NH Union Leader: Clinton "is" moment: Who cares what words mean?

[Colobo]

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON pledged in August, "I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential primary election or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina."

On Tuesday, she broke her pledge.

Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer had put all the Democratic candidates' names on the ballot without getting their approval. Four other candidates who signed that pledge -- Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson -- kept their promise by withdrawing their names from Michigan's ballot by Tuesday's deadline. Clinton cynically chose not to. She wants to ingratiate herself with Michigan voters.

The Clinton campaign preposterously claims that the senator is not violating her signed pledge because she is not campaigning in Michigan. But she pledged not to "participate." She is participating. As her husband famously tried to redefine the word "is," she is trying to redefine the word "participate."

(Sen. Chris Dodd also signed the pledge and chose to break it by staying on the Michigan ballot. But he's a small fish, and hardly anyone has noticed.)

Clinton can parse her decision any way she wants, but the obvious truth is that she made a calculated choice to break her word for political advantage. She's a Clinton, so few will be surprised by that. But voters will want to remember that decision. If she'll break her word to participate in a virtually meaningless primary, what won't she break her word for?

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Clinton's+'is'+moment%3A+Who+cares+what+words+mean%3F&articleId=36993ac7-40a6-40d1-a96a-55253123b1a1

[Wickerman]

1. I haven't read enough of the Union Leader

to know if they also keep tabs on Bush "Truthiness". They could easily fill a page a day.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. I know that Hitler lied, and I had an ex girlfriend that lied. I haven't seen anything

on them in the paper either.

But what does that have to do with Hillary breaking her word?

Just curious.

[Tesha]

30. The Union Liar is and always has been Reich-Wing Shite. (NT)

[Romulox]

2. My lord, but the NH and Ia political machines are hateful and petty!

They have no compunction about viciously attacking Michigan Democratic voters whatsoever. And all in defense of their self-proclaimed right to be the "deciders" of the Democratic party. And Howard Dean is allowing this circus to continue in the name of a "50 state" plan? :eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Spoken like a true DLCer. nt

[Romulox]

10. Questioning NH and Ia's stranglehold on the nomination process makes me a DLCer? Hookay.

:silly:

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Explain for me, please, just how the miniscule number of electoral

votes in IA and NH constitute a 'stranglehold'.

The DLC wants to move the early primaries to a couple choice big states because their corporate money has more bang for the buck there, while the size of the populace works to squeeze the lower-tier candidates, forcing them to expend precious resources to stay in the competition. It's called frontloading and is patently unfair to anyone who is not favored by corporate america.

Besides, everyone agreed to the primary schedule at the outset, and then the DLC decided to fuck with Dean, undercutting the 50 state strategy because it gave too much power to the people, and worked against corporate control. So changing the schedule in mid-season is a violation of trust, meant to disembowel the Democratic party by the DLC 5th column.

So, yes. If you can't figure that out, it is only because you choose not to see it, meaning, you are DLC.

[Romulox]

15. The top fundraisers are leading in Iowa and NH...the "little guy" schtick is BS.

And your insults are nonsensical to say the least. I am associated with the Democratic Leadership Council because I disagree with you on the primary issue?

I thought the DLC only accepted elected officials, but again...hookay! :silly:

Second, if the premier spot in the primaries isn't powerful, why are NH and Ia politicians squeeling about their self-proclaimed right to be first every single year???

Finally, Howard Dean did nothing to upset the good ol' boy network that gave the premier position in deciding the Democratic candidate to two tiny, disproportionately white, right-leaning states.

The same as it's been since 1976.

What a great new strategy! Way to shake things up! Let's let the folks who chose Mike Dukakis and Paul Tsongas keep deciding for the rest of us.:eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Again I ask, just how do these small states with their few delegates

"decide" our nominee? If X with 5 delegates picks candidate 1 and then two weeks later Y with 25 delegates picks candidate 2, how does X "decide"?

