Matthews: Spitzer allegations raise questions about "the judiciousness of these superdelegates"
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Chris Matthews repeatedly referenced allegations that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was linked to a prostitution ring to call into question the role of superdelegates in the Democratic nominating process. Matthews stated: "I have to bring into question the prudence, the justice, the judiciousness of these superdelegates."
During the 7 p.m. ET March 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, discussing reports that Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) was linked to a prostitution ring, host Chris Matthews stated: "He is, however, I have to remind people -- maybe my sense of irony insists on it -- a superdelegate, one of these people placed in a privileged position of ruling on whether the democracy in the Democratic Party is going in the correct direction and, if not, to correct it." Matthews added, "Once again, I have to bring into question the prudence, the justice, the judiciousness of these superdelegates, their ability to think beyond mortal men. Here's a guy ... who had no judgment, who's going to pass judgment on whether the voters of -- who vote in Democratic caucuses and primaries got it right?" NBC News' Andrea Mitchell responded, "Well, he's one of 756." Previously, on the 5 p.m. ET edition of Hardball, Matthews stated, "Now, here's a fellow that's not showing the best of prudence or judgment, is he? Am I stretching this point? I hope so."
During both March 10 editions of Hardball, Matthews repeatedly invoked Spitzer's status as a superdelegate and his alleged link to the prostitution ring to call in to question the role of superdelegates in the Democratic nominating process. During the 5 p.m. edition, Matthews raised the issue three times:
- Matthews said that Spitzer "is one of these highly placed superdelegates whose judgment we're supposed to look up to and hold precious as somehow higher and mightier in its importance than the average voter who schleps to a primary or a caucus." He continued, "They're going to rule on how well we vote. If we vote inappropriately, the superdelegates -- this oligarchy -- will rule down and say, 'Sorry, you blew it.' Now, here's a fellow that's not showing the best of prudence or judgment, is he? Am I stretching this point? I hope so."
- Matthews later said to New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), "Governor Spitzer's a superdelegate. He may not be one by Denver in August. But it just shows that superdelegates are people, too. The idea that superdelegates are mightier and smarter and more judicious than the rest of us has obviously been misproven again."
- Later, Matthews said to National Journal contributing editor Linda Douglass, "Just so we can all get a fix on the prudence and good judgment of superdelegates, we've got one here, the governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, superdelegate." He added, "His judgment is somewhat impeached now."
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the March 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: He's a big Senator Clinton backer, a colleague of hers in New York. Fair enough. She's not involved in this. But he is one of these highly placed superdelegates whose judgment we're supposed to look up to and hold precious as somehow higher and mightier in its importance than the average voter who schleps to a primary or a caucus. They're going to rule on how well we vote. If we vote inappropriately, the superdelegates -- this oligarchy -- will rule down and say, "Sorry, you blew it." Now, here's a fellow that's not showing the best of prudence or judgment, is he? Am I stretching this point? I hope so.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Governor Spitzer's a superdelegate. He may not be one by Denver in August. But it just shows that superdelegates are people, too. The idea that superdelegates are mightier and smarter and more judicious than the rest of us has obviously been misproven again.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Let me start with Linda Douglass. Thank you for coming on. Thank you all for coming on tonight. Linda, you start. Just when we thought we had a really good political story, which is this incredible story of how the Democratic nomination fight is going to end with Barack way ahead in votes and popular votes and delegates and states, and yet Hillary with the inside game mastered better than anybody -- along with her husband, the former president -- along comes this big story. Just so we can all get a fix on the prudence and good judgment of superdelegates, we've got one here, the governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, superdelegate.
His judgment is somewhat impeached now. Can he survive?
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of the March 10 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Andrea --
MITCHELL: And Chris --
MATTHEWS: -- let me ask you about Hillary Clinton -- Senator Clinton of New York. Of course, if you are a senator from a state and the governor's of the same party, you have to have a working relationship. You don't have to be soul buddies.
He is, however, I have to remind people -- maybe my sense of irony insists on it -- a superdelegate, one of these people placed in a privileged position of ruling on whether the democracy in the Democratic Party is going in the correct direction and, if not, to correct it.
Once again, I have to bring into question the prudence, the justice, the judiciousness of these superdelegates, their ability to think beyond mortal men. Here's a guy --
MITCHELL: Well --
MATTHEWS: -- who had no judgment, who's going to pass judgment on whether the voters of -- who vote in Democratic caucuses and primaries got it right?
MITCHELL: Well, he's one of 756.
It's not just Matthews.
