… or advocating rule changes to give Super Ds cover to ignore the delegate count.

Let’s remember that the Democratic party is a private organization that has every right to create and follow any set of rules it wants to choose it’s candidate. Just because it has managed to con the government into forcing you and I to help fund part of it’s candidate selection process doesn’t mean it has to let our part of it drive the whole thing.

There seems to be a developing attitude that the Democratic party’s non-elected delegates have some kind of moral obligation to vote the way that the electorate has directed the elected delegates to do. Why? If that was the case, why have non-elected delegates at all? Folks, the whole idea of having non-elected delegates was precisely so that they could vote in opposition to the elected delegates - so that the party members could say “Hey, the voters got it wrong, we think that it’s in the best interests of the party to change this.” Sen. Obama has been a Democrat party elected official for 10 years or thereabouts. For him to put forward the idea that the non-elected delegates have some kind of obligation put upon them by the electorate is ignorant at best and duplicitous at worst.

It kind of reminds me of what’s going on with his reaction to Rev. Wright’s comments. Sure, he says he thinks a certain way now. But where was he back when this happened, back when opposing this kind of thing would have cost him support instead of gaining it for him? Let’s not pretend that either set of actions is based on principle, except for the principle of self-interest.

As a gay man, I am not willing to let the will of the people decide what are and are not my rights.

The will of the people have always decided what are and are not your rights - or, more precisely, what of your rights the government will go to any effort to preserve. Even the Bill of Rights was voted on at one point.

A mob can never be anything but a mob.

Which puts you in agreement with the founders of the U.S., which in turn is why we are a Democratic Republic and not a pure Democracy.

Because to lie well takes a level of expertise that she doesn’t possess? Unlike her husband, for contrast.

Governors are elected in general elections. In California that is a general election in a population of 40 milion.

“What evidence do we have, from recent history anyway, that it is the electorate who decides who has control in your country?
Or mine.”

Bingo. The huge expense aand effort that goes into pandering to and manipulating the electorate shows that the elctraote matters for something, but not that it is in charge, even of its own mind. Tghis works because people are used to being passive - either they are to lazy to care about the issues or too lazy to do anything about them, or much more likely, just don’t have time or energy. But we leave ourselves open to this kind of manipulation because it feels good.

“I honestly believe that, whether it be the US or the UK, if 65% of people voted for the ‘peoples candidate’ and that choice opposed the wishes of those with the influence, then the ‘peoples candidate’ will still lose the election.”

If only that were true. I think that si about the magnitude of the Nixon landside victory. What a disaster for the country that was. I was taufght and brought up to think the peole were the source and repository of wisdom and goddness in a political system, but that was a childish superstition. A mob can never be anything but a mob. As a gay man, I am not willing to let the will of the people decide what are and are not my rights.

And I think she had far too little involvement in FMLA to reasonably claim any credit for it, but we may have to agree to disagree on that one.

To her credit, Clinton did recently co-sponsor a bill to restore funding to UNFPA, which is an issue that is greatly important to me.

* * *

I think we can depend on the MSM to treat the Democratic nominee unfairly, and to bend over backwards to give McCain a break, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. However, since this will happen to either Clinton or Obama, I don’t see this as a point in either candidate’s favor.

Just as not voting for a black or female simply because they are that is silly.

And to say that you have black Governors is not really relevant to a general election.

But, to return to the original topic of politicians in general and Clinton in particular lying, this is simply the nature of politics.

It IS corrupted from the lowest levels of political influence right to the top.

Here in the UK the turn out for elections are falling dramatically.
Our politicians tell us that this is because everyone is ‘content’.
I can assure you that is not the case.
A huge number of people don’t vote because they have absolutely no faith in politicians and the system as it is.

Now, that sort of thinking, which must be on the increase in the US, coupled with the stupid prejudices of people makes it likely that neither a woman nor a black person will become president in the near future.

You also have to consider the corruption and dishonesty that is evident in your way of voting.

Bush didn’t win one of his elections.
He still became president though.

So, added to voter frustration and prejudice you have to add the possibility that the whole election is a fraud anyway.

What evidence do we have, from recent history anyway, that it is the electorate who decides who has control in your country?
Or mine.

And is it a deliberate ploy of the powers that be, that the parties in both your country and mine are harder and harder to tell apart?

Democracy in your country, and mine, is designed to make people think they have control when, in actuality, those with the real power have absolutely no intention of letting the ‘man in the street’ decide what they can and can not do.

Frankly, I consider faith in the political systems of our to countries to be naive, closed minded and not much different from a belief in a supreme being.
There is as much evidence for a fair political system as there is a god.

Finally people, stop paying any attention to what people, especially politicians say. Watch what they do. look at their record. Not the records their web sites and publicity claims but do some searching.

If you do this, you will find that even politicians that tell the truth, largely, do so for one purpose. Their own or their parties advancement.

You may call me cynical but, when I started looking at politics with an unbiased eye and left my preconceived understanding in it’s box, all I could see was corruption, lies and cheats.

We can all hope for a leader whose main concern is ‘the people’.
But, at this time in history, the evidence shows that money and industry hold far more influence than the electorate does.

I honestly believe that, whether it be the US or the UK, if 65% of people voted for the ‘peoples candidate’ and that choice opposed the wishes of those with the influence, then the ‘peoples candidate’ will still lose the election.

