My brother asks me why I dislike Hillary Clinton so much.

I could go on forever, but I tell him about the Nevada caucus lawsuit and the twisting of the Reagan comment.

His jaw dropped. He is beyond appalled.

But you pretty much have to be starstruck by Obama to ignore it.

he knew exactly what I was getting at. He thought it weird that people don't understand what Obama was saying. Didn't think people were that...well I'll leave that word out so I don't hurt anyone's feelings.

they'd self-identified as PNAC. His people scammed him into the White House by making a deal with the Iranians, which they then got snapped on passing arms and money back and forth between Iran and the Contras in direct defiance of Congress. Bush Senior was widely viewed as the real brains behind the Presidency and now his boy is occupying the White House and carrying on many of the same short-sighted policies his Daddy's puppet espoused.

Reagan was a lying, self-righteous asshole. Nothing to admire. Obama stuck his foot in it plain and simple and those who weren't disgusted are either too young to remember Reagan first-hand, or too awestruck to see it. It's as simple as that.

and wrong to think that the quote from Obama was somehow an endorsement of all the things you wrote.

BTW, quotes from both Bill and Hillary (and neither were excerpted from Reagan's funeral) about old Ronnie Ray-gun have been posted here in the last 24 hours. They were MUCH more complementary of Ronald Wilson Reagan than Obama was.

So I suppose you will now have (once you have verified that what I write is true) the same level of moral outrage with them as you do with Obama... right?

Just tell me that it's not selective. That if Hillary makes a mistake or misleads, you get just as angry with her AND just as unforgiving as you do with Obama.

And I promise that I'll do the same. (Course, I'm not outraged at either of them for saying something nice about Reagan. Reagan can't hurt us anymore and it costs nothing to suck up to those who liked Reagan and despise Bush, but then maybe we don't need their votes come November)

is plain ol' civility. Trying to tie oneself to a human anchor like Reagan by verbally admiring his allegedly "transformational" nature--while not once condemning everything he stood for--is a different thing entirely. Coupled with his comments about the Republican Party being the "Party of ideas for the past fifteen years" and his commentary about the "excesses of the sixties and seventies," he lost any iota of respect I might have had for him.

than we did?

I wonder about that all the time.

If we can use Reagan's experience in a positive way to get done all the things we want done, would that be so bad?

Instead of someone who's goal was to destroy the Middle Class ,and promote Capitalism (Fascism)

The only Presidents I know are from Carter on.

I would have liked him to promote the presidencies of JFK and FDR. Those are democratic heroes. But raygun ronnie? I threw up a little when i heard that.

I mean he could have given Jimmy Carter a little credit too. It was RayGun's Arms for Hostages that torpedoed Carter, that needs to be brought up every time Lonnie Raygun is mentioned.

is going to get screwed by 8 years of repub screw ups. Some of the pointers are the same, heading towards recession, inflation rising and oil worries. Setting up for a perfect storm to do what was done to Carter.

you got the snippet about Reagan, and called it a day

I searched and found only this.

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

"I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it has to do with the times. I think we are in one of those fundamentally different times right now were people think that things, the way they are going, just aren't working."

you know, where both Bill and Hillary wax poetic about Ronnie Ray-gun.

Not done at his funeral.

Sorry.

I'm sure you probably have seen them... I didn't bookmark.

I just find it humorous that you will absolutely tear down an accurate assessment of Ronnie... not his policies, but the person.

Do you think fondly of Tip O'Neill? I KNOW Hillary does. Guess who was Tip's bestest friend in Washington.

Yup, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Tip opposed everything that Reagan stood for... but they were best buds.

From wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip_O'Neill#O.27Neill_at_odds_with_President_Ronald_Reagan

O'Neill became a leading opponent of the Reagan administration's domestic and defense policies. This political rivalry was comparable to that of Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. O'Neill called Reagan the most ignorant man who had ever occupied the White House. O'Neill also said that Reagan was "Herbert Hoover with a smile" and "a cheerleader for selfishness". He also said that Reagan's policies meant that his presidency meant it was "One big Christmas party for the rich". Privately, O'Neill and Reagan were always on cordial terms, or as Reagan himself put it in his memoirs, they were only friends "after 5PM"

So now what... does that change your opinion of Tip? Should it?

