- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 7, 2008 at 6:00 am #620974
JoBParticipanti think there were too many eyores last week… or maybe just testy women… ok, i know i am a woman.. i know you are.. i know janS is…
i could do that all night… hehe
i think we all just need hugs and deep breaths.
I don’t now about you.. but i wasn’t so happy about tiptoeing through the internet this last week.
I really didn’t want to know that much about Mark Penn… or about David Pouffle….
they are both too self rightous (in entirely different ways) to suit me…
the ends don’t always justify the means…
April 7, 2008 at 8:41 am #620975
JanSParticipantI like that name…David Pouffle…reminds me of “piffle”…a slang term, I believe…mainly British in nature? as in “Oh, piffle” when things aren’t going exactly right ;o)
April 7, 2008 at 3:25 pm #620976
beachdrivegirlParticipantWow! I take a wknd off and look @ everything that gets posted.
Now back to my post on Friday. I refer to Clinton starting this b/c she began with the 3am ad and kept her name on the ballott in Michigan.
Clinton has been trying to change the rules b/c originally she agreed that Michigan and Florida should not be counted and then once she was losing she changed her mind and decided she would act like she was taking the “bigger road” and try to get them counted. Secondly, she consistently changes her opinion on why she should be the democratic nominee come November…going from delegates to popular vote to most recently the electoral college! That is ridiculous! Also, I am not sure, when you are referring to Obama changing the rules. I have not heard that.
And I do check Factcheck and read up on both sides. I typically enjoy their reading but have to agree with Charla that sponsoring a bill does not make her a better Senator..
April 7, 2008 at 4:52 pm #620977
JoBParticipantLOL…
ok.. so Obama was a better senator when you all thought he had a better record in the senate. He was more productive than she was.
then.. it turns out to be a big lie.. yup! misrepresentation of the truth.. a lie.
now it doesn’t matter that she was more efficient in the Senate than he..
it doesn’t matter that he chose to go home weekends
and to be absent for votes an unbelievable percentage of the time for a junior senator…
it doesn’t matter that he got himself on a committee that should be looking at Afghanistan and he thinks that can wait till after the election…
it doesn’t matter that he claims sponsorship of bills originated by others…
he’s the better Senator..
ok
why?
I can’t wait to hear the next round of rationalizations.
April 7, 2008 at 5:19 pm #620978
beachdrivegirlParticipantObama is the better Senator of the two. He takes more risks and has been more productive in the Senate.
S.895 : “A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to ensure that every child in the United States has access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage, and for other purposes”-Hillary Clintons “BIG” health care bill that has no sponsor!! Her mortgage bill has no sponsors all of these great “accomplishments” that are supposed to make her the “better” nominee can not get a single backer.
The funny thing is Obama also has a mortgage bill and his did get the co-sponsor. Not only did his bill get the co-sponsor but his bill is also a bill that will more efficiently protect the home owner. Clinton is calling for “enhanced disclosures to consumers and enhanced regulation”. Obamas is clearly the more efficient bill because his bill will “stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development.”
April 7, 2008 at 5:20 pm #620979
charlabobParticipantI have yet to see the list of bills sponsored by, voted for, or led by anyone. Until I do, I must retain my nonnegotiable position: Both of them reek as senators because the senate reeks.
Therefore, Clinton is, by definition, a worse senator because she’s been there longer, had more time to make a difference, and no difference that matters to me has been made.
Robert Byrd is the only Democratic senator for whom I have a modicum of respect, AS A SENATOR. Bernie Sanders, my true senator, is an independent.
Much of the praise I’ve heard for either of them as senators has come from extreme right wing characters such as Trent Lott and Tom Coburn who praise their bipartisanship. I am singularly unimpressed.
All Obama and Clinton have accomplished, by cosponsoring bills with these right-wing ideologues, is to give the right legitimacy that they do not deserve.
Bipartisanship, for the most part, is a ploy that’s enabled Democratic pols, including Obama, to fool some of the people into thinking they’ve accomplished something. When it comes right down to it, on anything important, the bipartisan republicans vote in lock step and the dems are all over the place.
If you can show me one thing, important to progressives and to the American(sic) people that has been accomplished, I’ll retract this. I won’t even insist on two things.
Obama is a better presidential candidate and he will be a better president, because he represents the future and he represents hope. The past hasn’t worked. For either party. Look around you.
Our last two presidents were governors: Bush, of a state where the governor is about as important as the statue of James Brown on my bookcase. Clinton of a state where the governor is important but the accomplishments of the state, um, less than impressive. Both were known, as governors, for executing people. Bush made fun of a woman’s Christian conversion. Clinton rushed home from Europe to make sure a mildly retarded guy got executed. I voted for Clinton, not because of anything he’d done (believe me!) but because he gave me hope.
