au contraire! i think it’s a good theory! for the record, i think ron’s is a good theory, too! i’m just saying i don’t think we have enough information here to draw the sweeping conclusions ron is trying to draw.

IMO, zach has a valid argument on that point. So props to zach.

Also, IMO, my point is that Bill might have canceled the speech for reasons that are even more pathetic than pandering to unions. And I think that’s much more likely an explanation.

I’m not expecting props from zach on MY theory….

Bill turn down a chance to speak and be the center of attention? In front of all those “coeds”? For money?

Uh uh.

Well, kinda……

I’d wager the main reason Bill cancelled his speech there is because Hillary is toast. There is now no chance of any political advantage for Hillary & Company coming from a speech in LA.

If Hillary were now the democratic candidate, as was probably assumed when he agreed to this engagement, such a venue would have provided a great opportunity for a widely covered stump speech in a critical state.

But alas, things have changed.

The labor dispute provides a convenient excuse for avoiding what is now just another inconvenient engagement.

hahha, well, when you read sentences like this:

“Public Enemy Number One for these socialist vanguards are Republicans who want to reduce the size and spending of government”

I think I might pick a bone or two ;p. But no, I’m sure its facts, if not its analysis, are in order.

I’m just saying you have no clue what knowledge Clinton has of the ins and outs of the labor dispute.

all democrats, all times, all places? that seems like something just begging to be disproven.

You don’t like the title of the article I linked to, so I agree, its analysis must be wrong. I am sure I could find a better one for you if you are seriously disputing the factual basis of that one.

I don’t know that I’d find an article titled “How Socialist Unions Rule the Democratic Party” especially trustworthy; but, okay, maybe they are still relevant.

I don’t know if they are on the side of the angels or not. Neither does Bill Clinton, and neither does he make the inquiry. He didn’t say they were. He said there’s a dispute, and we don’t cross picket lines. Actually, Zach, that presumption is what I wrote about — not who is or is not right in any particular dispute.

are unions even that important anymore? The “union man” in every primary for quite some time (HRC/Edwards, Gephardt, etc.) have lost the nomination, and most union employees are hardly reliably Democratic in their voting patterns.

not only that, but how do you know the unions AREN’T on the side of the angels in this case? Or are you simply guilty of the same sin, i.e. assuming unions are always on the side of the devil?