Hillary Clinton To Indian Country: Drop Dead!
Recently, I wrote about how Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Barack Obama all participated in a Democracy for America (DFA) Q and A session where members ask the candidates questions and the candidates produce a You Tube video in response that is distributed to DFA members. This is, in essence, practically free advertising and a great chance to get your message out to a particularly active group of likely voters. I though Richardson, Edwards and Obama all did well, and if you go to my diary, I have the videos there for you to watch.
Hillary Clinton did not participate. I though this was both stupid and rude of her, particularly given the strong role DFA played in the 2006 elections. Some readers disagreed, suggesting she had no reason to participate. Well, before I cover the LATEST stupid and rude blow off by Clinton, I want to explain why her actions were stupid.
DFA boasts of a membership of well over half a million members. It is safe to say that most of these members are likely voters and, though some may be registered Green, or Working Families Party or Independent, most are Democrats. Of that half a million, about 50,000 are particularly active, organizing or participating in events, doing the footwork for candidates, and donating money...$2.6 million donated to candidates by the end of 2006. DFA's local affiliates cover 98% of America's Congressional districts. THIS is what Hillary Clinton chose to blow off.
For almost no money, Hillary could have joined Richardson, Obama and Edwards in sending her message to these 500,000 likely voters. But she didn't. To me that is just plain dumb.
And now, Hillary Clinton has chosen to blow off ANOTHER large group of voters: Native Americans.
The Indigenous Democratic Network (INDN), founded by Kalyn Free of the Choctaw Nation, has been working to empower Native Americans by educating them as voters, training activists, getting out the vote and electing candidates from Indian Country. In 2006, their efforts were decisive in tipping the Pennsylvania state legislature for the Democrats.
For 2008, INDN is organizing an event called "Prez on the Rez" which gives the Democratic presidential candidates a chance to reach out to Indian Country.
Bill Richardson was the first candidate to accept the invitation and recorded a special message for INDN, which does honor to Native Americans. By contrast, Hillary Clinton is the first and only (to date) candidate to spcifically REFUSE to participate in Prez on the Rez. Here is the press release from INDN:
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton today became the first and only candidate to refuse an invitation to speak at a first-ever candidate forum in Indian Country. The forum, called Prez on the Rez by its organizers, the INDN's List Education Fund (ILEF), will be August 23, on the reservation of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in Cabazon, Calif. Senator Clinton was invited to Prez on the Rez more than six months ago.
Kalyn Free, president of the Tulsa-based ILEF, said, "Hillary Clinton's willingness to ignore Indian voters on the campaign trail has made it clear that she lacks the courage to change lives in Indian Country."
"I'm both disappointed and astonished that Senator Clinton has turned her back on American Indians. By refusing to participate in this historic event, she lost an opportunity to inspire an entire generation of American Indians to engage in the democratic process. Sadly, that reflects the hollowness of her rhetoric and the narrowness of her vision," said Free. "Just as tribes are gaining recognition for building political power in key states throughout the country, Senator Clinton is ignoring the needs - large and small - of Indian People. We demand a president who truly cares about who we are, who has the courage to change the shameful state of life in Indian Country and throughout America, and who has the vision to build a society all Americans can be proud of. I'm disheartened to say that Senator Clinton has proven she is not that leader."
Free said Senator Clinton made "starting a conversation" about strengthening the middle class, making healthcare more affordable, and bolstering the lives of children and families, the centerpieces of her campaign. On each of these counts, reflected in a staggering array of statistics, Indian Country falls far behind the rest of the nation, yet her proposals - detailed over the past two weeks - reflect the priorities of her campaign: they ignore Indian Country entirely.