Yup, Obama may screw up too. He may be every bit as timid and mainstream as the Clintons. As I said, I harbored the same hope for Bill in 1992. For some reason, even though I’m old as dirt, I find myself still able to find that harbor.
I could post tons of links to each of these points — I think I’ve done that enough that you know I could. However, since I’m not preaching to the already converted — I’ll save my fingers. :-)
April 7, 2008 at 5:26 pm #620980
beachdrivegirlParticipantKind of funny that Clinton has yet to realize that actions speak louder than words. She has chosen to now speak out against Blackwater since it is the campainging season yet she did not do one thing in Senate to act against it. However, Obama has…
On Monday, Obama struck back at Clinton. “Now, let me be clear: I actually introduced legislation in the Senate before Senator Clinton even mentioned this that said we had to crack down on private contractors like Blackwater because I don’t believe that they should be able to run amok and put our own troops in danger, get paid three or four times or ten times what our soldiers are getting paid. I am the one who has been opposed to those operators. Senator Clinton is a late comer to that. But you know this is what happens during political season and I understand it.”
April 7, 2008 at 5:27 pm #620981
beachdrivegirlParticipantFurthmore, does it concern you at all that Clinton has been talking about healthcare for all since 1992 and has yet to accomplish a thing…you can talk and talk and talk but again actions speak louder than words and Clinton has not accomplished anything when it comes to healthcare for all so lets stand up and vote for soemone new that can possible get the ball rolling.
April 7, 2008 at 5:44 pm #620982
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl:
I will only go into one of your legislative examples.. because i really don’t have time for this today… i wish i did…
our law already protects homeowners against fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development.. if they can prove it.
it would take a disclosure bill like Clintons to give them the evidence to prove fraud.
So who does Obama’s mortgage protection bill actually protect?
And further.. what was his record for protecting the citizens of Chicago from risk, abuse, and under-development when he had both the opportunity and the responsibility to do so?
You probably don’t want to look into that…
Charla…
nice post… so if you can’t prove that Obama was a better senator.. you just dismiss the senate experience…
ok.. i buy that.
so if we dismiss the senate experience… what do we rely on for deciding whether there is consistency between what they say and what they do?
All i am asking for her is a little critical thinking here…
April 7, 2008 at 5:56 pm #620983
charlabobParticipantNone of those bills matter because they aren’t laws.
Allusion to nefarious deeds simply convinces the convinced to stay convinced. It’s beneath you:
And further.. what was his record for protecting the citizens of Chicago from risk, abuse, and under-development when he had both the opportunity and the responsibility to do so?
You probably don’t want to look into that…
April 7, 2008 at 6:25 pm #620984
AnonymousInactiveBDG, really? Hillary has done nothing for healthcare.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giving_hillary_credit_for_schip.html
I keep giving links to factcheck, a non-partisan, non-profit *fact-checking* site and you don’t check it, you just keep stating things that aren’t true. Read this and the one about who has a better record in the senate. Obama has plenty of facts in his favor as well, on this site, but you seem to only get the clinton one’s wrong.
April 7, 2008 at 6:59 pm #620985
beachdrivegirlParticipantShe has not been able to pass one bill in regards to healthcare and Obama has although she has proposed many more than Obama. Therefore, I feel that Hillary has done less in regards to healthcare.
April 7, 2008 at 7:08 pm #620986
AnonymousInactiveYes, but what you said was *Clinton has not accomplished anything when it comes to healthcare*.
Doesn’t that seem false and inflammatory to you?
April 7, 2008 at 7:37 pm #620987
beachdrivegirlParticipantNo it doesnt. First lady is not a legislative position and I dont feel that being a “cheerleader” for a program/bill/or anything for that matter gives you the right to claim it as her experience. this was a huge accomplishmetn for Teddy Kennedy and I find it insulting that she would try to take the credit from him. Who knows maybe that is why he is now supporting Obama and not Clinton.
April 7, 2008 at 7:50 pm #620988
AnonymousInactiveWhy do you find it insulting when everyone involved gave her credit and said it wouldn’t exist without her and her involvement was *invaluable*. Doesn’t sound like they are insulted.
April 7, 2008 at 7:54 pm #620989
beachdrivegirlParticipantI just dont think she should use her time as first lady as experience. I also would like to hear more of what context those quotes were taken from.
April 7, 2008 at 8:22 pm #620990
charlabobParticipantTed and most of the other Kennedys are supporting Obama in part because roughly 18 years ago the Clintons (and McAuliffes and Bagalas and Carvilles) were the Obamas — new upstarts who dared to criticize the old party machine.
They thought Kennedy just an old party hack…the dinosaur…who needs him?