The entire MSM has been falsely conflating these prostitution allegations with homosexual affairs, or Bill Clinton. They show pictures of them all together-- they can't talk about the one without bringing in the other.
There's no comparison. Prostitution is a crime, sexual affairs are not.
And how come no one but Dershowitz is questioning the ludicrousness of invoking "The Mann Act?" When was the last time that was used?...hmm.. maybe Chuck Berry in 1957 or so?
Olbermann is really Amy Goodman with glasses, man-wig and suitcoat. It's those pursed lips that are a dead giveaway.
Uh, Tommy - the only documented instance of large numbers of hookers showing up at a Democratic Convention was in 1972, when the Nixon Campaign sent them there in droves in an attempt to disrupt the convention.
Just a little history lesson about the Party of Dirty Tricks - the GOP.
Hookers gave up on the DNC conventions.
Hookers gave up on the DNC conventions.
Because they made more money at the GOP conventions, turning tricks for the "family values" types.
None at all. We don't have any prostitutes here in St. Paul. How could you suggest such a thing?
;-)
There is always the possibility that some may be coming from interstate.
Besides, it was noted recently that sex-trade workers acknowledged where Republicans (conservatives in particular) were some of their best customers.
Don't be surprised if police arrests for solicitation of, or otherwise patronising, prostitutes @ the GOP Convention involve certain prominent and/or powerful Religiopolitical Right leaders. Likewise with those caught doing the Lindbergh Terminal Tap Dance, as it were....
None at all. We don't have any prostitutes here in St. Paul. How could you suggest such a thing?
I guess they'll be busing them in from Minneapolis, right? :-)
Yeah, but it doesn't run as often apart from rush hours. I'm assuming a steady stream in and out to keep the moral majority types happy.
Matthews is simply trying to create a discussion for his show. Everyone knows that Spitzer is in Hillary's pocket. To think these super-delegates. most of whom are professional politicians, would come to the convention with some sense higher purpose, prudence and sound judgement, is laughable.
Nice try Chris but you struck out on this one.
On the other hand, I'd like to know why there was a federal wiretap on this guy. Aren't they supposed to be protecting us from all those turrists making dastardly plans over the phone? How many nefarious plots slipped by them while they were targeting this Democratic governor?
I think this will eventually tie back into the whole Federal prosecutor scandal, if anyone bothers to look. Maybe Spitzer is guilty, but they're going after him with a very large hammer for a victimless crime. Something stinks about the whole thing.
Nerzog,
From what I understand, his bank notified the FBI because he was moving funds off shore, so they were initially concerned he was being bribed or something, they then discovered the prostitution link.
I am of the mindset that prostitution should be legal anyway, what two consenting adults do, either with or without trading money, is their business and not ours. But the law is the law, and because it is illegal I suppose Spitzer put himself in quite the tenuous situation. He should have known better, obviously.
But Matthews is grasping at straws here, this has nothing to do with superdelegates, or the election. A stretch to say the least.
"From what I understand, his bank notified the FBI because he was moving funds off shore, so they were initially concerned he was being bribed or something, they then discovered the prostitution link."
yes, that magnanimous, socially concerned and deeply sensitive bank. They were really concerned about him.
Actually, he wasn't moving the funds offshore - he was doing what is called "couching" - moving the money around between a bunch of accounts so the payment couldn't be traced. Gee - I suppose he didn't want his wife to see it.
The part that stinks is usually banks don't notify even about couching unless it's over $10,000. The amounts here were in the $3,000-$5,000 range. Fishy? You bet!
They're planning on charging him with money laundering too. Even though it was he money he was "laundering" to pay the nice girl.
I agree, but it doesn't matter. That's like wondering why the government would wiretap a suspected drug dealer. If he's innocent the investigation is a waste. Instead, this idiot, drunk with power and with no regard to his wife and three daughters, goes and has high priced sex, paid for by the public no doubt, the day before Valentines Day. My mother always told me the experience for a black person being pulled over by the police and a white person may be different, but if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about.
Usually.
The only reason this seems plausible is because of the Don Siegelman case, and the testimony of SEVERAL witnesses that the Bush White House has politicized the Justice Department. Add this to their fanaticism about the apparently widespread "terrorist" wiretapping, and a funny smell starts to waft skyward.
Is it possible that the Justice Department is broadly wiretapping Democratic politicians, just waiting for a chance to nail them for something stupid like this? Maybe that's why they can't afford for any of these wiretapping cases to go to court.
Just a thought.
