Posted on 01/17/2008 3:28:01 AM PST by Timeout
The link above shows the entire video.
Snip from accompanying write up:
The Back Story: Clinton in the Bay Area By Mark Matthews
The Clinton campaign says it has nothing to do with the Nevada lawsuit filed by allies of Hillary Clinton.
The lawsuit seeks to shut down the so called “at large” caucus sites that were approved for a number of casinos.
Yesterday a campaign spokeswoman in Nevada said “it’s in the hands of the court we have nothing to do with it.”
But it’s clear the campaign isn’t completely neutral on the subject.
Today Bill Clinton came to Oakland and I had the opportunity to ask him a question about the lawsuits and he was good enough to answer.
In fact he stood and answered my questions for several minutes even as Oakland’s mayor tried to pull him away.
So I’m grateful for the face time with the former President. But a couple of the things he asserted aren’t exactly accurate.
He told me the casino caucus goers would have a five to one advantage over Nevadans who were voting in other communities.
Technically that is possible but highly unlikely. The state democratic party decided that delegates to the state convention would be apportioned out according to a number of factors. For example rural areas of Nevada will have more weight than cities. The state party does that on purposes so that candidates will be encouraged to ignore sparsely populated areas of the state.
Most precincts are set up according to population size. But with the casino “at large” precincts…it was decided they would be weighted according to turn out. So for example if a lot of people turn out at the casino sites…each vote will be worth a little less than other precincts with a smaller population.
The only way the casino caucus goers could have five times the voting power would be if very few people go to the casino sites and a lot of people turn out in the less populated areas. Now if very few show up at the casinos they won’t get as many delegates..and if a lot of them show up they won’t have the extra “more powerful” vote that Clinton is talking about.…
In any event the casino caucuses won’t account for more than six percent of the total number of delegates. That’s the way the rules were written.
And the state party approved those rules as did the national democratic party.
It wasn’t until after Barack Obama got the endorsement of the culinary workers union that anyone objected to the casino locations.
A lot is being made of the tone of the conversation between Clinton and myself and for that I would encourage anyone to watch the entire exchange for themselves. We are posting it on this website.
He chooses a typical Clinton tactic: Restate the other person's position in such a way as to make it unreasonable (and untrue). Lots of Dems have learned this trick: I call them "Canardians".
Canard: a deliberately misleading fabrication.
Was it the same “I did not have sex with that woman” finger?
He only sticks that one in peoples faces for special lying (like when lying to the entire US of A).
Canardians — brilliant! You should trademark that term!
Bump
I wish there were an industry for trademarking terms. My second fave is “MediaCrats”.
More like a Clintonism...
Forget about Clinton’s crooked finger for a moment and try reading those rules about how votes are counted and delegates are apportioned. If you ever needed proof that the dem party is a haven for comme-leftist-bureaucrats, you need look no further then here.
Clinton at odds with the media? We need more of this! More fuel for the fire, several tankers full, the low octane stuff (it explodes more easily)!
How is it that people ever liked this petty little clown.
He acts like a spoiled child that got his hand caught in the cookie jar.
Bubba at his dry mouthed worst.
Also.... a duck.
A “duck”: That works too!
As in “duck the question”.
LOL!
Things not going too good for old man Billy.
Still, there’s an interesting part here in that Bill is not afraid to confront a reporter he perceives as being against him. “so you think it’s OK for a vote to count 5 times more?”.
Why can’t our guys confront biased press? Why answer their moonbat questions as if they were serious? Why can’t our guys say something like, “Charlie, I’ll answer your stupid question about religion when you start asking dems about theirs. If anyone has a sensible next question, I’m ready for it.” One memorable moment of this campaign was when Fred simply told the moonbat questioner to go sit on a tack and he wasn’t going to play her silly game. Of course the rest of the candidates about broke their arms in trying to do what they were told.
Come on guys - grow a spine. I don’t think these moonbat reporters can’t handle a little pushback. So push back already.
In any event the casino caucuses won’t account for more than six percent of the total number of delegates. That’s the way the rules were written. And the state party approved those rules as did the national democratic party. It wasn’t until after Barack Obama got the endorsement of the culinary workers union that anyone objected to the casino locations.Just like a Rat. They favor something until they don't favor something. hehehe
I like it too. Good catch!
One of my favorite French newspapers is "Le Canard Enchaine'", which in true French fashion is a double entendre. The chained duck, or the captured lie.
The WSJ just put in print what we all have known for many years.
Do you think Billy has fully realized the changing landscape of politics with the advent of widespread video propagation on the internet? I don’t know.
I just watched the Obama, vote different, 1984 Apple spoof ad again. In light of the way the primaries are going, it was fairly prescient. And Hillary as Big Brother is believable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.