home

The Incompetent Clinton Campaign

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:48:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

(Speaking for me only)

Via Atrios, more evidence of the incompetence of the Clinton campaign:

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign failed to file a full slate of convention delegate candidates for Pennsylvania's April 22 primary.

This despite the possibility the primary proves critical and despite Clinton owning the full-throated support of Gov. Rendell, state Democratic Party leadership, Mayor Nutter and, presumably, the organizational skill all that entails.

And despite a Rendell-ordered extension of the filing deadline that could be viewed as more than just coincidental.

How could this possibly have happened? And make no mistake, this reflects on the candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Update [2008-2-19 14:27:1 by Big Tent Democrat]: Hilzoy says Atrios and I are wrong, that Clinton is in no danger of losing delegates. If that is so, I must say, never mind. I will leave the post up, but if it does not matter, then who cares?

< Wisconsin Election Thread I | Bursting the Obama Bubble >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Incompetent Clinton Campaign | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    But (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:54:46 AM EST
    She did not make the mistake of taking her name of Michigan.  So I give her points for that one.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:55:29 AM EST


    Parent
    It so hard (none / 0) (#9)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:02:55 AM EST
    (very hard) to be a Hillary supporter these days. I'm trying not to sweat it. I hope that most voters do not follow politics as avidly as we do so that Democrats will keep a united front. McCain is a formidable candidate. Anyone who thinks there will be a "Democratic landslide" is in lala land.

    I'm talking, best case, a few percentage points. I am convinced that Obama can't win the GE. I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination.

    Parent

    Hunker down (none / 0) (#14)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    but don't pull the covers over your head yet.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST


    Parent
    The author of the Philly article (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:38:52 AM EST
    is a columnist who has previously written glowingly about Obamamania. I think the point of this article today is to imply Gov. Rendell was playing favorites in extending the deadline.

    I don't think it's worth the attention it's getting.

    Oh, it's John Baer? (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:55:12 AM EST
    He luvs Rick Santorum too.

    Parent
    Of Course He Does (none / 0) (#65)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:53:23 PM EST


    Parent
    x (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Mary Mary on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    I've volunteered in PA politics for over 20 years. My husband is a Dem party committeeman.

    Hillary will get all the delegates from a CD she is entitled to by popular vote.

    Oops (none / 0) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:53:39 AM EST
    Should I start complaining a la Obama fans about the title of the post?  No.  

    You can complain (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:55:14 AM EST
    But I will still write what I think.

    Parent
    Complaint all you like; just don't (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    except change.

    Parent
    Funny, a month or two or three ago (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:57:25 AM EST
    All we heard was about the hypercompetence and professionalism of the Clinton campaign.

    Could it be that Mark Penn's dummheit has so infected the whole campaign that they can't figure out what the Texas rules are - such that they might win and lose at the same time - and now can't make sure they get a complete slate of delegates in Pa.?

    Then again, maybe those touting Penn as the new Karl Rove knew all too well what they were talking about.

    Axelrod is the new Rove (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:58:33 AM EST
    Enjoy

    Parent
    Clinton's campaign (none / 0) (#7)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:01:56 AM EST
    They've been bad in some areas. Their messaging has been inconsistent. Their rapid response sometimes sloppy.

    Of course, things are always easier when things go your way. The Obama campaign has been very consistent in its messaging, but then again, they haven't had to make any changes.

    Got to hand it to HRC campaign though. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    This morning I noticed an HRC emblem on my tool bar.  What the heck?

    Parent
    Thanks for the Comprehensive Analysis (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    But Clinton's faux pas is more of an image problem than a practical one.

    Under Democratic Party rules (and does any organization on the planet have more rules or more complex rules?) a presidential candidate winning in a congressional district gets delegates from that district (assigned at a later date) whether he or she files slates delegates or not.

    Maybe they were interested in more practical less symbolic issues.

    It would be in keeping with the kinds of things I expect from team Clinton.

    The failure to include that paragraph is what I also expect from a blog with a less blue, more orange-ish hue.

    Maybe it could be added above in due process.

    I guess I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:06:40 AM EST
    then. I'm not clear on how she can win a congressional district.