Gore Vidal years ago made the great comment that Republicans who are terrified of sex always think that sexual entrapment is a really big deal and a great way to get someone.
Unfortunately, our corrupt and morbid culture agrees with this nowadays. But it's all a joke. Like who cares?
And I love this idea of Spitzer being "power mad." Maybe he was just horny, and she was a great lay..?
Nerzog,
I disagree with prostitution being a victimless crime. With prostitution you have sex trafficking of women around the world. We see it now in Europe.
Like other vices, prostitution can have sever detrimental effects on families and careers. The victims in Spitzer's shenanigans are his wife and children.
Prostitution encourages organized crime.
Prostitution in many cases leads to child prostitution. Do you ever watch, "To Catch a Predator"?
Many prostitutes are basically held captive by pimps and are subject to being battered.
Prostitution debases women. It lowers their self esteem. Many have children who are raised in that environment.
Prostitutes are at risk for assault and battery by the johns.
Prostitution transmit Aids and STDs to the johns and prostitutes who then transmit the diseases to others.
Victimless? I think not.
And, yes, I've watched "To Catch a Predator". I'm not sure how that relates to prostitution. In fact, legalized prostitution might actually give some of those guys a healthier, safer outlet for their appetites. Of course, if they only like underage girls, that's a different crime altogether.
Thanks for providing a list of reasons to legalize it. Prohibition encouraged organized crime. Budweiser doesn't. Disease, abusive johns and pimps are obviously more easily handled if prostitutes don't have anything to lose by trying to handle them. If it were legal, and you assaulted a prostitute, then they could go to the police without worrying about repercussions for themselves.
It's not called the world's oldest profession for nothing, and it's not going away. The only thing that illegality does is maximize the concerns you're listing.
Contrary to your assertions, legalizing prostitution increases the incidence of all I cited.
Please see:
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html
10 Reasons For Not Legalizing Prostitution.
Thanks,
I wonder what the women in the audience have to say about legalizing prostitution?
AA,
Why would women feel any differently? It is between two consenting adults, if a woman decides she wants to engage is this behavior, why is it any other woman's business? It isn't. People engage in all kinds of questionable behaviors, if they so feel the need to do so and I am unaffected by their choices, then so be it. I am not the moral police. I may not like it, but that is my problem.
We have far too many problems and crimes happening everyday which do impact innocent people, this is not one of them.
Tommy,
Did you see my post above? Simply saying it is a victimless crime does not make it so. It is really a male fantasy that prostitution be legalized. I find it hard to believe that you do not see how prostitution debases women and reduces them to sex objects. What effect does prostitution have on marriages? What about the incidental pregnancies? What about the incidental aids? Stds? What about the addictive nature? What about organized crime? Sex trafficking? What about forcing underage girls into the trade? What about the loss of self esteem, the feelings of isolation, the destructive nature of anoymous sex on those prostitutes? Frankly I think you have an idyllic view that does not match reality. Most prostitutes do not get paid $4,000 for an hour or two. Most barely survive. Many have drug habits. Many are controlled by pimps. Some end up being raped, kidnapped, mutilated, and killed. What happens to these women once they get older and lose their allure? What happens to their children?
It looks to me like only men have so far entered this conversation. I think a woman's perspective would be good to hear.
AA,
Pornography debases women, but that is legal. I am not condoning prostitution by any means, but my feelings about its toll on marriages or other societal ills are not the issue. It is activity between two adults who engage in said activity willingly and knowingly. Nobody is forcing anyone into it, so if a woman wants to debase herself, or a man for that matter, it is up to them and their conscience. We don't make those decisions for them. And I don't want law enforcement getting into those disputes, they have far more important priorities.
Does it turn women into sex objects? Well, yes, but if that's the problem, we'd better outlaw the fashion/beauty industry as well.
Nerzog and Tommy,
The link I provided is rife with documentation backing up their claims. For Nerzog to say those claims are unsubstantiated really makes me wonder.
Tommy, just because there might be two consenting adults, does not make it any less a crime. The same could be said of drug users. If two of them want to smoke crack, you seem to argue it should be legal. Does the analogy make sense?
What if one of the two knowingly has Aids? Is there not a crime there? Even if one of the participants is ignorant they are caryying HIV or STDs, is there not a victim? What if one becomes pregnant? Is there not an innocent victim? What if the prostitute is underage? What if the prostitute is being forced into this calling? What about the pimps who live off their hookers? What about the abuse they can inflict on the prostitutes? What about the families that are broken apart because of this. It seems to me you don't seem to want to take on those scenarios.