Why is everyone so bothered about "faint praise" that Obama gave Reagan, especially when the interviewer was asking about historical Presidents?

I really hated Reagan. But I don't care that Obama said something that might be construed as nice about the man. Him being dead and all that.

I guess I should be bothered that Hillary is taking money from Murdoch, seeing how Murdoch is one of the most evil persons on the planet, imho. And they pal around together. Bothers me a little... but I sure don't go on and on about it. Some Obama supporters do... but not me. Bothers me a lot more that she is a frequent visitor to a group called "The Fellowship" in Washington. Joins them for prayer services and conversation. Those people scare me more than Murdoch. But it doesn't seem to bother her supporters too much. So, well, I don't go on and on about that either.

Almost 50. Why do you think that was?

he tried to get rid of my Dad's job (Federally Funded State job). That was a freak out for the family.

But I do see how others perceived him and I can appreciate what he brought to the table in communication skills. What he did for his Republican party is what I want my next President to do for our Democratic Party, not in issues, but in scope of reach.

Hardly "transformative."

And FWIW, yes I'm old enough to have voted against Reagan twice. His success had little to do with ideology/policy. That's just the heavily-funded and carefully-constructed (neofascist) beltway myth.

---

And appealed to the very worst in the American heart and soul.

That's why.

dropped when they decided to divide voters by trying to make Obama the "black candidate."

:rofl:

doesn't bring the lawsuit until AFTER the culinary union endorses Obama...

You have to be pretty clueless to not get it.

Perhaps you could take it to Broadway?

Expose all the shenanigans that go down in the dirty world of Bill and Hillary.

This stuff makes me ill.

freaked out and tried to prevent the people from voting at all two days after the CWU endorsed Obama. It's called Voter Disenfranchisement, but I doubt you'll find it playing anywhere on Broadway.

Disgusting people do disgusting things.

Rupert Murdoch who is the number 1 nemesis of the progressive movement in the US

If your brother has a weak stomach I would not advise him looking at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog

the one brought by the teachers' unions? Why yes, that is such wickedness, those evil teachers and their evil unions. How dare they get upset because they thought the Nevada caucus system rendered their votes less valuable than the votes of casino workers!

Why, it's almost as bad as that time the labor unions in Iowa decided to run a polite advertisement saying what they believe in. Those evil labor unions!

And it's almost as bad as those long-time advocates of health-care reform, Jonathan Cohn and Paul Krugman, who came out and said that some health-care plans are better than others! How dare they!

It must be hard to be an Obama supporter. It takes a lot of work to convince yourself that a bad candidate is a good one. Unions are bad, teachers are bad, democracy is bad, universal health care is bad, wanting to get out of Iraq soon is bad, up is down and blue is green, here in Obamaland.

I can't see why any teacher wouldn't want people who have to work on Saturdays to not participate in our democracy.

It's antithetical to everything this country stands for.

Take a look at this if you don't believe me: http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/13/actual-impact--large-precincts/#

The teachers' unions thought that every casino vote was going to count as much as five non-casino votes. That article disputes the math, but it's not simple, at all. The article concludes that the lawsuit wasn't worthwhile -- but the detailed mathematical argument goes to show that the teachers' unions had legitimate reasons to fear that their votes weren't going to count as much.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.

If they had brought this up before the endorsement, then maybe I might believe that.

But knowing how it went down, I call BS!

Either it had been in the works for a long time, for all those people to co-sign it, or the teachers' union had a scheduled meeting and signed it there.

look at the plaintiffs TRO with the concrete example that they came up with.. which they claim shows a 10 to 1 influence advantage by the Casino caucus goers, not 5 to 1 as the Clinton's (direct quote from Bill) stated.