    It appears that in PA, you don't vote for a presidential nominee, you vote for a delegate (with the name of the nominee to whom they're pledged printed underneath their name). So, it appears that if they haven't offered a full slate of delegates, the HRC campaign literally has made it impossible for some folks to vote for her.

    Maybe someone can clear things up.

    Parent

    I voted for "Hillary Clinton" (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:08:29 AM EST
    In my precinct.

    Not some name put on file by the Clinton campaign.

    I don't know what it's like in other states.


    Parent

    No it is a practical problem (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:08:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Is the article wrong? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:09:42 AM EST
    Please clarify.

    Parent
    IT is (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    Atrios explains.

    Parent
    Atrios might be wrong. (none / 0) (#70)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:40:25 PM EST
    PA votes for both the candidate and a delegates.  

    Delegates are allocated based on CD vote percentage of the candidate vote.

    Delegate voting is used to rank a delegate within a candidate's slate - not all "winning" delegates will gio to Denver because of gender balance requirements.

    See Andrew Sullivan for more details...


    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:17:38 AM EST
    and disagree with the post. I think the most significant paragraph is this one showing it has no practical effect.

    bq. But Clinton's faux pas is more of an image problem than a practical one. Under Democratic Party rules (and does any organization on the planet have more rules or more complex rules?) a presidential candidate winning in a congressional district gets delegates from that district (assigned at a later date) whether he or she files slates delegates or not.

    Parent

    I think you need to read Atrios (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:23:20 AM EST
    He demonstrates the article is wrong on that point.

    Parent
    I Think What I'm trying to say is (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    I don't want a "convincing argument."  Argument precedes counter argument.

    I want to know what the rule is.  There is no counter-definition of a rule.

    Truth be told, I found Atrios less informative than you did.

    Blogs have come a long way.  And they have taken some steps back too.

    I still believe a newspaper reporter has more to lose, in the long run, than a blogger.

    Is anyone writing that Philly publication to tell them they don't know what the rules are?

    In the end, don't give me an argument.  However convincing, whatever.

    Define the rule.

    Parent

    Atrios does disagree with the reporter (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:31:02 AM EST
    ok, I'll suspend my comment that there is no practical effect.

    I still won't agree its incompetence.

    Parent

    I could (none / 0) (#38)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:35:16 AM EST
    only guess that HRC folks didn't hustle to collect enough petitions to become a delegate? Barack's people, I guess, did.

    I can't even begin to guess why that didn't hurry to circulate petitions.

    Wow.

    Parent

    I Don't Know (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:32:04 AM EST
    Looks like Atrios is saying failure to file a delegate is the same as taking your name off the ballot.

    So is Clinton's name on the ballot in those precincts/districts?

    Parent

    Following the links I found this (none / 0) (#39)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:35:59 AM EST
    Pennsylvania's primary is essentially a beauty contest. The outcome of balloting for the actual presidential candidate has absolutely no bearing on the selection of delegates who run in separate races by congressional district. True, the top candidates in the presidential balloting can create a coattail effect for their delegate candidates, but a vote for a specific candidate for president is meaningless unless the voter also casts ballots for that individual's delegate candidates.

    This looks like it could prove disasterous to Hillary.

    This creates unusual and often uncontrollable dynamics. For example, in 1980 George H.W. Bush won the Pennsylvania presidential "beauty contest," but superior grassroots work by Ronald Reagan's campaign delivered most of the state's delegates to Reagan.

    So not having the delegates could be bad.

    Parent

    Is it the same for (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:37:48 AM EST
    Democrats?

    Parent
    Yes it is. (none / 0) (#47)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:50:15 AM EST
    Would-be delegates scramble to get on ballot

    Would-be Pennsylvania delegates to the 2008 presidential-nominating conventions are scrambling to beat today's deadline for getting their names on the April 22 primary ballot.

    The primary results will determine most of the scores of people who will make up the state's delegations at the Democratic convention in Denver in August and the GOP gathering in St. Paul, Minn., in September.

    Would-be convention delegates

    On the Democratic side, the Clinton and Obama campaigns are both hoping to field full slates of candidates in the congressional districts, where 103 of the 188 Pennsylvania delegates will be elected in the primary.

    In each district, four to nine seats will be divided between Clinton and Obama in proportion to the support the candidates receive in that district.

