I’ve been avoiding the name calling sort of stuff that seems so prevalent in the Democratic primary and only reporting facts, but (you knew there was a but) I couldn’t resist this one. I got the link from Senior Moments.
If you have ever seen a TV show with a stalker or even experienced being stalked, then you will identify with this scenario. Reminder: Stalking can go both ways. It just happens that in this instance, the stalker is female.
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. As a veteran of red telephone ads and “where’s the beef” cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). “Politics ain’t beanbag,” is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.
(my emphasis added at the end) I practically quoted the whole article, but there is more. Clinton is, in my opinion, acting more in her own self interest than the interest of the Democratic party or the voters. If you would like to see the Clinton comment, you can view it below.
By now everyone knows that the Senate confirmed condoleez rice by a vote of 85-13 and many of us are happy that the Democrats are beginning to show evidence of some backbone. The 13 senators may have seen some of the positive results that senator Barbara Boxer received in her Ohio challenge. However, there were a number of Democrat senators who voted with the regressives to confirm rice. Some are well known. People like Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer (from my state) and Barak Obama from Illinois. So while we should praise those who voted no, I think we need to remind those who voted yes that we are following what they are doing. Hence, the following list (by state) of those Senators who voted “Yes” to confirm her nomination. At the end of this list, there’s a link to how all the senators voted
Arkansas Lincoln; Pryor California Feinstein Colorado Salazar
Connecticut Dodd; Lieberman Delaware Biden; Carper Florida Nelson Hawaii Inouye Illinois Obama Louisiana Landrieu Maryland Mikulski; Sarbanes Michigan Stabenow Montana Baucus Nebraska Nelson Nevada Reid New Jersey Corzine New Mexico Bingaman New York Clinton; Schumer North Dakota Conrad; Dorgan Oregon Wyden South Dakota Johnson Vermont Leahy Washington Cantwell; Murray West Virginia Rockefeller Wisconsin Feingold; Kohl