- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 24, 2008 at 11:02 pm #621049
beachdrivegirlParticipantThe quote was not taken out of context. That will Hillary Clintons response when asked what would she do if Iran attacked Islam. I think that is an awful response and I like that you of all people JoB just choose to ignore it. It is really unfortunate for such a bright person that you are that you constantly ignore the facts that are put in front of you.
April 24, 2008 at 11:17 pm #621050
andreaParticipanttruly remarkable all of you.
try taking a higher road, ala Ma. Angelou.
maybe leave the labeling, slandering, and just plain ol’ negativity to the TV commentators and politicians.
they do a much better job of it anyway.
April 24, 2008 at 11:18 pm #621051
andreaParticipant‘Ms. Angelou’ that is…
April 25, 2008 at 2:01 am #621052
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl…
i think Senator’s Clinton’s remark was in response to repeated questions about what she would do as President if Iran attacked Isreal.. not Islam… and I clearly didn’t pay as much attention to it as you did..
but just for fun.. what would you have had her say?
April 25, 2008 at 4:09 am #621053
beachdrivegirlParticipantJoB,
I apologize it has not only been a long day,bu a long year @ work and yes I made a mistake, and yse I mean to say Isreal there.
First and farmost I do not believe the US is in any position to address any additional wars than where we are currently positioned. it is beyond frustrating to see where we are after our current declaration of “war”….
And on a different note, the second reason, I did not like her comment was that I felt that her use of the word obliterate… was a bit inappropriate.
April 25, 2008 at 3:56 pm #621054
charlabobParticipantI’m sorry, I’m supposed to think this woman isn’t a war monger because she said “obliterate Iran” in response to questions rather than volunteering it? Here’s the exact quote from ABC’s morning show — she said the same thing on several other shows:
Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on “Good Morning America”
Tuesday. ABC News’ Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
I have no interest in starting a debate here about Israel, but, in answer to Job’s question, there are many diplomatic steps to take to keep Nuking Israel from happening. Saber rattling as step one is just ridiculous; in this case, it’s an excuse to prove “macha”.
We’ve always used Israel as an excuse for excesses in foreign policy…Clinton shows no sign of understanding that, or dealing with it. In fact, her potential foreign policy seems to be closer to Bush/Cheney than Bill CLinton, who at least understood and practiced diplomacy.
April 25, 2008 at 4:53 pm #621055
JoBParticipantmy one concern about HIllary has always been that she is more militant than i am comfortable with…
if you look back far enough. i am quite sure i said it here… possibly more than once.
i can’t speak for everyone else.. but i can assure you that i have never supported Hillary blindly…
the balancing factor to her militancy is that it will be impossible for Hillary to change so much as her hairdresser without all of America knowing about it within seconds…
that scrutiny would ensure that congress never handed her a blank check to use irresponsibily…
and moreover.. that it would be impossible for her to abuse presidential power the way it has been abused in the last two terms.
charlabob is right.. Hillary’s statement was saber rattling… and saber rattling is one of the many steps of diplomacy…
Had she not come out strongly in response to that question.. this thread would have been ranting about how weak and ineffectual she was…
April 25, 2008 at 7:19 pm #621056
TrickParticipantDid anyone catch this on the daily show?
I couldn’t have said it better.
April 25, 2008 at 7:29 pm #621057
beachdrivegirlParticipantI cant opne up youtube files @ work,but I am guessing it is the same one a friend emailed me yesterday…
April 25, 2008 at 7:37 pm #621058
TrickParticipantIt basically shows how Hillary keeps changing her priorities when it comes to voters and process.
What really seems to get my “goat” is that she now says she’s gained more votes than anyone.
If you can read between the lines, we know that is a half truth that she is still using (ie; Michigan and Florida)
It’s solely misleading and that’s why I’ve lost so much respect for her over the last few months.
April 25, 2008 at 7:44 pm #621059
beachdrivegirlParticipantthat is the one. my favorite part was how it starts out with her quote sayign that the voters decide and then by the end she is changing it to that they really arent that educated….