On Memorial Day, Senator Clinton declared expanded healthcare coverage "a moral imperative," and proposed a solution involving investments in modernizing medicine and eliminating waste in the industry. While these improvements may cut costs for the majority of Americans who already have access to adequate healthcare, it will do nothing for the 30 percent of Indians who lack health coverage and the millions more whose reservations lie far from the modern medical facilities Senator Clinton hopes to improve. The waiting list for new "priority" healthcare facilities in Indian Country is nearly 60 years. Tribal citizens need champions that are not afraid to increase funding for tribal health programs. The need for this health funding is staggering: life expectancy of Native Americans is nearly six years less than any other race or ethnic group in America and 13% of Native deaths occur in citizens under 25, a rate three times higher than the average U.S. population.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported in 2003 that "American Indian youths are twice as likely to commit suicide. Native Americans are 630 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, 650 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis, 318 percent more likely to die from diabetes, and 204 percent more likely to suffer accidental death compared with other groups. "In a plan Senator Clinton outlined the following day, the Democrat proposed strengthening the middle class by protecting workers, reining in federal spending, punishing corporations that move jobs overseas, and supporting higher education. Yet outsourced jobs can hardly account for the 46% unemployment rate in Indian Country, where one in four live in poverty.
Clinton's indifference to Indian Country extends to the women and families that comprise its future. Free argues that Clinton should take a look at the lifelong disparities that face American Indians as they age, both on and off the reservation. A recent publication issued by Amnesty International reported one in three American Indian women will be raped at some point in their lives, a rate that is more than double that for non-Indian women. "The crisis of children and families in Indian Country continues to limit the opportunities for American Indians to build a better future, while Senator Clinton's willingness to ignore the state of Indians ensures the continuation of a terrible status quo," Free said.
Now I was not able to track down how many Native American voters are in America, but increasingly the Native American vote has been important in several states and, according to one analysis, it could play an important role in the 2008 election. To quote from a review of that analysis:
According to an article in the New York Times on September 24, 2004, "In the last few years, political races from Congress to county sheriff have begun to hinge on the Indian vote ... ." Indian tribes also have become big players in campaign contributions, lobbying and running candidates for office. Co-author McCool says that with the growing influence of the Western states in presidential primaries, the Indian vote will become even more important. "I think it's safe to say that there are specific scenarios where the presidential race could hinge on the vote in some Western states, much like it did on Florida in 2000 or Pennsylvania in 2004. Indian voters have already proven that they can swing statewide elections in Washington, Arizona, New Mexico and South Dakota. If any of these states becomes pivotal in a tight presidential race, the Indian vote could make the difference," says McCool.
"Native Vote" is the first book-length analysis of the newfound political power of American Indian people. It describes the long struggle of American Indians to get the right to vote, and explains how they are wielding this power to influence elections, and benefit tribes. The book offers an analysis of the 70-plus court cases in Indian Country that were based on the Voting Rights Act; several such cases are still in the courts. "Native Vote" is the only comprehensive study of these cases. The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized by Congress in September 2006, so there is a strong likelihood that many more cases will be filed in the future. There was a time when American Indians were not considered players on the political stage. That perception has changed dramatically in recent years, and all indications are that Native peoples are now a potent force in Western politics. "Native Vote" explains how this change came about, and how it is affecting contemporary elections.
Sorry, Hillary. Much as I think you have considerable potential to make a good president, to date you are giving me no reason whatsoever to support you in the primary.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2008 Elections | Democratic Party | native americans | Democracy for American | DFA | Indian Country | Indigenous Democratic Network | INDN | Prez on the Rez
This is about the unions
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 31 May 2007 - 11:07am.
While Hillary has declined to participate, other candidates have also not yet committed, so singling her out is misleading. There is a reason for this, which is that the Prez on the Rez event is scheduled to take place at a casino on an Indian reservation, and for that reason California's powerful labor unions are opposed to it. I'll quote an excerpt from an AP story. Here's a link to an AP news digest that includes the story:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/24/state/n18252...
"SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) _ The organizer of a Democratic presidential forum that is expected to draw American Indian leaders from around the country to Southern California says that opposition from a labor union has prompted top contenders to shy away from attending.
The fate of the event, called "Prez on the Rez" by its organizers, has become embroiled in a state political dispute sparked by an attempt by wealthy gambling tribes to expand their casino operations.
Labor unions, close allies of the Democrats who control the state Legislature, are opposed to most of the tribes' efforts because they say the expansion deals will make it more difficult to organize casino workers."
