Hot for Hillary

[JanS]

my take on the RFK thing…allthe above rhetoric aside. The primaries used to end in June with the biggie, California. What Hillary was trying to say was…no one should drop out at another’s urging because, after all, so many things were decided then…in Calif. There are many many examples of campaigns that went into June…and she was right to say it shouldn’t end now, but be seen to the end. She used extremely poor judgement in the example that she used…and she said almost the same thing a few months ago, but it was glossed over. I understood what she meant. But, still, she’s a smart woman, and should have known that it wasn’t brilliant on her part to actually say the “a” word. She could have been more general than that. People who are so against Hillary jumped on it immediately. And a slow news day became frantic for the media. Never did I think that she meant that she was waiting in the wings, etc.

Havinf said that..we all know that in this country there are people who just need a glimmer of suggestion…that’s why you don’t verbalize something like that, even if you didn’t mean how it’s portrayed…so, yes, very poor judgement on her part.

And…education is everything. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a college education…there are many ways to get it. My daughter has a 50K a year job with a highschool education. And, there is probably room for her to move up…how nice is that.

But let’s get real..the “racism”, the “sexism”…the belief that he is Muslim, despite information to the contrary, the belief that women support her just because she’s a woman (or that men vote against, because she’s a woman)…it all comes from ignorance…just my opinion.

In all of those posts this morning, I didn’t see one discussion on issues…are they that unimportant? I guess I don’t get it…and people, people…please stop taking things so personally…there’s a lot to be done between now and August, between now and November. The more that I hear John McCain in the news going from place to place, stumping, telling me that how dare Barack even mention the military because he didn’t serve (nor did Hill, but no one brings that up), or the more I hear about how he will continue the policies that exist now, the sicker I get. And we’re creaming each other here, for what? to make a point?

Hillary has my respect…always has…Kayleigh has my respect, as does JT, and Charla, and JoB, and anyone else on here who puts thought into the important things facing us.

but it’s getting petty…and that, IMO, is beneath all of us…we’re better than that…

going to my corner now…

Share This

[walfredo]

JoB- When you are in a hole stop digging.

I think that is a pretty controversial statement to say that white women in America, from a historical context have had it much worse then black men…

“I don’t think its that Hillary ran a bad campaign, the media created a hostile environment?”

Oh my lord! 3 of her top staff that SHE HANDSELECTED either got fired or resigned in disgrace during this campaign. She stated, the race ends Feb. 5th, and was fully onboard with the plan not to compete in caucas states, not to have a plan for the elections after Feb 5th… She ran out of money a dozen times, didn’t pay bills, borrowed money from her husband and his sketchy foreign business partners to keep her campaign going.

But most importantly, and may we never forget: She decided to support this war. She positioned herself as the “inevitable candidate”, the incumbent who’d be “ready from day one”. She refused to apologize for her Iraq vote, directly positioning her as the most hawkish of all the primary candidates on Iraq. A position she devined as a way to be “tough” in the general election, thinking she would easily win the primary anyway. The media didn’t do any of this… It’s delusional to suggest it.

People, especially egg-headed liberals, who sip lattes, and you know read the paper and stuff- saw her recent switch as a completely hedged “anti” war candidate, to be completely insincere, and they voted against her. In large numbers. In fact, in Iowa- Mrs. Ineviatble got 26% of the vote and finished 3rd.

That is why she lost this election, make up whatever story you want, but us egghead, moron, latte-drinkers remember how ineffective it was to have a candidate argue 4 years ago that they were voting for the war, before they were voting against it. That they stood by the president, for in her case 6 years; but now brought a real division from him and his failed policies.

Now that is why she lost, but why she is starting to be hated, is everything that she has done since she lost this race in early March. And everything she continues to do.

Please justify for me the current proposition to award Barack 0 votes, and 0 delegates in Michigan that her campaign is proposing Sunday. Please explain to me how that would be a victory for democracy… How using North Korea type election results, to position a candidate closer to a position where “super people” can overturn the results of the elections and place her in office. Please explain how that is a victory for democracy…

Share This

[charlabob]

Clinton is very lucky that people fixated on whether or not she was recommending the assassination of Barack Obama (she wasn’t!) Not even subliminally!

