So now some in the anti-Hillary crowd are attacking her for not condemning the actions of some of her supporters in Nevada.
Great.
Back in 2004, the right-wing attacked Wes Clark for not condemning the words of one of his supporters, namely Michael Moore.
Not so very long ago, John Edwards was attacked for not strongly enough condemning the words written by some of his staffers before he even hired them.
Is this a great country, or what?
I don't know much about the political strategies employed elsewhere, but in the good old USA it seems we just love to expect our political leaders to reign in their supporters whenever it looks like they may have gone too far.
Is that a new-think democratic principle or something? I mean, is it democratic for our leaders to decide what we should and shouldn't say or do? Or, rather, isn't that sort of autocratic?
Now, I don't pretend to know much about the situation in Nevada; but I do get that casino workers will be able to vote without leaving their workplaces.
Great!
All workers should be so lucky! Right?
But, as I understand it, in Nevada, only the casino workers will be so lucky this time around.
Is that fair to all of the other workers in Nevada?
I don't think so.
As a matter of fact, I'm not even certain that this convenience even really best serves the political interests of those casino workers.
It will enable their Union leaders and bosses to know just who they vote for.
Is that a good idea?
I don't think so.
What do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/...