The dark underbelly of America contains numerous warts, boils, and cancerous tumors, inflicted by that loathsome grimoire of madness that the elected leaders of our nation have become.


Well, I'm FedUp and I'm not taking it any more
!

Monday, February 18, 2008

How Low Can She Go?


Hillary Clinton, who has built her case for the presidency on her superior "ready on Day One" management skills, burned through almost $130 million of campaign money, had to kick in $5 million from her own murky family funds, and is now pressing her chief financial backers to find creative ways to raise more money.

Some of those financial schemes appear to skirt the law -- as some backers consider putting money into "independent" entities that can spend unlimited sums but aren't supposed to coordinate with the campaign -- while other ideas are more traditional, like appealing to wealthy donors involved with the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby.

Sen. Clinton's new scramble for money -- as well as her campaign's declaration that it is prepared to override the will of the elected Democratic delegates if necessary to secure the nomination -- raise the question of just how far Bill and Hillary Clinton are willing to go to achieve their presidential restoration.

Some Democrats, who have e-mailed me, praise the ruthlessness of the Clinton political machine, arguing that only a readiness to throw sharp elbows can defeat the Republicans this fall. These Democrats hate what they call Barack Obama's "Kumbayah" message of national reconciliation, a reference to the campfire song based on an old African spiritual.

However, other Democrats fear that the Clintons are putting their personal ambitions ahead of what's good for the Party and the country, that they are ready to dirty up Sen. Obama with attack ads and dismiss his millions of supporters as -- what one key Clinton backer called -- "a cult of personality."

If the Clintons overturn the majority will, the Democratic convention in Denver could bring to mind the infamous Chicago convention in 1968 when the Democratic establishment imposed its favored candidate, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, on a rebellious rank-and-file, contributing to the election of Republican Richard Nixon.

Though a repeat of the 1968 violence is unlikely, a Clinton-driven insistence that the will of Democratic voters be cast aside could alienate millions of young people and independents who have rallied to Sen. Obama's message of political change.

In a conference call to reporters last week, Sen. Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, made clear that the campaign was prepared to rely on her superior support among the 796 "superdelegates" -- party insiders and government officials -- to overcome Obama's lead among delegates chosen through primaries and caucuses.

"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates," Wolfson said, adding that the Clinton campaign would make no distinction between the caucus/primary delegates and the "superdelegates."

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period," Wolfson said.

Senior strategist Mark Penn also indicated that the Clinton campaign would press the issue of seating pro-Clinton delegates from Florida and Michigan, where she won unauthorized primaries conducted after the national party barred the states from holding contests before Feb. 5 and after other major candidates agreed not to compete.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Please remember:
1. Sen. Clinton respected the wishes of the party and DID NOT campaign in Florida or Michigan.

2. The VOTERS in those 2 states MUST be allowed to have a voice. It was the party officials who screwed things up, not the voters.

3. Just as Sen. Clinton will need the support from Sen. Obama, Sen. Obama is in just as much of a need of votes from her supporters.

The national party has to find a way to make those votes count, or I will join the ranks of democrats who will NOT vote in November and allow Bush III to occur.

It is only fair to the VOTERS in those states.

Anonymous said...

The democratic party said the votes in Michigan and Florida will not count. If this is overruled than we cannot respect or support the democratic party in this election. Rule breakers are not who the American people have voted for.

Knowing that their vote would not count in Florida and Michigan, these respective voters had the choice to oppose or not to vote at all. Theses voters beef is with the democratic party.

If Hillary is the nominee I will stay at home on election day. I will not cast a vote for her. I will not cast a vote for a republican.

Where does this put me? In the same position as the Florida and Michigan primary voters.

I will choose to oppose.

So in other words, Hillary has caused conflict and division within the democratic party. How is this good for America?

Anonymous said...

And....

When a presidential candidate asks their own party to break rules that applied to all candidates, this candidate offers more of the same.

More of what America has suffered thru for the past 7 years, rule breaking.

Anonymous said...

I haven't heard John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich complain about the Michigan and Florida vote count.

They understood the rules.


Liberals got women the right to vote.

Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.

Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.

Liberals ended segregation.

Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Liberals created Medicare.

Liberals passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

What did the ignorant conservatives do?

They opposed them on every one of those things.

Every damn one!

So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.