Prostitution is not a victimless crime. Simply saying there are two consenting adults does not make that go away.
Even though prostitution will never go away, we as a society do not have to condone it.
"The same could be said of drug users. If two of them want to smoke crack, you seem to argue it should be legal. Does the analogy make sense?"
Throwing drug users in jail does nothing to help the user or fix the overall problem. It's a health issue, not a legal one.
"What if one of the two knowingly has Aids? Is there not a crime there? Even if one of the participants is ignorant they are caryying HIV or STDs, is there not a victim?"
Which is why there should be testing, part of legalization. If a prostitute chooses not to go through that, then they're in the same situation they were in already.
"What if one becomes pregnant? Is there not an innocent victim?"
Enforcing condom use is also part of legalization.
"What if the prostitute is underage?"
Still illegal.
"What if the prostitute is being forced into this calling?"
Still illegal.
"What about the pimps who live off their hookers? What about the abuse they can inflict on the prostitutes?"
It's easier to turn a pimp in when you're not a criminal yourself.
"What about the families that are broken apart because of this."
What's the difference between legality and illegality in this regard?
"Even though prostitution will never go away, we as a society do not have to condone it."
Recognizing that the treatment of a problem as a legal concern is useless is not the same as condoning the behavior. It's still a problem.
Brabantio, I'm all for offering rehab for first and second-time drug offenders. But if a person is a chronic abuser, then I vote for prison. Prison isn't about helping the drug user or solving the problem. It's about punishment and separating a person from society. A chronic drug user is a danger to other citizens and is far more likely to commit crimes to support their habit.
If rehabilitation can't help that type of person before they get to the stage of violence, sure. Violent crime is a different matter.
My position isn't that drug use isn't a problem, it's that putting someone in prison just for that alone only makes it harder for that person to get back into society (which perpetrates much of the violence you're referring to). Prison gets you criminal connections and doesn't look good on your employment application. More importantly, non-violent offenders clog up the legal system and push violent offenders back onto the street because of mandatory sentencing.
What about Nevada? It is in the US isn't it? Why is it legal there? How does it affect the populace?
Prostitution is legalized in NV on a county-by-county basis. In Clark County (where Las Vegas is), prostitution is illegal. From Wikipedia:
Under Nevada state law, any county with a population of less than 400,000 is allowed to license brothels if it so chooses. As of 2007, Clark County (which contains Las Vegas) and Washoe County (which contains Reno) are the only counties with population above 400,000. Incorporated towns and cities in counties that allow prostitution may regulate the trade further or prohibit it altogether.
As of July 2004, brothels are illegal under county or municipal law in Carson City (which encompasses the entire county), Douglas County, and Lincoln County. Eureka County neither permits nor prohibits licensed brothels and does not have any. The other 11 counties permit licensed brothels in certain specified areas or cities.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada
Actually there are lower rates of rape and other violent sex crimes in Nevada as a whole than in any other state.
Dang, I can't find the link but I just read that over at FDL yesterday!
I don't think that link proves exactly what you think it does.
"CATW favors decriminalization of the women in prostitution. No woman should be punished for her own exploitation. But States should never decriminalize pimps, buyers, procurers, brothels or other sex establishments."
How is "no woman should be punished for her own exploitation" different from "two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want"? They're talking about brothels. Note that it talks about how legalizing would "increase street prostitution" because they don't want to take the health tests. They're already on the streets here, and there are no mandatory health tests.
For everything I'm talking about, I'm not seeing how legalizing it can make it worse. If you fail to regulate it at all, as demonstrated by the examples in the link, then it's not a great benefit. One example is that an area has 400-500 brothels and they don't know who has a license to operate and who doesn't. How hard can that possibly be?
The idea isn't that there are no rules at all. Pimping could be illegal. Brothels could have high standards and be licensed (as casinos are), with mandatory health checks. Child prostitution does not fit the "consenting adults" rule, like forced prostitution, and would obviously remain illegal.
If having it illegal now works, then having elements of it as illegal should still work, right?
Please see:
http://www.liberator.net/articles/prostitution.html
This paper offers another perspective on teh legalization of prostitution.
"Prostitution in many cases leads to child prostitution. Do you ever watch, "To Catch a Predator"?"
get a brain. And turn off the tube-- that'll help.
""victimless crime" ? tell that to his wife and three daughters."
Ok...would they be more, or less, "victims" if he had had an affair instead?
