You weren't that far off. Being the sitting president is a huge advantage in an election, even if you ascended to the presidency through unconventional means. LBJ didn't become the incumbent president in 1968 through JFK's assassination, but he was strongly helped in the 1964 election.
We all know Hillary is not the most eloquent speaker, but she said something that I found tremendously moving, "The people of Florida deserve to be represented in the process of picking a candidate for president of the United States." Thank God Hillary wants to count all the votes in Florida.
I think the voters of Florida and Michigan should be represented, but you can't agree with everybody in your party that they wont be, and then at the last moment, after your opponents respected the pledge not to participate, suddenly argue otherwise. Hillary's comment would have been much more moving if it didn't come when she realized that she desperately needs the delegates of Florida and Michigan because she is in a dogfight to the finish.
The national party did the right thing. Florida's votes should not count. Period. The only reason Clinton said that shit is that she's desperate for delegates. If Obama wins Florida, you can damn well bet that Clinton will do her damnest to distance herself from those remarks. Florida and Michigan delegates both disqualified themselves by going against the national party. F***k 'em.
My question is for fellow NY residents. How well of a job do you think she's done representing NY, and how has NY benefited from her. Personally, I think she's done pure crap and we're no better off now then before her. I'm not a Dem, not even a registered Rep any more, but I will say without a doubt that Schumer has done FAR MORE than Hillary has and at least seems interested in working for NY whereas Hillary seems interested only in her personal agendas. Living Upstate I can tell you that she's done squat for us, where as Schumer can be seen here regularly and has done quite a bit for Upstate.
I understand and respect your POV. I just think that Hillary is showing a lot of courage by taking on the party establishment. Yet another example of how she puts principles above politics. This is exactly the kind of change we need in Washington.
You've got to be kidding me, the ONLY reason that the Clinton's are focusing on Florida is that it is the last remaining chance for them to put a dent in the Mo' that Obama is building right now. Billary are hoping that a big victory in FL (and only now is she saying boo about the delegates, why did it take her 6 months to take a stand?), even if it doesn't count, could slow down Obama going into Super Tuesday. Would we be hearing anything about FL if Hillary was 6 points down in the polls there?
Hillary might be many things and she's also not many things she's accused of, but not even she could make this claim with a straight face.
Had taken this courageous* stand six months ago I might agree with you. But now? It's just slimy and disgusting. * And please give me an example of her putting principles above politics.
You responded before my edit, in which I wrote: "The only reason Clinton said that shit is that she's desperate for delegates. If Obama wins Florida, you can damn well bet that Clinton will do her damnest to distance herself from those remarks." Clinton does nothing based on principles. She has only one goal. She wants to win the presidency at all costs, and will say or do anything she can to realize that goal.
It's still not on their website - http://www.nownys.org/news.html but here's a press release I just got in my inbox.
Well, that's not devisive. If Obama had less than a 100% record on women's issues, maybe you could take that seriously? I am surprised by the venom in that email.
Maybe Ted's just not that into them? PS: I love how the release never deigns to mention "Hillary Clinton’s opponent" by name. Ne'er a more cursed word . . .
Sheesh. What a joke. Not like they are trying to play the gender card now. (Not NOW, but I am willing to wager that HRC knew well in advance that this was going out).
That was one of the most amusing primaries I can remember before this one. Many in the party could see Carter's defeat coming from a long way away. Plus, if I remember right, he had fought with congress over many small issues, they resented his high-handed approach, and many Dems just wanted him out. Carter spent the entire primary not mentioning Chappaquiddick, and letting everyone know that he wouldn't mention it, almost every day. In a classic case of be-careful-what-you-wish-for, Carter wanted to run against Reagan, thought he would be easy pickings. John Anderson was Reagan's main primary opponent, and he ran as a third-party candidate. Man, was he insufferable, sanctimonious and condescending.
Yeah, I remember the Time Magazine cover with Reagan and Carter, and a smaller Anderson in between. But I didn't know he was a Republican. I remember hearing that George H. Bush ran against Reagan and called Reagan's economic ideas 'vodoo economics'. Was that in those same primaries?