Clinton's dilemma
The key point on Florida and Michigan as made here, near the bottom of the piece, is not really the outcome - exciting as Wolf Blitzer et al seem to think it is.
The vital issue is the reaction of the Clinton camp to whatever the decision is. Do they accept it and thus achieve yet another victory that is not quite enough of a victory for victory (if you see what I mean) or do they fight?
Some seem to think the prospects of a fight beyond next week are realistic. But as the Wall St Journal points out, Hillary Clinton is no Jerry Brown, no Jesse Jackson. She would not be fighting on for honour and for dignity - she would be fighting to win, and with a powerful if flawed case.
That would be unique in modern times and uniquely damaging to the party.
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The key player after the primaries is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who has influence over many of the superdelegates, and who has recently stated that she wants this wrapped up. She is an experienced and powerful Democratic politician, and I believe she will get her way.
Complain about this comment
Clinton's fight (backed by huge numbers of Americans) would be "uniquely damaging to the party"
Huh?
The Democratic Party has damaged itself in its headlong determination to latch on to an under-qualified but charismatic candidate.
Charisma and buzzwords are not enough to run an administration in these dark days.
I've left the party and they've no one to blame but themselves. Naturally they'll try....
Complain about this comment
Whatever it is, the committee's ruling on the delegate allocation will not materially alter the status of either candidate. The DNC will not come forth with a decision that tips the balance in favor of either Obama or Clinton. They don't want to be seen as determining the nominee.
My concern is that the ruling be punitive enough to thwart other states from following the lead of Florida and Michigan. The national party, not the states, needs to determine when the primary season begins and when it ends. Otherwise, the primary season would be chaotic, with states leapfrogging each other backwards to get the hype of going first.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Had she not began with the attitude that she had it in the bag to begin with (the win), and hadn't signed a form and publicly agreed verbally that she'd abide by the democratic party rules that Michigan and Florida's votes would not count, she wouldn't be in this mess. If think too highly of yourself and change your mind about the rules, you lose! Who could trust someone who changed their tune like that anyway just because it was inconvenient? She's not 12 and this is, after all, a race to become the next president.
Complain about this comment
Clinton's dilemma is that unless she can pull off a miracle, she lost the nomination. Her best strategy now is to work for Obama to lose so she has another chance in 2012. She can do that by doing exactly what she has been doing.
Clinton has a right to be angry. President Clinton was called America's first black President but African Americans deserted Senator Clinton like rats deserting a sinking ship. She's been the object of a lot of sexist abuse too. And who is this who replaced her in the affections of the left wing of the party and of African Americans? An inexperienced unknown who has no distinguished accomplishments to his name and would probably make an awful president. He is an elitist who has no real connection to the mainstream of America but he is a smooth talking lawyer. We'll see just how well he does when he has to face a mainstream politician in the general election and no holds are barred. Even in the primaries he lost among Democrats in almost EVERY state of electoral vote significance. The general election IMO looks even worse for him. That is why I predict in electoral votes he will lose in a landslide and I'd say he'll do no better than 35% of the popular vote, 40% if he's very lucky. That's a landslide by American political standards.
Complain about this comment
Harold Ickies made a threat to take it to the convention.
With that simple threat he just destroyed Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the nomination. That threat is going to force the DNC higher ups to end this campaign with a show of strength after the Tuesday primary.
Her supporters are the single largest factor that will end her campaign. They've given the perception to everyone not committed to a candidate that they're an angry mob out for blood.
Complain about this comment
#2 Gary_A_Hill comments on Nancy Pelosi; she's not exactly an unbiased participant. Although "the will of the people" of California was expressed by voting for Mrs Clinton rather than Mr Obama, it is no secret who Mrs Pelosi favours. In March she said that superdelegates overriding the "will of the people" would be harmful to the Democratic Party. After a number of protests, she changed her public stance to "allow" the process to continue, but even now she threatens to "step in" to thwart Mrs Clinton in what remains a very tight race.
One question I have not seen answered is whether or not the Michigan and Florida parties knew what punishment would be exacted if they brought forward their election dates. If none was specified, and the decision to strip them of their delegates was made after the elections in each state, I would say that both had a very strong case for overturning the rule. I cannot think that had they known, then they and the state governments (which run and finance primaries) would have never proceeded.
