NationStates Jolt Archive

Before the Nevada caucus, the Clinton campaign tried to shut down rules allowing casino shift workers to caucus at work.

Now?

I still have concerns about caucuses," Clinton said. "I met people today, when I was visiting a couple of hotels, who said they couldn't get off work. To me, the caucuses don't provide the broad base of participation that I have fought for my entire life.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton-espress.html

This is yet another reason NOT to vote for Hillary. As soon as it suits her purpose she flip-flops on an issue.

This is yet another reason NOT to vote for Hillary. As soon as it suits her purpose she flip-flops on an issue.
Ummm, what politician doesn't? Even those who say they are principled are ultimately opportunistic or they wouldn't be in the profession (or go very far in it).

As I've mentioned before Clinton will literally do anything to get the nomination at this point. She's been planning this for the best part of a decade, and she won't let it slip out of her grasp. She's going to try every dirty trick in the book before she concedes, believe me.

She cares not where the votes come from, just as long as they vote for her.

Ummm, what politician doesn't? Even those who say they are principled are ultimately opportunistic or they wouldn't be in the profession (or go very far in it).
There are(or were) a rare few who actually (This might be shocking) Stick to what they say!:eek: Of course, we(the people) choose who gets far in our country so your statement just proves that most people are idiots:p

Ummm, what politician doesn't? Even those who say they are principled are ultimately opportunistic or they wouldn't be in the profession (or go very far in it).

From what I have seen of McCain he doesn't switch a number of his stances even when they alienate a large portion of people that would be voting for him. The same could be said for Guiliani and his large amount of counter-republican stances that he won't change.

Click Stand;13386961']From what I have seen of McCain he doesn't switch a number of his stances even when they alienate a large portion of people that would be voting for him. The same could be said for Guiliani and his large amount of counter-republican stances that he won't change.

McCain changed on quite a bit since he didn't get the nomination 7 years ago. He went from seeming like a free thinker to being a party patsy on pretty much everything but torture.

Before the Nevada caucus, the Clinton campaign tried to shut down rules allowing casino shift workers to caucus at work.

Now?


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton-espress.html

And what did her campaign say before hand?

“While we were not involved in this lawsuit and have always said that we would play by the rules that we’re given, it has always been our hope that every Nevadan should have equal access and opportunity to participate in the caucus,” the statement said. “Make no mistake — the current system that inhibits some shift workers from being able to participate, while allowing others to do so, would seem to benefit other campaigns. More importantly it is unfair.”

This doesn't really seem that inconsistant with what she said afterwards, so I'm having a hard time finding the controversy.

Plus, it's not entirely accurate to say that her campaign tried to shut it down-
The ruling was seen to favor Mr. Obama, who won the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union, whose workers will be allowed to take a break from their shifts on Saturday to caucus. The Clinton campaign had not taken a formal position on the lawsuit, but several supporters had brought the court action. As he campaigned across Nevada this week, former President Bill Clinton argued about the unfairness of caucusing in casinos.

But I will grant that having supporters do it while not taking an official position (especially when she seemed in favor of a particular ruling) is a bit of political 'having the cake and eating it, too.'

Still, don't really see the controversy here. I'm not a fan of Hilary Clinton, but I don't think grabbing at straws is really necessary.

EDIT: Forgot the source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/us/politics/17cnd-campaign.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

McCain changed on quite a bit since he didn't get the nomination 7 years ago. He went from seeming like a free thinker to being a party patsy on pretty much everything but torture.

And he probably would have changed there too if it weren't for his own experiences in being tortured.

There are(or were) a rare few who actually (This might be shocking) Stick to what they say!:eek: Of course, we(the people) choose who gets far in our country so your statement just proves that most people are idiots:p
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

There's enough to go after the major candidates on without inventing more of it. The OP here is made of lint.

Before the Nevada caucus, the Clinton campaign tried to shut down rules allowing casino shift workers to caucus at work.

Now?