So this is why these candidates, not just Hillary, but all the candidates except Richardson, are backing off this event. No candidates except Richardson and Gravel have accepted, and yet you single out Hillary? It is unfair. Obama and Edwards also haven't committed and won't likely risk losing potential union endorsements by going to an event they haven't approved. These organizers must know that in democratic politics you have to play the game, and you can't jeopardize your chances to win in an entire state by pissing off the local labor unions. So I think it is unfair to blast Hillary as anti-Indian over this, when the reasons for her declining are perfectly clear, which is the unions don't want the event taking place at an indian casino where they can't organize the workers. The organizers were negotiating with the unions and those negotiations fell through. If the unions give their approval, Hillary and the other candidates will probably show up.
As for DFA, Hillary has no chance at that endorsement and has a well known rift with Howard Dean, over Dean's 50 state DNC strategy. I think she should have responded and hope she still will. There was no deadline given. But if she declines to respond, given limited resources and time, to a group that she believes for the most part is dead set against her campaign, its not like you can blame her.
So
Submitted by mole333 on 31 May 2007 - 11:42am.
So you are saying that Hillary is so dominated by special interests that she can't even be polite to the grassroots. Boy is THAT a condemnation of Clinton!
Hillary is the ONLY candidate to specifically refuse. So that is why she is singled out. She is also the only major candidate to refuse to participate in the DFA event. This really shows she has no interest in anything but top contributors. I think it is a very lousy message she is sending.
As to the other thing she is doing is she is sending a message to hundreds of thousands of likely voters and tens of thousands of activists that she doesn't care about them. That will give those people no incentive to work for her in the general election if she wins. This isn't just about the primary. Not every Democrat is as strategic as I am, willing to back the primary winner. Many, and many independents among DFA and Native Americans, will also be taking the hint that Hillary doesn't want them. That will HURT her in the general if she wins the primary.
Seems to me this is also a condemnation of unions. Unions, who I generally have supported all my life, are opposing an event that connects candidates with Native Americans? That is insane! Absolutely insane! And you are okay with this?
I am for empowerment of underrepresented groups and it is hard to get more underrepresented than Native Americans. So I think this attempt by establishment groups to keep Native Americans disenfranchised is pretty despicable, and Hillary's leadership in maintaining that disenfranchisement is even more dispicable. And your defense of disenfranchisement...well that is nothing new to those of us who heard your stuff in NYC's primary elections.
By the way, thanks for properly citing the news source with link and without excessive quoting.
Hillary on native american issues
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 31 May 2007 - 11:54am.
This is excerpted from the site of the Ojibwe tribe:
http://www.millelacsojibwe.org/PressReleaseDisplay.asp?id=172
"During her husband's eight years as President, she spent more time in Indian Country than any other First Lady, giving particular focus to the reservations in most need. She also supported President Clinton's strengthened relationship with tribes - the strongest it had been in the nation's history. President Clinton coordinated the first-ever economic summit to build up tribal economies and was the first President since Franklin Roosevelt to visit a reservation.
As Senator, Hillary Clinton has supported funding for American Indian health care, housing and education programs; co-sponsored legislation related to Indian-owned small businesses and the protection of tribal cultures; and spearheaded a campaign to close the minority health care divide. She also co-sponsored the Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001, which clarified the eligibility of Indian women for the optional Medicaid eligibility category added by the Breast and Cervical Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000."
Look at her record before writing incendiary headlines like "Hillary Clinton to Indian Country- Drop Dead" You sound like you write for the New York Post, that is the sort of headlines THEY write, or the national enquirer. You don't define a candidate's entire relationship with one group over declining one event. One debate does not keep an entire underepresented group disenfranchised. Hillary has done a lot for native americans.
Also you have an agenda mole. John Edwards and Barack Obama have also specifically not accepted the invitations. If one of them had been the first to decline, I strongly believe you would not have written "Barack Obama to Indian Country-- Drop Dead" or "John Edwards to Indian Country. Because you don't have an agenda against them. With Hillary you are looking for shit to throw against the fan. You are biased, just admit it.
HA!
Submitted by mole333 on 31 May 2007 - 12:42pm.
This from the gentleman who advocated not worrying about accuracy.