I posted the plaintiffs TRO motion in another reply in this thread... or you can google it for yourself.

But they are comparing apples to oranges. Registered voters in a Precinct to voters that SHOW UP at the At-Large.

And they picked (in their example) a very low turn out (only 260 out of 2500 registered) for the At-Large and then their example precinct had 261 REGISTERED voters (only they never say how many turn up). Note the use of 260 showing up and 261 registered.

That wasn't just lucky... they choose those numbers in their flawed apples to oranges example JUST SO they could show the vaunted 10 to 1 advantage. Like this...

261 / 50 = 5 delegates for the home precinct.
2500 / 50 = 50 delegates for the at large.

But voter influence is calculated like this.

number of delegates divided by number of registered voters in home precinct = 5 / 261 or 0.019

number of delegates divided by number that showed up to vote for the At-Large = 50 / 260 or 0.19

0.19 is ten times bigger than 0.019! See what happens when you pick the numbers carefully and compare apples to oranges!

How clever. Well, not really. It's very simple to understand once you know they are comparing apples (registered voters) to oranges (voters that showed up to vote).

there was never anything unfair about the At-Large... nor against the rules.

The At-Large caucus were assigned delegates at a ratio of 50 registered Democratic voters that would work within a 2.5 mile radius of the location of the caucus on that Saturday at 11:00am to 1 delegate to the state convention.

The normal Home precinct rule was 50 registered Democratic voters that live in the precinct for a urban area to one delegate to the state convention.

Exactly the same.

In fact, it was possible that the TEACHERS might have a tich more influence...

Like this.

John and 49 buddies live in precinct 1001 but all of them work at the Bellagio on Saturday. Since they are already registered to vote in precinct 1001, there will be ONE and exactly ONE delegate the would represent them, even though there is NO chance for them to vote in Precinct 1001 (the 50 - 1 ratio). That's OK because they will go caucus at their work place and get the ONE delegate that represents them there. But what about the delegate at Precinct 1001? That person doesn't evaporate. Precinct 1001 still gets that delegate... so whoever shows UP at Precinct 1001 and caucuses, will get that EXTRA delegate, even though the voters that registered caused that delegate to be awarded to 1001 are NOT there to make their voices heard.

Concrete example.

John and the 49 other workers are all going to vote for Edwards.

Precinct 1001 has 200 registered voters, 50 of which are John and his fellow casino workers.
Precinct 1001 gets 4 delegates, but because the other 150 voters that show up in 1001 to vote, all vote for Hillary, those 150 voters get 4 delegates, not 3 because 200 REGISTERED / 50 = 4.

John and his fellow neighbors and coworkers caucus at the casino... and they are the ONLY ONES to vote for Edwards. But that's alright, there are 50 of them and they get ONE delegate for Edwards.

so... 150 voters get 4 delegates for Hillary V. 50 voters getting 1 delegate for Edwards.

The math says that the 150 voters in Precinct 1001 have MORE influence than the 50 voters in the At-Large.

Not by much, but definitely MORE. Just the opposite of what the Clinton supporters were spreading around... and what Bill Clinton, who is also a lawyer, said just before the caucus. He said, on tape, that the influence was 5 to 1 the other way.
That is, casino workers that caucus in the At-Large get 5 times as much influence as the poor teachers that caucus at their home precinct. Only it was a lie. And being a lawyer and one of the world's smartest people, he should have known it. Or kept his trap shut on the matter. Lawyers mostly know that they shouldn't say things to be true if they haven't really checked on it. Goes exponentially more for Presidents and ex-Presidents (current liar in chief being an exception, sigh)

less valuable than the votes of casino workers!"

They may have felt that way, but it was never ever true. Read the lawsuit and the motion for the TRO (especially the bottom of page 3 and top of page 4 where the lawyers for the plaintiffs tried to explain how "unfair" the At-Large caucuses were.