April 25, 2008 at 7:50 pm #621060
TrickParticipantYes, then says the Super delegates ($$$$) are more important because they work and know her better rather than the voter who only views her work from afar…
April 25, 2008 at 7:54 pm #621061
beachdrivegirlParticipantI know….it nearly made me puke. I have to say that I did not start out this primary season as anti-Hillary but nearly everytime she opens her mouth lately she leaves me irate…
It truely is a shame.
April 25, 2008 at 7:57 pm #621062
TrickParticipantI second that same opinion.
April 25, 2008 at 8:04 pm #621063
JoBParticipantwill this never end?
Now truth becomes half truths and lies if you decide it’s irrelevant?
there were primaries in Michigan and Florida.
In those primaries, Hillary received votes.
The democratic party may have chosen so far not to seat those delegates.. but they are still democrats and they still voted.
In states where both caucuses and primaries were held, Hillary did significantly better in the primary vote than she did in the caucus.
If the system for choosing a candidate for the democratic party were the same system used for choosing a candidate for the republican party.. she would already have been our candidate.
All of those are true statements.
You don’t get to say it didn’t happen.
You can say it doesn’t count.. or you think it shouldn’t matter.
In which case.. you say it’s irrelevant…
but stating something truthfully which clearly did happen is neither misleading nor a lie.
if you say something that is true… that is not a lie.
if you say something that is untrue and are corrected and acknowledge that correction.. that is not a lie.
To lie is to tell an untruth with the intent to deceive…
have you become so accustomed to the current republican standard that you don’t know the difference any more?
Now.. is that a flattering video? nope.. it’s not.
will i still watch Jon Stewart because of it?
Yup.. i will.
He makes some good points and this was one of them.
If Hillary’s campaign is listening it would be good to remind them that voters value humility..
and that when you resort to anything which can be construed as sour grapes… it turns people off.
I watch Jon Stewart every day.. not just the parts that get posted on u-tube and flagged by politically biased blogs.
Watching a body of work is a good way to gain a balanced perspective.
April 25, 2008 at 8:07 pm #621064
JoBParticipanthas it occurred to either of you yet that this was an edited video?
and that Hillary wasn’t devaluing voters and the delegates they chose.. but valuing superdelegates?
April 25, 2008 at 8:13 pm #621065
beachdrivegirlParticipantThe popular vote is irrelevant in determining a Presidential canidate. We discused this all many times our Presidintial nominee will be the one with the most delegates and the Superdelegates do not plan on overtunring the peoples decision. We are not stating half truths we are stating the facts I am sorry if you dontl like them. And did you not foget Clinton’s name was the only name on the ballot…hmm a bit unfair dont you think. (I think Obama even referenced that his 9 year old daughter would know that isnt right.))
April 25, 2008 at 8:17 pm #621066
beachdrivegirlParticipantI am not dumb,I know it was an edited video. And for the record, I dvr his show all the time.
The part that made me mad was the fact that before the primary season she was quoted goign on and on about how the voters will chose and then they show her after all of her losses and she changes her stance to that of …voters arent that educated and we should let those who know me choose. That is just one more time of Clinton trying to change the game to make herslef look electable.
April 25, 2008 at 8:24 pm #621067
TrickParticipantThe fact is the Democrat party said they would not be counted before the primary’s,or seated.
What does Hillary do? She defies the rules of her party and goes there.
It’s equivalent to me saying “let’s race” while I’m 10 yards in front of you and saying that I beat you. Is it true? Yes, but is it fair? hmmmm.
JOB, I read alot of angles on the news,even the “F” network..YAK… and sadly Jon Stewart does edit it for the sake of not turning into a MacNeil/Lehrer report which I watch as well.
He does call out those which blurr the lines of truth and misleading statements, on either side of the aisle.
April 25, 2008 at 8:30 pm #621068
beachdrivegirlParticipantApril 25, 2008 at 9:38 pm #621069
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl…
Why are we always back to basics?
Hillary didn’t campaign in either Florida or Michigan.
On the other hand, Obama’s team did campaign in Michigan .. for a write in campaign of “other”… technically skirting the rules.
they were both on the ballot in Florida.
neither campaigned there.
