It’s sad when the paper of record has to lower itself to report on the raving delusions of a fading dynasty.
Mrs. Clinton has sounded almost like a professor of political science on the trail, explaining how the popular vote should be calculated by her lights, as she did before an audience in Kentucky on Monday.
“I believe that with your help we will send a message to this country because right now more people have voted for me than have voted for my opponent,” she said. “More people have voted for me than for anybody ever running for president before. So we have a very close contest for votes, for delegates, and this is nowhere near over. None of us is going to have the number of delegates we’re going to need to get to the nomination, although I understand my opponent and his supporters are going to claim that.
“The fact is we have to include Michigan and Florida — we cannot claim that we have a nominee based on 48 states, particularly two states that are so important for us to win in the fall,” Mrs. Clinton said.
This argument is beneath contempt. It’s just patently dishonest in an embarrassing way. I feel Patrick Healy’s pain as he is forced to report it straight without snark tags or open derision. Sometimes it is much better to have the freedom of a blogger. It’s better for the digestion, too.
At least he admits she is getting her speaking points from Karl Rove.
This is really kewl.
OMG this is incredible!!!!
One Who Helps People Throughout the Land
I like that.
And that he vowed to honor the treaties.
Good for you, Barack Obama, good for you. Recognition of the first Americans and respect for ancient treaties, two reasons for the Great Spirit to shower you with his blesings.
Amen
I agree with all of your comments…..What a terrrrrrific thing to do as a presidential candidate.
that is going to be a powerful message to all the indian nations…especially in the mtn west and southwest…they’ve been getting screwed by the govt for many, many moons.
chalk up anoter bloc of voters who, in large measure, have never thought that their participation mattered.
the more l see of his campaign, the more impressed l become. there hasn’t been a movement to a candidate of this magnitude since fdr [ims]
So we take all their land, and hundreds of years later no presidential candidate or president has had the decency to visit these folks before?
Jesus.
That’s actually kind of surprising to me. It seems like such a “duh” thing to do. That’s depressing.
From a crassly political standpoint, this is great. The Crows are a huge minority in south central and southeastern Montana. I had several Crow friends when I lived in Billings. Granted they’re still small potatoes in the grand scheme of things — the Crows would be about 1% of the state’s population if all of them lived in Montana, which they don’t — but this is a signal to other Native American tribes.
I have to wonder about the specifics of it, though. I mean, not too long ago the Lakota declared themselves to be a free and sovereign nation. I have to wonder what will become of that? And the various tribes that have for one reason or another been declared extinct and legislated out of existence?
Still, this sounds good and I hope he follows through.
From the late 1940s through the early 1960s, known as the period of Termination, over a hundred tribes were “legislated out of existence.” However, since Kennedy and Nixon ended Termination, nearly all of these tribes have been legislated back into existence. The trouble is that some of them, particularly in the NW, lost their tribal lands in the process.
As for the Lakota as a “free and sovereign nation” – Indian tribes have always been considered sovereign nations, although especially in the later 19th and early 20th century this was regarded by the US government as a “legal fiction,” i.e. without any practical consequences other than that they were competent to sign treaties and transfer land to the US. Only the SIx Nations Iroquois (whose territory, BTW, straddles the Canadian/US border) assertively exercised their sovereignty, sending representatives to the League of Nations, for example, and declaring war on Germany and Japan. Under FDR, the meaning of sovereignty was greatly expanded; the Termination period was of course going the other way, but since then the idea of tribal sovereignty has become firmly established in American law.
Thre are some other tribes that or traditional factions of those tribes that have always strongly exercised their sovereignty in various ways, such as at Hopi (AZ) or Red Lake (MN) and others.
However, sovereignty is understood in various ways. Every state is sovereign; they conduct their own affairs up to a point, but they are not free to conduct their own foreign policy, for example.
The Lakota, not to be confuesd with their relatives the Dakota and Nakota (all commonly called “Sioux”) — live on four different reservations — Standing Rock, Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and Cheyenne River.
“Every state is sovereign” — I meant every state in the United States. Tribal sovereignty as it is understood today has often been compared with the sovereignty of the states of the United States.
pugnacious? How about mendacious?
Populist image. Populists are liars? Who knew?
How can Clinton have both her husband and her campaign manager getting money from the people who are kidnapping and torturing and killing union organizers in Colombia and be called a populist?
An ignorant electorate…
Tremendous point. I totally agree.
I agree–completely.
I just finished reading this crap NYT article off to my roommate and then I see Booman linked it up. How can they argue with a straight face that Mich/Fl should count but those Caucus results are tainted?
Barack Black Eagle is awesome.
…and what would “declaring victory” accomplish? Everyone but the Clinton’s has already conceded. Declaring victory won’t change their minds and can only further alienate her supporters. Let her concede.
wrong thread. My bad.
No big deal, it’s worth reading in EVERY thread.
nalbar
Please tell me I’m wrong, and that she’s not going to drag this all the way to Denver.
Oh but she is even though a lot of her campaign staff has already been told they do not have a job after tomorrow.
Got a link to that? Or are you just hearing that from your inside sources?
You don’t fire large numbers of your campaign staff if things are going well, or if you think you’re going to need them, oh, say in September.
Has she fired, or is she firing, large numbers of people?
that is sad, no style, no class, not graceful when losing.
Hillary Clinton, the Nora Desmond of politics.
a 4 for the obscure reference…and nora desmond is dead
killer skit c. 1973±…and very apropos.
Don’t miss this one, on the same theme!
I’ve said it before. I don’t think that H. Clinton is acting on behalf of her supporters, or even for her vain hopes for President. I think at some point the people she really represents, those folks who put 109 million dollars in her bank account, told her that since she can’t win she needs to bloody up Obama for the GE. Who knows, maybe she got the same message that they sent to Rushbo.
Here’s the part I love:
Funny how an argument for counting all the votes conspicuously doesn’t include ALL the votes. But that’s not surprising, we elitists in our caucus states weren’t supposed to count anyways, as the Clinton campaign has repeatedly told us.
To bad she didn’t fight like this for her Healthcare Bill
Historical note: She lost her Healthcare Bill too.
Yea I know . The Key distinction is she lost it because they did not fight for it .
‘I want attention.’ Who famously said that within the past day?