Fine if Clinton has a history of helping Indian Country. And kudos for finding some info on it. But she is also specifically blowing them off now. Obama and Edwards have not responded to date...and I have contacted their campaigns about it...with no reply so far. If silence continues you can bet I will write about it. But to date Hillary is the only one who has specifically told Indian Country they can forget about her participation. THAT is what I was writing about.
My agenda is winning in November 2008. I have no specific primary candidate and I consider Clinton acceptable, though she makes it increasingly hard to support her in the primary. You, on the other hand, have made it clear that you think she should just be annointed, primary be damned. And you brook no criticism of her even when she say's go to hell to the most disenfranchised voters in the nation in favor of wealthier special interests. I have praised all of our candidates when I found it appropriate. I have defended Hillary against some who have attacked her. So give me a fucking break. The criticism is legit and the info accurate.
The criticism is legit but it is biased
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 31 May 2007 - 1:35pm.
The criticism is legit-- yes she turned down the invitation to that debate-- but it is biased. You did not criticize Obama and Edwards for not accepting this same invitation. No they haven't turned it down but they likely won't accept it either and risk losing union endorsements. Anyway you are roasting Hillary for "not accepting" the invitation, as of yet, to post a video on DFA's site. So why are you not ripping Edwards and Obama for "not accepting" this tribal groups invitation? Why only Hillary? Because you are biased.
You posted that incendiary headline "Hillary Clinton to Indian Country: Drop Dead" without even bothering to research her record. Without even bothering to find out that Hillary, along with Tom Daschle, was the co-organizer of the first ever Senate Democratic Native American Forum. Without bothering to look at her votes on appropriation bills for Native American issues.
Your desire to flame Hillary at the first instant, while leaving the other candidates alone, shows pure bias. So give me a fucking break. Hillary does not deserve to be accused of telling all native americans to drop dead just because she declined one specific group's invitation. Does she have to kiss the ass of every member of every minority group to be seen as being on their side? She also recently declined an invitation to some event in Iowa. Does that mean she is telling all Iowans to "drop dead" Of course not! Only someone highly manipulative and with a specific agenda would blow something like that out of distortion. You use the tactics of Fox News! You should retract that headline, it borders on being libelous and highly distorts the situation at best.
Bias?
Submitted by mole333 on 31 May 2007 - 2:06pm.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You continue to recite your litany of Obama and Edwards did it too WHEN THEY DID NOT DECLINE. To date they have not responded as far as I have heard FROM THE ORGANIZERS of the event. They specifically stated that Hillary was the first and ONLY one so far to outright decline. So stop distorting the facts. I said it absolutely correctly and, quite honestly, not really that biased. ONLY...ONLY Hillary has declined, no matter what you claim in your personal bias.
You accuse anyone who criticizes Hillary of some kind of nefarious plot. This is exactly your pattern. You can't simply add the note that Hillary has done stuff for Native Americans before and she is terrified of the unions. That perspective was worthwhile. But you have to immediately turn it into some crusade for St. Hillary.
Politics as usual
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 31 May 2007 - 2:57pm.
Hillary HAS NOT DECLINED the DFA invitation either, just as Obama and Edwards have not declined the Prez on the Rez invitation. Yet you make a huge distinction there. You blast hillary for not accepting the DFA deal *yet* you not do blast Edwards and Obama for not accepting the Prez on the Rez deal *yet* In one case it is acceptable to "not accept as of yet" some invitation (hillary/dfa) but in another case (obama/edwards and prez on the rez) it is not? It is hypocritical.
Also I do not believe Hillary is terrified of the unions. That is another distortion you read into her declining that invitation. She simply knows how the game is played, and knows one appearance or debate is not worth losing vital union endorsements. Edwards and Obama no doubt know this too. But you are not biased against them.
When you judge candidates based on whose important asses they have kissed, and not on the substance of the issues, you are playing "politics as usual" Tht is what you are doing. What Hillary has or hasn't done in the past on behalf of Native Americans simply seems to matter less to you than whether she has kissed the ass of this particular vocal group. Whether Hillary takes progressive/liberal stands seems to matter less to you than whether she has kissed the ass of DFA. You are looking for symbolism over substance. That is, again, politics as usual. You can't crusade against politics as usual, against back room schmoozing and special interest ass-kissing, when you are demanding that the candidates do that very thing.