At long last, Mr Obama has resigned from his Church - what a pity he did not do so long before. Interestingly he resigned because of what a white minister and supporter said, not for what his former 'spiritual mentor' had uttered and who just happens to be African-American. Different strokes for different folks?
Complain about this comment
19 to 8 for commonsense and abiding by rules.
Good result!
Now we see if HRC can actually accept reality.
or revert
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
David, The parties knew the penalties. They knew the rules, as did the candidates, who expressly accepted the rules and signed agreements to that effect LONG BEFORE the voting, back in autumn 2007.
Matters of record.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Just got word that Obama has officially resigned from the Trinity United church, after some anti-Hillary tirade. Smart move, do you think?
Something tells me he was waiting for a good excuse to cut some dead weight.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#1 - I cannot possibly see why the truth of a short statement and a link to a reputable American news publication should be considered to have broken the "house rules". It is an indisputable _fact_ that the Obama campaign withdrew his name from the Michigan primary while the Clinton campaign did not do likewise. Is it because the BBC appears, in my opinion, to be pro-Obama and doesn't care for such information to be made known?
Complain about this comment
In simple terms even if Hillary 'wins' her battle, she'll be losing on grounds of image and that she is probably the one candidate who CAN lose to the Republicans, despite all of her electability spiel. I believe i've used the words 'deluded and divisive' before but they ring truer even now, Clinton is appearing more and more unreasonable and personally motivated to win the election. Obama continues down the campaign trail almost ignoring Clinton now. If she somehow wrangles herself the election you can be sure it won't be pretty and she'll look desperately selfish. The Republicans HATE the Clintons. With Clinton leading the ticket two key things would happen: Republicans will find greater voter unity and the Democrats will lose votes to independents in the light of serious party disunity.
If it were possible after this dramatic race, Obama could put her on the VP ticket and consolidate some of his weaker areas, but it's all over for Clinton in the main race. The DNC have successfully appeased Clintonites by taking the issue of Florida and Michigan seriously and giving those delegates a role in the Denver proceedings. Obama still has the unassailable initiative as I think we all knew he would.
Complain about this comment
The nomination was Clinton's to lose. She only went after Michigan and Florida when she found herself outmaneuvered by Obama. The half delegate compromise is more than generous considering those states broke the rules. The superdelegates should move quickly after June 3 to seal the nomination for Obama and get on with the campaign.
Complain about this comment
If you want to understand the Clintons,
rent a movie entitled "Primary Colors".
It was written by a journalist about the
1992 Clinton campaign. I don't know how
much of it is true, but much of it could be.
Complain about this comment
Those who do not live in the US might not realize that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee of the Democratic party, and ultimately becomes President of the US, she will be an imperial President and continue George W. Bush's policies and way of doing business. She is a ruthless person who will say and do anything to get elected. Please hope that the next President of the USA is either Berack Obamah or John McCain!!
Complain about this comment
Regardless of how much bile Clinton cares to spit over the committee results, there is an interesting thing to consider. This 30 strong panel was comprised of both Clinton and Obama supporters, along with uncommitted participants, but Clinton had a marginally stronger show of support overall. The rulings were made with strong majorities, almost unanimous with regards to Michigan, so this issue should hopefully be put to rest. I wasn't surprised to see Harold Ickes throwing his aggressive two cents in, but if Clinton really does go to a credentials appeal, as suggested by Ickes, I think she'll find her party support diminish rather quickly.
Today was a subtle coup de grace on Clinton I think by the DNC.
Complain about this comment
I do admire Hillary's tenacity. If Gore or Kerry had shown the same tenacity maybe we could have seen an earlier end to the Bush administration.
She's tough and ruthless..and more like a Republican than a Democrat (sigh)
I hope Obama learns from her and goes for the jugular with McCain because thats what wins in America.
Complain about this comment
Don't worry, Tog, The dead cat may bounce in Puerto Rico tomorrow, but that's what dead cats do. And McChip is so infested with inconsistency he hasn't a chance.
Prepare for President Obama
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Frankly, the outcome is ridiculous. And anyone watching the CNN stream might concur that this was a bit of a travesty.
For goodness sake. A few months ago we had Ickes agreeing with the total discount of all the Florida and Michigan delegates.
Now we see him saying that that very decision would be undemocratic. Why? Because he's being paid to do so.