If you really believe that the people’s vote matters more than party politics (superdelegates)
… then you should be in favor of finding a way for all the votes cast by democrats to be counted…
because the party decision not to count those votes had everything to do with politics.
as does the decision in this state to count only caucus votes and not primary votes… disenfranchising anyone who did not caucus.
and the decision in Texas to count both.. but only if you participated in the election… thus disenfranchising those voters who did not also caucus.
I can perhaps see the reasoning for not seating delegates in Michigan.. that was a purely political ploy on the part of Michigan democrats…
although i don’t think disenfranchising Michigan voters to censure a state party organization is exactly inclusive…
but Florida?
if it is the people’s decision you are really concerned with.. then i should think that the people in Florida should count with you…
after all.. their state houses voted on the timing of their primary and the Florida state democrats could have either
a paper receipt on voting…
thus trying to eliminate fraud from the national election..
or they could have a later primary.
Do you think they got their priorities wrong?
Or do you think the democratic party might have gotten it’s priorities wrong… given the choice the Republican led Florida political machine gave Florida democrats?
No one campaigned in Florida.
They were all on the ballot.
So.. tell me again why these people shouldn’t count?
I am guessing you would have plenty of reasons had the state voted for Obama.
The truth is that they only voted to censure by not seating delegates because they thought it wouldn’t matter.
it does.
perhaps they should have been rethinking this…
You think it’s outrageous to change the rules to include the votes of all democrats…
but, you want to change the rules when it comes to superdelegates…
and why?
here’s one way of putting that…
because Obama didn’t campaign to win all the delegates including superdelegates… until he realized it might actually matter .. and now you are all afraid he can’t win them on his merits alone.
why are you not hollering about Obama changing his position on superdelegates?
After all.. he entered the campaign under rules which stated that superdelegates were to vote their consciences.. not what the simple majority of their state voted..
because you do understand don’t you… that if every state allocated their delegates proportionately.. this delegate lead that you talk about would nearly evaporate.
So Obama tries to change the rules midway.. and you support that… but only if it is rules that are favorable to Obama.
This is the problem i have with the separation between political slogans and truth.
These slogans have nothing to do with generalized people… and everything to do with a certain group of people…
so this “inclusive” jargon is just that… jargon.. words..
the same thing that is happening on the internet in this campaign.
Nearly every day one of you posts some link from the Huffington Post… or some other internet blog site that chose to come out early and strongly for Obama.
If your main point of contact is the internet.. i can see why you might think that everyone supports him… and i can certainly see why you think that Hillary is some kind of monster.
It is no coincidence that was the term that was used by a member of Obama’s campaign.. it is what the campaign has presented to the internet…
i am well aware there was an apology and someone was fired… and yet every day you all link me more evidence that the campaign strategy is alive and well.
it’s a media campaign.. and just like FOX news.. it creates it’s own news stories…
but it would be good to remember.. that even though those stories distort the truth.. and tell those distortions over and over again until well meaning people begin to believe it’s the truth (just like FOX network)..
that doesn’t make distortions and slogans the truth…
and it would be good for all democrats to remember that there are people who still count who aren’t buying the distortions and slogans.. who aren’t part of that internet generation.
there are people who still count who don’t go to political rallies… and become part of the big mythology of this campaign.
Just because this candidate has the eyes and ears of this segment of the population…. and just because that is making news… doesn’t mean that this is the only group of people who count.
this tendency to discount their votes because they are not visible to you is not inclusive… and it’s foolish.
These people still vote.
these are the swing voters who will decide this election.
Perhaps it’s time to actually give more than lip service to this idea of including all Americans?
April 25, 2008 at 9:45 pm #621070
charlabobParticipantInsulting Obama supporters and undecided voters really won’t help. It’s quite clear that we all get information from many places; although the internet now provides information from many of those places (television shows, live coverage of speeches) so it’s a bit quaint and old fashioned to denigrate that. Maybe we’re just efficient.
Insulting black voters and activists, as Clinton did, in her own words, is just dumb.
I’m sure you’ve all seen the latest effort of the Limbaugh “Chaos” project to “encourage” riots in Denver at the convention; oddly(?) NOT! it features Limbaugh singing “I’m dreaming of a white christmas.” Can you say, “Let’s stir up the white vote?” Can you say, “Limbaugh is bragging about the effectiveness of Project Chaos in Pennsylvania.? Can you say, “Guilt by association?” When is Clinton going to denounce the efforts of the extreme right on her behalf? NEVER–she’s too busy appearing on their shows.