    The delegate candidates will be designated on the ballot as pledged to Clinton or Obama, and the delegate seats will go to the top vote-getters in each camp. If Clinton or Obama lacks enough delegate candidates in any district, they will be entitled to appoint as many delegates as necessary to fill those slots.

    I think it's quite clear that the delegates have to be on the ballot to be voted on.  This is not good if 10% of them are not there for Hillary.

    Parent

    Hah my reading skills have gone down (none / 0) (#48)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:52:07 AM EST
    If Clinton or Obama lacks enough delegate candidates in any district, they will be entitled to appoint as many delegates as necessary to fill those slots.

    Missed that.  So maybe it isn't so clear.

    Parent

    People (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    Have the tendency to just assume the worst of anything that happens to Camp Clinton.

    If it's true, then yeah, it sucks for her.


    Parent

    It's worry. (none / 0) (#53)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    This primary is truly strange though.  Look at this.

    Democrats: How are the winners of the popular vote for delegates determined?

    Delegate contestants must commit to either Clinton or Obama. The information is on the ballot, so voters can choose a delegate who supports their favored candidate.

    The winning delegates then are chosen in proportion to the popular vote for the presidential candidate. If a district electing four delegates splits 50-50 between Clinton and Obama, the two top vote-getters from each of their committed delegates go to the convention. If the votes splits 75-25, one candidate would get three delegates and the other would get one.

    However, party rules also require an equal number of men and women be elected delegates and that races be represented in proportion to their membership in the party.

    That means a delegate candidate who gets the most votes may not go the convention because adjustments must be made to accommodate the gender and race rules.

    So even if the delegate wins the most votes they may not be a delegate.  

    Parent

    I'm in California (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    When I voted I filled in a bubble with Hillary Clinton's name next to it.

    No other names were on it but the other candidates, Edwards, Biden, et al.

    And the Casino proposals.

    I have no idea who my delegate is, who it would be that is assigned to Clinton that reflects my vote.

    I don't really care who it is.  I know my district voted for Clinton so all I care about, the delegate can be picked a year ago, today or a day before the convention.  The delegate doesn't even have to be a human being.  All I care about is that there is an entity that shows up at the convention FOR CLINTON that represents my vote, the plurality of the vote in my precinct.

    If that delegate can be switched out for any reason FOR OBAMA,for whatever reason at all UNRELATED to my vote, then it wouldn't surprise me that that's possible in my state or any other state.

    I just want it confirmed that that's the case.


    Parent

    From what I understand (none / 0) (#59)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    even the pledged candidates aren't really for sure things.  

    The term "pledged delegate" is something of a misnomer. Really, the pledged delegates are like electors in the Electoral College -- it would be nice if they voted for the candidate they're pledged to, but they're not under any obligation to do so.

    This is out of the stories going around today of Hillary's campaign working to switch pledged delegates.  This is a strange campaign season.

    Parent

    It happens. (none / 0) (#10)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:03:21 AM EST
    Bump in the road.

    Happens every cycle in one form or another to somebody...usually not the leading candidates, though!

    Candidates have to trust a lot of people in the trenches and people make mistakes.

    This one may not be as big as it appears.  Still...sigh...

    I didn't think this (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    was that big a deal, there have been much bigger missteps on their part.
    This may feed a story line, but I think there are better examples of it.

    Losing 10% of the delegates (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    BEFORE the contest is NOT a big deal?

    My you are a strange one.

    Parent

    Delegates Aren't Lost (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:09:17 AM EST
    Unless one of us is mis-reading the article.


    Parent
    It appears (none / 0) (#24)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:17:15 AM EST
    that PA is highly unusual in that you do indeed vote for a delegate...not the candidate. Maybe someone from PA can clarify. But it would seem that if you literally have no Hillary-delegate on the ballot, you can't vote for them.

    Parent
    The Article seemed clear to me (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:20:32 AM EST


    Under Democratic Party rules a presidential candidate winning in a congressional district gets delegates from that district (assigned at a later date) whether he or she files slates delegates or not.

    It would be something I'd be more worried about if the article was indeed wrong.

    No one's saying the article is wrong.


    Parent

    Atrios is (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:22:47 AM EST
    and quite convincingly.

