Unclear.... the situation is fluid there.... but if the case needs to be pressed, it's likely that she will make a stop in Florida at some point soon.
« It's Not All About Race | Main | Light Posting » Will Clinton Visit Florida Next?19 Mar 2008 10:30 am Comments (22)
I really don't think this passionate concern for MI and FL, totally absent until after IA, NH, SC, and NV voted, should get her many points. Strong advocacy last fall, sure. Strong advocacy the minute polling said she had done well, not so much. 
obama has pinned his 'hopes' and tiny lead on disenfranchising millions of dem voters. Nice.
Remember, Clinton's top advisor Harold Ickes voted along with the rest of the DNC for the tough rules punishing states holding primaries out of turn. It's only now that they think they can get a couple of mulligans that they're doing the 180 here.
This really does seem despicable on Clinton's part. No one would care about Florida and Michigan if she hadn't ginned everyone into a frenzy. Let's be clear: there's a flagrant contradiction between her push to enfranchise voters in two states and her simultaneous effort to argue that superdelegates should feel comfortable overturning the stated will voters in all the states. This needs to be hammered home.
This really does seem despicable on Clinton's part. No one would care about Florida and Michigan if she hadn't ginned everyone into a frenzy. Let's be clear: there's a flagrant contradiction between her push to enfranchise voters in two states and her simultaneous effort to argue that superdelegates should feel comfortable overturning the stated will voters of in all the states. This needs to be hammered home.
This was the hail mary pass, and it failed. She is done. Why does everyone want to keep this narrative alive that the race is still close. It is not.
Hillary is like a Mother to me. Impugn her motives at your peril.
obama has pinned his 'hopes' and tiny lead on disenfranchising millions of dem voters. Nice. Yawn. And Hillary's entire case for the nomination is now built on the premise that votes from every state that didn't pick her don't count. At least Obama is abiding by the rules everyone agreed to a year ago.
I understand that HRC will be releasing all her personal tax records today. Finally! We have one candidate who has been totally transparent in this campaign process and I am glad to see that the other one is finally allowing the voters to get to vet her properly.
What freakin' rule is Hillary trying to change? Why are y'all propogating this lie? Hillary is, indeed, abiding by the rules everyone agreed to a year ago. Per Howard Dean: "The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a party process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which determines and resolves any outstanding questions about the seating of delegates." The state parties are trying to come up with revote plans to submit to the RBC. Hillary plans to urge her representatives on the credentials committee to find a way to seat FL and MI delegations. She hasn't broken any damn rule and it's really ridiculous for all of the Obama fans to claim that she is. What rule did she break? None - quit lying.
"I understand that HRC will be releasing all her personal tax records today. Finally! Posted by philly dog" Really. I hadn't heard that. Of course Hillary has released more information than you'll get from the top sheets of a tax form for the last 7 years. But that's the sleaze game obama is playing. Now maybe the fawning "liberal media" will demand obama release his tax returns [If you have links to obama tax returns from before or after 2006 please post]. While obama's big concern was sniffing Hillary's panties Americans can't afford to put gas in the car the can't afford to own, Americans can't afford to pay utility bills to keep the heat and lights on, Americans income sinks while the price of everything rises, Health care forget about it [obama has].
The main thing here is that Hillary doesn't care about the voters in these states, she just wants to convince the media that there's still some uncertainty about the outcome of the race. This way, she keeps up the morale of her supporters and prevents uncommitted superdelegates from declaring for Obama while her thugs work on smearing a good candidate into oblivion.
Clinton can get an endorsement from the Governor of Florida while she is there. She fits in well enough.
Hadenough - Funny you should mention putting gas in the car and trying to get affordable health care because 2 big questions I have are 1) Did HRC have big investment gains by selling stock in any oil companies or pharmaceutical companies in the past several years and 2) Does she still hold stock in those companies? Now, everyone is entitled to buy and sell stock for whichever company they choose but when you are going to be controlling the legislative agenda for this nation, we, as voters, have a right to now about her affiliations with these companies - if any. It is a matter of fairness and transparency and I am glad that she today has decided to let us all see what she has been doing with her money!
phillydog, don't hold your breath today for those tax returns. Her White House daily schedules are being released today. I wouldn't look for those tax returns until at least 4/23.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Doover_is_dead.html Looks like there might not be a re-vote in Michigan....
On a side note-watch this video on andrew sullivans blog. there is another black pastor from Harlem and this time he goes off on Obama and has some rather racy pics of women in the video talking about their anatomy is very derogatory terms. It's terrible. He is pastor Manning from Harlem. forewarned, if you are a woman you will be embarrassed by the remarks. The anger will come later.
Judy - this is very discouraging. I thought it was her tax returns being released today. I do not know how any democrat can, in good conscience, consider a vote for Hillary Clinton without having this crucial information about her finances. It is a simple matter of fairness and she is failing this very simple test. How can we trust her as President?
It's time to finalize on the Democratic nominee. I posted an article on this today on my blog: http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com Excerpt:
"Hadenough - Funny you should mention putting gas in the car and trying to get affordable health care because 2 big questions I have are 1) Did HRC have big investment gains by selling stock in any oil companies or pharmaceutical companies in the past several years and 2) Does she still hold stock in those companies? Posted by phillydog" Waste of time. Senators are required to release more information every year than you will get from the top sheets of a tax return. Hillary has been a senator for 7 years. Please look up her senate finance releases. And since a candidates tax info means so much to you please post the links to obama's tax returns for years other than 2006. You must have them right? You must have studied obama's tax returns going back years right? That kinda thing seems to be very important to you. So you must have links to obama's tax returns for years other than 2006. I'm sure everybody on the face of the earth would agree only a stinking piece of shit would demand to sniff Hillary's panties without have sniffed obama's first. And you aren't a stinking piece of shit are you? No of course not. So the links to years worth of obama's tax returns that you have studied very carefully. Thanks in advance.
Let's be clear: there's a flagrant contradiction between her push to enfranchise voters in two states and her simultaneous effort to argue that superdelegates should feel comfortable overturning the stated will voters in all the states. One of the most absurd comments I've yet heard from an Obamabot. How is that, if the majority of superdelegates go with the candidate they deem stronger in a general election (Hillary Clinton in this scenario) that constitutes "overturning the stated will" of voters in "all of the states"? In the first place, some states went for Clinton, so it's definitely not "all of the states." And secondly, you don't "overturn" a non-majority vote. There's nothing to "overturn" if Obama fails to secure a majority, unless he wins a majority of the popular vote, which is doubtful, if Clinton finishes strong in the remaining ten states. And Clinton will almost certainly win a majority of the popular votes of Democrats. Why shouldn't their votes carry greater moral force with the superdelegates than the votes of non-Democrats? Failing to go with the plurality winner of pledged delegates ain't overturning anything. It's simply making the decision that the candidate with that plurality isn't going to win in November. Delegate pluralities count for squat. It's delegate majorities that are the coin of the realm in primary politics. If Obama's campaign continues to implode, it will be Hillary Clinton securing said majority.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Hopefully the remaining superdelegates will see Hillary's gambit for what it is - a last-ditch, desperate effort to secure a nomination that she can't win any other way.
This little stunt only underscores how remote her chances are of legitimately winning this nomination. Yet the media still treats her as a credible candidate.
Damn shame what she's doing to her party.
Posted by SDinIA | March 19, 2008 10:49 AM