They don't decide anything. They just get their voice heard. Whereas if Y goes first, who will ever hear anything X has to say? X is shut out, ignored, and abandoned, and no poliician would ever waste a minute or a dollar going to see X, because THEY are completely disenfranchised by the big guys.

Practically speaking, counting the delegates, every state other than California, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida and New York could be safely ignored, which is the DLC strategy. Go to the big states with the big donors and fuck everyone else.

And Dean DID do something to alter the process, by expanding the early voting to Nevada and SC, both states with significantly higher minority populations, but still allowing for the relatively louder voice of the smaller state. After everyone had agreed to this, the republicans and the DLC said "lets fuck with Dean" and this whole brouhaha started. There is nothing sacrosanct about IA and NH going first - but once the campaign has started you don't pull the rug out from under the candidates whose strategies are based on that calendar. At least not unless you are part of the corrupt machine that is doing the pulling.

[LittleClarkie]

11. Nah, in the name of rules that each state agree upon.

it is the state that is breaking the rules. All Dean is trying to do is enforce them.

[Romulox]

13. The rules are unfair and undemocratic. To hell with the rules.

Michigan's primary wasn't going to count whether we followed the rules and went to the back of the bus, or broke the rules and got smacked in the face by Howard Dean, John Edwards, Barack Obama et al.

I'm proud of my state party for standing up to the party elite and bullies in NH and Ia. :toast: This system of letting tiny, right-leaning states decide the nominee has been disastrous for the party, and it will change.

[LittleClarkie]

16. How can they be undemocratic when they were democratically voted upon

And if you say to hell with the rules, then you get what you get.

[Romulox]

17. Party insiders voted for it. The people of Michigan had no say

And you're not thinking clearly if you believe we can win the WH without Michigan. :silly:

[LittleClarkie]

18. If I understand correctly (and if I don't someone correct me)

The people at the state conventions voted to approve the rules.

It doesn't take a hell of alot to be a delegate at the state convention, at least it didn't take much here in Wisconsin. All I had to be was a dues paying Dem, and get my paper work in on time. I'm far from an insider.

The people in the room voting for resolutions and such were just involved people, not insiders.

So when you say that insiders voted for the rules, who are you talking about? Who do you think gets approval? Is it different than what I've heard? What, governors? Party chairmen in each state?

[Romulox]

19. Party insiders = not Michigan voters at large, or even Michigan Democrats as a group

The Michigan legislature, who are the representatives of the people of the State of Michigan, set our primary date. The people of Michigan did not agree to any other date, and we will not be changing the date of our primary to preserve Iowa and NH's unearned privilege.

That's really the bottom line here.

[LittleClarkie]

21. Hasn't it been done this way election season after election season

Is there a reason why this has become an issue this time around in particular?

[CTLawGuy]

55. I didn't have a say in making Election Day

the first Tuesday in November... yet, I can't just go and vote on Oct. 27.

Stop being a baby.

[PATRICK]

31. Insiders

partnered with GOP snakes went for this self-interested "righteous" rush against the rules, endangering the grass roots leader of the party Howard dean along with the party and giving the GOP many opportunities in the chaos, the crooked voting apparatus of Florida. Similarly the bums rush against the electoral college fizzled yet was revived- by the GOP stepping up front when the Dems wouldn't bite- in a blatant attempt to siphon electors out of California to their sole advantage every step of the way.

Don't be suckered by the actual state of affairs in this attempt to screw with the primaries. The time for change of rules- or rebellious protest- was at THAT election. The subsequent rush to break the rules- by individual states for self-interest(some principle) was egged on by the GOP and the righteous felt duty bound to fall for it and suspect nothing. Whatever the rationale and the indignation, it stinks to high heaven. Dean did the right thing and you can thank him if the gloating GOP does not succeed in picking our nominee.

As for eliminating the electoral college and the current primary format, by all means lets discuss and do something when it matters. Chaos means the party of real social chaos defines the assignment of power.

