Why? She awkwardly paraphrased an AP article that noted her growing popularity among blue-collar white voters. You choose to impute ugliness into what she was thinking, but she was simply trying to clarify the nature of her support among blue-collar workers, because AA blue-collar workers, like all AA voters, are solidly behind Obama, but the rest of working-class America isn't. She apologized for her ill-phrased remark afterwards. Hillary is actually much better with this apology business than Obama, who lets his close associates cr*p all over Hillary and then afterwards never feels the need to apologize to her, but always mouths some BS about how so-and-so doesn't represent then tenor of his campaign. Yeah, right. Good luck selling that line to voters in the GE.
It's clear that Democratic voters are as easily manipulated by fears of appearing un-PC as Republican voters are manipulated by fears of terrorism. It doesn't matter in the least whether there's any there there.
Unlike Obama, JFK toured Appalachia extensively and really connected with the people there:
While the Tet Offensive raged in Vietnam in February 1968, Robert F. Kennedy was on the mountain roads of southeastern Kentucky, shaking hands and setting fire to hearts from Vortex to Prestonsburg. Conducted as part of a Senate Subcommittee on Manpower, Employment and Poverty examination of War on Poverty practices, RFK's Appalachian tour occurred one week before he announced his candidacy for President. A few months later he would be dead. But his visit touched off what the mountain people still call "a ripple of hope" that empowered them to take their future into their own hands.
I never said that Hillary rigged the process -- if anyone deserves the blame for this mishegoss it's Howard Dean. It turns out that Carville was right when he accused him almost a year ago of "Rumsfeldian incompetence."
Like Bush she'd have been yet another "signing statements" president and she'd have helped complete the destruction of America's constitution.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about.
You know what? Even if Obama fails in November, history will praise him one day if only for the fact that he stopped Hillary.
You're completely wrong about how history will judge this election, but I'm glad you are beginning to acknowledge what is likely to happen in November.
Personally, I don't think either Hillary or Obama should be allowed to cherry-pick, which is exactly what Obama did when he took his name off the Michigan ballot.
After all, 5 states--IA, NH, SC, FL, and MI -- all violated the DNC rules. If you are going to argue the rules, these other states probably should be stripped of their delegates as well. However, as pointed out on TalkLeft, Florida is a special case and probably should have its delegates reinstated:
In addition, the Florida delegation must be reinstated in full as it qualifies for the safe harbor exception provided in Rule 21 of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provides:
21. STATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
A. Subject to Rule 18.C. of these Rules, wherever any part of any section contained in these rules conflicts with existing state laws, the state party shall take provable positive steps to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the provisions of these rules.
B. Provable positive steps shall be taken in a timely fashion and shall include: the drafting of corrective legislation; public endorsement by the state party of such legislation; efforts to educate the public on the need for such legislation; active support for the legislation by the state party lobbying state legislators, other public officials, Party officials and Party members; and encouraging consideration of the legislation by the appropriate legislative committees and bodies.
C. A state party may be required by a vote of the DNC Executive Committee upon a recommendation of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to adopt and implement an alternative Party-run delegate selection system which does not conflict with these rules, regardless of any provable positive steps the state may have taken.
The Florida Democratic Party complied with sections A and B of Rule 21. The DNC did NOT invoke Rule 21C and thus, Florida is entitled to the safe harbor provided by Rule 21. Its entire delegation should be seated.
However, should the DNC not accept the safe harbor argument, then Rule 20c.1.b comes into play. Rule 20c.1.b provides:
A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state.
. . . "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; . . . The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section.
It appears that Senator Barack Obama inadvertently violated this rule by running cable advertising that "reache[d] a significant amount of the voters" and by making a "public appearance" before the primary date. Accordingly, he must lose all of his delegates from Florida, should the DNC rule that Florida does not fall within the safe harbor.
To recapitulate, a strict interpretation of the DNC Rules that follows the reasoning of the DNC Memo circulated today would require the following results:
A. The stripping of 50% of the delegates of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan.
B. The full seating of the Florida delegation.
C. Should the DNC RBC reject the safe harbor provision for Florida, then Florida would have 50% of its delegations stripped, but Barack Obama would be entitled to no delegates from Florida due to his violation of Rule 20c.1.b.