I know because I was a Massachusetts democrat then and we had to practically beg to be allowed “in” with the Clintons. There weren’t enough Massachusetts rednecks to dismiss us altogether.
I find “good old days” stories very uninteresting but I do have to fight fire with fire and I have more than a few.
They were wrong. What goes around came around — I couldn’t be happier.
The new generation of Kennedys is even smarter and tougher than the ones some of us loved. That’s why some of them support Clinton and many more Obama (and even many more Edwards, back in the day.)
If people are going to fight over which candidate is most Kennedy-like, I think the only surviving brother and the daughter should get a heavily-weighted vote.
Herewith, the endorsements:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-edward-m-kennedy-/barack-obama_b_83668.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
April 8, 2008 at 2:28 am #620991
charlabobParticipantMark Penn out? Depends on what your definition of out is …
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/penn_out_then_in.php
Dead uninsured pregnant woman?
Oops again, — but it’s the fault of the unidentified person who told her the story…don’t we all repeat anonymous stories we’ve heard? Maybe in a bar—probably not when we’re running for president. (This one is actually forgiveable — but in a situation so crucial, why take a chance??) Makes it even sadder.
Comparing herself to Rocky running up the courthouse steps when that was Rocky’s last triumph — shortly thereafter he lost the fight to a charismatic black guy? Baffling at best…why exactly would do you want voters to remember that?
I’d post a link to her latest claim to opposing the war before Obama, but even I can’t understand it…so I’ll spare you.
As a person who really did agonize over which of the final two to support, and who, in any case, wanted Clinton to be a contender — this is very painful. I am not gloating. I am sad and, more than that, angry at Hillary and her campaign for being inept. If I were a Hillary supporter, I’d be even angrier.
The allegedly biased media isn’t making her do that…the only question left is why? suicide (Hill doesn’t really want the job) or murder (Bill doesn’t really want a second, more successful, president, in the family.)
Dammit, what happened to the idea that women have to try harder and be better?
April 8, 2008 at 3:04 am #620992
AnonymousInactiveBDG, Sorry, I didn’t see your last post. The quote was from an associated press story.
“The children’s health program wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” Kennedy told The Associated Press
And here’s the link to the whole story.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/06/clinton_claims_credit_for_child_program/
But my disagreement with you was the absolutes. Hillary did nothing about healthcare and comparing 8 years of Clinton’s taxes to 1 year of obamas. It wasn’t until I challenged you that the qualifiers came in to play. ie; I don’t think it counts because she wasn’t in office herself. She never said she was in office then, she said she’s responsible for getting it pushed through. An exaggeration, but not a lie, according to Kennedy. And you still haven’t retracted your 8 year – 1 year comparison.
I’m on your side, I just don’t think you’re using the same magnifying glass for both candidates. And I still think we should be directing our focus on beating Mccain, not on convincing people Hillary is evil. That’s all.
April 8, 2008 at 5:16 am #620993
JanSParticipantMy take on Hillary, that I think is being overlooked by either her “handlers” or herself. These “semi-falsehoods” do not help her any. She is a strong woman…she has accomplishments of her own…and she needs to stand on them , and tell her “speechmakers” to get lost. She doesn’t need to “embellish”, or in the case of this pregnant woman, out and out lie, to get people behind her. She can do it on her own, and should do it one her own, and it saddens me that these things keep happening. I realize that proably there are things about the other Dem. candidate that isn’t exactly kosher, but right now what we’re hearing are the things about her. She needs to put her foot down and just say ‘no more’…
April 8, 2008 at 5:17 am #620994
JanSParticipantand yes, we all should be focusing on McCain…he’s starting to talk about the Dem. candidates now…and no one is rebutting. Time to go to the McCain thread :)
April 8, 2008 at 8:42 am #620995
JanSParticipanta bit more about the Colombia thing, in case some aren’t familiar with it….
(and I wouldn’t trust Mark Penn as far as I could throw him)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/washington/08lobby.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
April 8, 2008 at 2:25 pm #620996
charlabobParticipantThe more important thing about Colombia is that Bush is pressing the Senate to approve yet another dangerous trade agreement (Colombia) without question.
It is important that our candidates, including the presidential ones, show up to vote and take leadership in opposition to the treaty until critical modifications are made.
All the rest of this is yet another, important, but red, herring.
April 8, 2008 at 3:25 pm #620997
charlabobParticipantThe Ohio hospital story is more complicated; and Clinton is more right than wrong — I still hope that whatever dem we nominate is a lot more careful about vetting before speaking: bottom line is dems don’t get away with as much vaguery.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/07/clinton_told_true_tale_of_woe.html
April 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm #620998
beachdrivegirlParticipantTHanks for the link JT. I look forward to reaading the story.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.