Oh, uh, except I don’t endorse the negativity toward Senator Clinton at all. I think well of her, and even better of her after her impressive primary fight. I really might have voted for her, and I would have been quite comfortable with her if she’d won regardless.

No, no one does. But, you won’t hear that here.

Also IMO, I find it amusing how Hillary is lukewarmly supporting Obama after the nasty primaries. She really doesn’t want him to win, and she’s walking a fine line in her appearances.

This is why the Democrats really need to reconsider who they throw out of their party and who they keep. You see, when push comes to shove, after the primaries are over, the Republicans seem to grasp the concept of teamwork and jumping in line behind the winner. Self-serving politicians like Hilary Clinton don’t serve the Democratic party’s interests, they serve their own. She’d watch this country burn, but only if she held the match.

I’m really not sure she would have won with you guys if she’d appeared, in other words. Maybe with you and Kevin, but on the whole, I find it remarkable just how much of a Rorschach test an event like this is; do you honestly think that Republicans would have applauded and called it "statesmanlike" or whatever for her to appear at that event right at this time?

You Lefties can make whatever excuses you like. Hillary’s decision was a cold, calculated political decision that put her political future ahead of the need to confront evil.

The fact that you think that is the RIGHT thing to do does not reflect well on your own values.

IMHO.

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Insanity on the march?

Depends on the audience. You and me and especially most of the electorate (who pay less attention) won’t really remember her passing up this speech as a defining moment of whether Hillary Clinton is a good and noble public servant or not.

The Democratic Party establishment, however, will have a long memory about Hillary (apparently) helping McCain’s strategy of siphoning off Hillary votes via Palin if she appeared with the GOP VP candidate after a contentious Dem primary battle. Different audiences, different memories, IMO.

Also IMO, I find it amusing how Hillary is lukewarmly supporting Obama after the nasty primaries. She really doesn’t want him to win, and she’s walking a fine line in her appearances. Appearing with Palin was perceived by her as crossing over that line. And the political instinct is correct – Drudge would have grabbed the co-appearance with a big picture of them standing together and it would have set the Cable News Cycle for 24 hours.

The irony of your post is that the end result of Hillary’s canceling is that she appears to be petty and Sarah Palin appears to be magnanimous.

Perhaps Hillary’s calculations were a bit off on this one, eh?

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Cosmic’s iPod Sampler?

Amen. :) *Salute*

leftist Jewish forces rescind Palin’s invitation

Nope, the people holding the Rally rescinded the invitation. Unless the rally was being held by leftist Jewish forces?

Now I can agree with you about it being tacky that Hilary didn’t show up. In fact, if I have a case of beer and a comfortable talking environment I can go all day about how glad I am she is not the presidential candidate.

However, by your logic, if a kid whines to a stranger to get him a Playboy magazine, and the stranger buy him one; it is the kids fault he has a Playboy magazine. The event oganizers were the ones that decided to rescind the invitations. They were the ones that wussed out and gave into whining children. Don’t go on a massive anger-rage bender on Hilary supporters. This is not their fault. All the organizers had to do was say that they invited people, and if those people don’t want to show up then it is their right to do whatever they want but the show must go on.

Instead they caved. You see the children can whine all they want but it’s the adult the makes the final decision isn’t it?

1. Hillary can make a statement against evil. She shouldn’t have to do it in conjunction with Sarah Palin prior to an election, especially when not originally aware of the terms when she agreed.

2. "Supporting her ambition" isn’t quite accurate.  "Getting or not getting outraged about her decision", however, depends. If Hillary’s future ability to "Fight Evil" (FE) is directly correlated to "power" (P) and power would drastically diminish as a function of choosing to "fight evil this time" (FEn), then it’s a simple equation and she is conceivably actually making an ethical (to be clear, I’m being theoretical here; see postscript at the end of comment) as well as rational political calculation.

Skillful/successful (moderately) ethical politicians necessarily know when and how to prioritize stands that can do them harm. (see: John McCain, Iraq)

I tend to believe that getting angry about perceived black and white distinctions in many political calculations is the province of folks who construct giant paper mache puppets of political figures. (no specific offense intended to the author of the post)

Which is why the key coefficients are relevant - how big the impact of fighting evil is vs. how big the political gain or loss.

I’ll save my outrage for the things that actually matter, like the disposition of US troops, thank you. On this other point, Hillary has indeed failed to take any courageous stands … though failed less miserably than many others in her party.

PS – Not to mention the x factor that REALLY dips the outrage meter: the Clinton factor. A family of political figures with rarely seen qualities of political calculation, IMO. Ask yourself: why did Clinton agree to speak at that rally in the first place? I don’t think the main motivation was to “fight evil.”