The Hillary camp didn’t run ads in Florida. Sorry. Try again.
Well, Clinton went on and on about how Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina just like Obama. Or as Jon Stewart paraphrased him, once you’ve had some Black you never go back.
What need? The AFSCME was doing her campaigning for her.
Yes, quite clearly. There’s an enormous difference between an action that is inadvertent and one that is intentional. The linked cite clearly acknowledges that a) the incident was “impromptu” and that b) Obama was unaware of the prohibition not to answer questions by reporters (which in my opinion does differ from a “news conference” which is the actual wording in the agreement), yet he had the character to say he wouldn’t do it again, and he hasn’t.
Hillary, on the other hand, by this stage of the game, knows full well what’s allowed and what isn’t. Not only that, she publicly declared both Michigan and Florida “don’t count for anything.” Then, just days before the primary, announces her intent to be there, fighting for their right to have their votes count, showing up for a photo op with a throng of reporters, making a public appearance and signing autographs. It was blatant, obnoxious and disgusting.
She had plenty of opportunity to supposedly take a stand against the ruling of her party, but didn’t do or say a single thing until it became clear, after Obama wiped the floor with her in South Carolina, that she may just have to have those delegates to have a prayer of taking the nomination. It was pandering and self-serving. And intentional.
HUGE difference.
Even Jesse Jackson was inclined to apply an innocent interpretation on Clinton’s statements and in the absence of any other evidence we should consider that. There’s nothing racist in what Clinton said. Your imagined comment cannot be anything but racist.
Why do you care about what I care about? Just because Hillary is a socialist media whore doesn’t mean she can’t comport herself with some modicum of dignity when she’s beaten fair and square, as she was in South Carolina. There was a reason the DNC selected a few small states to do early primaries, the main one being that it forced candidates to campaign one-on-one with people, and without having to have a fortune to do it.
You must be reading those Republican rags like Salon, cited previously:
Only when the dimensions of her South Carolina setback were clear did Clinton begin portraying the Florida vote as … well … the 2000 Florida vote. The former first lady suddenly had a new cause – justice for Florida. She pledged on primary night to do everything in her power to guarantee that “Florida’s Democratic delegates [are] seated.”
Again, the difference of these two incidences of photo-ops enroute to a fundraising pales in comparison with an ad campaign that reached 92% of Florida households.
Photo-ops happen everywhere and it doesn’t really matter that it’s in Florida. How effective would that be as a campaign strategy? An ad campaign on the otherhand is a million times wider in scope.
And they did not pledge to not seat the Florida delegates - they pledged not to campaign. What the DNC will do about the Florida delegates will be decided at a later time. Hillary is simply expressing her desire that they be counted. It’s easy for Obama to say “let’s not count it” because he would have lost anyway.
There is no reason to think he would have lost had he been able to campaign there and not just have TV ads…
When no one else did. That’s big, you know. 
Which is fine. I don’t think it was a big deal. If someone were inclined to smear Obama, they could easily make it sound like a big deal though-- “He didn’t realize he wasn’t supposed to talk to reporters? A presidential candidate doesn’t recognize a news conference? Who does he think he is, Reagan? Do we really need another president who’s going to claim ignorance every time he breaks his word?” It was a misstep, but obviously not a huge or significant one.
I don’t see this business with Clinton as a big deal either. She didn’t campaign during the primary. She kept her word, just as Obama did. She didn’t burst into tears either, as it turns out.
Now that does sound harsh. That doesn’t sound like someone who’s too interested in being President. When did she say that, and what was the context?
-
They’re all media whores.
-
HRC a “socialist”? If only! There just aren’t enough :rolleyes: .
Hilary is such a slimeball. There’s no way to defend supporting the DNC one day and then suddenly, when it’s in her favor, going back upon her previous words and deciding to “fight” for exactly the opposite.
The only way to defend this is to change the subject entirely and shout, “look what obama did! look what edwards did!” This is such a smokescreen. If you want to bitch about Obama’s advertisement, go start another thread. What she did has NOTHING to do with what he did. It’s not like the ads were a secret, he asked permission, Hillary knew they were happening, and she could have run a similar ad, had she liked. She chose not to. None of this has ANYTHING to do with her, later, going back on her pledge and turning a 180 on her previous words. IIRC, this is exactly what she did with the Iraq war- first she supported, now she’s vociferously opposed.
Everything she says she eventually changes! How to trust anything she says?
I don’t see anything slimy about it, but I could be wrong. If I’m not mistaken, they didn’t pledge to support the disenfranchisement of the Florida delegates. All they pledged was that they won’t campaign and indeed, they did not. Clearly, her position about Florida changed but there’s nothing slimy about that. DNC has completed jurisdiction on the matter and will decide at a later date. And remember, Clinton had been the frontrunner in Florida and Michigan from the get go, so it’s not entirely the sanctity of the DNC decision (to strip them of their delegates) that is motivating Obama.
That’s not a very good argument. Obama has been behind in *every *state before he had a chance to campaign there. That’s the nature of campaigning against a well-known establishment figure. It has only been in recent weeks that Obama has begun to close the name recognition gap. What’s motivating Obama is both the sanctity of the decision and the fact that it wasn’t a fair fight.
Florida would have been difficult for Obama no matter what because of how much more elderly the electorate there is, but Michigan would have been much closer. Consider that Hillary was the only one on the ballot–and it was an open primary in which Democrats could cast a vote that actually mattered in the Republican race–and she still only won by 15 points.
Remember what you’re arguing here: you think Hillary should get credit for a vote in which Obama’s name was not even on the ballot. Are you kidding me?
Every poll including exit polls indicated that Hillary would have won Michigan anyway. And remember, there was a vocal Obama supporter (I think they were a politician couple) that asked people to vote uncommitted. Re: Obama’s name not being on the ballot - nobody asked him to remove it.
I’m sure the Andurils of the country are well intentioned and mean well when they defend the Clintons. I just wish they would realize that this is a critical time, when the nation needs inspiration and leadership. People need to be made to feel good about themselves as Americans. A continuation of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynastarchy is just telling the world (and the US) that it will be business as usual.
America functions best when she is good and well respected. That’s what Obama brings to the table, and it is much more important than the “experience” of knowing where the silverware is kept in the East Wing. No one has any really useful experience for the unique position of US president unless they’re running for a second term. I think that if Hillary cared about her country, she would look past her personal greed and put her own enthusiastic support behind Obama.
I’m well aware that Obama supporters believe that of Obama. I just don’t see it myself. You see an inspiring figure, I see naivete and a lack of grasp of the issues. You see respectability, I see a punk. That’s why I’m trying my best to buttress my arguments with facts because if it will just be about impressions then that’s that.
For example, I think Hillary will make the US well-respected in the international arena, more so than Obama, having established very good linkages in the past.
I’m done. I think I’ve overstayed my welcome in discussing US politics. Thank you for your patience.
A… punk? I… there are no words. Incidentally:
You misspelled “spin”.
If I were them, I would move the silverware. We all know what happens when Hilary gets her hands on the furnishings.
Regards,
Shodan
None of your points is responsive to my post.
Again:
-
In every state where Obama has campaigned, his numbers have shot up. He didn’t campaign in MI.
-
You want to count a vote where Obama’s name was not on the ballot (regardless of whether he was obligated to remove it–most Democrats thought they were so obligated).