Here... I'll paste the entire plaintiffs case (it's short)...

end of page 3, top of page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
extraordinary scenario, likely to occur on January 19:

John and Jane Voter, each registered Party voters living in the same home in the Clark County Precinct 1001, are shift workers as a casino located on the Las Vegas Strip. John is scheduled to work at his place of employment on January 19, 2008, with his work schedule including the time of the caucus. He make the necessary arrangements to attend his assigned At-Large caucus. Two hundred-sixty other eligible shift workers also attend this At-Large caucus. The At-Large caucus participants choose 52 delegates to the Clark County Convention. John's voice in the At-Large caucus could be assigned a value of 0.19%.

Jane, by seeming good fortune, is not scheduled to work on the day of the caucus, so she is able to attend her home precinct caucus. Because Precinct 1001 has 261 registered delegates, she and the other participants at this precinct caucus choose 5 delegates to the Clark County Convention. Jane's influence in her home caucus could be assigned a value of 0.019%

Thus, pursuant to the Plan, this couple, both of whom live in the same house and work for the same employer, would have their caucus votes treated in vastly different manners. Jane's voice would be ONE-TENTH the value of her husband's, for no other reason than that her employer did not schedule her to work during the time of the caucus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and now YOU tell me if this is a flawed argument. Look carefully at WHO is counted in the two examples.

Ok, just so you don't have to work at it.

In the Jane Voter math, they count the number of "registered voters" where as in the "John Voter" math, they only count the voters that showed up to caucus. They never tell the reader (the judge that dismissed it) that they are comparing apples to oranges. To see what I mean, do the math for Jane, but only count the 20 voters that showed up... and then see what the "influence" factor is for Jane and compare to John's. Amazing how that works.

Anyway, your mind is made up... it was a rightous lawsuit to keep those culinary workers (that had to work on Saturday) from gaining UNDUE INFLUENCE on the convention... it was not a last minute attempt to keep ONLY THOSE Culinary union workers from voting.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. Because to believe anything else, well... you might not like Hillary that much anymore.

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

Hell, people think they see images of Jesus in burnt toast after all...

follow the example given right out of the TRO motion filed by the plaintiffs.

You might lie, or I might lie or the Clintons or Obama might lie. Even statistics can be twisted to appear to be a lie.

But math does not lie.

And they aren't using statistics here. Just numbers.

Be sure you catch where they start comparing apples to oranges (registered voters to voters that show up to vote)

If you can prove my math wrong or my assertion of comparing apples to oranges... I PROMISE to vote for Hillary in the primary.

But if you can't... all I ask is that you consider the lies you were told and who pushed it... and the timing of the lawsuit, and the purpose of the TRO had it been granted. And think about it. That's all, just think about it. Is that the kind of candidate we want to run in the general... do we have to be like Republicans to beat Republicans?

Sorry...I just see burnt toast.

:shrug:

Ok, no problem... I see that this is a blind allegiance problem.

could have had yourself two votes for Hillary.

The math is simple. I've done it for you. And posted the example written by the lawyers that filed the lawsuit... right out of their own motion for a TRO.

Not complicated at all.

Just seriously flawed.

But whatever.

So let go of those distortions.

I said "How dare they get upset because they thought the Nevada caucus system rendered their votes less valuable than the votes of casino workers!"

And yes, I know the system didn't make their votes significantly less valuable. That's why I said "they thought" it would. After a number of people crunched the numbers, they didn't push for the lawsuit anymore. They chose not to appeal the judge's decision.

The people involved are people. They weren't some faceless horde of brainwashed stooges for Hillary Clinton, and the attempts to portray them as such is as laughable as it is appalling.

Take a look at some of the ridiculous spin the anti-Hillary brigade has been pushing:

"(Senator Harry) Reid’s neutrality, which is seen by Obama supporters as a tilt toward Clinton..."

His neutrality shows that he favors Clinton? Wha?

"Some of the activists were active backers of state Sen. Dina Titus’ failed 2006 bid for governor. Titus, a Democratic national committeewoman, has endorsed Clinton."

