Though, I should add, that should the DNC find some way to fund a total, complete, statewide re-vote (and get Obama on the ballot in Michigan), I would support that. But it shouldn't come at the expense of FL and Michigan constituents.
A this given moment in time, I'm very torn. The leaders in those states screwed over their voters...should the DNC back down and give them a place at the convention or should they enforce the rules and the law which party leaders in those states willingly and knowingly broke at the expense of their constituents?
Originally posted by k: Florida and Michigan knowingly broke party rules and moved up their primary dates. And Hillary Clinton went right in the face of her party to campaign in Florida despite her pledge not to. And remember, she was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan.
Do you really think Florida and especially Michigan can afford to authorize a statewide re-vote? Look, Florida and Michigan knew the rules and they went ahead anyway. It sucks that Florida and Michigan chose to go ahead this way, but it is what it is and we'll have to rely on the upcoming primaries to decide. If it's still too close, it's up to either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to drop out in order to prevent the super delegates from deciding it at the end and, most importantly, to keep the party from splitting.
So, you think it's fair to disenfranchise 25 million people from voting in this especially contested primary because a handful of state party bosses decided to trump the rules?
Gov Charlie Christ ison the recordsaying Florida will pay for a re-vote. Let it happen, it's the right thing to do.
Posts: 2105 | Location: New York, New York | Registered: August 08, 2003
I sure hope the DNC finds some kind of solution regarding the Florida and Michigan delegates or we will be looking at a chaotic convention at Denver in August, something the party cannot afford to let happen. Splintered or brokered conventions spell nothing but doom as far as I'm concerned heading into the general election in November.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: JerryS,
Posts: 4756 | Location: Florida, USA | Registered: March 28, 2003
Originally posted by R2684: The only way this is going to be decisively resolved now - without the much-feared "brokered" convention that no Democrat wants - is to bring Michigan and Florida back into play.
It's just the right thing to do. They're two of the ten biggest states in the union and crucial swing states for Democrats in the general election in November. They deserve to have a voice in this process, despite how the state party leaders screwed up.
There should probably be a total re-vote in both states, especially in Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot. In Florida, everybody was, and voters turned out in droves anyway, but there was really no campaign there and there should be.
The DNC, in conjunction with the state Democratic parties and perhaps the Obama and Clinton campaigns, should find a way to co-finance a do-over in these states.
As a Democrat, and it pains me to say this, but we have to live with our mistake. We should have done like the Republicans and cut delegates by 1/2, but we didn't. And in one of those states, only one candidate was on the ballot. There is no way at this point that there can be a fair election in these states.
The Democrats screwed up bad, and that sucks. But it is unfair to change the rules this late in the game. And candidates should not be coming back when it is to their benefit and advocating that we have a do-over just because it benefits them. I guaruntee that Hillary would not support this if it wasn't hugely advantageous to her.
Posts: 428 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 03, 2003
Jack Nicholson Exclusive: Actor Talks About Hillary Clinton, Campaign Ad -- 'This Woman Can Do This Job'
'The only thing I can say is, it's obvious one person is more experienced,' actor says. By Josh Horowitz
Barack Obama may have Oprah on his side, but he doesn't know Jack ... Nicholson, that is. Hillary Clinton does, and as millions have learned thanks to a recently released viral campaign endorsement, the senator from New York has a little star power on her side, even as some pundits write her 2008 campaign epitaph.
The Nicholson video, a mash-up of memorable moments from the three-time Oscar winner's career, begins with his Joker asking "Who do you trust?" and ends with the actor himself saying that he approves the message, a surprising appearance given his notorious press-shyness. (Nicholson spoke in a rare interview with MTV News last November about "Chinatown" and "Batman.")
MTV News' curiosity was piqued by Nicholson's seemingly sudden involvement in the '08 campaign and reached out to the actor to find out why he chose to make a public splash at this time in support of Clinton. Lo and behold, Nicholson was on the phone hours later, happily talking for the better part of an hour about the woman he wholly believes should be the next commander in chief. Check back Wednesday for the second part of the Nicholson interview, in which he discusses what went wrong and right with the Oscars this year and his personal connection to the death of Heath Ledger. (Check out the second part of the Nicholson interview, in which he discusses what went wrong and right with the Oscars this year and his personal connection to the death of Heath Ledger.)