April 25, 2008 at 10:03 pm #621071
walfredoMemberThe best line in the whole clip is when he says something to the effect of “well, if you’re going to count the votes of black people.” That is classic John Stewart. My second favorite, is when he goes into party activists and how they are “hee-hoo”, why they are just the people that care the most…
It is so blatantly simple and true. Talk about unelectable, it is this woman. Michigan and Florida? She has actively and purposefully insulted 35 of the states that will vote in the election, black people, “activists”, MoveOn.org. She has taken the support of Rush Limbaugh, and her campaign has taken to the FoxNews talking points.
For all of Hillary’s brand recognition, institutional advantages (including the ferocious support of a former president), fund-raising head start and inherent appeal to the party’s core constituency (working class white women), she finds herself without any way to end up ahead, in debt and having to go hugely negative just to stay alive. Does any sane Democrat really think that this is a viable alternative to Obama?
April 25, 2008 at 10:27 pm #621072
JoBParticipantlet’s talk about intent…
i didn’t intend to insult Obama supporters…
and i doubt very much if Hillary intended her remarks to be cut into sound bites that would insult anyone.
However.. there is real intent to insult Hillary Clinton on most of the blogs that Obama supporters link to here.
And there is real intent to insult Clinton supporters here.
I am not meaning to single you out Walfredo.. it’s just that this paragraph is within reach of my eyes at the moment…
“Talk about unelectable, it is this woman. Michigan and Florida? She has actively and purposefully insulted 35 of the states that will vote in the election, black people, “activists”, MoveOn.org. She has taken the support of Rush Limbaugh, and her campaign has taken to the FoxNews talking points.”
So.. insults aside…
why do you dismiss the people of Michigan and Florida?
I already told you why i think it inconsistent with the Obama campaign rhetoric…
which 35 states has she insulted and exactly how did she do that?
I can’t even reply to that one because i don’t have a clue what you are talking about…
How exactly did she insult black people?
what racist remark are you attributing directly to Hillary?
How did she insult activists? How did she insult move-on.org?
Ok.. we’ll take that one together since they both have the same argument… when did pointing out that activists and political organizations who choose activism don’t represent the average voter become an insult?
How does she take the “support of Rush Limbaugh”?
So.. Obama isn’t responsible for those who endorse him but Hillary is responsible for Rush Limbaugh making a political joke out of her? hmmm…
and which FOX news “talking points” has her campaign adopted?
do you mean that she should not ask any questions pertaining to any information that has been broadcast on FOX news or repeat anything they have broadcast?
At what point does Senator Obama follow that same guideline? because it seems to me i have heard a him repeat a few of those FOX talking points in regards to Hillary…
It’s amazing how thin-skinned the Obama campaign is..
it is an insult if everyone doesn’t believe only the best about their candidate… even when reason should cause you to question..
but it is not an insult to actually insult Hillary Clinton …
don’t you guys have anything better to do with your time?
i do and i am going to go do it.
April 25, 2008 at 10:39 pm #621073
walfredoMemberWatch the John Stewart clip, they (Bill and Hillary) both have and continue to discount any state won with a large African American population, as a state that doesn’t count. As Bill said, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice.
What 35 states? The ones she didn’t win. The caucus states, the black states, the republican states, the rural states… You know, how she has explained away every state shes lost as unimportant, and emphasized the ones she won are the ones that matter… That is insulting, these aren’t quotes that are hard to find, and they are actually in the clip that was being referenced…
Insulting activists? Also in the clip- maybe you should watch it before commenting? “You know how I feel about these caucases” While insulting all caucas states, she also insults activists.
Moveon.org was not in the clip, and as near as I can tell, this was not done on purpose, as it was at a closed door fundraiser. The other attacks were in public, and have been a crucial part of her campaign strategy of less states, less delegates, less votes to emphasize that only her states, and her votes matter…
As far as name calling and attacking me and other Obama supporters, without pointing out any relevant facts, and without even bothering to watch the clip in reference. Well, I guess that is what it has come to for team Clinton.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.