Letters to the Editor
-
@ Renegade : Seating Florida delegates
Renegade, Thanks for the link:
http://www.makeitcountflorida.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/
I don't live in FL so it's great to have information from the ground level. Makeitcountflorida.com links to www.fladems.com (Florida democrats). I surfed around fladems.com and found some articles that seem to undercut the idea that it was soley the Republicans screwing the Democrats out of delegates:
August 28 & 29 2007:
http://www.fladems.com/content/w/ooh_punish_us_some_more
http://www.fladems.com/content/w/time_to_call_their_bluff_florida_democrats_should_force_national_party_to_s
These articles make it sound like a pissing match took place between the FL dems and the DNC, with not much attempt at reconciliation. I like that URL: ooh_punish_us_some_more
Not sure what to make of it other than the voters are the ones who lost out. Maybe someone in FL can comment?
-
Okay you guys are right
Had to get it completely out of my system.
Glad to see that others are paying attention.
Sorry for being a doofus.
I actually think Joan Walsh is pretty damn cool 99% of the time.
-
FL and MI delegates
Everyone is concerned about the disenfranchisement of the FL and MI voters and that Clinton is right to object to this. If that's the case, then why did she sign an agreement to NOT campaign in those states? Why did she not bring up these arguments strenuously before the start of the primary season?
That's my beef with her. Trying to change the rules when it's convenient for one candidate is disgusting. The arguments that "this is a democracy" and that we "can't disenfranchise voters" don't hold water at all. The candidates, the DNC, the state party leaders all screwed this one up big time, and were either too chicken or too stupid to see where this one would go.
I lay most of the blame on the idiotic DNC for letting this happen to those voters. But Clinton crying foul now is really a stench that I can't get over and if she gets her way and clenches the nomination, no way in Hell am I voting for her. In fact, I'm probably through with the Dems for good.
-
@billcap re: "Clinton is far from Rovian"
I saw his post titled "Clinton is far from Rovian" and I had to respond...
Billcap wrote: "Anybody who compares what Obama is facing from the Clintons, including Obama himself, to Rove and the Republicans is..."
You know what's funny about this? That other Clinton supporters on this same web site are trying to say Obama is aligned with Rove!
It seems "Rovian" has replaced "dirty tricks" or "fighting dirty" as a term. Here is a little history lecture for everybody reading: Dirty politics existed long before Karl Rove's father's sperm fertilized the egg in Karl Rove's mother's ovary. That is to say, Rove didn't invent it. Maybe we should just leave that idiot out of the conversation? Why give him and his rap act (M.C. Rove) free publicity?
billcap: "Of course, perhaps I missed the accusations that Obama was gay. Or that he fathered a "love child". Or that he might be kinda insane. Or a pedophile. Or a fabricator of his public record and a coward. Otherwise, let's quit the hyperbole on this one--it's completely ridiculous."
Actually, when you wrote "fabricator of his public record" you're not far off from the accusations of plagiarism for a single borrowed phrase.
You are correct that the more heinous style of attack, such as insinuations of an illegitimate child, have not been used. But that is not a defense for any dirty tricks that have been used. It's kind of like saying "sure I robbed that house, but at least I didn't kill anybody!" If dirty tactics are used by either side, then people are correct to point them out.
Another example is the rampant use of out-of-context comments to smear a candidate based solely on people's ignorance of the full-context statement. That's not as bad as calling somebody a pedophile, but it is nonetheless a deceptive way to score political points.
I think discerning, intelligent, reasonable Democratic voters should look at the use of such tactics, especially when used directly by a candidate's campaign, and question what it says about the candidate himself/herself.
For example if Hillary Clinton's campaign feels free to take quotes out of context to score political points, what does this tell us about the kind of president she'll be? Do you really want a president who uses tactics similar to those used by the Bush Administration? Would that really signify "change" to you?
Just a few rhetorical questions for you to gnaw on.
billcap: "And the more Obama says he's been Republican-proofed by what the Clintons have "thrown" at him (lightly tossed is much more accurate), the more naive he sounds, and the less like he'll be willing to fight for what democrats want."
Actually I haven't heard Obama say he's been Republican-proofed. Quote please? I *have* heard Clinton say that *she* has been Republican-proofed and "vetted."
Accusations of naivete are pretty commonplace for Clinton supporters. It's all part of the Hillary talking-point of "more experience." I am fine if you want to claim that Hillary Clinton has all this great experience. I don't think so, but you're welcome to tout her experience till your heart's content. Where you go wrong is when you decide to place your focus primarily on the opponent's lack of experience and then just completely fake your evidence for it. It's as if you don't really believe in your candidate's strengths so you are reduced to a strategy of attempting to maximize the competitor's weakensses.
I can't believe all the back-handed psychological, rhetorically slimy tactics being tossed around in here.
How's about we all just have honest discussions regarding which candidates we like and why? If you love Hillary Clinton, go ahead and talk her up till your heart's content. Tell us why she reminds you a big fuzzy love bunny of creamy joy. That's cool. I'll listen, with my chin resting gently on my hands, leaning in to hear your testimonial. "That's wonderful!" I'll say, heartened by your blissful appreciation of your One True Presidential Candidate. Groovy.
Just dishing out negative attack after negative attack, especially when they're consistently based on weak or empty arguments, is......unbecoming.