In the very same sentence, she used her husband’s nomination as an example of something that wasn’t settled until June. Her husband had the nomination sewn up in March. As I said before, I was a die-hard Jerry Brown supporter — so I know, only too well, when it was over.

BTW, Jerry is now Attorney General of California and his office, doing background research, is one of the reasons that single-sex couples will be able to marry in California, starting June 17.

BTW II — the privileged classes have tried, for decades, to pit the under-classes (women, minority, gays, the disabled) against each other. I thought we’d learned better. I really didn’t expect to see white women making the “we’re more oppressed” argument again in my lifetime. (There is plenty to go around — we just take it away from smug white men.) Apparently I lived too long. :-)

BTW III: I lied earlier — I don’t fit the demographic; I am college educated. That must be my fatal flaw.

Share This

[Anonymous]

From an outsider (not involved in this discussion) looking in, I have to agree with JanS.

Why is no one talking about ISSUES?

Who cares about polls, ratings, percentages, etc.? It’s boring and tiring.

JoB certainly has had her work cut out for herself. Although I don’t always agree with JoB’s opinion on things or how she comes about to have a particular opinion, she is doing a wonderful job of questioning Obama and his entire campaign.

At the very least, for anyone who may be undecided, she is casting doubt and raising very legitimate questions regarding Obama’s message, his past, his work ethic, etc..

For people that want to look at every aspect of this election, every option they have to choose from and is willing to educate themselves of all issues, JoB provides a good foundation.

I know that Obama supporter’s want to talk about “CHANGE”. Nothing specific is every illustrated to support the change Obama will bring. HOW will he bring change?

What I know so far is our taxes will go up, our military will be weakened, Government programs that have been proven not to work will continue to not work.

Obama can say whatever he wants about the war or how he felt about engaging in the war because he didn’t vote either way. He wasn’t even in the senate.

I find it amusing, also, that besides never mentioning military service as a noble way to serve your country during his *Memorial* Day Commencement speech, he spoke of giving back and not aspiring to attain the “American Dream”.

Isn’t America founded on living the American Dream. To become successful and prosperous? Yet, Obama is telling America that we shouldn’t want that. And he’s telling us this in his $3000.00 Armani suit and then goes home to his 2.0 million dollar home.

He’s a hypocritical fraud and no link to some liberal website, no poll and rating statistic and no name calling will ever change my mind of that fact.

My $0.02

Share This

[charlabob]

Every attempt to discuss issues on this or other forums here is swamped by the juggernaut of Clinton angst.

I completely agree with everyone who says that’s what we should be doing. However, NR makes a very good point — the undecids and lurkers need to get an opposing point of view and the Obama side is in odd position of being a majority that has to keep explaining itself to its own side.

I don’t expect anything else from Republicans — in fact, I expect them to relish the ongoing battle. (As NR said previously, she and I disagree about everything political and agree about many things non-political. I’m sure she scratches her head when she reads what I write as I do when I read her.)

Here’s something we all need to know and internalize: It will be clearer after the Rules committee meetings this weekend. Clinton does not think she’s going to lose. I believe the party regulars, the remaining supers, do not want to nominate Obama and are desperately looking for a reason not to do so. And I believe their reason is simple, elegant, unfettered racism. Hell, it’s bad enough that they might have to nominate a white woman — at least they all have one of those around the house and they aren’t as scary. And sorry if that seems disrespectful of women — that is an old canard, accepted by women and blacks in the 70’s who understood the point of being pitted against each other and resisted.

Share This

[Anonymous]

NR, I take exception. I have brought up several different themes and questions on the McCain/and or Obama thread including how McCain’s published tax plan is going to put us way more in debt by a large margin, than either Obama or Clinton. WSmom and I have discussed a few different things, but no one on the right will ever jump in. You will on occasion, but then it’s something you *heard*. Like *what about Obama’s uncle? Not an issue but I waste an hour researching it’s silliness. Who would you like us to discuss issues with? Ourselves?

Share This

[rs261]

Boy I missed a lot, but to respond I never handily dismissed hillary not getting SS protection…she had it before anyone. I cant dismiss something she had. Just that Obama got it before anyone else due to threats etc.

