Idealcrap

I was bouncing around Adorable Girlfriend’s blog and came across Anglachel’s blog.  If you haven’t been to her site I highly recommend it.  I can only hope that someday I’m able to write with the skill that she does.  It is obvious that she has spent years practicing her craft.  Her writing is concise, articulate and well thought out without being wordy.  I must warn you before you visit her site that she is a Clinton fan.  Nobody’s perfect.

 

She has a wonderful post up now about the legitimacy of a leader.  I will not insult her writing by trying to paraphrase the post.  I suggest you go over there and read it.  I want to use this post to make a rather intersting point about reasoning.

 

I wanted to know how Clinton could justify agreeing to the rules of the DNC in regards to the delegates in Florida and Michigan.  I didn’t know the facts around this were in dispute until I posted a similar question on Anglachel’s blog.  The readers on her blog pointed out that Clinton never agreed not to count the votes only not to campaign in those states.  I’m going to provide you with the links in an attempt to show how intelligent people with similar beliefs can look at the exact same information and come to two different conclusions.

 

Here is a short YouTube video from MSNBC about the agreement with the candidates regarding Michigan and Florida.

 

 

 

In an article about this same situation over on www.slate.com, which you can find here, S.V. Dáte, writes an excellent article with background and several excerpts which I will list for you.

 

          It was a different story in October. Back then, Clinton was far and away the national front-runner—by some 20 points in a number of polls. With much less at stake in the matter, she told a New Hampshire public-radio audience, “It’s clear, this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything.” Clinton was unwilling to take her name off the Michigan primary ballot, as Obama and her other significant rivals did, but like them she agreed not to campaign in Michigan or in Florida before their primaries.

 

On Sept. 1, the Clinton campaign issued this ringing statement:

 

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

 

This from Clinton in October, 2007.

 

Besides, Hillary said, there was no reason to remove her name if the results weren’t going to count anyway. “I personally did not think it made any difference,” she said.

 

To me, when you put all these statements together it is clear that at the end of last year Clinton supported the DNC’s decision not to seat the delegates.  Her sudden turn around smacks of changing the rules to fit her needs.  I fail to see how anyone can see this as anything other then what it is. 

 

I would like for someone to point out to me how this can been seen as something other then what I think.  Can someone please walk me down the path of reasoning that lets Clinton followers believe that it is acceptable to change her views on this subject?

 

I seriously want to know.  I promise I’m not trying to bait anyone into an argument.  Please let me know.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

Matt

[ad#ap-banner]