No one, but no one, thought the votes would count back in November 2007. This whole primary system was rigged to create a domino effect and an early victor -- most thought everything would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday. In most Dem primaries, most states don't have a say in the final outcome. But it turned out that everyone was wrong. Now, since this has ended up being the closest contest in Democratic party history, everyone's vote should count -- otherwise, the Democratic party will join the GOP as being seen as a party of disenfranchisement.
Thank you for speaking up. You truly are an admirable student and an honorable guy. I can't quite shake my resistance to your candidate yet, but if any Obama supporter could ever convince me to, it would be you.
Is NAFTA beyond criticism? Is he not allowed to criticize decisions he doesn't agree with?
What the hell are you talking about? It's not that he can't criticise NAFTA -- both he and Hillary can and should. But he has repeatedly mischaracterized his oppenents' positions on NAFTA (this is an especially sore point for me, because I was originally an Edwards supporter and it galled me to no end that Obama declared on the stump that Edwards supported NAFTA while he didn't which is a complete and utter lie). And as to your following claim:
I think he has been [nicer to Clinton]. I haven't seen him criticize Clinton in weeks. He's certainly toned it down much more than she has.
You do realize that he had his campaign staff send out copies of Kieth Olbermann's blithering special comment re the RFK assassination reference to every single member of the press corps, don't you? Talk about trying to capitalize in the most ogly way on a completely innocent gaffe -- and btw, this was after Clinton apologized for unintentionally stirring up painful memories and after Obama said that he took Clinton at her word.
In 2004, she said, "on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America."
And here's the entire quote:
I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada. And I think that needs to be given much greater emphasis than it has.
This is entirely consistant with her present position, which is that parts of NAFTA need to be renogotiated.
BTW, you really should take a closer look at what Obama and his chief economic advisor Austan Goolsbee really think of NAFTA and other FTAs. Long before Goolsbee got Obama into hot water in Ohio, economic analysts were well aware that Obama amd his advisor stood to the right of the rest of the Democratic field on free trade. Here's what one neoliberal economist from Britain had to say about Obama and Goolsbee (he. of course, thinks they're great, but any true progressive should feel otherwise):
Goolsbee and Obama's understanding of the free market as a useful means of promoting social justice, rather than an obstacle to it, contrasts most starkly with the rest of the Democratic field on issues of competition, free trade and financial liberalism. Back in the spring of 2007, when the term "subprime mortgage" was beginning its ascent to ubiquity, Goolsbee composed an impressive op-ed in the New York Times, noting that - fraudulent lending practices aside - subprime products are a powerful tool for democratising the credit market and opening it up to lower socioeconomic strata, and had been substantially successful in reducing financial constraints on working-class people. Crack down on fraud by all means, but don't cut off an important avenue of economic empowerment for working people, and most of all don't do so in the name of working people.
The evidence that Obama heeds Goolsbee's lessons is ample, his healthcare plan being but one of many prominent examples. Whereas Clinton has recently taken to pulling protectionist stunts and rethinking the fundamental theoretical soundness of free trade, and Edwards is behaving like the love child of Huey Long and Pat Buchanan, Obama instinctively supports free trade and grasps the universe of possibilities that globalisation opens up, and seamlessly integrates it into his "audacity of hope" theme. As he remarked in a recent debate: "Globalisation is here, and I don't think Americans are afraid to compete. And we have the goods and the services and the skills and the innovation to compete anywhere in the world."
Since there will be no Republican Congress; there will probably be no triangulating from either Barack or Hillary.
Knock on wood. I'm already worried about 2010, not to mention retaking the WH.
And I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to be so opaque. It's just that I can't stand it when Hillary is repeatedly portrayed as some queen triangulator from the DLC while Obama is portrayed as unassailably progressive on all matters economic, when my own research, which I conducted long before this comment thread, doesn't bare that out.