[LittleClarkie]

47. Funny how these people are doing the GOP's bidding and yet see it as a right to vote issue

and approve of the rules breaking wholeheartedly. Dean is suddenly the villain...just in time for the 2008 election. How many of the party members pushing for the rules breaking are DLC, I wonder. Just sayin'. No love lost between Dean and the DLC I reckon.

[PATRICK]

50. Connivers and suckers

coalition. In the end, all suckers and the GOP alone benefits. These isolated rushed reforms will come and go like the "unique" SCOTUS 2000 intervention. All the Dem candidates purport not to know how this spotty chaos will effect their campaign. I bet the GOP knows very well because it puts their fingers directly on our buttons. Divisive. Demoralizing. Hurting all candidates in some way. Party image and unity.

I think we have had other damaging firestorms in the past over better principles than that. This is organizational coming apart at the very seams for an untimely urge so idiotic politically as to bring into question the sanity or loyalty of any of the local state patriots who fell for it. Why not the war, or corporate control of elections or global warming or anything except this exercise in petty, self-indulgent pride.

[Trajan]

23. I agree ....

Let's have the 2050 Primaries in 43 days .... The day after the 2049 primaries ...

I figure one primary a day per state through January will get us through the rest of the century ....

:sarcasm:

The Party was correct to jettison the ego driven acts of some self involved state politicians ...

Maybe a rotating primary makes more sense ... but certainly an all out race to see who can be first is asinine ..... Why would the other states lie back and let Michigan be first ? ..... Why not New York and California ? ..... Why should they wait around ?

Your solution is rash ..... try again ....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Maybe You Should Mention How Homogeneous IA And NH Are

There are more folks of color, who make up about forty percent of Democratic voters, in downtown Detroit than there are in all of NH and IA...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. The Union Leader Is A Right Wing Rag

Is Hillary responsible for Bill's prevarications ? How does it work? Is it transferred through his semen?

Why should over thirty million Michiganders and Floridians be disenfranchised so that a state with less residents than greater Jacksonville can be first?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Oh, maybe they think they will make Hillary cry the way they made Ed Muskie cry by writing false stories about his wife...Hillary will make them cry first...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. This season is very Muskie. I keep hearing Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat in that

garage saying, "They were afraid of Muskie. Look what happened to Muskie. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they're running against."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

delete

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. I agree Muskie would have lost in any event. I do, however, have a feeling

that they are trying to manipulate the process more than usual, but that it's just not working this year. They have no mojo.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. There Was No Wallace In 72

The Southern Strategy was still in effect...

That means Nixon still would have won but not as spetacularly...


I like how people just bring right wing sources over here...

And as an aside I don't see how we benefit by disenfranchising over thirty million Floridians and Michiganders... The residents of a state shouldn't suffer because a bunch of pols are trying to game the system...

John Stuart Mill called the Tory or Conservative Party of Britain the "stupid party"... I wonder what he would say about the Democrats...

[LittleClarkie]

12. Oh, that's okay. A broken clock is right twice a day and all that

doncha know.

Any source will do if one agrees with it, left or right. Any other time and they'd agree that it was a rag.

[SaveElmer]

5. LOL...

I'm sure this will be the downfall of Hillary...

:rofl:

Not to mention the newspaper is incorrect...participation is defined as campaigning...

Presidential Candidate Sanctions on the Window
There is a new rule that imposes new sanctions on presidential candidates. If a state, any state, violates the rule on timing/the window, presidential candidates will face sanctions if they campaign in that state. Examples of campaigning include: making personal appearances in the state, hiring campaign workers, and buying advertising and so on.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/highlights_of_t.php

[calteacherguy]

8. Who cares?

Seriously.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Yeah, I say, lie lie lie, whatever it takes. Just as long as we get rid of the other liar.

[sandnsea]

20. Only Republican lies count n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

49. How about "ex-republican" lies; can we get an "assist" for that?

Foul.

