Can anyone comment on this…sounds like a pretty sneak thing to do?
What, no Clinton bashing in this thread yet? I’m shocked!
Actually, I really don’t know what to make of it; it seems to me that in general both sides of a campaign just press every advantage they can think of in every conceivable way brushing right up to the edge of what’s ethical/legal/appropriate/socially acceptable, whatever.
I’m reasonably sure the other side would have done the same thing if the endorsement had gone to Clinton, but who knows; the Clintons are often just more brazen about political machinations like that so they get trashed a lot for it.
It is interesting to note that delegates are assigned disproportionately in other states in **favor **of rural voters (this situation is potentially the reverse, I believe, which is purportedly why the Clinton campaign-side is against it – and no doubt they’d feel differently if the shoe was on the other foot) in order to get candidates to go out there. Interesting system we’ve got; reminds me of gerrymandering and other political contortions undergone to attempt parity.
THAT is a “HEATED” response?
The Clintons are just engaged in the typical jockeying for position in which all politicos engage and I am sure that had the food staff unions endorsed Clinton there would have been no outcry from their camp. It seems like a typical election year non-story, to me, but I thought Bill kept his humor while (disingenuously) responding.
Bill has been playing fast and lose with the truth lately as he’s out there campaigning for his wife. First he tells us he was against the Iraq from the beginning, and then he tells Obama said that he (Obama) and Bush had no difference in their opinion about he war in 2004. This just seems like more of the same. He gets all prickly when people try to pin him down. I don’t know if he’s any worse than your typical pol, though. They kinda all do this, more or less. It just really irks me when the get all huffy about being called on it.
I’d think it’s fair to call it heated. He got all huffy, did his finger pointing/get in the guy’s face thing and switched into full lawyer mode. I’ve seen him do this quite a bit.
Yeah, he’s not only a liar but a bully to boot. This is the third time I recall his pulling this stunt with a journalist.
I pointed my outrage meter at that clip. It barely peaked at “spirited” during the “Is that your position?” part, and was pegged at “interested” through the rest of it.
What a complete non-issue. The Clintons seem to have a view on the issue but aren’t doing anything about it. Maybe next week we can have a story on Bill Clinton’s views on retiring the penny – another issue on which he probably has some thoughts, but isn’t doing anything about, either.
His defensiveness screams of guilt and shenanigans. I’m starting to not like Bill Clinton.
Bill seems to be becoming more of a liability than a help. Not that he cares, but some of us who had respected him as President are losing that respect with his recent antics. That encounter will get airplay and very likely help bring out the vote … for Obama.
It’s not a non-issue. The case itself was important as it would have had a significant effect on the caucuses. The Clintons have simultaneously tried to disassociate themselves from this unseemly lawsuit while vigorously defending the plaintiffs. They shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. Their non-involvement strains credibility as much as Robert Johnson’s defense in the last shenanigan–and Clinton’s full-throated defense of it is part of that lack of credibility.
Also, as John Mace pointed out, it’s part of the larger use of Bill as the truth-bending attack dog (what he says here is factually false unless the turnout in Nevada is twice that of the last general election).
When I saw the descriptions in the news articles about this I expected a red-faced Bill C. frothing at the mouth… as Ravenman notes, it was hardly heated. I give this a big “meh.”
Bill is in an interesting position, perhaps one never seen in high-profile national politics in America. He’s not campaigning as the son/father of the candidate, but as the related peer - who happens to have held the job the candidate aspires to. I guess it’s closest to Jeb campaigning for W, only Jeb wasn’t prez. I think he’s navigating unchartered waters. I don’t necessarily think he’s been faultless but if he’s going to campaign, he may as well go “all in.” I don’t know if it’s possible to remain presidentially aloof if you’re campaigning.
I mean, if JFK was a one-termer and Bobby decided to run, how would he have conducted himself? What would Bob Dole have been like on the stump if Libby ran?
Frankly, he has seemed to be such a liability recently that I’ve begun to wonder if he, subconsciously at least, may not really want to be First Gentleman, after all.
Better yet - what would G Dub do if Jeb was to run?
There’s certainly merit to the challenge, though I do find its timing interesting (after the culinary union endorsed Obama). It’s a caucus at work, ostensibly in the presence of union representatives who have endorsed a candidate. As it’s not a secret ballot, a worker may find him or herself in disagreement with union reps… whom they work with, who might be in a supervisory position. There’s already a disputed case of voter intimidation in Vegas, where a worker was incorrectly told that she needed to sign a Obama pledge card to get time off to attend the caucus.
It’s a legitimate complaint and concern, but of course the fact that it came out after the endorsement in favor of Obama makes it look a little less altruistic. Both Team Clinton and Team Obama want to win, and neither side is above pushing the limits to make it happen - a good number of Obama’s supporters from Illinois were bussed in to participate in the Iowa caucuses, even if they weren’t from Iowa. Nothing necessarily wrong with that - but let’s not act as if this isn’t a intensely political race with both major candidates’ campaign staffs going all out in favor of their guy/gal.
What did BC mean when he said the question was asked in an “accusatory” manner? I didn’t really think the question was asked in such a way, but what’s with trying to justify his response based on what the questioner did? He seems like a hot-head…
I betcha what’s really going on is that the DNC has already decided who they really want to run for office, and all this recent stuff is a complex strategy so that HC will bow out so that they (the Clintons) can take credit for Obama getting the nomination…
Hillary has shown her true colors throughout this whole process.
Sure, these have all been mishaps, but seriously…how many times are people going to excuse her? There’s simply too much to deal with.
How about her distorting his “present” votes and opening the attack website “votingpresent.org” which got busted as being opened at a Clinton Campaign HQ.
Her attacks on Obama’s past drug use.
Her trying to force Obama into the corner as being a “black” candidate instead of a candidate that happens to be black.
Her trying to disenfranchise NV Culinary Union voters. What a surprise! It happened two days after they endorsed Obama. Why not before?
I’m just saying, She’s the only one slinging shit in these primaries, and when we all start to ask why it stinks she raises her shit stained palms in a “I dunno?!” gesture.
But just to be clear, if the lawsuit had been upheld, the unions workers wouldn’t really be “disenfranchised”, would they? They could still caucus, it just wouldn’t be at their place of employment.
Well, I wouldn’t say I was outraged by what Bill did. But I’m not looking at this as an isolated instance-- like I said earlier, he’s been stretching the truth quite a bit lately. It’s getting to be kind of annoying. I still don’t get the part about votes counting 5 times as much. I watched the blurb on this on the New Hour today on PBS, and they never mentioned it.
Merkwurdigliebe, let’s not be naive here. It’s politics, and all sides are engaged in battle. Obama’s campaign staff promoted the “Obama’s candidacy = fairy tale” mistruth, when in fact he clearly made the reference regarding his stance on Iraq.
No. They are not equivalent at all.
Your points about the workplace caucus may be true, but they were not the basis of the legal challenge, and they would have been obvious to all months ago when that system was set up (and indeed apply to many rural caucuses as well). Challenging now under the pretense of vote disparity is just a naked political attempt to get the legal system to disenfranchise voters that support your opponent.
That is totally different from what Obama did in Iowa, which you have appear to have misunderstood. The only mention of busing in your cite was an unvetted and rejected claim made by the Clinton campaign. What he did do was tell Iowa college students that they can register in Iowa and vote. I voted where I went to college. I imagine many people do who go to college outside their home states. Encouraging that may be unorthodox (largely because campaigns don’t normally target college students), but it’s hardly dirty politics.