Uh, wha? A state senator has such a slavish following that she owns their minds and souls? Because she endorses Clinton, that means that everyone who ever supported her is a Clintonista?

And THAT is the basis of the argument that the teachers' unions were in Hillary's pocket. Some of the many people who pushed for this lawsuit had once supported a woman who has endorsed Hillary, therefore... the teachers' unions are corrupt!

Wha?

Harry Reid pushed for a caucus system, which results in a lot more control from party officials than a primary.

This is quacking like a duck to me also.

And I do not blame Nevada teachers for the actions of their union. I believe the teachers didn't even vote on the endorsement. It was a few people at the top who made this decision.

Maybe if a number of the people who had approved the original decision for the caucus weren't the ones who brought the lawsuit I wouldn't be so suspicious. But the whole thing stank, and as you say, their concerns regarding the counts weren't even valid.

Lastly, I have no idea who Dina Titus is.

Here is one of the connections...

-snip-
The Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat, but some of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The association’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.
-snip-

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/12/133648/896

The author goes on to state the they don't think Hillary was behind the lawsuit... but the connections are a lot more solid that you just portrayed.

And yes, the people involved are people. What was the purpose in the lawsuit? Why try to suppress the vote? And why file it months and months after the final plan was adopted and published, but only two days after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama?

If the plaintiffs had fairness issues with the plan, why did 4 of the plaintiffs help draft the plan?

Oh yeah, you don't know, who knows... people are people. There isn't any connection to the Clintons.

Only, wasn't it Big Dog himself, right before the ruling, that was making the bogus argument that the plan unfairly advantaged the Casino workers by giving them a 5 to 1 influence advantage over other Democrats not caucusing in the casinos?

Oh yeah, it WAS Big Dog... right on my TEEVEE. Lying his ass off. But Hillary had nothing to do with it! (Why do I hear Sargent Schultz right now?)

Doesn't that make one wonder just a wee bit what they knew that the Obama supporters DON'T?

What it does is it convinces me that Bill and other Hillary supporters were effective in distorting the lawsuit and it's intent and in it's argument of unfairness.

After all, if a former Democratic President shows up and tells you that X in unfair, and you don't have the education ( you aren't a lawyer and reading motions and shit is not for the untrained) or the time to look into it... would you believe him or her? Especially if there are many others from your union and from your circle of friends telling you the same thing?

The voters were sold a "bill" of goods.

The lawsuit never had merit. It was wrong on the facts. The intent was to disenfranchise. The voters that caucused for Hillary were fooled.

You know what? So were all the voters that pulled the lever for Bush... twice.

Sad but true.

Thanks for all that explanation. The lengths people will go to are very troubling.

The voters who caucused for Hillary WEREN'T fooled.

People who voted for Bush were fooled. Twice, as you say.

This is because the Bush campaign kept people in the dark about issues, about policies. They ran on a pure campaign of "who you like vs. who you don't like," and nobody likes the nerd who always talks about policies.

How many Bush voters knew where he stood on the issues?

How many Obama voters know where he stands on the issues?

Do they know he plans to commit more troops to Iraq than Hillary and Edwards? Do they know he intends to keep them there longer? In order to "strike back against al Qaeda in Iraq," his website says.

Do they know he plans to leave 15 million poor people uninsured and drive up the costs of their medical care?

Obama vs. Hillary, or Obama vs. Edwards, is Bush vs. Gore all over again. Almost everyone who votes for him, doesn't know what he stands for. This isn't true of Hillary, and it isn't true of Edwards.

Those who voted for Hillary knew what they were voting for. Those who voted for Edwards knew what they were voting for. Only Obama's supporters were fooled.

and the angrier I get.

I have very concrete reasons for disliking Bill and Hillary. Like this one:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Did_Hillarys_Senate_run_cost_Gore_1001.html

Once Hillary decided she would run for Senate in New York, following the resignation of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Bill Clinton divided his substantial fundraising prowess and White House clout between her campaign and Gore's. Some advisers to the former vice president saw Clinton as diverting attention and resources from Gore for his wife.

