“Last week, in his 10-thumbed attempt to prevent his wife’s Louisiana loss, Bill Clinton said that Obama has made “an explicit argument that the '90s weren’t much better than this decade.” The phrase “explicit argument” was an exquisitely Clintonian touch, signaling to seasoned decoders of Clintonisms that, no matter how diligent the search, no such thought could be found, even implicitly, in anything Obama has ever said…”
Perhaps this is a part of it. She will do anything to win… legal and fair or not.
While I certainly appreciate and agree with the Calvinball charge made by DtC including these uncounted votes (even implying it, Shayna) in it seems a bit much.
I think that she’d keep her maneuvering officially legal. Underhanded, dishonest … perhaps. But legal.
With respect, the linked story has no suggestion that Clinton had anything to do with the anomalous unofficial reporting of ballot totals, and that there were election districts both where Clinton was reported as having zero votes and where Obama was reported as having zero votes. The article strongly suggested that it would be highly unlikely for this problematic unofficial election-night reporting (which would be automatically corrected in the official tallies) was caused by anything sinister.
It just seems odd to me that the “problem” vote states are New York and New Mexico (where Bill went to watch the Superbowl). You don’t hear about missing Clinton votes in Illinois.
Barack is the most honorable candidate in my mind.
Which she can change all by herself, huh? :dubious: Perhaps a quick review of how the rules get to be the rules is in order.
I don’t. But that perception wouldn’t be reality, would it? Except in the sense that, in politics, perception is reality, that is.
Not everyone in this thread is using “cheating” in the traditional definitions, it seems - but only as an unthought-out rationalization for unfounded, and in this case counterproductive, personal hatred.
It’s that problem which I intended to highlight - anyone is free to prefer one candidate over another for any reason they so choose, of course, but not to make nonfactual or childishly unfair assertions about the other one. That is the very same strategy that’s been used *on * us for the last 16 years, and we do need to be better than that as citizens, or what’s the point? Has a generation of artificially-enhanced Clinton-hatred been so effective that even Doper Democrats have internalized it by now? Aren’t we better than that anymore?
We need to fight back against divisiveness, *not * embrace it. That does lie at the heart of Obama’s message, ya know.
Perhaps so. Here they are:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/highlights_of_t.php
And here’s where Hillary broke the rules:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/27/clinton-defies-dnc-rules-heads-to-florida/
So perhaps we can get into another argument about whether breaking the rules is “cheating,” like we all did with the Patriots business a few weeks ago. Whatever. Calvinball is what it is. Hillary agreed to not campaign in Michigan and Florida. She agreed to play by DNC rules. She exploited the absence of the other candidates to win easy victories. Now she wants those victories to “count.” If you can’t see that as cheating, you clearly have the same respect for elections as you have for debates.
There’s no reason to get abstract. The perception that Hillary is cheating is based on the reality of her duplicity and trying to take an unfair advantage.
See what I mean about your respect for the rules of debate.
I’ll keep that in mind should I consider making nonfactual or childishly unfair assertions. For now, Hillary is giving us plenty of factual and legitimate reasons to criticize her candidacy.
Did you actually read your own link? She’s trying to get the rules changed, not *break * them. :rolleyes:
You can dislike the tactic *without * misrepresenting it, ya know.
You might take a shot at explaining your concept of “unfairness” too.
And that too, if you can.
Perhaps you should change your screen name to Queen of Hearts?
Changed in the middle of the game, when it works to her advantage. You know, like Calvinball?
I’m still looking for the part where *she * makes the rules, *not * the DNC. What line is that on? :rolleyes:
I still go back to her gross negligence in not bothering to read the NIE report before casting her vote on the most important issue that would ever face her as a United States Senator; whether or not to authorize a war.
That alone is enough to tip the scales.
There is no excuse that is tolerable. She’s asking us to make her the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, yet she’s proven that she is not sufficiently thoughtful and careful about making decisions that put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way.
It’s despicable.
There. Is. No. Excuse.
She is undeserving of the office she seeks to hold.
Period.
Your attempts to narrow the definitions don’t change the fact that she’s trying to retroactively give herself delegates the other candidates didn’t (and in one case, couldn’t) compete for.
If a baseball team went to the umpires and demanded that the home runs they hit during batting practice should count toward the final score, I don’t care if you call it cheating, Calvinball, or creative gamemanship – but most people would find it unprincipled, unfair, and pathetic.
I don’t get it.
Not to mention pointless, since a candidate who gained the nomination that way would be doomed to failure in the general election.
Shayna, Unfortunately, that puts her in company with only about 98 percent of the Senate. There’s plenty of blame for irresponsibility to go around. The vote does seem to have been based more on expectations of a quick, invigorating “win” and rapid pullout that it would later be politically suicidal to have opposed, not on the factuality of the “Remember the Maine!” pretext.
And I think that political calculation by most of the Senate was accurate - success historically has been its own excuse. Polk and McKinley are certainly not scorned as warmongers for their great expansions of US territory. The miscalculation was in believing that the invasion and occupation would be run with at least a minimum of competence. But then “who could have foreseen” that it wouldn’t be?
I do understand, and largely agree with, dismay that a decision could be based on cynical political calculation rather than higher principle. But I do fall short of outrage over it.
(Obama’s record, by comparison, suggests that he would have tried to vote “Present”.)
cricetus, maybe you can point out the part where she *makes * the rules, since it seems so obvious to you.
Then go read “Alice in Wonderland”.
And just to further jab that fork in deeper, where it belongs, today, The Houston Chronical, the largest daily newspaper in Texas, endorsed Barack Obama for President.
How about this bit:
Sounds to me like Clinton, her delegates, and her cronies among the superdelegates, changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Calvinball.
Who gives a shit who makes the rules?
If Clinton had any objection to the rules, the time to make them was months ago when she was consulted by the party, and agreed to abide by them.
Seriously, how dare you try to force us to accept as our President, someone who clearly and intentionally thumbs her nose at the rules?
The woman is a Yale educated attorney. I expect her to understand the importance of rules. Fuck, that’s one of the MOST important aspects of the Presidency!
Look at what’s happened to our nation in the hands of a President who a) doesn’t care about the rules, and b) keeps trying to change them mid-game to suit his purposes.
It’s a DISASTER!
And I will NO LONGER TOLERATE THAT BEHAVIOR.
Anybody with an interest in defining what exactly it is that Clinton is doing that makes it so outrageous. Where do you get that bit about *her *, rather than the DNC, “forcing us to accept” anything? :dubious:
**spoke-**You have quite an unconventional notion of the definition of “persuade”, if “cheat” can be a synonym for it.