And where are all the other members that once stood up to affirm the party's rules decided on back in 2007? Their voices, too, have been been strangely silenced - by themselves. Why? Because it's politically expedient to do so.
Howard Dean was right: this isn't about any candidate. It's about how a party operates, regardless of which candidate might profit or not.
As such, it's all about obfuscation, and deluding the voters, and getting things done regardless of what people would actually think if they were given an opportunity to do so. It's not about inspiring people to do the right thing: it's about getting them to do your thing.
It's extraordinary: with all the talk of Washington politics, with all the distrust of politicians and all the distaste of partisanship and all that, we get this: an absurd and evidently idiotic decision. And worst of all, everyone's happy.
If anyone thinks Obama won here, think again. Think change. Think change we can believe in.
Still believe in it after tonight?
I don't.
Complain about this comment
doubt she will back down Ed, but as we all know she will do anything to be in the loop . so maybe she will figure out that if this continues her likely hood of getting any help in her re-election bid next time will probably rely on Obama's support.
Which she is looking less likely to get.
I'm not sure anyone disputed that Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot, I thought he had , in compliance with the rules the party made.
Now if he had said "I'm going for it screw the rules "I'm sure there would be many posters here writing in with endless criticism of him.
She like it all to go her own way.
They are Her rules and She can change them,or so she thinks.
At least her cheer section will be able to attend the conference. Thats good she will need the support.
Complain about this comment
20 beth
sums it up.
like a republican.
though in fairness thats because both always cheat.
Complain about this comment
Justianus,
Sure Obama didn't win. How do you reckon he could have played the situation better? Seriously.
He played the hand he had with as much grace and forbearance as possible, as did his surrogates, and Ickes revealed that he's aptly named - icky, if not downright yuckky - a slimeball.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
As a Romney supporter at the start of this campaign, Hillary got my attention, I have found her fortitude and class a force that none will say went un-noticed.
Today, the divisions created by the democratic party, being either the wrong race or the right sex are two key factors used by the democats to seperate themselves from others.
Today's chioce to give some people only a half of a vote may get us to the election in 2008, but leaves the party disfunctional. Now we may be ready to give centrist voters from both parties a new home and us a third party.
Complain about this comment
Donna Brazille Rocks!.
Yo Momma!
Complain about this comment
Hilrod may be counting on Ted Kennedy having to focus almost entirely on his intense struggle with a brain tumor and chemotherapy/etc. If Ted Kennedy were able to join with Nancy Pelosi and stand up to Hilrod's destructive and divisive tactics, along with other positive and constructive players like John Edwards and Bill Richardson, then the tone right now would be different. As it is, Hilrod may be counting on Ted Kennedy not being in any shape to counter Hilrod's counterproductive activities regarding delegates and procedures. Certainly a great deal is going on behind the scenes, but Hilrod certainly has convinced many more people now that she is not anything like a realistic VP candidate for an Obama campaign!
Complain about this comment
Apparently, the Republicans are
capitalizing on the disarray in the
Democrats' ranks. Now, they can
effectively counter the "Obama Girl":
http://www.barelypolitical.com/obama-girl/episode/RublicanBoyII_20071227
Complain about this comment
Angry woman expelled
Vindictive? Who, me?
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
David_Cunard (#9):
I've never claimed that Pelosi didn't have her own preference, although she's been careful not to take a public position.
As for California, while Clinton did, indeed, win the early primary, the most recent Field poll reports that Democrats in California now support Obama for the nomination by 51% to 38% for Clinton. This illustrates the fallacy of Clinton's "popular vote" argument. Exactly how the numbers turn out depends on a number of factors, including in what order the primaries occur, whether a state uses a primary or caucus (both in some cases), whether primary voting is open to independents (or to other parties in some cases), and so forth. As a practical matter, the Democratic Party is approximately evenly divided between two candidates, and under the rules this year, it appears that Obama will have the votes to win the nomination. Clinton's (and Ickes') complaints are based only on the fact that it didn't turn out the way she wanted, not on any real principle.
Complain about this comment
Ed,
In this case, I don't give a damn about whether Obama could or could not have played the situation better.
You see, in this case, I don't care about the candidates.
I care about the underlying democracy - or the lack of it - I care about the process.