This may have been covered in the posts I havent read yet…

All pro choice democrats fall into the abortion clinic bombings for protection, not just women. Male or female, there is no distinction. Black or white. There are hate groups that will specifically target blacks, jews, homosexuals though, just like ones that will target pro choice. I’m assuming Republicans and democrats generally get SS protection the same time, and its just Obama’s race that was the key factor there. (just like Hillary’s former first lady status gave her the protection before all others)

I’ll have to read up on the other posts later.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

I have questioned McCain as well JT. That is the reason why I have bumped the McCain? thread back to the top. He does not support womens rights, his staffers are being questioned by the Feds now, he actively recruited Hagee as a supporter, he has no plans for fixing the problems the Bush Administration has created, he consistently forgets were his stance is on the issue (i.e. global warming), and his only qualification is that he served in the war. I also would not bring up financials in regards to the Presidential race considering Obama is the closest relation to all American’s financial situation. So he would be the one who has used the programs the most and has had to work his a** off to get where he is.

Share This

[Anonymous]

JT – You are the exception. I apologize that I didn’t clarify that in my original post.

You constantly research and challenge anything I say. Because you are so respectful about it, I truly respect everything you have to say.

Bdg – I’m sad to hear that you honestly think the only thing that qualifies McCain for President is his military service. You make it obvious that you don’t know much about him.

I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of discussions on this forum revolve around what we have all *heard*, myself included. I know that I watch the news, read the newspaper, read news sites, etc., but that is always someone else’s point of view. Every news story, every article is biased to some degree.

I agree that Obama supporter’s are constantly defending themselves to their same side and maybe that is why nothing substantial is really discussed here.

Even though I do not have the passion for my candidate as some Obama supporter’s have, I will defend him. He does support women (because he didn’t pass a bill that wasn’t even about women, that’s a huge leap and assumption to make), he does plan on fixing current problems within the Administration, and he has renounced any association with Hagee (weren’t we pretty quick to forgive Obama of his Reverend?).

I know that for you, BDG, the aides being interviewed by the Fed’s is a big deal (not sure why) and I realize that you are becoming frustrated that no one has remarked regarding that topic, but please remember that I am pretty much the sole Republican on this forum and, quite honestly, I don’t think it’s a very big deal.

Do you think that it’s a big deal that Obama was involved in an illegal real estate deal? And that’s not even his aides, that’s your possible future President.

Share This

[Anonymous]

I want to add, BDG, I mean absolutely no disrespect by my above comment.

I don’t know much about Obama. I learn more and more everyday.

It’s just that everything I do learn about him (and the party he stands for, obviously), makes me not like him and not trust him more and more.

Share This

[JanS]

so, NR…what have you learned about him that makes you distrust him?

Share This

[JanS]

and I want to throw this in here…as a veteran…yes, I’m a veteran…Vietnam era…I don’t want to hear about Mr. Obama’s lack of military service. Mrs. Clinton didn’t choose it either, not did Bill, nor did Dick Cheney, nor did Geo. Bush…and it goes on ad nauseum….it’s a moot point, and John McCain can’t decide that it’s a ualification to be president…it isn’t.

Also…specifically, NR…curiosity here…how will Barack Obama weaken the military?

and..one last question…to anyone. Repubs are bound and determined to have less and less taxes. Our infrastructure in this country is crumbling. Our public school system is not funded correctly (there’s that education thing again)…this country has an astronomical debt after the Bush years as president….so…if more taxes are done away with…how will any of this get paid? I’m just throwing this out there…and I’m not asking for generalizations…I’d be interested in real, concrete answers…:)

Share This

[Anonymous]

I will answer your questions, JanS, but not to argue.

You do not agree with me and I already know that. I have pointed out that I do not trust Obama and absolutely nothing anyone says on here will change that opinion.

I am not answering your questions to start a debate. We will see if I can answer your question without being attacked.

I do not trust Obama because he has too many suspicious associations. These are associations I am extremely uncomfortable with in todays day and age.

He has been involved in illegal real estate transactions.

He not only attended, but had a close personal relationship for over 20 years, with an extremely racist Reverend.

His wife has stated publicly that she does not like this country (or, I guess never has until her husband was running for President)

He is a hypocrite. He preaches one thing and practices another.

He does not want to fund the military for or attain advanced weaponry. He would rather the troops learn languages.

