|
|
January 16, 2008Hillary disenfranchising? Press does not care.In Michigan yesterday, Hillary “won” by having her opponents basically thrown off the ballot (a move Barack Obama - it must be said - had used to his advantage earlier in his career). Seems to me Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are “of a piece” in their willingness to do anything, no matter how underhanded, to get what they want. It would not surprise me at all to see a Hillary/Obama ticket being talked up down the road, and my that would be interesting to watch. Can you imagine these two campaigning together and hiding spring-loaded stiletto’s up their sleeves? Everytime they put their arms around each other the threat of violence would be palpable. Make no mistake - Mrs. Clinton intends to sit those ill-gotten Michigan delegates, if she can get away with it. And of course, she will. Mrs. Clinton gets away with anything she wants. It’s astonishing to me. So, now, in Nevada, Bill Clinton, former president - whose minions are firmly entrenched in all media as journalists, talk-show hosts, filmmakers and non-stop panel guests - tries to (incredibly) paint Barack Obama as the establishment candidate (Bill has never lacked for pure chutzpah) and says:
If this team was so brilliant the first time up, how come this “former civil rights lawyer” and his wife did nothing to “fix” schools beyond throwing money at them and rejecting vouchers - real choice for poor people trapped in bad schools - out-of-hand? How come they did nothing about Social Security, Senior Prescription Plans or, um, smacking down AlQaeda when they were attacking our interests every 18 months or so? Sorry, got sidetracked. Anyway, while he’s painting himself and his wife as the “insurgents” (he uses that word) in the race against “establishment” candidate Obama, his wife is going to get away with doing the most reprehensible thing a “public servant” can do; she is going to simply not allow some votes that are not meant for her. Yes, she’s apparently going to get away with disenfranchising voters. Of course, Mrs. Clinton is not actually doing this - her supporters are. But she’s going along with it, isn’t she? Her husband says he “supports” this move. But Mrs. Clinton is not (winkwink) doing this. And she’s not going to break her pledge about campaigning in Florida, too. She’s an unstoppable little Sherman tank, is our Hillary. And she is lucky that the late-night-show writers are still on strike…and that the press is so selective about what it reports. Fer instance, did you know that Louisiana has sworn in as Governor the 36-year-old son of Indian immigrants who happens to be a Republican and a Catholic? I mean, for heaven’s sake, Gov. Bobby Jindal has hit the ground running, and the press…well, they’re trying to ignore him, but if they must report on him, you’ll note, they don’t mention is party affiliation. And if they must report on Mrs. Clinton, apparently, they don’t mention the voters her “anti-establishment supporters” are working to suppress. WELCOME: Ed Morrissey readers! Thanks, Cap’n for the link! While you’re here, please look around. We’re also talking about freedom of speech in Canada (and here) and we’re remembering a moment. http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/01/16/hillary-disenfranchising-press-does-not-care/trackback/ 3 Responses to “Hillary disenfranchising? Press does not care.” |
January 16th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Barack’s The Man, Keeping Hillary Down…
One has to marvel at the sheer chutzpah of Bill Clinton. He told a Sparks, Nevada audience today that the establishment candidate in the Democratic presidential primary race is the one who has served a grand total of three years in national office, ins…
January 16th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
About seating delegates from punished states like Michigan, my guess is that in order to do that, a majority of the other delegates at the convention would have the final say. So, if Hillary does not have an outright majority at that time, if she merely has a plurality, the punished delegates might not get seated. Or, Obama and Edwards delegates might join together to form a majority and seat the Uncommitted delegates, but not Hillary’s.
In related news from my hometown of Ann Arbor, Uncommitted received more votes than did Hillary in the county, with 12,992 for Uncommitted and 12,284 for Hillary, and in liberal Ann Arbor and Ypsi, she really got trounced — “In the 15th District, which covers the county’s east side, including Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, nearly 47 percent of Democratic voters selected uncommitted to roughly 41 percent for Clinton.”
As for a Hillary-Obama ticket, he has experienced too much vitriol so early from Bill and Hill (and having the benefit of seeing Algore’s experience with them) that he would NEVER agree to such a thing.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I think you’d better take Reigle with a BIG grain of salt. The truth is that Clinton and other Democrats filled out the paperwork before the DNC forbade candidates to put their names on the ballot and denied Michigan (and Florida) delegates to the convention. She simply didn’t withdraw her name. She DID follow the orders not to campaign in Michigan.
Representative John Conyers put “Uncommmitted” on the ballot. He and his wife encouraged Obama supporters to vote “undecided” so that if Michigan’s convention privileges are reinstated, the DNC gets the message. It wasn’t a bad strategy, since (according to the Detroit News) “If ‘uncommitted’ captures 15 percent or more in any congressional district, some of Michigan’s delegates to the Democratic National Convention would not be bound to any candidate.” In other words, the 40% of Michigan votes that went to “Uncommitted” will keep Obama (and Edwards to a lesser extent) alive.
I just think it’ll be interesting to see if the DNC actually stands tough on its decision to bar Floridian and Michiganian delegates, and what effect that will have.