What totally ticks me off - and what should tick everyone off - is that this is a showcase of absurdidity.
It's an exercise in all that's wrong with US politics. There's nothing here to inspire, to have us believe anything could change for the better:
What we have here is a group of idiots, hell bent on doing what's best for them.
This isn't change. This is Business as Usual.
Right or wrong?
Complain about this comment
"a powerful if flawed case"
You really don't like Obama, do you?
Complain about this comment
David (#14): I read your post #1 before it was removed, and I expect it must have been removed because of the link. The rules specify that any site liked to must satisfy the BBC rules. Your opinion of that site may differ from that of the BBC, but they own this forum and therefore it is theirs that counts. I didn't follow the link, so have no opinion on that myself, but I think your accusation that the BBC moderators are taking sides is preposterous.
Complain about this comment
Justianus,
And I thought I was the cynical one.
To answer your question, I don't know. The rules seem to have been arcane at best, but probably with reasonable intent, but like trying to herd cats. The rules have been upheld (pretty much) in the face of an assault on several fronts by HRC, who has demonstrated a stop-at-nothing rage.
Obama has not only abided by the rules, but shown forbearance and has used the system in a well-organised and systematic way. I believe he has demonstrated many of the qualities I would want in a President, but, as you may know, I'm disappointed in his compromises in disowning Rev Wright and holding his tongue (and even praising) Israel.
I don't like parties, considering them an impediment to true democracy. I like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, but I'm a realist, and I actually like Obama too - a lot.
At root, I'm a jeffersonian democrat - a localist - I believe in minimal government or none.
;-)
ed
I also agree with Gush Shalom that "Peace is with enemies"
Complain about this comment
Ed, #30, this was a Clinton supporter?
If this kind of sentiment is widespread,
then the Democrats don't have a chance.
Leon Panetta hosted a series of panel
discussions in Monterey, and in one of them,
the panelists were James Carville and
Patrick Buchanan.
Carville made the following comment:
"There is good news and bad news about
this election for us Democrats. The good
news is that you would have to talk us
out of winning this election. The bad news
is that you probably could do that."
Complain about this comment
Once again a telling photo of Hilrod: the picture of her smugly smiling face in front of Mount Rushmore's collection of old Presidents' faces. Hilrod looks as if she's expecting a sculptor to begin carving her manic mug up there right now! What has Hilrod got to SMILE about, anyway? What's so funny? The War in Iraq? The foreclosures and the skyrocketing prices of food and other basic necessities? Wouldn't a mature candidate have a serious and extremely concerned look most of the time? Oh - right - that would be Barack Obama! Or is Hilrod just loving her role as SPOILER? Could it be that she's already accepted a position in a hypothetical McCain Cabinet?!!! Everything Hilrod is doing seems designed to help McCain and hurt progressives and Democrats everywhere. DISGUSTING.
Complain about this comment
More is at stake for the Clintons than the nomination. They head a political machine. If they lose the nomination, the machine, for all intents and purposes, will cease to exist. The White House would have been a base of Clinton power, particularly related to influence peddling and the source of their wealth. His connection to foreign enterprises has received little media attention. It must be a big disappointment to the republicans that Obama will be the candidate, since they have no doubt been priming their guns with Clinton scandal. The Clintons are very unsavory and I will be glad to see them gone.
Complain about this comment
#38. Actually, Obama has plenty of baggage of his own, especially related to his associates at that church.
In some ways, he's the gift that keeps on giving.
Complain about this comment
Telling that so many people who have worked with the Clintons prefer Obama. Why? Where is the integrity in not being able to abide by your word – Clinton agreed that the results in Michigan and Florida would not count at a time when she thought she had it in the bag. Does not her lack of integrity tell us what we can expect from her and the few old cronies still supporting her?
Complain about this comment
Nice supporter there for Hillary.
I think this is indicative of her mind set and goes to show that she surrounds herself with haters ...............all the stuff about pastors ..................
This supporter will bring her down.
She is hillary's wright .
Codswallop.I know but so is the arguement that Obama is responsible for wright.
Though i'm in full agreement with Ed because I to think that wright had it right on the money.
again america hates to hear the truth even when they know it.
There's chickens everywhere.
MA2 did you sign up yet?