He does not have enough experience to deserve the trust of the American people. If he were white, he would not be in this position (that is racism in itself, and only hurting the minority) Do you realize how many white Senator’s are just as or even MORE qualified than Obama?

And, lastly, he is a Democrat.

As far as how the debt we are in will get paid, more specifically I think what you are asking is, how will McCain handle that.

It’s real simple. You can go to his website and read where he stands on every issue. You can read about his plans. That is what I did with Obama. But, I think it’s safe to say that not even half of you have ever looked at McCain’s site or his plans.

Share This

[Anonymous]

JanS – It is entirely possible that I missed something, but when did McCain *decide* that military service was a requirement for running for President?

Sure, he will use the fact that Obama never served, of course he will, but I don’t think he ever stated that it was a requirement.

Share This

[JanS]

NR..I realize that this is probably the wrong thread for this discussion…I just want you to know I didn’t ask those things for a debate. we can do that in the McCain thread, I suppose. I didn’t want to know about McCain’s plan. I want to know what my peers think when they say less taxes, no more taxes, etc, etc…

You’re right…McCain didn’t specifically say that military service should be a requirement…but he did bring up the subject, and alluded to things. And you’re correct in telling me that he didn’t say that. Just as…it’s correct that Hillary Clinton never said that she wanted to stay in the race because something may happen in June, remember RFK. See how that works? Everyone is so happy to jump (not you, NR…I’m using the universal everyone)onto an allusion as a fact…yes, defending Hillary here. And the same happens with Barack Obama…an illegal Real estate deal? did he get in trouble? was he arrested? punished for it? who said it was “illegal”..? Is there proof that it was illegal? (maybe simply it wasn’t prudent?)

as JoB has said many times…it politics…it’s dirty…it’s the way it is. I don’t like it…but I’m told I have to accept it …stinks, doesn’t it?

Share This

[Anonymous]

JanS – Couldn’t agree more.

Share This

[JanS]

and , NR, I agree, there are a few white men out there who are amply qualified to be prez…I adore Joe Biden…but…the people didn’t pick him…and the others didn’t run…but..why say WHITE men…why not just say…there are other men AND women that are better qualified in your opinion…why do they have to be white men only? just a question…not starting an argument :).

and I will say one more time…I knew personally a double murderer, a man who ended up on death row in the state of WA…doubledated with him…does that make me guilty by association? The other candidates have had shady people in their lives, too…are they guilty by association? I don’t get it…I suppose…but…I know that you will feel the way you feel no matter what . Do you also feel that way aobut Hillary? She had some friends, etc, etc that she was associated with…remember Whitewater? being investigated? does that make you trust her less? or does that not matter to you one way or the other? (don’t everyone jump on me – lol..I’m just askin’)

Share This

[Kayleigh]

Jo, please at least try to have a sense of humor, would you? I don’t think Hillary actually stabs small animals. It was a joke, because you defended her appalling assassination comment in which she gave us insight into why she’s *really* staying in the race. You defend everything she does. Everything. It’s your right, but it’s also my right to find it irrational and annoying.

And just so you know, virtually all my charitable donations are to animal organizations.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

Kayleigh you said it better than I could but that is exactly what I was thinking.Yes I was a smart a** about it because I brought up my parents marriage, but I didnt bring it up to argue about it I brought it up as a joke to lighten the mood…aka sarcism.

Share This

[beachdrivegirl]

One thing that does bother me though JoB is your yet again contradictory post which began with sex did not matter and ended with but I voted for her because she was a women. Hate to break it to you but that is sexism.

Share This

[Kayleigh]

BDG, apparently whatever redemption or vindication Hillary’s supporters think they will get if Hillary wins the nomination is more important than the Democratic party.

In fact, it’s apparently more important than a Democrat winning the White House. It’s more important than stopping global warming, getting a national health care plan, restoring the constitution, getting out of Iraq, saving the American dollar, restoring the damage done to education, protecting women’s reproductive rights….

But hey…I’m just an Obama supporter. What do I know?

Share This

[JoB]

Beachdrivegirl…

i voted for her… among other reasons… because of the unique qualities she has as a woman… one of them her focus on the well being of individuals.

