, folks are starting to get that deer in the headlights
look when I try to bring this up. There's something really messed up about a system where caucusing, voting in the primary and winning still isn't enough to see
your candidate nominated.

This isn't looking good. If we can't handle a mere nomination process, why should voters feel confident the Democrats can manage the mangled mess of a country the
next president will inherit? They better get their shit together and do it soon.

[cali]

96. agreed. it's a lousy system. n/t

[L0oniX]

97. K&R n/t

[PseudoIntellect]

98. Clinton basically loses if that happens.

The logic doesn't matter. The first situation was in Hillary's favor, so that was okay. But now it's not, so it's not okay. Same kinda logic has been applied many times this campaign.

[BlueJac]

99. The Clintons are poison to the democratic party.......

They could care less about America and the Liberals. The are DLC and that says it all. We at all costs is their slimy motto.

[grantcart]

101. Well of course but it actually is much worse than that -

Hillary tried to finish it of on Feb 5th and make all of the following primaries and caucuses irrelevent.

Now she is carrying the flag that every primary is important and nothing can be done until the last primary is finished.

[krkaufman]

132. Except that it's even much worse than that ...

... because the Clinton campaign has actually been arguing that nothing should be done until the convention, when Hillary could somehow get pledged delegates to switch to her campaign after the first round of voting if Obama, with the elected pledged delegate majority, cannot win the overall delegate majority on the first round of voting.

While she's arguing that all the states should have their say, her argument -- given that Obama will have the elected pledged delegate majority -- is basically that the say of the voters is irrelevant because SHE thinks she's the better candidate.

[NM Independent]

104. You'll find nothing but hypocrisy...

where you look for consistency or logic when it comes to Hillary.

That's why I've never really liked her much, and my opinion has become much stronger as her disgrace of a campaign has played out.

[Frank Booth]

105. They tried pushing the whole inevitability theme because they knew how unlikable and unelectable

she is. Luckily voters in Iowa saw through the lies and put the nationwide rejection of HRC in motion.

[Cha]

109. ONce again..thank

Iowa!

[Exultant Democracy]

110. I would assume that it would be a two pronged attack where the second contradicted the first

something about t being undemocratic to try and end the race before all the votes are cast and counted, but with a good measure of the super delegates are supposed to exercise their independent judgment as experts and office holders at to the best choice for that party and that is what the super delegates are for in the first place.

[Catherina]

115. Great point n/t

[TomClash]

117. True but . . .

. . . you'll never get a cogent response.

[cali]

120. Ain't that the truth.

Hillworlders react to facts like they're kryptonite. Pathetic. This has been up for 34 hrs and nothing from hillfans. That's true of any factual piece they can't deal with.

[TomClash]

123. Absolutely right

They attack, you respond, they run away.

The reason they haven't responded to your post is pretty simple. There is no response.

[phrigndumass]

118. Right on the nose - K+R

Since the voting actually began, Senator Obama has received about 240 superdelegates compared to Senator Clinton's 60. Hypothetical Hillary has absolutely no regard for the official discourse of this race.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[cali]

121. Thanks phrign

coming from you that means something. Really appreciate the work you do here.

[phrigndumass]

122. Ditto ... every word!

:blush: :blush: :blush:

Your sense of logic is very appreciated in you!

:hi:

[Blarch]

124. another reason would never vote for hillary.

she is a total hack ....100% republican

[futureliveshere]

125. Very good point. Say, I hope you write to or somehow make your points known to the Obama campaign.

[ekwhite]

129. I'm not sure what your point is

Getting 200 endorsements before the first primary is within the rules and was part of her 'inevitability' strategy. That was just standard politics - come into the primaries as the front runner, and watch the people who want to 'vote for a winner' flock to you. Of course, it turned out to be an awful strategy.

I am certain that if Barack Obama had 200 SD's lined up before the first primary, he would have touted them too.

[krkaufman]

131. the hypocrisy/irony

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5693141&mesg_id=5695171

[hfojvt]

133. the point is that now they cry those crocodile tears

:cry: :cry: "If the superdelegates endorse now, then they are not letting South Dakota and Indiana vote" "It's unfair. It's not right. The people need to vote!"

And everyone agrees that the people do need to vote. Except the Clinton campaign really never wanted people to decide, just to rubber-stamp the inevitable. Their strategy was to pile up the early endorsements and win the early primaries, sweep on Super Tuesday and finish in a cakewalk. Just like Kerry did in 2004.

In 2004, Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire and then won 5 of 7 contests on mini-Tuesday. Gephardt withdrew after Iowa and endorsed Kerry. Dean was suddenly broke and endlessly ridiculed for the "scream". Kerry won Michigan, Washington, and Maine and it was pretty much all over, especially since Kerry was getting 40-45% in most of his wins with his nearest competitor in the 20s. Basically the first nine contests decided it, and the next three confirmed it.

Edwards stayed in for another month, coming close in Wisconsin, but Kerry clinched the nomination on Mar. 2. The early sweep was another reason there was a rush to be first in 2008, because 41 states were kinda left out of the process. It seems like the early states are key and the others just fall in line to the drumbeat of momentum. The same thing might have happened this year if Obama had won New Hampshire and Nevada.

[cali]

135. the point is if it was fair then and within the rules, which it was, it's

just as fair now, and just as much within the rules, and the Clinton campaign is trying to keep SDs from endorsing Obama now and saying it's not fair. So are many of her supporters here.

[ekwhite]

138. I agree it is fair now

It is absolutely fair for Obama to go after superdelegates now, just as it was back then. I don't see any reason the SD's need to wait until after Puerto Rico votes to endorse.

[guruoo]

136. Both camps have the right to lobby delegates at any point in time n/t

[Toucano]

137. Obama had SD endorsements before voting began.

I think that's normal.

It may even be part of the exploratory committee process.