Science Talk

K. Rove · Guest

"Somehow, a number of Clinton supporters have come to identify the
seating of Michigan and Florida not merely with Clinton's prospects
but with the causes of democracy and feminism -- an equation that
makes a mockery of democracy and feminism."

"When Florida and Michigan flouted the rules by moving their primaries
outside the prescribed time frame, the DNC, which gave neither state a
waiver to do so, decreed that their primaries would not count and
enjoined all presidential candidates from campaigning in those states.
Obama and John Edwards complied with the DNC's dictates by removing
their names from the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not."

"Seating Michigan in full would mean the party validates the kind of
one-candidate election that is more common in autocracies than
democracies. It would mean rewarding the one serious candidate who
didn't remove her name from the ballot when all her rivals, in
deference to the national party rules, did just that."

HOW TYPICAL OF HILLARY TO SCAM THE SYSTEM AND HIGHJACK DELEGATES!

Yet some fools still WANT this moral-less LIAR and cheat to be the
next president.

Aren't we anxious to rid ourselves of Bush, who represents the very
worst, the lowest, in American politics -- which are Hillary's basic
instincts as well?

-----------------------------------
"Clinton's Two-State Two-Step"

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, May 28, 2008; A13

On Saturday, when the Rules Committee of the Democratic National
Committee meets to determine the fate of Florida and Michigan's
delegations to this summer's convention, it will have some company. A
group of Hillary Clinton supporters has announced it will demonstrate
outside.

That Clinton has impassioned supporters, many of whom link her
candidacy to the feminist cause, hardly qualifies as news. And it's
certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered
some outrageously sexist treatment, just as Barack Obama has been on
the receiving end of bigoted treatment. (Obama has even been subjected
to anti-Muslim bigotry despite the fact that he's not Muslim.) But
somehow, a number of Clinton supporters have come to identify the
seating of Michigan and Florida not merely with Clinton's prospects
but with the causes of democracy and feminism -- an equation that
makes a mockery of democracy and feminism.

Clinton herself is largely responsible for this absurdity. Over the
past couple of weeks, she has equated the seating of the two
delegations with African Americans' struggle for suffrage in the Jim
Crow South, and with the efforts of the democratic forces in Zimbabwe
to get a fair count of the votes in their presidential election.

Somehow, I doubt that the activists opposing Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe
would appreciate this equation.

But the Clintonistas who have called Saturday's demonstration make it
sound as if they'll be marching in Selma in support of a universal
right to vote. The DNC, says one of their Web sites, "must honor our
core democratic principles and enfranchise the people of Michigan and
Florida."

Had Florida and Michigan conducted their primaries the way the other
48 states conducted their own primaries and caucuses -- that is, in
accord with the very clear calendar laid down by the DNC well before
the primaries began -- then Clinton's marchers would be utterly
justified in their claims. But when the two states flouted those rules
by moving their primaries outside the prescribed time frame, the DNC,
which gave neither state a waiver to do so, decreed that their
primaries would not count and enjoined all presidential candidates
from campaigning in those states. Obama and John Edwards complied with
the DNC's dictates by removing their names from the Michigan ballot.
Clinton did not.

Seating Michigan in full would mean the party validates the kind of
one-candidate election (well, 1.03, to give Dennis Kucinich, Chris
Dodd and Mike Gravel, who also remained on the ballot, their due) that
is more common in autocracies than democracies. It would mean
rewarding the one serious candidate who didn't remove her name from
the ballot when all her rivals, in deference to the national party
rules, did just that.

What's particularly outrageous is that the Clinton campaign supported
the calendar, and the sanctions against Michigan and Florida, until
Clinton won those states and needed to have their delegations seated.

Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida (and
Michigan, if it persisted in clinging to its date) of its delegates,
the Clinton delegates on the committee backed those sanctions. All 12
Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties. (The only
member of the committee to vote against them was an Obama supporter
from Florida.) Harold Ickes, a committee member, leading Clinton
strategist and acknowledged master of the political game, said, "This
committee feels very strongly that the rules ought to be enforced."
Patty Solis Doyle, then Clinton's campaign manager, further affirmed
the decision. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South
Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,"
she said, referring to the four states that the committee authorized
to hold the first contests. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its
calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that
role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC-
approved nominating calendar."

Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member,
much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions
imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or
an affront to democratic values. The threat that these rules posed to
our fundamental beliefs was discovered only ex post facto -- the facto
in question being Clinton's current need to seat the delegations whose
seatings she had opposed when she thought she'd cruise to the
nomination.