    Parent
    Well the article is wrong then (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:28:32 AM EST
    That's yours and Atrios's position on that analysis.

    Parent
    And the Philadelphia Inquirer's (none / 0) (#43)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    I don't think they would be that wrong on this.

    Parent
    Are you looking at (none / 0) (#44)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:39:09 AM EST
    this?

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    Is Clinton's name effectively not on the ballot on those districts?

    Parent
    See Andew Sullivan (none / 0) (#71)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    for an explantion of why Atrios is wrong

    Parent
    I suggest you read Atrios on this (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:22:26 AM EST


    Parent
    ohh i hadn't (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    read Atrios.  That is bad, but it fits in with their flawed Texas strategy

    Parent
    The Texas system is flawed (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:56:42 AM EST
    That has nothing to do with this incompetence.

    You rarely make sense, you know that?

    Parent

    He was referring to (none / 0) (#62)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:34:54 PM EST
    This and this.  Apparently the Clinton campaign was late in realizing that the delegate game was stacked against them in TX.  That undermines their strategy of using it as a firewall.

    Parent
    how is that not a personal and unnecessary attack? (none / 0) (#68)
    by demschmem on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    abide by your own rules man.

    Parent
    It's Just So Frustrating (none / 0) (#13)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    What does this mean, exactly?  That a decisive win in Pennsylvania, by Hillary Clinton, will be effectively nullified due to her campaign's failure to fulfill minute beauracratic offices?  In the spirit of actually making this election something similar to legitimate, can't somebody call a "mulligan" on this?

    Those of us supporting Hillary Clinton would be much more all right with Obama's delegate lead if this process were not littered with ridiculous extenuating circumstances.  Are we just in, to quote Bush from another context, a "rough patch" for American republicanism: Or, has this country lost utterly, its capacity for getting Federal elections off cleanly, competently, and credibly?

    What is going to happen in Denver, given all these problems?  No count for the Michigan Delegates, none for Florida, incompetence in Penn.  These are obviously three very important states for the Dems.  

    And Hillary Clinton can very persuasively make her case that, had things happened the way we had every right to expect they would happen, she would have handily won in all three states and emerged with enough delegates to put her over the top.

    In such a convoluted context, if she is brought down by the Super Delegates, or for that matter even by a razor thin delegate count, how do they possibly get unification at the Convention?

    My sense: they will not.  The Dem nominee will be treading uphill against a sub-narrative of illegitimacy, throughout the General Election.  That is, unless (not much chance of Obama doing this, although Hillary Clinton might) the loser puts aside righteous, wounded sensibility, and loyally goes to town in support of the Nominee.

    It doesn't (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    mean anything, it just looks bad.

    Parent
    Putting aside (none / 0) (#21)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    righteous, wounded sensibility has been Hillary's stock in trade, wouldn't you say?

    Dunno if she can manage it in this case with Democrats undermining her left and right.  Might be tempting to seek revenge by taking a page out of their playbook.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#29)
    by glanton on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    Of course, give her treatment by the Media and increasingly by people purporting to be Democrats, the temptation would be to return to her comfortable Senate role and smugly, silently, watch the debacle unfold.

    But I am convinced she is classier than those who have sought to denigrate her, as if for sport.  She knows the stakes of averting continued GOP rule.  And, unlike Obama in my view, she seems to understand that the Democratic Party is bigger than either candidate.

    Parent

    Not Good (none / 0) (#22)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:14:21 AM EST
    Ironically, the thing that I think is missing from Clinton's campaign is...Hillary Clinton.  These kinds of mistakes wouldn't have happened on her husband's campaign because she was there to make sure they didn't happen.

    But, yes, ultimately everything that happens in a campaign is the responsibility of - and reflects on - the candidate.

    Yup. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:16:29 AM EST
    Mistakes are not good and some are more not gooder than others.

    This isn't a biggie...a one-day story.

    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    Ironically, the thing that I think is missing from Clinton's campaign is...Hillary Clinton.  These kinds of mistakes wouldn't have happened on her husband's campaign because she was there to make sure they didn't happen.