Memo to all:
MSNBC has gone so totally anti-Hillary that it's hard (well, harder than normal) to watch.
Even Olbermann, who I normally enjoy, spent over half his show last night on anti-Hillary pieces.
It just can't be coincidence when everyone on every show on a network challenges and nitpicks at some of Hillary's claims about her qualifications and experience without one single word about her opponent's.
I think you missed my point.
Where is the JOURNALISM on these shows?
You know, when more than just one side of an issue is examined?
Do you think that it just might be possible that an objective review of Senator Obama's claims, ads, experience, etc., just might show him in a less favorable light?
Hmmm?
Drafted,
We agree on this issue. :-) Good post.
"It just can't be coincidence when everyone on every show on a network challenges and nitpicks at some of Hillary's claims about her qualifications and experience without one single word about her opponent's."
I agree Drafted.
MSNBC has made a deliberate economic decision to pander to the Obama advertiser demographic. That's why this is going on.
It's all pretty corrupt. And Olbermann has indeed become unwatchable. A nasty guy he is.
Check out Yesterday's Daily Howler to see how Somerby nailed KO for his stupidity....
Matthews' comments are well-off, as well as those all over Kos who are wondering why the wiretap was on him, and somehow relating the FBI's wiretap on a prostitution ring to the FISA powers debates, when they are two separate things completely.
And, he did it. So, even if he can't be prosecuted because somebody didn't get a warrant or something like that, doesn't mean he shouldn't/won't resign.
And why should he resign? Wasn't this was private business on his time? Doesn't his wife still support him? How could it possibly relate to his job as governor? Does this actually make him a better superdelegate?
After all, when you are a democrat its different.
Kind of like David Vitter getting a standing ovation from his compatriots after the DC madam scandal?
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/OPINION/707230311
friedburger,
you got me there on the if your a democrat line. However, should Spitzer have to resign, is he really trying to spend time with his family now or is he looking for a way to keep his office?
By the way, were we were involved in a discussion about McCain's ethics on another thread that seems to have been truncated? Did that happen or is it further proof that I have lost what minute bits of gray matter I once had?
PC,
I guess maybe I put too much of an article in a post, not sure, but yes, we were having a good, calm discussion on McCain. I appreciate the dialogue.
I am not sure if you are asking what reasons Spitzer will give if he is forced to resign or if you are asking me if he should resign. Sorry. I think he should resign if it looks like he will no longer be an effective governor. If he has indeed lost the respect of the citizens and his fellow elected officials, yes, he should resign. I think because of the bombast he went after others who ran these agencies that his sins are particularly galling. Its a shame. I think he did great things as AG.
friedbergboy1422 or whatever,
Your take on loss of his ability to govern is also related to a great degree, whether or not he has any credibility left.
However, you know my presence here is for entertainment.... and the ocassional insight. I beg to differ with most here and feel that the media is more inclined to protect democrats at first blush. When compared with the coverage of two recent events, not Vitter mind you, that it seemed to go out of its way to not label the democrat offender but was quick to ID a republican actor in their shady behavior. I put the links, just a quick google, in another post on this thread.
Now if he were the Governor of Nevada and stayed in Nevada there wouldn't be a story. He was stupid and got caught...his problem.
Signed,
Client # 8
Mathews is right:
"The idea that superdelegates are mightier and smarter and more judicious than the rest of us has obviously been misproven again."
We should get rid of the superdelegate system for 2012.
Gee I hadn't thought of that, that Gov. Spitzer is not only a "superdelegate", but that he has publicly stated he will cast a vote for Sen. Clinton.
You know, the effort to keep Mrs. Clinton from the Presidency is probably much greater than you know... it's probably much greater than we can even imagine.
She represents the single greatest threat to the Republican Party in DC, and to the ownership of the privately owned "media" companies, and to others with great influence, and with a vested interest in the administration of our Federal Government...
Sen. Obama is the best thing to ever happen to those people... he may spare those people their worst nightmare (that I'm sure they thought would come true, as recent as just 4 months ago).
Anyway, the efforts against Mrs. Clinton we are presently seeing, are extraordinary, and are coming from places that some of us can only imagine (having no actual access to these privileged places).
And now Gov. Spitzer's public problems just add to those efforts.
That's true.
Dem,
Conventional thinking is that the Republicans would rather face off against Hilary than Obama.
That's proaganda. Completely untrue.
McCain would make mincemeat of Obama. It would be a devasting defeat for Dems. He will take down the whole party.
With Hillary, the case against her is not so easy for McCain to make. Her initial support of the war (if that's what it was) would actually help her..
And experience-- the crucial issue in November? Obama's a loser on just this alone.
What experience?
Some detail perhaps
Judiciousness apply's to superdelegates how? Whats the metric/scale and its intersection with the process of the primary/caucus/convention?
This just in, Tucker's gone, the replacement makes one wonder why they, MSNBC, bothered.
Who ever said the media was biased. Compare these two articles and look at when the political affiliation is first mentioned and how many times it is stated in the articles?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-10-spitzer_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-31-craig_n.htm
There are alot of those little (R)'s before or after people's names in the 2nd article. In the first one, republican is mentioned MORE than democrat and only when the perp is identified as a democrat, ...when he is mentioned as a tough AG.
Just an observation for MM(vl) to hang their heads on.
You know, the effort to keep Mrs. Clinton from the Presidency is probably much greater than you know... it's probably much greater than we can even imagine.
What do you think of the argument, often raised lately, that the only reason why Clinton is still considered a contender is because the she is Mrs. Clinton? You've likely heard it -- that any other candidate as far behind her opponent as she, and unlikely to catch up, would've been counted out long ago.
It's my understanding that her chances of beating Obama in pledged delegates are exceedingly thin, and that he'll likely have an edge of approximately 100-150 going into the convention. Thus, her only hope is to have superdelegates overrule the pledged delegates. If this were John Edwards we were talking about, would the media still cover him as though he had any credible shot at winning? I doubt it. The aura around the clinton campaign hypnotizes the media into believing that she can still win. If it wasn't hillary, but instead was the edwards campaign, would anyone really think the superdelegates would simply ignore the primary results and cast their lot with clinton?
In short, I think that because it's the clintons were talking about, the media can't get it into their brains that this race is over. Maybe I'm totally off base, but is there a legitimate shot that the superdelegates will override the direction of the pledged delegates?
Steve,
I think the media is more excited about the battle between Hillary and Obama than the G.O.P.
The media thrives on conflict. It causes people to watch. Therefore if they can keep Hillary in the contest, they will do so. At this point the Hillary campaign has nothing to lose and still might possibly win if they can dredge up enough negativity on Obama between now and the convention. It's a win-win for the media and Hillary.
Not so. There is no moral, political, or historical requirement that Conventions are obligated to pick the highest vote-getter. That's cant.
And-- if that were the case-- it would have been unethical for the dems to choose JFK in 1960.
Consider that fact, Hillary haters. Your sanctimoniousness and self-righteousness-- and historical ignorance-- is getting pretty tedious.
And this phony issue is tearing this Party apart, too-- especially the disrespect being given to the choice of the big Blue States.
They count too, don't they? I guess not. I guess Idaho or Wyoming is more important....
Consider that fact, Hillary haters. Your sanctimoniousness and self-righteousness-- and historical ignorance-- is getting pretty tedious.
She's now further behind in delegates than she was before her "big" victories in texas and ohio. Her only chance at winning is getting superdelegates to usurp the will of the people and overturn the pledged delegates. The only way she'll be able to do that is to get the rules changed, for her highness, so that michigan and florida count. You have no problem in having the rules changed specifically at the urging of on campaign, when that campaign is losing?
If you can't see the unfairness in having superdelegates overturn the outcome as determined by the primaries, than discussing this issue with you is mind-numbingly tedious. As for the big states, sure they count. That's why they have more pledged delegates. But she's still losing soundly. Can't you grasp that? She can't win when the 'people' speak. I live in PA, and she'll likely take this state. But should a few big states, which she barely wins anyway (like texas), overrule the numerous states which BO won?
It is you Hillary apologists who get more tedious by the day, increasingly so as her defeat becomes more imminent.
solonswine,
The funniest part of the video clip is where Hilliary claims to have started MM(vl). I wonder, is MM(vl) afraid to admit this or this something like her bringing peace to Northern Ireland?
Her connection with MMFA's origin is well known here. It has nothing to do with day to day ops.
Anyone who tracks the posts a bit will find all kinds of opinions of her. I've said it before, and I try not to be repetitive, usually. If this is a Hillary spin site they're doing a dam poor job of it. If you think it is effective in this endevor, your barking up something, but its even not a tree. However feel free to waste your time.
I take a back seat to no man in my disdain for Chris Matthews.
However, I feel that his insistence on pointing out the disastrous flaw in Spitzer's judgement and the relationship of that flaw to his status as a Super Delegate was not only quite appropriate but, in a way, highlighted the most important aspect of the whole story.