Jack Nicholson: What put it in your head to give me a call today, Josh?
MTV: A lot of people here at MTV News were talking today about this video endorsement of yours that's suddenly all over the Web.
Nicholson: Yeah, I'm hot in the theaters. [He laughs.]
MTV: So the question is, why now? Why support Hillary in this public way now?
Nicholson: Well, I'm a longtime Clintonite. I guess that's no secret. I'm not a talking-points guy, Josh. I'm a rolling cannonball. I basically do it on my own.
MTV: The talking heads and pundits would have us believe that the next 24 hours are do or die for Hillary.
Nicholson: The talking heads will have had us believe it's been important for eight years now. No offense to good old MTV, but my concern is, it all becomes a TV show. It's only now that people are seeing that [the media has] been harsh to her. It's disturbing to me how gleeful they are at her imagined demise or any setbacks she has. They're citizens too. They're entitled to their opinions. Do you have a horse in this race, Josh?
MTV: I have to admit that, like many Democrats, I'm still going back and forth between Clinton and Obama.
Nicholson: I think this is one of the peculiarities of the election. I think everyone likes both. I'm a person who understands what experience, which is often a euphemism for connections, can mean in the big old world. She's been there. I was raised by women. I know how tough they are when the tough gets going.
MTV: Policy-wise, what appeals to you about her candidacy?
Nicholson: I've just been re-reading Jann Wenner's fantastic interview with [Daniel] Ellsberg [who in 1971 leaked documents that helped to end the Vietnam War]. One of the things I heard in Hillary's campaign is she intends to put it all on the Internet and make it a completely transparent government. I think that's a sign of the times and something that's very good.
MTV: You mentioned before that you believe Clinton's been treated harshly by the press?
Nicholson: I think they ask her too many times to explain the same thing. I'm very familiar with film editing, if you know what I mean. That's why I don't do television interviews. I don't want to see something I said 30 years ago come back in a documentary — plus, I'll feel like I looked so good 30 years ago. The television sets have to have a drama.
MTV: Some have posited that misogyny may be a greater force than racism.
Nicholson: I've posited it myself. I don't want to come to the conclusion that it's gender bias. My grandmother kind of ran the neighborhood. She'd look at me after one of these bozos left her and she'd say, "Do you think this pr--- would treat a man this way, Jackie?" I learned all those lessons early on. They were the right lessons. I'm proud of them. And I think if she were alive she'd be proud of me too.
MTV: Do you believe women are generally tougher on Hillary than men?
Nicholson: They're always the toughest on one another — and thank heavens or [men would] all be destroyed. But this woman can do this job. Make no mistake about that.
MTV: Did Clinton's camp contact you directly, asking for your support?
Nicholson: Yes, I got a call. They asked me to do something. I explained to [former] President Clinton that I admire a foot soldier but I'm too old to be one. I'm not looking for so-called followers. I'm not that crazy about being interviewed. I don't like the sound of my own voice after 20 minutes. On the other hand, I am Irish. I like being involved in the community. As they say, if you don't educate yourself about the political system you're doomed to be led by inferior people. That's one of my fears.
MTV: One attribute Obama seems to possess over Clinton is this uncanny capacity to inspire people.
Nicholson: Well, why would we assume he wouldn't continue to energize people were he not the nominee? Even his own people know it's a bit early for him, but these are the circumstances. Believe me, the Republicans are not going to let him slide. MTV doesn't want to hear this, but he seems youthful. His small mistakes do not get amplified. I love the inspiration of Senator Obama, but we have a representative republic for this very reason. In the original democracy in [ancient Greece], everybody voted and that was it. They realized they didn't want the hot song of the week to take over the country. The same is true of these superdelegates. These superdelegates are there to make democracy more thoughtful. You can't just discount super-delegates for one reason or another. These are the rules of the Democratic Party. The only thing I can say is, it's obvious one person is more experienced.
Posts: 10178 | Location: New York | Registered: August 18, 2001
Originally posted by k: So Hillary has, so far, likened Barack Obama to Karl Rove and Ken Starr.
