[hoarse whisper] Hillary Clinton is a perfectly legitimate businesswoman!
These ugly rumors get started so easily . . .
Simon Rosenberg, President and Founder of NDN, loves the Clintons, and has this to say in his blog:
Truly, it is despicable.
Fundraising is not part of their pledge. Hillary did fundraising activities and that was allowed. Obama had ads that reached 92% of the household in Florida so I’m not really concerned about Hillary doing some photo-ops. From a campaigning standpoint - the ads were more a direct violation of their pledge - even if he did get permission.
And it’s so easy for Obama to maintain the agreement and not have the Florida and Michigan votes counted. They wouldn’t have won either of the two. It’s not surprising. It’s also not surprising that Hillary wants them to be counted. She won both fair and square. Even with open campaigning, polls suggest that Hillary will take both states hands down.
And what’s wrong with wanting to have the delegates seated. It would be bad for the Democratic Party not to seat them as Florida and Michigan could be very competitive states in the GE. There’s nothing despicable about requesting the body to have them seated.
Actually, it seems like Obama (presumably, inadvertently) broke the pledge not to campaign in Florida first - he held an impromptu press conference after a fundraiser in Tampa last September.
No one seemed to make a big deal about it back then. Personally, I don’t have a huge problem with it, but it seems that all of the candidates stretch the rules when it suits them.
This is very typical of this campaign season. Obama doing it first and every pundit in America forgets about it. When Hillary does something similar - it becomes THE MOST DESPICABLE THING THEY’VE EVER SEEN DONE IN POLITICS.
The previously cited article recounts that the day after campaigning was banned, after a fundraiser in Tampa (fundraisers are ok by the rules for some reason), and I quote:
Seems he’s guilty, whether his objectives and methods compare favorably to Clinton’s is a debatable topic.
But Obama went on the daily show (and maybe CR?) and Clinton didn’t. I don’t admire that on her part. TDS is a big slice of democrats.
Obama’s message is too mild and vague for my taste but refusing to take some of that juicy lobbyist money sits well with me.
When all is said and done, I think I want to take a gamble that his election will shake things up a bit in washington, the right way.
Hillary ain’t so bad, though not very inspiring. Bill is doing and saying whatever it takes to get his wife elected, something he possibly owes her. He’s the first former president to be in this position. He probably thinks that even if he’s wrong and Obama might be the better choice, he is still young and can have his shot again if he doesn’t screw up at politics. I understand the man’s actions and, honestly, I’d probably do the same. My legacy isn’t going to keep me warm at night. If hun says to play fast and loose with the truth, well, politics are pretty dark shades of grey sometimes.
Clearly, there is a big difference between Obama’s one-time, inadvertent, impromptu, and curbside howdee-doo and the Clinton camp’s current actions.
Oh, clearly.
My point is: both had these little interviews with reporters. Only one of them are running ads that reach 92% of Florida households. Nevermind that Obama asked permission and got it, it is still a violation of their pledge. Nobody else had ads in Florida, to my knowledge. Also, only one of them is being branded as despicable. Remember, Hillary’s interview with reporters were also enroute to fundraisers.
And Obama always has this excuse. Had it been Hillary who gave the excuse that it was merely inadvertent, everyone would still say they were despicable. And what’s wrong with not going to the Daily Show?
Okay. Perhaps he did screw up. It’s debatable that it was on purpose, but let’s say, for argument, that it is. It’s one thing to break the pledge (even though we all knew they would. Are we really believing in this “fund-raiser” loophole?), it’s quite another thing to do nearly the exact same thing four months later and after hammering your opponent for breaking his pledge. So, which is worse?
(And none of this excuses Michigan, either.)
Which is the bigger loophole - one which your pledge explicitly allows (fundraising) OR one which your pledge explicitly forbids except that you got permission from the SC Democratic Chair to do it? Which is the bigger offense - one which barely reaches anyone in Florida OR an advertisment that reaches 92% percent of Florida households? Really. And still, CLINTON IS THE MOST DESPICABLE POLITICIAN ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Meh.
That’s ridiculous. Getting permission is the very definition of holding to the pledge. If Hillary can’t go a day without begging for spare change, fine. Then the least she can do is tell the cameras, “No, boys, I made a pledge.” And then even if by some wild stretch of the imagination the shrewd bitch didn’t know she was flaunting the rules, she could have at least emulated Obama and apologized, promising it wouldn’t happen again.
Claiming “victory” in an event that didn’t even officially take place is the greasiest, most tasteless political act conceivable. It is like some third-world gun-toting dictator bragging that he got 100% of the vote in his “election”.
If she wanted to protest the whole Florida thing and include their delegates, then why did she sign the pledge? Why didn’t she just protest right then and there and declare that she would refuse to disenfranchise Floridians and would not cooperate with the DNC? Yes, they were disenfranchised. When your vote doesn’t count, it’s disenfranchisement.
I hope that Obama doesn’t just roll over about this. He pretty much laughed it off last night, but it is important that his operatives keep in the news just what a slimy move this was on the part of the Clintons. Letting them get away with this kind of crap is bad not just for the Democratic Party, but for the nation as a whole. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear one of the Clinton’s say, “Obama wouldn’t make a good president, but I bet he can really shine some shoes.”
Rodents.
Teflon: the miracle coating from your friends at DuPont.
First of all, both camps had fundraising. ONLY Obama had the ads. It’s nice that the SC Democratic Chair is supportive, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was contrary to their pledge. And the pledge, while it was given to the party, also has ramifications among the opponents. So, if fundraising is GAMING the system, the advertisment is a thousand times so.
Also, claiming victory in a symbolic contest where you got the majority of the votes is not tasteless. It’s one way of showing your appreciation to your supporters.
Now, asking for the Florida delegates to be seated does not violate their pledge. It is up for the Democratic party to decide that. My guess is that they would want to seat those delegates anyway. There’s nothing slimy about that.
And re: your imagine Bill Clinton comment: of course you’ve heard them say something that is comparable to that. I’m sure it’s not just a figment of your Clinton-hatred.
The fact of the matter is, I just showed that you swallowed hook, line and sinker the narrative that Obama pushed and that the MSM propagated without looking at the facts and you’ve been caught. I’m done with this thread.
And you would have accepted this, would you?
You’re not serious, right? The Florida primary was akin to a totalitarian sham election?
Ah, okay. You’re not serious. These are all mind cartoons.
Why does a libertarian who calls himself Liberal and who has been nothing but a one-note Johnny when it comes to Hillary Clinton because of a comment she once made about taxes care so very very much about whether a Democratic party campaign pledge was broken or not? Or, put another way, does he really care about that at all?
Again, these depictions of the character of the Clintons and their supposed transgressions are hilariously over-the-top. They can be nothing more than part of a political message being pushed by either the Obama people or the Republicans. It’s kind of hard to tell which is which these days.
Ever stop to wonder if the reason why we Democrats end up disappointed about our candidates is because we are just such blind morons for the right’s character assassination efforts. Wake up, people.
Nope, Hillary and Edwards had ads as well. Keep Digg’in…
I don’t think the Obama campaign is similar to the Republicans at all.
I do think the Republicans would be delighted if supporters of the two strongest Democratic candidates fall for the notion that the other Democrat on the ballot is “no different than a Republican.”
Cite? I’m not aware of any ads in Florida from the Hillary camp. It would have been news because their camp was criticizing Obama’s ads.