I am not saying that our political systems do not work. I am saying that what is important is who it works for.
And, right now, they work for business, industry and the very wealthy.
Accept that or not.
It is a free world.
Not.

Are you responding to someone other than Hillary Clinton and her web page?

Instead she adheres to the sexist stereotype of the “lying woman”.

Daran, it’s not as if Obama and McCain haven’t also told lies; politicians lie.

It’s fair to point out and criticize when politicians (male or female) lie, but to single out the female candidate for “lying while female” is obviously sexist and unfair.

I wasn’t singling her out for lying while female. I was pointing out that her effort (according to Charles) to avoid one negative female stereotype lead her to adhere to another. I’m not aware of Obama adhering to any racial stereotypes in his efforts to avoid others, while McCain appears to adhere to every lunatic wingnut stereotype, while avoiding none of them.

I recently read a profile of one of these “innovative” economists who challenges the whole idea of rational decision making, and he made one point that seems really germane to the current primary campaign: the more nearly equal two alternatives are, the harder it is to choose, and the more emotional the choice becomes.

Also, I would add, the more it is that a choice reflects unprovable intangible qualities, the uglier the fight between adherents of the two becomes. We can’t really know who will make a better president just as we can’t prove the existence of God. There is an analogy to religious wars — people seem to fight fiercest when it’s in defense of a principle that they cannot prove.

That said, it brings my blood to a simmer when I feel that the Clintons are talking up McCain’s qualities — or playing the race card — or advocating rule changes to give Super Ds cover to ignore the delegate count. It especially makes me angry because Clinton’s most devoted supporters are women (like my mother) whose interests and priorities are clearly not shared by McCain. Would she really sell them out by subtly or not so subtly pushing McCain over Obama?

My prediction is that — regardless of what Clinton or Obama supporters say now — we will wind up with a 95% unified Democratic party during the general election.

I think you are probably right, as far as Democrats go. But, I think a lot of Dems who rely on this thinking are dismissing the Independents far too easy. From what I’m hearing, a lot of Independents who were supporting the Dems this year (some for Obama, some for Clinton) are jumping ship because of the problems with the DNC and the games they are playing. I can only hope that these people can be won back by November — but I think a sure fire way of guaranteeing that we won’t is to assume that they’ll just “support us anyway,” which seems to be what a lot of Kos type Obama supporters seem to argue.

Regarding Clinton’s support of FMLA, I think your argument upgrades it from “a terrible lie” to an “ordinary lie” — the usual exaggeration politicians do to claim they were leaders on an issue when they actually were only supporters.

It simply isn’t true that if not for Hillary Clinton’s intervention, Bill Clinton wouldn’t have made FMLA a campaign issue, or sought to pass it quickly in a period when he was being criticized for dropping most of his campaign promises. It’s not a coincidence that the Democratic-controlled congress forced Bush Sr. to veto FMLA twice — including once in the September before the election; they did it because they understood that it was a very popular bill that Bush Sr. would hurt himself by vetoing. The only way it’s believable to say that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have pushed FMLA, under those circumstances, is to assume that Bill Clinton was a terrible politician who never read polls or attempted to capitalize on issues that hurt his opponents.

As it happens, I’ve read a lot about FMLA, including studying it in college several years ago as part of a women in politics course. I don’t recall ever hearing, before Hillary started running for President, that she had a substantial involvement in FMLA. Compare this thorough history of the FMLA’s passage under the Clinton administration (pdf link) to the claim that Hillary Clinton was an important leader in the fight for the FMLA.

Although the Clinton administration claimed credit for passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the legislation was drafted long before Clinton took office. Support for the bill among the public and in Congress had already been secured by the Family and Medical Leave Coalition and members of Congress during the Reagan and Bush presidencies. Clinton did work to keep the issue alive and urged Congress to pass family leave legislation quickly.

Ultimately, the Family and Medical Leave Act is attributed to Clinton only because he was the president who finally signed the bill into law. The issue was inherited by the Clinton administration and seized because it advanced Clinton’s desired message and because of political circumstances, including Bush’s unpopular vetoes and the challenges faced by the early White House. In the opening weeks of the Clinton administration, Clinton desperately needed a victory on a campaign promise. The Family and Medical Leave Act was a popular component of Clinton’s domestic agenda that could be achieved without much time, effort, or organization on the part of the scrambling White House. It was decided, therefore, that the Family and Medical Leave Act would be an immediate and urgent Clinton priority, one which he hoped would be the inaugural legislation of his administration.

It’s great that Clinton hosted Pat Schroeder while Schroeder passed through Arkansas as part of Schroeder’s national tour, but I don’t think that entitles Clinton to claim that she was a leader in the fight for the FMLA. She was a bit player in the early fight, and by the time she came to Washington the fight was 99% over.

I’m leery of seeming to be passionately anti-Clinton. I’m not. I think she’s brilliant, likable, and too right-wing for my taste — but that’s also my view of Obama. If she wins the nomination, I’ll certainly want her and not McCain to win, because whether or not she was a leader on FMLA, her instincts will be to support the FMLA and other bills like it. That’s important.

Furthermore, although I think her claims (and those of her supporters) regarding her role with FMLA are vastly exaggerated, I don’t think it’s at all an exaggeration to say that women’s issues and family issues have been important to Clinton for decades, and she has a solid record in this regard.