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton-espress.html

Clinton: "Wah! wah! I didn't win Nevada because not enough people voted for me, Wah, It's not fair, WAH! *she pouts and storms off*"

:p

This is yet another reason NOT to vote for Hillary. As soon as it suits her purpose she flip-flops on an issue.

Like right after Iowa, she was all for change.

This is yet another reason NOT to vote for Hillary. As soon as it suits her purpose she flip-flops on an issue.

Yeah, because we'd all rather have a leader who doesn't change their opinions and minds on issues, no matter what, right?:rolleyes:

For starters: Clinton actually won the Nevada Caucus but ironicly enough is still trailing Obama in delegate numbers. I find that very funny.

Secondly, Clinton needs to go away.

Click Stand']From what I have seen of McCain he doesn't switch a number of his stances even when they alienate a large portion of people that would be voting for him. The same could be said for Guiliani and his large amount of counter-republican stances that he won't change.

He went from calling the christofacists "agents of intolerance" to kissing their collective asses for votes. That's a nasty evil flip-flop.

McCain changed on quite a bit since he didn't get the nomination 7 years ago. He went from seeming like a free thinker to being a party patsy on pretty much everything but torture.

Indeed so - torture and immigration.

But I will grant that having supporters do it while not taking an official position (especially when she seemed in favor of a particular ruling) is a bit of political 'having the cake and eating it, too.'

Billary may deny it, but this has her fingerprints all over it.

Still, don't really see the controversy here. I'm not a fan of Hilary Clinton, but I don't think grabbing at straws is really necessary.

Exposing dirty tricks for what they are =/= grasping at straws.

EDIT: Forgot the source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/us/politics/17cnd-campaign.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

I'm a sucker for sourcers. ;)

For starters: Clinton actually won the Nevada Caucus but ironicly enough is still trailing Obama in delegate numbers. I find that very funny.

Hmmmm... The delegates are what count. 13 to 12 is a loss how?

Secondly, Clinton needs to go away.

Exactly so - before she costs the country another four years....

Hmmmm... The delegates are what count. 13 to 12 is a loss how?

True but in overall reality, Hillary theoreticly took the state. This is like the electoral college all over again at this rate :D

Exactly so - before she costs the country another four years....

I could not agree more.

Well, I'm going to assume she stole NH, and be done with her.

True but in overall reality, Hillary theoreticly took the state. This is like the electoral college all over again at this rate :D

Hell, they tied in delegates in New Hampshire, 9-9. This system is so fucking stupid.

Hell, they tied in delegates in New Hampshire, 9-9. This system is so fucking stupid.

Now THERE's a statement in this thread about which I can feel clean in agreement.

Hell, they tied in delegates in New Hampshire, 9-9. This system is so fucking stupid.

Well, hopefully the electoral collegesque system will help balance the equally bad superdelegates if Clinton continues her lead there.

He went from calling the christofacists "agents of intolerance" to kissing their collective asses for votes. That's a nasty evil flip-flop.

I was talking about his pro-choice and pro-gun control. Which if he changed would certainly make him more popular.

McCain has changed a lot since he last ran but hasn't flip-flopped (whatever that means) on any major issues lately and still holds his stance on immigration.

Not saying I like either of them that much, but they are exceptions to the rule of politicians changing when it could get them more votes. Then again this could just be part of Guiliani's plan.:eek:

Click Stand']I was talking about his pro-choice and pro-gun control. Which if he changed would certainly make him more popular.

McCain has changed a lot since he last ran but hasn't flip-flopped (whatever that means) on any major issues lately and still holds his stance on immigration.

Not saying I like either of them that much, but they are exceptions to the rule of politicians changing when it could get them more votes. Then again this could just be part of Guiliani's plan.:eek:

The cozing up to the Fallwellite Christofacists after his honest evaluation of them (Paul had it dead to rights when he quoted Sinclair Lewis - “When fascism comes to America, it’ll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross”) sickened me.