Complain about this comment
#39. That is merely bad judgment. Were there any fiscal or moral misconduct in Obama's past surely Clinton and McCain would have found it by now. McCain did not favor running against Obama because he DOESN'T have baggage. But we are forgetting the basic struggle which is to get rid of Bush and Bush look-alikes who have steadily stripped us of our rights and our privacy under the guise of protecting us from terrorism. We are moving in the direction of dictatorship. We have to change course.
Complain about this comment
38 all my marbles .
well put though .
I hope she does go.
I worry that she brought out her knife in a fist fight , which is just not cricket .bad enough, but worse she dipped it in dog do to make sure the wound festers.
and she is going to behave like a pest and keep picking the scab.
Complain about this comment
#11 Ed - You write "The parties knew the penalties. etc." If that is so, then it has not been publicised. From what I have read, although the local parties were barred from early primaries, the actual penalty was not set in stone. It took a meeting of the DNC's rules and bye-laws committee to vote on it; they could have levied some other kind of sanction. The Republican-controlled Florida State Legislature appears to have set the date. It seems to me that, considering the problems it has caused, they would have been better off by agreeing to something less Draconian. Contrary to what many posters and other blogs state, I can find nowhere that states that Mrs Clinton herself agreed to this - she was not in a position to do so. With regard to Michigan, the date selected was endorsed by the Republican State Committee. So possibly the two state Democratic parties are not entirely to blame. In any case, I don't believe for one moment that next week will bring closure, unless Mr Obama gives Mrs Clinton assurance of an office of importance. I did see him at a press conference explaining his resignation from Trinity Church and thought him very ill-at-ease, with an inability to answer straight questions from the press. He made President Bush look coherent. Although good with a scripted performance he seems to lack self-confidence when put 'on-the-spot'. Doesn't appear very presidential to me!
#31 Gary_A_Hill; I didn't write that you claimed anything, simply that Nancy Pelosi wasn't unbiased. As for the Field Poll, that carries no weight whatsoever; if polls meant anything perhaps they would have shown a different result in those states who voted for Mr Obama had they been taken immediately after the Wright brouhaha. With reference to your post at #34, to say that the BBC moderators do not take sides made me smile, because I do think that there is anti-Clinton prejudice. The link was to The Washington Post, generally considered to be a reputable newspaper, a column called “The Fix” and which quoted the former Governor of Michigan, James Blanchard. If a moderator can take the time to delete the post and also to send an e-mail advising me of its removal, I would think there would have been an opportunity to expunge whatever was found to be offensive - editing is done by other online publications. That the BBC "owns this forum" has nothing to do with it - arbitrary removal without giving a precise reason seems censorial rather than editorial. "Breaking the house rules" is such a blanket excuse that it could be applied to anyone and anything, with no ability to contest it.
Complain about this comment
#42. That is "merely" bad judgment? To bring your children to hear a preacher or priest sermonize about the evils of a particular group? It's a serious lapse in judgment.
It may come as a surprise to you but not all Americans are focused solely on getting rid of Bush. His term is soon over. Their candidate of choice has to offer more than "I'm not Bush" as a platform.
Obama's made that mistake, too. He described his unconditional willingness to speak with our enemies as a contrast to Bush's unwillingness to do so. He didn't offer a policy position but, rather, a criticism of Bush, which back fired. It is a foolish approach to foreign policy, and he was called on it.
Likewise, the democrats' concerted effort to never mention McCain without also mentioning Bush's name in the same sentence is an obvious ploy to associate them. Anyone who knows anything about McCain understands he's no Bush either.
Complain about this comment
#42. Diplomacy is a fine art. It is not a weakness; it is a strength. You can sit down and get to know your adversary and hopefully reach detente. Or you can do what Bush does - get out the guns. Getting out the guns, except as a last resort, is a weakness, not a strength. The question is "Why did bush get out the guns"? Was it because Saddam Hosein was a bad fellow, or was it because he wanted to secure economic domination over yet another Middle East country? Why is he harrassing Syria and Iran? Because they too have nationalist leaders and are not under US domination. I spent a good many years of my professional life working in the Middle East. I know what motivates Bush. As for his successor, if the Bush machine backs him - he owes them.
Complain about this comment
Sorry. The above comment was meant for #45. As a postscript, I do not think Bush is an intelligent man. I think he is stupid. Many of the Middle East countries under our umbrella are already at flash point. Should the Middle East become destabilized (a situation already in progress) all hell will break lose.