I wish more men had those qualities. I really wish Obama had those qualities… i would not be nearly so opposed to his candidacy if he did.

but i don’t think that you can label wanting a president with those qualities sexist… simply because those qualities are far more likely to come in a female package.

and i honestly think that when you bandy about the word change.. you might ask yourself what kind of change a female president might bring to the office…

In fact.. you might ask yourself just what kind of change Obama intends to bring to the office…

i assume you voted for Obama for what you consider his unique qualities. I just haven’t seen anything other than rhetoric that tells me he would be a good president…

You talk a lot about leadership. Right now there are only three democrats I can think of who are actually exhibiting true leadership in issues that directly affect citizens… and none of them are running for President.

Jimmy Carter in diplomacy.. Al Gore in environmental issues.. and John Edwards in poverty…

That’s leadership.

Hillary has exhibited leadership in legislation that protects and supports women and children… but even she hasn’t done enough there to qualify yet for a mantle of leadership.

Just what is it that Obama has done that makes him a leader? What is his cause? what are his great accomplishments other than saying well what some want to hear?

Who will be the workhorses of his administration?

These are questions that there are no answers to.. and i find that troubling.

Kayleigh…

as an animal lover i find any tale of anyone stabbing puppies offensive… it’s not a joke…

nor is it a joke to equate Hillary with someone who would stab puppies…

how about i equate Obama with someone who would rape women?

funny? probably not. But the two jokes would be similar stereotypes…

As for Hillary not having the best interests of the democratic party in mind.. i find that statement particularly interesting.

If you define the interests of the party as an Obama presidency.. then you are probably right.

However.. long before there was Obama.. there has been a democratic party… and Hillary has worked tirelessly for it her entire life.

Now.. i don’t expect Obama to have worked so long.. or so tirelessly.. he is not as old. But.. if we examine just the period of time since he entered the national stage.. since he became a Senator… what has Obama done other than run for president for the good of the democratic party?

Who has he campaigned for? Because i think we can agree having the maximum number of democratic seats in congress is good for the party… and that alone should be a good indication of his commitment to the party.

I ask because i don’t know the answer to that… but i do know that Hillary has campaigned tirelessly for democratic candidates in the same time period… i know that she has demonstrated her commitment to the democratic party.

I know that if she is the nominee, she has both the political savvy and the political clout to make the party stand up for it’s stated goals.

Do you know that about Obama?

And just what is this supposed to mean?

“BDG, apparently whatever redemption or vindication Hillary’s supporters think they will get if Hillary wins the nomination is more important than the Democratic party.”

here’s the deal.. this is a political party.. it’s not a personality contest…

you win the mandate.. you get the nomination. you don’t, you have to find a way to convince the party that you are the right candidate for them…

As Walfredo is so fond of saying.. look at the numbers. Obama can’t win the mandate. So.. he is going to have to convince his party that he is the right candidate…

If he can’t, she will convince them she is.

The person who wins the nomination has to be able to pull the support of the entire democratic party … has to be able to win the election in the fall.. and then most important.. has to be able to actually govern once they get the job.

To do that.. they need political clout far more than popular appeal.

You can’t steal something that doesn’t belong to you.. and the nomination doesn’t belong to Obama yet.

Do you think Obama supporters understand the interests of the democtratic party more than Clinton supporters because they support Obama?

I don’t think you can make a case for that.

If you look at the demographics alone.. Clinton supporters have voted in more presidential elections than Obama supporters.. and most of them have voted a straight democratic ticket for most of their life… regardless of the claims to the contrary.

Clinton has huge support in those over 50… those who consistently show up to vote… and those old enough to know what a working government with services to it’s citizens actually looks like.. the government we had before Republicans assumed control…

The only way a Clinton nomination would lead to the bleak scenario you outline is if Obama supporters choose not to vote…

so.. should we really talk about vindication?

NewResident..

you can be forgiven for thinking government programs don’t work since you have had no experience with those that do… poorly managed programs run by government appointees with no expertise are ordained to fail.

thus.. we get the totally inept response to Katrina from a government agency that had been one of the finest in the world prior to Bush’s political appointees.

And that’s just one example.