I am not crusading for Hillary, I am defending her against what I think was a cruel, unnecessary headline. She has not told indian country to drop dead. More likely than not, she will be the democratic nominee next year. You are not putting yourself in a position to be a strong advocate for the ticket when you have your byline under such vicious headlines. Again I suggest you change that headline. Don't editorialize in it. It should simply say something like "Hillary declines Indian Country debate invitation" There is no need for the cruel, insensitive, outright hostile words you used in that headline.
Wrong as usual
Submitted by mole333 on 31 May 2007 - 3:34pm.
No...as usual you take a stand and keep to it no matter what the evidence. I laid out exactly where I differed with her, posted figures as to why I thought she was being foolish, quoted the view of the organizers, and all you do is whine about my being unfair to her. No. I am not being unfair to her. I am reporting how her campaign (perhaps I should emphasize HER CAMPAIGN, not her per se) is consistently behaving in an imperious, rude and quite possible poorly strategic manner. You should well know that I have gotten flak for doing the same thing to campaigns I support when I thought they were making mistakes. If somehow I am tarnishing your Saint's halo, tough.
Now I have better things to do. At least this time you contributed two bits of actual useful information bfore turning the discussion into twaddle. The article regarding her past involvement with Indian Country and the article suggesting that she will only kiss the biggest of asses (in this case big labor, a force I sometimes love sometimes hate) and 500,000 grassroots activists and, currently, Indian Country don't have big enough asses even collectively for her.
Then again, YOU are the one who is viewing everything as kissing ass. I have, from the beginning, viewed it as who she and the other candidates find worth communicating ideas with. But you have to always bring it to the level of whose kissing whose ass, I guess. But I'm done with this dicussion.
I have laid out specifics of why you are wrong
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 31 May 2007 - 5:09pm.
You criticize Hillary for "not accepting" the DFA thing, but you will not criticize Obama or Edwards for "not accepting" the Prez on the Rez thing. It is hypocritical. In my opinion, you have an agenda. Which is to bash Hillary, fairly or unfairly, in whatever way and by whatever means you deem reasonable. That is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion. I honestly believe that if it was Edwards or Obama who had been the first to decline that debate, that you would have said nothing. Posted nothing. I mean I hope you would have, but it is not my gut feeling.
Big union support is crucial in some of these early primaries, such as Iowa as you well know. I am sure that one of the criteria that these unions look at when making endorsements is "which candidates have supported them by not appearing at events organized by groups that are anti-union or taking place in facilities that are not unionized" Hillary appearing in an indian reservation casino that will not allow union organizing would be a slap in the face to them. They no doubt feel that the service employees in these indian casinos need protection, that the owners of these casinos are putting profits ahead of the needs of their workers.
So what if Hillary accepted and lost a big union's endorsement because of it? And then potentially lost Iowa or some of the other big midwest union states because of those unions endorsing other candidates? She *definitely* cannot help native americans in their cause if she can't get elected! Or worse, what if the big unions put up picket lines on the night of the debate and make an issue of her and other candidates crossing it? Surely you can see that one event, one little event on a long campaign calendar, isn't necessarily worth that kind of aggravation. If Hillary's work/record on behalf of native americans isn't going to matter as much to tribal voters as her appearing at one event, then she probably isn't going to get their votes in the first place.
You are still wrong
Submitted by mole333 on 1 June 2007 - 9:05am.
I have no objection to you arguing that Hillary is beholden to those with the most money and influence and wants to keep her distance from the lowly grassroots activists and Native Americans. That is probably an accurate description of her motivations, though you implied it, not me.
I do object (and, I warn you, will start using editorial judgement to delete) your mischaracterizing what I say as inconsistent.
Here is the point:
Hillary did not participate in an event with DFA that has already passed. Questions were solicited, normal every day people submitted their questions, three candidates awswered at some length and got some free publicity. She decided to give it a miss. Sure, she could technically send in a video, but the whole thing has passed, announced an covered with some fanfare. It isn't like it's a standing invitation, though of course candidates have that as well. It was a specific process, which was the subject of many emails from DFA that she failed to participate in. For the record, you are talking based on nothing but your own incomplete knowledge and your bias that Hillary is our annointed savior. I have discussed this with people involved in the process so that I would have a more complete idea of the facts and I come from a stated and oft repeated bias that I will support whoever gets the nomination on the Democratic ticket.