[SDuderstadt]

22. The irony "is".....

Bill Clinton did not try to "redefine" the word "is". What a lie that is. During his deposition in the Paula Jones case, he was asked something like (referring to Monica Lewinsky), "There is no sex of any kind going on, right?". Since the affair had ended some time before, Clinton truthfully answered "no". Jones' attorneys could have very easily asked the appropriate follow-up questions if they wanted information about past sex. But, they didn't.

Later, attorneys for the OIC (I think) cravenly tried to claim Clinton had perjured himself in this answer, to which Clinton essentially corrected them, by pointing out that "is" does not mean "was". Now, you could argue that he knew what they were actually after and should have answered accordingly (kinda like me asking a guy if he is hungry, then getting upset when he replies in the negative because, even though he IS currently NOT hungry, I can prove that he WAS hungry yesterday. Again, "is" (present tense) does not mean "was" (past tense).

The OIC jumped all over this (although, ironically again, the article of impeachment alleging perjury in his Jones depo failed in the house) and you, of course, know how it ended in the senate (acquitted on both articles that were adopted). For those inclined to claim that Clinton did, in fact, perjure himself, remember that the founders wisely adopted an adversarial system of justice and jurisprudence. Clinton had no duty to help opposing counsel and, in fact, it is THEIR responsibility to prove their case. Further, in Bronston V U.S.,a UNANIMOUS US Supreme Court held 9-0 that merely evasive and misleading testimony is NOT perjury and further, "it is the duty of counsel to focus the witness's answers throught the acuity of their questioning".

The claim that Clinton "redefined" the word "is" is, to put it mildly, laughable. "Is" does not mean "was". It's beyond time to put this RW talking point (actually, lie) to bed once and for all.

[Debi]

36. Very thorough and well put post

:applause:

I may have to bookmark this...

And welcome to DU if I haven't already :hi:

[Cameron27]

46. Thank you and welcome to DU.

I never knew the whole story behind that either.:toast:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. I Have Been Deposed Several Times

Your attorneys tell you to answer the questions as truthfully (and) narrowly as possible. It is not the obligation of the person being deposed to "volunteer" information...

[MGKrebs]

25. Sounds like they never had permission to put her name on the ballot

in the first place.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. Got a link?

[MGKrebs]

40. It's in the OP.

"Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer had put all the Democratic candidates' names on the ballot without getting their approval."

[Texas_Kat]

26. AND He's going to look really stupid

When HC wins the primary.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Dennis Kucinich also withdrew his name. Most folks can follow the rules for the

good of the whole.

Some people have a problem with putting the good of the whole before their own selfish interests, I guess.

[rinsd]

33. Apparently Kucinich's messed up the paperwork so he will remain on the ballot.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071010/NEWS07/71010026

[John Q. Citizen]

37. What was messed up? How do you know the SOS of Michigan didn't mess up?

Or is that beyond the realm of possibility?

It's interesting that you have weighed in and made your decision on this.

Are you the person who handles this for the MI SOS office?

[William769]

35. He's tried twice already to no avail.

Did he finally get it right? :rofl:

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Got a link to the twice thing?

[William769]

44. Ask and you shall receive.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071010/UPDATE/710100459

BTW, I noticed in another thread where you are implying it's the SOS fault. I guess nobody's to blame but Clinton. :eyes:

[Debi]

32. The comments to this story are...WOW...

full of hatred is putting it lightly :wow:

[William769]

34. Oy vey.

I never thought of you as being one of the desperate one's Katzenkavalier, I guess I was wrong.

She didn't break the pledge no matter how you want to dissect it, and it's really pissing off the Hillary bashers. I have to admit I am enjoying the show. Thanks for keeping me entertained.

[BeyondGeography]

41. He's giving you a link to a story...how does that make him "desperate"?

:thumbsdown:

[William769]

42. The story reeks of desperation also,

[BeyondGeography]

43. The incessant use of the term "desperation" by Hillbots like you is what reeks

[William769]

45. What reeks is the desperation you all show.

Stop showing it, and I'll stop talking about it.

[Colobo]

48. I post articles.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. From Reich Wing Sources?

eom

[Forkboy]

54. How dare you post such things?

;)