Complain about this comment
"I think he Bush] is stupid. Many of the Middle East countries under our umbrella are already at flash point. Should the Middle East become destabilized (a situation already in progress) all hell will break lose."
and it was stable before "W"s reign? :-)
The only time in history Middle East has been stable and peaceful was under the Ottoman Rule.
Had UK not decided to curve it (out of vengeace) in the aftermath of WWI there'd have not been flash points in the ME because there'd be no such countries as Algeria, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon or Syria.
[Same, incidentally, goes for a powder keg called Balkans]
P.S.Palestine is a geographical term, not a state: never was, never shall be.
Complain about this comment
David,
The MINIMUM penalty under the rules was that which has now been applied, i.e. 1/2 vote. The 13 HRC supporters on the RBC, and especially Mr icky Ickies, enthusiastically applied the maximum of total disfranchisement.
There were intense discussions between the national and state parties which tried to avoid the problem, but the states wouldn't budge. There was virtually no effort on the part of the Florida Democrats to oppose the move in the stste legislature, in fact there was tacit encouragement. Remember the Republican party also penalised Florida.
This was a stupid business all round, but the resolution is pretty sensible, although, no doubt, HRC will continue to try and finagle. I'm with Donna Brazille
.
G'nR, Loved the video!
Meerkitten,
"The only time in history Middle East has been stable and peaceful was under the Ottoman Rule."
Not true, the only times in history the Middle-East hasn't been generally stable and peaceful have been the periods when Europeans have taken an interest, e.g. the Crusades and the last century. Most other times the various ethnicities cohabited reasonably well, though not always as equals. Your point about today's trouble spots being covered with British fingerprints ia apt. there were some French ones as well.
Salaam, etc.
ed
btw, who or what my minister or any of my other friends has to say, is just that - their words, not mine. If I hire them to speak for me, that's another matter - ask McChip.
Complain about this comment
#48. I agree, but instead of ameliorating the situation, Bush is making it worse.
Complain about this comment
Will either Clinton especially the one wearing the trousers(Hilary)be forgiven by the Democrats if the election is lost, and the party split with McCain as president all because she just can't see she's lost.
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
"To bring your children to hear a preacher or priest sermonize about the evils of a particular group? It's a serious lapse in judgment."
Can you please provide some EVIDENCE that Rev Wright has EVER sermonized "about the evils of a particular group"?
Please.
There's none of that in here.
Salaam/Shalom, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
The whole Hillary Clinton show seems to have become a tragic comedy.
The passionate response to events from her supporters would be understandable if there was some obvious ideological difference between the two candidates.
In that absence of that, the only objection to an Obama nomination would have to be, as my Floridian aunt says, "once he got into the White House he would look after his own".
Or as phrased above: "different strokes for different folks".
And frankly that attitude, from across the pond, looks ludicrous at best.
It only serves to increase Sen. Obama's stature that he continues to deal with all this with dignity.
And wow, I thought you lot would struggle with a woman as a nominee...
:)
Complain about this comment
#51. The party won't splt, unless Clinton decides to go independent. Barring that, the democrats will win no matter who runs. Not only is feeling high against the war and other Bush agendas, but democrats so outnumber republicans, in large part due to Obama's registration campaign, that they will win for that reason alone. As to whether Hillary will be "forgiven," much of Washington is happy to see the backs of the pair. Keep in mind the strong showing of Obama in the D.C., Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia primaries. These constitute an area close to the seat of power. What does that tell us? It is not a question of forgiveness, it is a question of goodbye and good riddance.
Complain about this comment
I am amazed that my comment number 5 was deleted due to House Rules. I take it because of the phrase, 'in the kitchen'. Too funny.
Hillary Clinton would be so proud of you, whoever you are. Political correctness to an extreme. I guess we shouldn't have been allowed to enjoy Hillary as Hitler, which Justin shared, either. Shame on the BBC. Given Radio 4 now is swearing like a marine, which I find extremely offensive, this is super silly.
I think the comment should be reinstated and offered for comment by readers.