Second point you miss:
Hillary has SPECIFICALLY declined to participate in the Prez on the Rez event. You have rightly pointed out she did it because she is afraid of and beholden to big labor. Fine. I am not anti-labor by any means, though I don't think someone has to be completely beholden to them either. But she specifically declined to participate. None of the other candidates have declined the invitation. And this event, UNLIKE THE DFA ONE, is in the future: in August. FYI: past and future are not the same thing, though you'd never know that from the Schroedinger equations.
So, stop mischaracterizing what I say. If you do so again I will simply delete.
A couple of things
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 1 June 2007 - 11:08am.
First of all, if you want me to not mischaracterize what you say, give me the same respect. You repeatedly distort things I said. You are a hypocrite. I did not and have not said or implied that Hillary is "afraid" or "beholden to" big labor. What I am saying, not implying, is that her goal is to get *elected*, not to pander to every grassroots special interest group out there. This means that you respect, RESPECT not kiss their ass, those groups that carry more influence with primary voters. Trying not to piss them off is not kissing their ass.
Second of all I have never said Hillary is our "anointed saviour" She is not. You know perfectly well that I have told you more than once I support Obama. Another instance of you being hypocritical. You can distort, make up or outright lie about things I said but you'll delete anything said about what you said that you don't agree with?
This Prez on the Rez event is at an indian casino. Have you ever been to one of those places? Those guys are mega-zillionaires, not poor grassroots activits? These are guys in $5,000 suits and diamond rings who won't let their workers unionize because it would cut into their profits. Who is right there? Wouldn't you think that a democratic candidate should listen if Big Labor says that a group hosting an event isn't representing the interests of working class people?
As for DFA, I will repeat that if Hillary chose not to respond to a group whose founder she has major issues with, and whose endorsement she will not get because a majority of its members see her as too establishment, what is the big freaking deal? DFA does not equal the netroots! It is one progressive group out of thousands. I belong to DFA too, but the difference is I don't get bigheaded about it and start thinking we are more important than we really are and demand ass kissing.
Finally you still have not apologized for or changed that incendiary hate filled headline, "hillary clinton to indian country: drop dead" She did not tell them to drop dead. She supports indian country, she has voted for every native american appropriation that has passed her desk. Therefore your headline is a LIE. An outright, agenda filled, lie. I haven't distorted anything I said, I have told the truth.
Repetitive
Submitted by mole333 on 1 June 2007 - 11:48am.
Actually you did pretty much say she wasn't willing to risk incuring the wrath of big labor. That's called fear of big labor. Fine. Strategic, but not really democratic thinking. And you are slandering INDN by saying they don't represent working class people and you are repeating a racial slur suggesting that all Indians who own casinos are rich. I leave these up to show what you are like. But I want to say that he editors of this blog do NOT agree with the characterization of INDN as:
"...guys in $5,000 suits and diamond rings who won't let their workers unionize because it would cut into their profits."
I suggest you stop repeating slurs. Remember that the one and only time I have ever banned someone was for just such talk, although he clearly was worse. But if you think I will tolerate such racial slurs about Native American casino owners any more than I would about, say, Jewish bankers, you are wrong.
I also suggest you cease to call me a liar. You are the one who has previously suggested I spend too much time backing up my statements with excessive research. I don't. I aim for accuracy. You, on the other hand, have had a pattern of poor research for some time. I can tell you your reputation for accuracy in NYC blogs is low and mine is high. I feel no need to take your advice on such matters.
special interest pandering
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 1 June 2007 - 11:37am.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Comment Deleted as Repeating Exactly What Author Previously Said]
I am not slandering INDN nor
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 1 June 2007 - 12:30pm.
