Chew on this analogy between Clinton and Bush

[burythehatchet]

To Bush, rules and laws are meaningless if having to follow them interferes with your agenda and objectives.

When they interfere, Bush will invoke some higher purpose and determine the rules to be invalid. Former agreements only stand as long as those agreements accrue to your favor, when they no longer benefit you then you render them irrelevant by openly defying the rule. You create the facts on the ground and then you declare that the rule doesn't apply in this situation.

This delegate issue in my eyes in precisely the same diseased method of leadership(?) and exertion of power while invoking and inspiring divisiveness and contempt.

[MH1]

1. Yep, it seems that way to me, too.

Then remember there was also the stink about how the Nevada caucuses were to be weighted - Clintons started whining after Obama got the Culinary Workers Union endorsement, but the plan had been approved for MONTHS before that. It only became a problem when it looked like it might impact them negatively.

[TexasObserver]

2. The main difference between Clintons and Bush is which Party they exploit

to get the power and money they want.

[Armstead]

3. I'd say that's an apt analogy -- She should have had "principles" earlier

If she really cared about the Florida voters, she should have lobbied the DNC and the otehr campaigns BEFORE any elections took place, so it would have been a level playing field.

Instead she went along with the rest, until later when it was to her advantage and become a public martyr for the cause of re-enfranchisement.

Cynical is a mild word for that.