"As a sitting president, Bill was in a unique position to boost his vice president's candidacy by scheduling White House events to highlight his achievements," Smith writes. "But in 1999 those resources were diverted from Gore to Hillary 'in a big way,' said one member of the Gore team. 'The Clintons come first. That was their basic framework.'"

In the last half of that year, according to Smith, Bill and Hillary appeared at 20 White House events, compared to just one for Gore, a mental health conference that also included his wife along with the president and first lady. Also in 1999, Hillary had 86 speeches posted on the White House Web site, up from 31 two years earlier and four times as many as the president and vice president combined.

"With the Hillary and Gore campaigns revving up at the same time, the three-way tensions evident in the White House since 1993 became a more serious problem," Smith writes. "Now Gore's campaign advisers began to worry that Hillary's candidacy would actually have an adverse effect on their candidate. ... Not only was Hillary unavailable as a campaigner, she was poaching top Democratic fund-raisers and donors who would normally concentrate on the vice president."

You can't blame Clinton for this, no matter what opinion piece you cite.

than Hillary winning a Senate seat. Bill used his fundraisers more for Hillary than for Gore. Gore should have got more of the machinery to keep the Presidency in our hands, but it didn't happen. This has nothing to do with who Bill Clinton is appearing with...this is all behind the scenes stuff.

And to have more of Hillary's speeches as first lady than Al Gore's speeches as Vice President? How can you think that is perfectly fine?

Lastly, Al Gore believed that Bill Clinton's scandals cost Gore the Presidency:

"A veneer of public graciousness between the president and vice president concealed their intensifying private anger over each other's role in the electoral outcome," Smith writes. "At Gore's request, they met in the Oval Office on Thursday, December 21, to air their differences. It was an unpleasant encounter, as Gore forthrightly blamed Bill's scandals, while Bill rebuked Gore for failing to make the most of their successful record. Afterward, Bill told Sidney Blumenthal they had parted after 'patching everything up,' but in fact the mutual resentments among the Clintons and Gores persisted."

was one of the main reasons he lost. But we could debate that election forever. I think you're really really making a stretch to try to attack Hillary Clinton with this extremely weak and speculative attack on Bill Clinton.

I think it is.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

and you just want a venue to spew anti-Clinton hate.

I see the Clintons as an obstacle to the change I want to see in my lifetime. They make everything about them when they should be serving us.

You can't make it all about them and then blame them for making it all about them. That's pretty damned circular.

Hillary isn't even campaigning in SC, Bill is.

Do you honestly think I would be this mad at him if he stayed in the background and played the role of dignified ex-President? I would still dislike a whole lot about him, but I post because he is driving me crazy with all his twisted words.

to the Clinton people that they considered bill a liability and that they did not want him campaigning except when asked by the gore campaign. Including fundraising (which wasn't really an issue anyway, gore took federal matching funds and raised the limit anyway)

at every stump speech... he could still have used the help in fund raising. And in scheduling press events at the White House that would have highlighted Gore's substantial contributions to the administration... even without Bill present at those events. Bill was a lame duck and had a bad scandal associated with him... he should have helped behind the scenes.

With you it's all about Clenis.

Didn't even mention Bill.

I was trying to not be sexist. :eyes:

And it's damn sure saying a lot about you!

he was BSing for a conservative newspaper in an attempt to get their endorsement. Obama blew it--he praised Reagan and the republicans to suck up--he just did not think the people would find out about it.

I do not know why you hold Clinton to a higher standard

"Divide and Conquer."

I won't be conflicted if HRC snags the Dem nod, because then, it will be PROVEN that the DLC (sugar coated Goldwater Conservatives) Wing of The Democratic Party has FULLY TAKEN OVER. If you go to their website, you will quickly discern that liberals need NOT APPLY. :(


http://www.dlc.org/