5 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumblePublished Monday, Jan. 14, 2008 | 12:07 p.m.
Updated Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008 | 2:14 p.m.
This went out to my Flash subscribers a little while ago:
Former president tells crowd at Green Valley High School -- and this is near-verbatim from one of my media colleagues who is there:
"(Why) make a special rule only for these workers, for the rest of you other workers, tough luck. I think the rules ought to be the same for everyone. I question why you would ever have a temporary caucus site and limit to a certain kind of workers....I don't think you ought to favor one kind of worker over another."
If you want to subscribe, go to: RalstonFlash.com
Shame on you Mr. President. Were you unaware of the terms of this caucus until this past weekend? Did Mrs. Clinton not have advisors at the meetings when the terms of this caucus were adopted? Are you so willing to disenfranchise one type of worker who would not otherwise have the opportunity to participate in the process in favor of another who does already have that opportunity? Silence would have been the preferred course of action here, Mr. President. Nevada doesn't have that many delegates. But New Jersey and New York do. What are the union members there wondering about this tactic? Are they either with Mrs. Clinton or just out of the process altogether? How very Cheney of you. Unfortunately, after the November election, Mrs. Clinton has herein lost any chance of Senate leadership by attacking a purely party process in an untimely and unseemly manner and remaining on the ballot in Michigan.
Honestly, you were better than this. Are you betraying a sincere lack of confidence in Mrs. Clinton's chances? Don't you think the organized workers in Florida, California, Louisiana and Illinois won't be offended and lash out against any candidate who tries to keep their brothers from any polling place or the caucus site? Mrs. Clinton had one chance to save this by publicly asking that the suit be dropped because equity would not have permitted a remedy that wouldn't have disenfranchised someone if the suit was found meritorious and any one person denied participation would be repugnant to her. But now you've gone and opened your cake hole in support of this meritricious abuse of process that adds new meaning to the word estoppel and locked her in to it, connecting her to the suit as she were wearing it. Poorly thought out, Mr. President.
And isn't it nice that you'll be able to do that, Nikki. Unless, of course you're a strip day shift employee scheduled to work next Saturday. If that's the case, Nikki, your candidate doesn't want you to be able to caucus at all.
Now do you think that he would be saying this if Hillary got the nod from the Culinary Union? I don't. In fact, the group trying to dismiss the at large caucus' sites is a group that very early supported and endorsed Hillary. Do you think they would be in court trying to limit participation if the Culinary Union had endorsed their candidate? No way!.....A great ironic fact is that the blockers are the Teacher's Union. The same people who are charged with teaching inclusion and diversity as well as the value of democracy. Guess when it comes to the Clintons and winning an election all ethics and bets are off........It's as if they prefer the Soviet system of elections rather then our own......
...THEN YOUR A UNION MEMBER AND YOUR A MORON!!!
This question and answer is captured on a local newsreel (Channel 3). According to some students, President Clinton seemed as if he did not want to answer the question, but did after Governor Miller leaned over to explain the student's question to him.