It’s Pandermonium for Hillary Clinton as she plays to Hispanics in Nevada (emphasis added):
She reiterated her doubts about the caucus process, which requires in-person, on-time participation.
“That is troubling to me,” she said. “People who work during that amount of time, they’re disenfranchised. People who can’t be in the state or are in the military, they cannot be present. … If people feel like there’s no reason to participate or they can’t, then that’s the same thing. So I think it’s a problem.”
How much do you want to bet that had she won Iowa we wouldn’t be hearing anything about her “concerns” about the caucus process?
More from the Las Vegas Review-Journal piece:
Clinton and her busload of traveling press moved from there to the popular local Mexican restaurant Lindo Michoacan, where a “roundtable” that was actually square passed a microphone around to tell her people’s concerns about the mortgage crisis and foreclosures. She took notes and munched on tortilla chips.
In broken English, one woman told Clinton how she wasn’t making money as a broker anymore.
“I have no income at all,” she said. “So how will I survive?”
Choking up with emotion, the woman said, “In my neighborhood, there are brand-new homes, but the value is nothing. I’m glad you are here so I can tell you, because you’re going to be the president, I know.”
A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.
“No woman is illegal,” Clinton said, to cheers.
Are you detecting that same whiff of sexism that I did from that comment? Others are. Will the media pick it up and run with it? I won’t hold my breath ….
| Email This Post | Print This |
I have been hearing this disenfranchisement argument on the “Real Debate Wisconsin” blog from a lib. It was part of his whine about sharing power, the power of the Iowa Caucus with Wisconsin.
It is just a loser’s lament. The fact that Hillary is engaging in Loser’s Laments is a Freudian Slip that she recognizes that she is losing, and will lose.
Comment by PCD @ 1/11/2008 - 10:59 am
Disenfranchisement??? This is why almost 2 Million Iowans didn’t show up for the caucus?? I agree with PCD, this is a loser’s argument. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 1/11/2008 - 1:15 pm
.
Yet another plant??? I bet so. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 1/11/2008 - 1:18 pm
Right, NOW she’s concerned about people serving in the military. She left out that what she meant was people serving in the military who’d vote for her in the first place. Must be two, maybe three dozen of them. Meanwhile, how many military absentee ballots did her pal Al Gore trash in Florida in 2000?
But she missed an opportunity here. I would have expected her to show up wearing a sombrero, a serape, and a Pancho Villa mustache. But maybe her Mexican accent still needs work - her dialog coach probably told her to hold off on it.
Comment by Steve Skubinna @ 1/11/2008 - 1:48 pm
This makes it exceedingly clear where the Hildebeast stands on the border control problem. Not that there was a lot of doubt before hand, but this is a crystal clear confirmation of the fact that she does not recognize our border with mexico. For those of us who fought so hard this past year against amnesty and who want to see the border closed, this ought to be a very clear warning.
Comment by Dr.D @ 1/11/2008 - 3:16 pm
Oh, I’m sorry, I misread that. I thought it said,
“No woman is illegal,” Bill Clinton said as he cheered.
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/11/2008 - 9:54 pm
A hillary supporter group recently sued the Nevada state democrat party over the caucus being held there. So they want to disenfranchise the workers of the Culinary Union, because they support Obama and not hillary.
LINK
Comment by Comte DeLoach @ 1/14/2008 - 8:57 am