Clinton's supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of
course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it's
situational ethics. To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and
turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels.

meyersonh@washpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052702553.html

>Harle · Guest

ROTFLMAO!!!

Harley

Geo. W. Bush · Guest

GIVE IT UP, HILLARY, YOU'RE DONE! A HAS-BEEN, LIKE VINCE FOSTER!

WHEN BOB NOVAK SPEAKS, ALL REPUBS LISTEN!

I'D SAY THIS IS AN OBAMA ENDORSEMENT!

------------------------------------------

"Clinton Crosses a Line"

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, May 29, 2008; A19

When Hillary Clinton said, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was
assassinated in June in California," she was not saying anything she
had not publicly declared earlier. Yet those words sparked a political
firestorm, raising among Democrats new levels of anti-Clinton
sentiment and concern about Barack Obama's viability in the general
election.

After Clinton cited the 1968 murder of Robert F. Kennedy as reason for
remaining a candidate for the presidential nomination, I contacted
many activist Democrats -- both pro-Clinton and pro-Obama. Without
exception, they felt Clinton had crossed a line and inflicted a
grievous wound on the party that will be difficult to heal.

This recalls Milton's 17th-century tragic poem "Samson Agonistes" --
portraying Samson as a battler. "Eyeless in Gaza" was the poet's
reference not only to physical blindness but also to failure to
comprehend reality. As "Hillary Agonistes," she threatens to bring
down the temple of the country's oldest political party.

Clinton's infamous comments to the editorial board of the Sioux Falls
(S.D.) Argus Leader last Friday came when she was asked why she was
still competing in the South Dakota primary June 3. In March, when
Time magazine asked her whether remaining in the race would hurt the
party, she replied: "Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We
all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in
June in L.A." According to campaign sources, that has been a
commonplace observation made in private by Bill Clinton.

Poor taste by the Clintons is matched by their poor knowledge of
history. Kennedy's campaign against Hubert Humphrey 40 years ago is
not comparable to the Clinton-Obama marathon. When he was killed,
Kennedy had been a candidate for only 2 1/2 months and Humphrey for
two months. Contrary to the impression given by Sen. Clinton, Kennedy
was not a presumptive nominee stopped by an assassin. Humphrey enjoyed
a decisive lead in delegates that Kennedy surely would have been
unable to erase. As for 1992, Bill Clinton clinched the nomination in
April -- not June, as his wife's claim implied.

Her recent performance has led loyal Democrats to talk to me about
Clinton in the same terms that Republicans have used for 16 years,
branding her as untruthful, deceitful and unscrupulous. This
condemnation is not limited to Obama partisans. One seasoned
Democratic operative, who voted for Clinton in his home state's
primary but was not part of her campaign, said of her comments about
Kennedy, "I think it was about as hideous as it gets."

The defection of famous Clinton supporters continues. The New York
reformer Sarah Kovner, an ardent Clintonite and close associate of
Clinton strategist Harold Ickes, turned up at an Obama rally.
Investment banker (and former deputy Treasury secretary) Roger Altman,
a charter "FOB" (Friend of Bill), is reported by Democratic sources to
be advocating an end to the Clinton campaign despite the former
president's vigorous protests.

But not all Clinton supporters have given up. Her labor backers from
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers and the International
Association of Machinists continue the fight. On Monday, AFSCME
President Gerald McIntee elicited booing of Obama at a Clinton rally
in Ponce, Puerto Rico.

The noxious atmosphere contributes to counterintuitive results in a
national Newsweek-Princeton poll last week. Despite plunging
Republican support thanks to an unpopular war and president and a
declining economy, the survey showed a tie -- 46 percent to 46 percent
-- between Obama and John McCain.

Most startling was that 19 percent of Democrats said they would vote
Republican. "Will 60,000 old white women in Ohio vote for McCain and
make him president?" asks a prominent Democrat.

Many Democrats, not all of them Obama supporters, feel a need to end
the contest for the nomination to reduce that 19 percent slice of
apostates. But it won't happen Saturday, when Democratic National
Committee members meet to determine whether to seat Michigan and
Florida delegates. The Clinton camp this week rejected a contemplated
compromise, promising more struggle rather than reconciliation. It
looked like Hillary Agonistes, eyeless in Gaza.

http://www/washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052802916.html