So calling for transparency in American politics brings a comparison to Ken Starr?
The question shouldn't be: can Barack Obama win by going negative? It should be: can Hillary Clinton win without getting negative?
Did Hillary do something to you personally?
Now that's silly. It is a valid point- why is she going this far. It's destructive to the party. Much like when Hilary aligned herself more closely with John McCain this week over experience and said all Obama had was a speech. Basically, Hillary is saying that if Obama is the nominee, that we would be better off with a Republican.
Long term, she is destroying the Democratic party with these statements.
Posts: 428 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 03, 2003
Originally posted by Smileynate: Now that's silly. It is a valid point- why is she going this far. It's destructive to the party. Much like when Hilary aligned herself more closely with John McCain this week over experience and said all Obama had was a speech. Basically, Hillary is saying that if Obama is the nominee, that we would be better off with a Republican.
Long term, she is destroying the Democratic party with these statements.
Ok - Your comment is silly.
Hillary is not destorying the Democratic party,
She won Texas and Ohio. The media pundits thought she was done.
Hillary must be doing something right.
People are more concerned about the economy. When Bill Clinton was President - we had a good economy and NO DEFICIT.
Go outside your demographic and campaign for Obama. Too many people think he is inexperienced and ignorantly believe he is Muslim.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Guru,
Posts: 10178 | Location: New York | Registered: August 18, 2001
Elle Magazine asked Natalie Portman's opinion about this year's election.
ELLE: Do you see any of these dynamics at play in the way Americans have responded to Hillary Clinton's campaign? She's a woman with boundless aspirations who is clearly and necessarily calculating in her pursuit of her agenda, and I think we're still extremely uncomfortable with that kind of overt female striving.
NP: A lot of the stuff people say about her, I hear it and my stomach falls because it's so sexist. You ask people why they don't like her and it's because her husband cheated on her! That was obviously not her choice. She's so much more polished and experienced than anyone else. Last night, a friend, a social worker in L.A. who works with underprivileged kids, was saying how these girls who have never been interested in politics before are so excited that a woman might be president. I mean, look how many women are in government…Hillary's one of, what, [a handful of] female senators?
I also like Obama. I even like McCain. I disagree with his war stance—which is a really big deal—but I think he's a very moral person. I met him and Hillary on the same day, actually, when I went to Washington with Finca [a nonprofit that gives loans to businesswomen in developing countries]. Hillary was by far the smartest person I met that day. Just totally focused, and knew more about the issues than anyone else, and was so able to go from one thing to the other.
This is a good read from TIME...It's a little bit too long to post here (I've only posted the first few paragraphs), but you can read the rest HERE:
An Arkansas state legislator once said of Bill Clinton that he would pat you on the back while he urinated down your leg. The corollary for Clinton's wife Hillary could be that she will tell the world how honored she is to share a stage with Barack Obama even as she's gearing up to smash him. When it comes to politics, the Clinton philosophy is simple: It's war, and wars are for winning. Bill put it this way, back in 1981: "When someone is beating you over the head with a hammer, don't sit there and take it. Take out a meat cleaver and cut off their hand."
With her presidential hopes at stake in Texas and Ohio, Hillary Clinton reached for the cleaver. Her campaign made good on its promise to throw "the kitchen sink" at Obama, and that paid off with clear popular-vote victories in both states. What's more, she said, "I'm just getting warmed up."
Even for some of her supporters, those are ominous words. Democrats now face a reality they were hoping they might avoid: a knock-down, drag-out struggle between two strong candidates lasting at least seven more weeks and possibly all the way to the convention. For the party that was assumed to have the advantage in November against a GOP that was unpopular and riven by infighting, this turnabout is both depressing and distressing.
While the Democratic channel changed from Happy Days to The Ultimate Fighter, Republicans settled on their standard bearer. John McCain's final challenger, Mike Huckabee, bowed out with a smile. The GOP can begin regrouping and mobilizing for the general election this fall while the Democrats pitch headlong into an intramural scrum that could leave their nominee — whoever wins — scarred and limping. Donna Brazile, an at-large member of the Democratic National Committee, urged party chairman Howard Dean to intervene before matters get out of hand. (Dean remains largely out of the fight, saying in a statement only that "as we head toward November, our nominee must have the united support of a strong Democratic Party.") "I'm really worried," Brazile says. "Who opened up the gates of hell?"