McCain’s programs as he has outlined them would actually raise taxes without benefit to citizens…

However… as the Clinton White House (Al Gore in particular) was able to show.. you can reduce waste in government spending and control deficits…

Spending money on things like functioning government agencies and infrastructure doesn’t have to raise taxes.. but it does require a shift in priorities…

As for equipping our military.. don’t you think it would be good to fund equipment for the national guard which has become regular military for the purposes of this war before increasing the funding for missile defense systems that have yet to actually hit their targets?

There are a couple of really good books out right now that would be worth reading.. but the one that speaks most to this subject is “how your government has failed you” … written by a national security adviser during the Bush White House… and that book speaks mainly about the failure of our national security systems… something that ought to be important to you.

It’s anew book.. so i have only seen a review and heard a couple of interviews.. but i think you will find that book enlightening…

if you want a government agency.. even something as important as homeland security.. to fail.. all you really have to do is appoint political appointees with no security expertise to run it… and the department of homeland security has more political appointees than any other government agency…

it’s sort of like sending troops and a diplomatic core to a war zone who have no knowledge of the predominant language and customs… and expecting them to succeed. but.. that’s another story.

Walfredo…

If there is a negative way to look at anything that has to do with either Clinton you will find it.

I am sure you will be equally successful at finding negative ways to look at McCain if you are lucky enough to have Obama as your candidate.

But i have to ask.. how does it feel as a democrat to wage a non-stop smear campaign? Doesn’t it get a little old? And how do you reconcile that with the rhetoric about this new kind of campaigning Obama is trying to sell? Isn’t the anti-Hillary smear campaign actually worse than democratic politics as normal.. not better?

Just something to think about.

Well all…

Sorry to have such a long post.. but i am pretty sick today and am headed directly back to bed…

Share This

[charlabob]

Obama proved he had major coattails and was willing to use them in the special election to replace Dennie Hastert — it was an Illinois district expected to stay Republican. It did not. Bill Foster, the long-shot Democratic candidate, won handily.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/8/211123/2367/348/472575

I would like to see a list of the campaigns to which Clinton has contributed since she’s been running. As I recall, the conventional wisdom a year and a half ago was that she had too many negatives…people did not necessarily want her to come to their districts.

I don’t understand why screensful of undocumented screed about Obama aren’t considered smear.

BTW, C-span is providing live coverage of tomorrow’s hearings for the Rules and Bylaws Committee in which they may decide what to do about Michigan and Florida. If only they’d realized that the only rule was “Do whatever it takes to ensure Clinton’s victory,” their lives would have been much easier.

Share This

[Anonymous]

*here’s the deal.. this is a political party.. it’s not a personality contest…*

Yes, and no. Many political observers say the first televised debates between Nixon and Kennedy, lost the contest for Nixon. He was very unappealing on camera. Kennedy *looked* the part. Handsome, tanned, athletic, youthful, charismatic. Nixon was pasty white and sweating profusely and looked terrible.

Not a single person would own up to judging on these qualities. Kind of like the date that notices her for her *mind*. Yet we do judge. We do size people up and make assessments based on the impression we got. Not how we should elect a leader, mind you, but it does factor in.

Clinton and Obama share many (most) views. For whatever reasons, and whether you like to admit it or not, Clinton has baggage that makes her unappealing to some. Those people will make a difference in this election. They don’t like her. They never have, never will, and you can talk policy all you want and it won’t make a damn bit of difference. I believe Clinton herself knows this and thought she could overcome it. She hasn’t.

We need the independent voters. We need a democrat with the convictions of both Clinton and Obama in office. We can not afford to lose this election. I think it’s perfectly acceptable for Obama’s personality to get him into the job. We’re basically electing the same principles in a package that can reach out to a wider audience. If that’s what it takes to *change* the place we’re in, so be it.

Call it unfair, call it sexist, call it what ever you want. For the greater good of the *party*, I honestly believe Obama has the better chance at winning. And I want a democrat to win.

Share This

[Trick]

I’m impressed with Obama’s candor and ability to address his critics immediately.

We bring up his lack of experience, his “green horn” factor, but from what I see with the record turnouts in his favor. People are fed up with the argument of experience and long standing in Washington, it certainly hasn’t been of much use considering we’re living in a time of one of the worst economies,wars this country has ever had.

Bringing in new ideas and solutions are for me much more appealing than what we have had in 7yrs.

Share This

[Author]

Posts