I am not slandering INDN nor did I say ALL indians who own those casinos are rich. Again, I ask if you have ever been to one? These casino operators are very rich just like the ones in Vegas and Atlantic City. They are rolling in money and they don't have to allow their rank and file members to unionize. It is not a stereotype anymore than when you and everyone else here calls republicans this that or the other thing that are highly stereotypical. If labor unions claim these casinos are not representing working class interests, is it not beholden upon democratic candidates to take that into consideration when deciding on whether to participate? You sound anti-union to me. All INDN had to do was not hold this event at a casino. Hold it in a lodge hall somewhere else on the reservation. No labor problems, fine, then everyone shows up. But no it has to be AT the casino. Why? Because it brings money and attention to the casino and enriches those guys. This is the way life is, it is all about turning a profit.
Also what I said in the deleted post was not a rehash. It was specifically pointing out that you implied INDN represents indian country, when it is one of many groups that represent native americans. So Hillary is not telling indian country to drop dead by declining this one group's invitation, so your headline is incendiary and inaccurate.
She had the right to decline this event and not be accused of grandiose kissing off of entire interest groups, just as if she declined an NAACP event, she should not be said to be telling black people to drop dead.
btw, I think moderators who delete posts because they upset their own vanity are misuing their mod powers. If I follow the rules of this board, I am entitled to post my opinions and participate in this discussion without interference from you, even if my posts happen to attack you. Just defend yourself, you're good at it. Deleting posts is another way of saying you have no argument for what I was saying.
No
Submitted by mole333 on 1 June 2007 - 12:35pm.
No. It was repitition. And FYI politicians blowing off NAACP is a bad idea that will get them in hot water, guaranteed.
Now, as to following the rules, you are NOT following the rules. You are over your limit, you are making baseless accusations, and you are repeating points ad nauseum without really addressing any fundamental issues. You also are, as usual, the first one to start rudely accusing others of being dishonest then whining about being called on it. You should have stopped at pointing out the labor issue and the article on the one tribe. Since then you have contributed nothing of any value and are violating your parole, as it were. My advice is to stop now.
Okay I won't belabor the point
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 1 June 2007 - 2:44pm.
Okay I accept the criticism that I get repetitive when I reiterate my points too much. So I won't any rehash any of that any further.
I will say though that you state as a fact that I have contributed "nothing of value" since my first post, when that is not a fact. It is your opinion. You should not act high and mighty, as it is not the job of the moderator to tell others which readers posts have value and which don't. Let others decide for themselves. You are not some great arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.
Also I have contributed positive posts to this forum and I have followed what we agreed to for six months. I have shown I can work within the framework of this board's rules. So now I want to be treated like any other user. Six months is long enough to be some second class citizen. I am not some child and I won't be on a leash and you are not a warden who dishes out parole. I accepted and abided by the agreement, and I fulfilled it. The agreement is over. I will now allow myself the dignity to follow the same rules as all the others users here and post as often as I feel I can contribute positively and not more than that. I have no intention of posting further in this item.
You would have to get Michael to agree...
Submitted by mole333 on 1 June 2007 - 3:17pm.
I brokered an agreement between you and Michael. I cannot allow you to unilaterally change that agreement and I don't think Michael will agree. Sorry. I understand that it is frustrating, but it allowed you to stay. I have allowed you to fudge the agreement, but I don't think you have the authority to annul it. If you choose to, then I will have to ask Michael if he figures that is grounds for banning.
I have to say no one likes the discussions where you behave this way. It detracts from the discussion, it gets us complaints and it drives off readers. And it takes up WAY too much of MY time, which could be better spent. I admit that's my fault because I get sucked in, but it is hard to let some of your statements go. Remember, I am one of the ones who tends to be NICER about you.
I have no real time for this. Please just take the weekend away from the computer. That's my advice.
Here is more proof Mole is hypocritical
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 2 June 2007 - 1:35pm.
Stop talking about my 'behaviour'. You spit on people who disagree with you and act condescending. You have to write "WRONG!" in big letters, instead of saying, "I respect your opinions but I disagree" No, you think as moderator, you have to be the arbiter of the truth, the great one who tells everyone else what is right or wrong. It is pathetic. You have really let moderating go to your head. My points are valid and real, and all I have been doing is expanding upon them. Just because you are a moderator doesn't mean you speak for this community either, stop using the words "us" and "we" as if you do.