    Parent
    Local Campaign Office (none / 0) (#28)
    by KevinMc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    I volunteered and did some work for the Clinton campaign here in Nashville.  My partner Myke also volunteered to deliver signs and other campaign materials to polling sites on election day.  Two days before the election I received a phone call asking if I would work at a polling location; holding a sign.  I agreed and asked when and where. The caller could tell me neither.  She ended up reading a list of locations and times.  I told her okay I will go to Brookdale Baptist and that I would go at the most needed time.  Once again she read of several different times and couldn't tell me the "most needed" time.  I ended up picking my own.  I asked if there would be signs there or if she wanted I would come and pick some up at the office.  She told me signs would be there.  Well, when I got to the polling place... no signs, no one else was there, and I had to turn around, drive home, and retrieve a couple of signs I had posted in my front yard.  My partner Myke NEVER even received a phone call to go deliver signs or even to work a polling station.  I still don't know if they even know that I showed up.  I also recruited my partner to join me so I wouldn't be alone at he polling station.  Obama had three supporters there with water, snacks, awning, etc.

    This not only concerned me but I was rather disappointed at the lack of follow-up by the local office.  I'm a Hillary supporter but little details in a campaign go a long way in winning the nomination.

    So... (none / 0) (#52)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST
    did you follow up by talking to whomever was in charge of that office and give them feedback?  They can't correct what they don't know about and one or two screwups on a volunteer crew can mess up the whole thing.  Been there.  Done that.

    No way enthusiasm can make up for incompetence.

    Parent

    The Office Was Closed (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by KevinMc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    I called the office from the polling station and after 25 rings I gave up.  Next day same result.  I did end up calling the national office in Virginia but I don't know if they relayed the message I left to anyone.

    Parent
    Indeed, unbelievable (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    I think this heralds the beginning of the end, frankly. I should be prepared to welcome my   new   master. ..

    O.K. Here's the deal. All HRC (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:15:52 PM EST
    supporters must contact the media and yell:  PA voters duped.  Must re-do PA, otherwise all the Dems. in PA will sit out the GE and McCain will win.  

    Parent
    I think I know why this happened (none / 0) (#60)
    by goldberry on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:23:19 PM EST
    In the past couple of election cycles, the Democratic party has all but ignored the states they think are true blue.  In NJ in 2004, you would have never known that Kerry was running.  There were no signs, no canvassers, no phone calls and nowhere to voolunteer.  It was maddening.  I think the party mechanism on a local level in NJ and PA may need a tune-up.  

    She can't win fer losin' (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:42:54 PM EST
    When she's behind the scenes, she gets no credit (and nobody presumed to think she was Bill's ventriloquist!) and when she's out front, she still gets no credit.

    What else is new?  Women are used to this.  Yes, it's your basic sexism, so deeply ingrained that most people are tone deaf to it.

    Good catch, BTD.

    What's more? Illegal? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:57:45 PM EST
    And despite a Rendell-ordered extension of the filing deadline that could be viewed as more than just coincidental.

    Rendell appears to be pulling a fast one on Clinton's behalf.  Could be a matter of election integrity.  A very bad sign.

    Election integrity (none / 0) (#67)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    is always an issue.

    But not in this case.

    Parent

    Was the extention only for (none / 0) (#72)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:43:55 PM EST
    Hillary's delegates or ALL delegates?

    Parent
    Other delegates too (none / 0) (#73)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:16:13 PM EST
    But how is Rendell's extension legal?  I mean, besides the fact that he said "extension."  On what grounds?  The weather?  Ever hear of fax machines?

    Parent
    I've heard of fax machines (none / 0) (#74)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:01:54 PM EST
    but I don't have one and I doubt if most people have a personal fax. Is it even legal to fax filing petitions with signature lists?

    Rendell issued an executive order. No one has claimed Rendell lacks authority to do this.

    It was 48 hour extension which only covers the filing of petitions. It does not extend the deadline for the collection of signatures.

    Parent

    I was looking for comments like this (none / 0) (#75)
    by blueaura on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    but didn't expect to find many. And I didn't.

    You know if the tables were turned and this was a governor seemingly extending a deadline in Obama's favor the posters here would be going apoplectic and foaming at the mouth. "Look at this pro-Obama bias! It's an outrage!"

    Hypocrisy: it's not just for Republicans any more!

    Parent

    The Incompetent Clinton Campaign | 74 comments (74 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment