Hillary Clinton Pulls A Zell Miller - She Must Lose Super Delegate Status
Clinton praises McCain again, says he’s crossed ‘Commander in Chief threshold’ Posted at the Carpetbagger Report March 7th, 2008:
At a press conference on Monday in Ohio, Clinton was defending her “3 a.m.” ad, and told reporters, “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.”
The pro-McCain comments were quickly and widely panned — so Clinton repeated them. James Fallows reported on Wednesday, “In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the ‘Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002′ line
That, too, was widely panned, leading Clinton to ratchet up the pro-McCain rhetoric a little more.
...The only other member of the congressional Democratic caucus who praises McCain this much is Joe Lieberman. Clinton's endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies her as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule
Like Lieberman, Hillary must be stripped of her superdelegate status.
Here's How the Zell Miller Rule Must Apply to Hillary Clinton:
Hillary Clinton Has “Superdelegate” Status Stripped Because of McCain Endorsement By: Laura Roslin Sunday February 9, 2008
Thanks to Zell Miller, there is a rule to deal with Joe Lieberman.
Thanks to Zell Miller,there is a rule to deal with Hillary Clinton
Lieberman's endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.
Hillary Clinton's endorsementof Republican John McCain disqualifies her as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to __name_intentionally_left_blank
Miller, then a Democratic senator from Georgia, not only endorsed RepublicanGeorge Bush four years ago, but he delivered a vitriolic attack on Democrat John Kerry at the Republican National Convention.
Clinton, then a Democratic senator from New York, not only endorsed Republican John McCain repeatedly in March, she suggested publicly and to the main stream media that her primary opponent and likely nominee, Barack Obama - is so unfit that that the Republican nominee might be preferable to him.
My writing is based on the belief that we all have something to say. I first started out writing a letter to the editor, and then branched out into blogging.
I am a big believer in fighting for democracy, and am opposed to dynastic rule of the United States. Therefore I blog.
Except Clinton hasn't endorsed McCain....An endorsement means you are going to vote for someone (with the exception of the superdelegates voting with their districts, an entirely dif. issue which I'm not going to touch.) in the Election if they make it. And somehow I have my doubts that Clinton will be voting for McCain. Very weak argument.
by
Micah Telegen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 4:08:24 PM
2 a: to approve openly ; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely b: to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation
She ENDORSED McCain's Commander-in-Chief credentials and experience. Since she believes that she herself is qualified on both counts, and she places McCain on par with herself and excludes Obama, she has put her stamp of approval on McCain. Still confused? Draw a Venn diagram - it helps.
by
Laura Roslin (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 32 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 4:55:22 PM
This sort of "logic" wouldnt fly in a middle school debate. It simply reeks of partisanship and an almost desperate urge to lash out at anyone and anything that stands in the way of Barak Obama's ascendancy to his predestined heavenly throne.....You are simply one of the aptly named, "Obamamaniacs" sad to say.
Truth is far from as malleable as you make it appear. Clinton and McCain happen to have decades of service while Obama has a short few years. This is a fact, not a slur or open to interpretation. I do not agree with much of their actions during their tenure to be certain, but at least I retain my sanity.....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 6:09:50 PM
I fully agree that HC crossed a line but I will be surprised of our sheeplike MSM are even willing to ask her if she thinks she deserves to have her status changed. It is getting obvious they, like papparazzi, are invested in keeping this going regardless and that they adjust their coverage accordingly.
by
Stephen C. Rose (35 articles, 64 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 5:14:40 PM
This argument is an unbelieveably stupid, anti-Clinton slur
The argument suggesting that Hillary Clinton is "endorsing" McCain because she draws a parallel between her experience and his, is so stupid, it must be an attempted slur against Hillary, without any foundation. This is the purest political filth and hate, directed at Sen. Clinton. Clinton opposes McCain on all the serious issues dividing the two major parties. If she suggests that her war-related experience is equal to his war-related experience, it says nothing about how she feels about the judgments he makes on the basis of that experience, and the point is so obvious that only a moron, or someone intent on sullying Sen. Clinton's political reputatiton would say such an abysmally stupid thing. It's obvious, that the authors of this idiocy, have so little regard for the American voter, that they feel they can sell to them, any crap against Hillary no matter how foul, or juvenile.
by
johncp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 5:23:50 PM
“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.
Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.”
Only Joe Lieberman has been any more complimentary of John McCain.
by
Laura Roslin (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 32 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 6:05:55 PM
SHE'S NOT VOTING FOR JOHN MCCAIN...your dictionary definition was cute but we all know that we're talking about endorsement in the political sense. There's a difference between complementing someone or noting there existance and endorsing them. Obama congratulated McCain after he won the nomination. To congratulate someone is to express joy for an acomplishment on their behalf. Obama is happy for McCain therefore he should be stripped of his status too. See how rediculous that is. This is the sort of noobish argument I would expect to hear from a ron paul supporter or a Nader-Head, but i would hope for better out of the backers of one of the two front-runners.
by
Micah Telegen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 6:32:29 PM
Let me quote the lead paragraph from the current section of the 3/9 section of the Phila. Inquirer ,as someone who without regret voted for Nader in 2000,"Lay off Ralph Nader. He is the only candidate who has not lined his pockets with tens of millions of dollars of corporate campaign money, talked out of both sides of his mouth about the Iraq war,NAFTA and health care and has dedicated his life to battling the corporations who make war on the working men and women."
As to who would Hillary vote for between Obama and Mc Cain, only she knows who she pulls the lever for in the privacy of the voting booth.
by
tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 214 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 8:40:31 PM
What an absurdity, especially regarding one who has worked within the Democratic Party, whose power base lies within that Party and whose career in the Senate ( if she doesnt make it to the White House) would be enhanced by a seated Democratic President.
Sometimes I really wonder at what passes for intellectual reasoning around here....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 7:52:05 AM
This is the result of a highly competitve and soon to be highly destructive primary campaign, where through attrition, the remaining husks of the candidates will enter a split convention and all but lay down for the now resting Republican attack machine rehash fodder from the primary barrages. It seems clear, that niether Hillary or Barack will seek a middle without the Dem's hierachy stepping in to lay some sobering reality. Be it Clinton or Obama, I do not care, but let it be a unified and invigorated Dem party that truly builds off of the amazing strucutures both campaigns have grown over the course of the year and then some of campaigning.
by
Esquire (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 10:04:45 PM
Strange just how little sourcing there is for this
I mentioned this comment from Mrs Clinton on my website -- shameless plug here -- with a serious question: when I first heard about this, I Googled part of the quote, trying to source it -- and I found a surprising dearth of citations from the mainstream media. I have a Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times blog source cited, but, good Lord, this is the kind of quote which, if it's genuine, ought to sink her once and for all.
I'd love some better sourcing, and a YouTube would be the ultimate; if anyone has some really solid sourcing, please, put it in the comments here or on my site.
by
Dana Pico (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 142 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 10:57:17 PM
"Defending her provocative television ad suggesting he was not up to the challenge of answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. in a crisis, she told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: "I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee] has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002" — a reference to the address in which Obama, before being elected to the Senate, had publicly opposed the Iraq invasion that she and McCain had voted to authorize."
Breaking the Final Rule By Gary Hart The Huffington Post
Friday 07 March 2008
" It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.
By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her. "
March 1, 2008, 5:34 PM Clinton Says She and McCain Offer Experience, Obama Offers Speeches Posted by Fernando Suarez| 26
(CBS) From CBS News' Fernando Suarez:
"FORT WORTH, TEXAS -- Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” Clinton was referring to Obama’s anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate. "
How do you interpret these as Clinton saying anything other than John McCain is more qualified than Barack Obama to be our Commander in Chief?
The fact that both Senators Clinton and McCain voted for the use of force in Iraq, suggests that neither are qualified to lead our military.
I would add the following: On Sept. 10, 2002, Ron Paul posed 35 "questions that won't be asked about Iraq." His questions were tough, unflinching, and should have been addressed by all members of Congress. Ron Paul's questions were an embarrassment to the Bush administration then and to Hillary Clinton and John McCain today. They both voted for the war and now pretend that they had insufficient information to vote otherwise. Ron Paul, at least, had sufficient information to pose questions that neither Senators Clinton nor McCain thought were serious or deserved answers. Those questions are still hanging there and should still be answered in order that the same calamitous mistake not soon be repeated. But neither Clinton nor McCain seem interested in doing so. They in their wisdom, based upon their lifetimes of experience, apparently feel that it is not important to understand how we got into this terrible mess. A full understanding of that mistake just might have some relevance as to the most appropriate course of action to take now. It might also have some bearing upon the debt we owe to our fallen and wounded sevice men and women and to the victims in Iraq as well.
In a recent debate Sen. Clinton finally admitted that she regrets her vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq. Does that mean that she now feels that 4,000 American troops died in vain, due to her incorrect decision? How would her skill as Commander in Chief make up for sending U.S. troops into an unnecessary war? Her vaunted experience was of little value in the fall of 2002. What assurance is there that she will not commit equally serious lapses of judgement in the future?
by
Laurence A. Toenjes (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments)
on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 12:09:19 AM
when one speaks of "years of experience", this doesn't necessarily constitute what's best for the people, does it?............In our case we want change, we want budget reform, we want out of being labeled as the "War Mongers of the World"................
Years of experience comes with a heavy price tag...........depending on how much you owe the Corporate Elitists.............I'm not impressed with all these "Years of Experience" that got us into this damn mess..............Take the experience and "jam-it"..............Give Me CHANGE...............Give me someone who has the brass balls to stand for the people..........common sense rules...
by
Ernest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments)
on Sunday, March 9, 2008 at 11:24:36 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
