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.