Will there ever be a boy born who can swim faster than a shark?
Posts: 1132 | Location: lost but happy at sea | Registered: July 05, 2007
Originally posted by Smileynate: Now that's silly. It is a valid point- why is she going this far. It's destructive to the party. Much like when Hilary aligned herself more closely with John McCain this week over experience and said all Obama had was a speech. Basically, Hillary is saying that if Obama is the nominee, that we would be better off with a Republican.
Long term, she is destroying the Democratic party with these statements.
Ok - Your comment is silly.
Hillary is not destorying the Democratic party,
She won Texas and Ohio. The media pundits thought she was done.
Hillary must be doing something right.
People are more concerned about the economy. When Bill Clinton was President - we had a good economy and NO DEFICIT.
Go outside your demographic and campaign for Obama. Too many people think he is inexperienced and ignorantly believe he is Muslim.
You're missing my point. Good for her for winning Texas and Ohio. I will support her or Obama, whichever gets the nomination. But she is making statements and taking actions that could be detrimental long term, you can't ignore that.
Saying that John McCain would be a better candidate than Barack Obama is wrong.
Trying to get votes counted that she agreed should not be counted is wrong.
Trust that if Obama is the Democratic nominee, McCain is going to use Hillary's words against him.
And if the Michigan and Florida delegate votes are counted after the fact (looks like it won't though), many young democrats will be disenfranchised and not vote in the big election in November.
Should she fight for the nomination- ABSOLUTELY. Should she go too far and damage her party in her quest- NO WAY!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Smileynate,
Posts: 428 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 03, 2003
CNN does some fact checking on Hillary's top foreign policy claims:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, fresh off crucial wins in Tuesday's primaries, has been playing the experience card heavily, particularly in regard to her role in foreign policy.
Sen. Hillary Clinton delivered a foreign policy speech at George Washington University in February.
Clinton said it's her 35 years of experience that make her the best candidate to take on presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain in November.
After losing primaries in Ohio and Texas, Sen. Barack Obama argued the media has not held Clinton's feet to the fire on foreign policy.
"Was she negotiating treaties or agreements, or was she handling crises during this period of time? My sense is the answer is no," Obama said Wednesday.
So how do Clinton's claims stack up?
In some cases, CNN found a lack of clarity on her real involvement in foreign policy affairs. But in other cases, her claims do seem to check out fairly well.
Northern Ireland
"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," Clinton said on CNN's American Morning on Wednesday. Video Watch more of Clinton's comments on the race »
A Washington Post blogger accused Clinton in January of exaggerating her involvement in Northern Ireland.
But former Democratic Senate majority leader George Mitchell, who was a U.S. special envoy to Northern Ireland, told CNN that while Clinton was not directly involved in negotiations, she did play a helpful role in bringing in women's groups that made a difference.
Mitchell is a Democratic superdelegate and has not publicly endorsed Clinton or Obama.
Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, was also involved in the process. He recalls one late-night meeting with former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Clinton and Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.
"There was a discussion of how the IRA would decommission its weapons. And I know that Sen. Clinton was part of that meeting," King said.
Kosovo
"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," she said on CNN's American Morning.
In May of 1999, she was in Macedonia visiting refugee camps near the Kosovo border and meeting with Macedonia's president and prime minister.
Sources with knowledge of her visit say she discussed the refugees' plight with those leaders. It's not clear how much she helped since CNN reported at the time that Macedonia reopened its border to Kosovar refugees before Clinton's visit.
China
"I've been standing up against, you know, the Chinese government over women's rights and standing up for human rights in many different places," she said on CNN's American Morning.
During a 1995 visit to Beijing, at a time when her husband's administration was trying to press China on human rights, Sen. Clinton made a speech condemning abuses.
"No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse or torture," she said.
But a former National Security Council official in the Clinton administration says Clinton didn't attend NSC meetings. So while her experience is extensive, she rarely carried an official portfolio.
Will there ever be a boy born who can swim faster than a shark?
Posts: 1132 | Location: lost but happy at sea | Registered: July 05, 2007