Here is more proof that you are hypocritical. Hillary Clinton also pulled out of the Congressional Black Caucus debate, also for political reasons (in this case not big labor, but progressives having issues with Fox news) The CBC was very upset about this, just as the INDN people are. But you did not write a headline saying "hillary to black america: drop dead" How is Hillary pulling out of one debate put on by one special interest for political reasons different than pulling out of another for such reasons? There is no difference. Hillary didn't tell black america to drop dead and she didn't tell indian country to drop dead. She just declined specific events. You way the hell overreacted to it. You are just hypocritical, you have an agenda.
You did not even research this before posting. I was the one who had to tell you about Hillary's record on native american issues, and to point out the big labor issues with the event. You were just quick to go post this item with that inflammatory, rude and cruel headline, to score points with the INDN people with whom you have been corresponding, and to further your anti-hillary agenda.
HA!
Submitted by mole333 on 2 June 2007 - 5:46pm.
Ah, very funny...very funny indeed. Score points with the INDN people? For WHAT? Anti-Hillary agenda? Look, here is the ONE SINGLE REAL EFFORT I have put into the presidential primary: An Act Blue Site dedicated to funding the 2008 November general election for WHOEVER is the Democratic Nominee. If Hillary is the nominee, then my efforts help her and I am fine with that. I have written to each and every campaign. I have said good and bad about each and every campaign. I have quoted Hank Scheinkopf at length about his take on the 2008 elections INCLUDING his take that Hillary fits the strategy he suggests.
So all I can say is: Whatever, Wallner. Whatever.
Wallner...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 7 June 2007 - 9:24am.
...you operate under limitations because you make asshole comments like the one I'm responding to. If you can't interact with others without resorting to really lame ad hominems and questioning the motives and integrity of others, then obviously there's no reason to change much of anything as far as you're concerned, unless it were to finally block you entirely.
People get into fights on blogs, it's true. But you're someone who always does that, which reduces the value of what you contribute to zero.
I don't doubt your committment
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 3 June 2007 - 2:57pm.
mole, I don't doubt your committment to the democrats winning in 2008 and I never have. What I have been saying is that posts with inflammatory headlines about potential democratic nominees, such as this one , such as this one, are self-defeating. They work against our goals. If Hillary gets nominated, items with headlines such as yours will be used against us, the republicans will search the web for the best ways democrats blasted their fellow democrats. This isn't ribbing John Edwards over paying $400 for a haircut, this is you saying Hillary told Indian country to drop dead, that for all intents and purposes, she has no common cause with these people. Such impressions, even made in the past, can hurt her, if she is the nominee, with independent voters.
Hillary is not our enemy. Republicans are the enemy. Attack them with your venom. As it is, what credibility are you going to have next year pushing Hillary if she gets nominated, when you and others (like bouldin) have put up so many items bashing her mercilessly. We all have issues with Hillary, so do I, but we should at least maintain an air of civility and treat the democrat candidates with as much fairness as possible so that whoever gets nominated will be seen in the best light. This post, in particular the headline you used, was not fair to her. That is all I am saying. It was not fair.
NO!
Submitted by JJ Ross on 3 June 2007 - 7:43pm.
The enemy is NOT here among our citizenry.
That is shocking and wrongheaded and dangerous to the union, and I want no part of that kind of thinking or blogging.
From the Dem debate
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 5 June 2007 - 11:57pm.
Hillary: We are not the enemy. The Republicans are the enemy. Well, that's my interpretation of what she said. And I must say, I don't usually take to heart what she says, but I do notice that her wardrobe is so appealing that AP put that electric blue look on their article.
And by the way
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 6 June 2007 - 12:00am.
This new remodeling job on the old Kitchen rocks. Thanks to all who helped.
Hey – since you’re a
Hey – since you’re a YouTuber, you might want to check this out… There’s a video company that’s recruiting YouTubers and if they like your stuff, (and they should) they will actually pay you when your video gets a hit. Here’stheirlink…www.flownetworkproductions.com/videorevenue.htm. It’s about time the people who make the videos get some of the money instead of it all going to YouTube!