Complain about this comment
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Hilliary is a selfish person who is delusional about her supporters. She has baited them on to look like screaming shrews-evidenced at the meeting yesterday. I don't care about reverends, etc. I care about how Obama's team put together a very smooth running campaign that handled all glitches so far in a very diplomatic way. I care about the fact that he has been able to keep his campagin afloat financially. Do I want someone in debt, someone who keeps changing course on attitudes, issues? Someone who spends two weekends in PR drumming up more votes, when she is already in the lead there and heavily in debt? Do I want someone whose spouse is a loose cannon? Get the picture? I just hope she doesn't do what i think she will-undermine Obama's election.
Complain about this comment
#52. Again, there is plenty of "evidence" of Reverend Wright's accusing groups of egregious acts -- for those willing to acknowledge it.
Perhaps it is you who should provide "evidence" that all the videos of actual sermons are not accusing others of egregious acts?
Middle Eastern history is full of wide scale killing. That killing has been exported by Saudia Arabia. It existed long before Bush. To pretend that the Middle East was "peaceful" before is simply an act of denial.
al Qaeda may not have been in Iraq prior to this war, but neither had it been rejected by a Middle Eastern county as it has been today. Iraq is a country that has seen the ugliness of AQ and has fought to rid itself of it.
Complain about this comment
Joann,
Did you get an email explaining the reason? And do you agree? Try posting again, because I'd like to judge for myself.
Best wishes, and good luck
ed
P.S. When in any doubt, it's prudent to save a copy in a "notepad" or other desktop text file - just in case.
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
"Perhaps it is you who should provide "evidence" that all the videos of actual sermons are not accusing others of egregious acts?"
It is well known that it's impossible to prove a negative. The sermon I linked to has no such accusations in it. I suspect (reading between your lines) that you don't like references to the virtual apartheid practised in Israel/Palestine, but there were no accusations against "groups", whether Jews or Zionists, though certainly the latter may be justifiably implied.
The "group" accused of egregious acts is "We", as is the job of any man of God to highlight OUR culpability, no matter how uncomfortable that may be for those with a guilty conscience.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
-ed
"Peace is with Enemies" as Gush Shalom says, and I agree.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ickes' Achey breaky heart, including seven stages of grief.
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
We've all seen Saturday Night Live, now here's Sunday Morning Live
Which is worse?
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Obama has many associations that directly contradict his message of unity. His unions are quite controversial and do not sit well with middle-of-the-roaders.
He is turning out to be an ideal candidate to run against McCain.
It's quite entertaining to watch the democrats equate the successes in Iraq with Bush policy. By all means, please do.
Complain about this comment
Andrea,
"Obama has many associations that directly contradict his message of unity."
And McCain's message of 'no lobbyists'?
I don't think there's ever been a campaign team as infested with special interests
as McChip's since they resurrected it from an early grave.
A pushover!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Dear 'ed',
Yes, an email has appeared. And, I am sure that someone took issue with 'in the kitchen' as a 'sexist' remark. I still think this is silly.
At least, in suggesting that senior Democrats put her in her place, I didn't say she could go to a place that may or may not exist, is very hot, and eternal.
Never mind. The email included the comment with the 'offensive' sentence deleted and gave me the option of changing my last sentence.
Extreme political correctness... no room for a jest. Baking cookies must also be a problem for the rules.
Complain about this comment
The real question is why would the country vote for a party, that says one thing, then does another.
This is so typical of DNC to fail to stand by its own rules when under pressure.
This country cannot survive another Laissez Faire Democratic Congress – or Prez - we need an experienced, strong willed, decision maker like McCain and a GOP controlled Congress to get things done efficiently and effectively.
Remember; Clinton lost their 40 year grip on Congress and watched as Newt’s ‘Contract for America’ do more in 100 days than any Democratic Presidency and Congress has done in decades!
Complain about this comment
Joann53
"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."
Hillary Clinton 1992
Complain about this comment
And what's Hillary's profession?
Particularly in view of what professional activities her husband had been preoccupied with most of his time in his public life?
Complain about this comment
Hillarys a lawyer. She and Bill met in Yale law school ...in the library : )
For a while she was on the board of Walmart in Arkansas
Complain about this comment
At this moment of triumph for Obama and the Democrats, McCain and the Republicans will do their worst, starting with the matter of experience. Which takes me back to George H. W. Bush and 'the vision thing'. Obama might be well-advised to consider just that sort of oblique reply, updating Reagan's 'There you go again' at the same time.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS