Let’s hear it for Sen. Clinton…or not

Home Forums Politics Let’s hear it for Sen. Clinton…or not

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 20 posts - 76 through 95 (of 95 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #613757

    Huindekmi
    Participant

    And JoB, thanks for warming me up as well. I appreciate the discussion.

    #613758

    charlabob
    Participant

    If you’re still on the Hillary/Barack fence (as I thought I wasn’t until I read this) — go read this. I’m still not sure … but this flash from the past (Robin Morgan!) is alive and articulate. Go read….

    http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

    #613759

    JoB
    Participant

    charlabob.. thank you!

    just one quote from this opinion piece which is germaine to some of the conversation we have been having here… put far more eloquently than i could ever say..

    goodbye to:

    “—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.

    —the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance. Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.”

    And we all owe ti tot ourselves to read the rest… yes.. even you fellas.

    Thank you Robin Morgan. i miss Molly Ivens more than i can say, but i had forgotten for a moment many other articulate women’s voices.

    Please follow this link…

    http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

    #613760

    BobLoblaw
    Participant

    I am ashamed to report that Bob Loblaw flip-flopped. He is one of those many thousands of Democrats who swung to Obama because he is afraid Hillary can’t beat the Republicans. For the Hillary supports in the room at 1471, forgive me. However, Mrs. Loblaw remained a Hillary supporter, and my flip-flop didn’t manage to count against Hillary in a 5-2 Obama win. I believe all but 1 or 2 undecides went with Obama to swing it from the original 4-2-1.

    #613761

    add
    Participant

    BobL, I did the same thing. I was actually very much on the fence going in, but cast my initial vote for Clinton, open to being persuaded to change. In the end, it’s about electability, which is sad. Our precinct group broke into applause when, at the very end, during a final comment about electability, someone said (my husband actually), “isn’t that the bottom line here?”. I’m not sure, but I think the few undecideds cast their vote for Obama and I know at least one other Clinton supporter who changed to Obama as well.

    And, like others have reported, there seemed to be genuine respect and excitement about both candidates and some degree of disappointment that Hillary, while very deserving, would be a harder win.

    #613762

    JoB
    Participant

    you break my heart. as did the many in our caucus who said my “mind says clinton but my heart says Obama”… and those who listened to the persistent voices that said Hillary couldn’t win.

    When will we stop letting the republicans call our tune? their political pundits lambast her… they call her names we would not allow with any other candidate… they tell us she can’t win… and we believe them… just as we believe that she has has a dysfuntional family because the media tell us so. (That woman’s family survived the mistakes of her husband and she raised a well balanced child in the spotlight… not so dysfunctional). We believe she was involved in scandals because of the witch hunts of republican politics. (She stood up to them once. She was never even indited for anything, let alone convicted. We know the worst they have to smear her with.. because they have already done it.)

    We let the republican created cult of personality color decisions. That is a fear based decision and the Republican’s created the fear.

    The truth is that if we stick to the issues, this election will be about two major American issues.. regardless of who the candidate is: The war and the economy. And there is a clear difference between either democratic candidate and any republican candidate. American’s are strongly on the side of ending the war and fixing the economy.

    But, don’t feel alone. Every story seems to be one of the undecideds (and apparently some of the not so undecideds) deciding to follow their “hearts” instead of their minds.

    I was powerless to do anything about it in my caucus.. tho i tried… as did a young hispanic woman who will be our clinton delegate at the next level. there were just too many voices saying she couldn’t be elected and too many people speaking about their heart.

    It’s too bad more people didn’t listen to both candidates while they had the opportunity. there was plenty of heart in both camps.

    #613763

    JoB
    Participant

    i just reviewed my post.. and i want you to know that i am well aware that there are Obama supporters out there who are not clinton haters and who actually support their candidate for a host of good reasons.

    It was just very hard to hear person after person admit that they felt she would make the better president.. but…

    And yet, those caucuses are American politics at their purest.

    I still hope she ends up our candidate because in my opinion she would make the better President… (and this caucus has taught me what it will take to sell her to the American people)… but if not, i will work hard to get Obama elected.

    In that event, i just hope i am not as right as i think i am… either in the campaign or in the Presidency.

    #613764

    Kayleigh
    Member

    In our precinct caucus, JoB, no one thought Hillary would make the better president. A few thought she would make a *good* president, and I agree with that idea.

    I’d been largely ignoring both Hillary and Obama because I was a strong Edwards supporter. But I did my homework (watched speeches, read position papers, looked at voting and contribution records, listened to supporters of both sides.)

    I caucused for Obama, but I loved listening to my neighbors yesterday at the caucus. I didn’t say a word; I wanted to hear others’ insights and loved that so many people stood up for what they believed in.

    Some of the Democrats who turned out yesterday did so, I think, because Obama touched them somehow. Maybe his “hope” thing is marketing hype; maybe it’s for real; maybe it’s both. But it’s gaining momentum, and I kinda like it. :-)

    #613765

    WSMom
    Member

    JoB-

    I want to thank you for keeping me on the fence for these last few weeks jumping back and forth between Hillary and Obama. Yesterday I followed my head and my heart and landed in the Obama side. It finally came down to the fact that since Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are so close on issues that are important to me and are equally excellent candidates, I needed to give my vote to the candidate who is inspiring our young people to get in the process. My husband (bless him, he stuck by Hillary all the way) heard two older women Hillary supporters remark as they left the caucus room “this reminds me of 1960 and JFK”. I still love Sen. Hillary Clinton. I love her intelligence and left brain dominant organizational skills. I love that she’s still standing after all the dirty tricks the Republican’s (and her husband) have played on her. But seeing Sen. Barak Obama on Friday sold me that he will be the leader we need to take us past the devastation of the last 7 years. I’m confident that around the world people will be sighing with relief that we have put into this most important office a person of integrity and intelligence. In my life I have always worked to never let my heart rule my head, and I didn’t allow that to happen yesterday either. I believe that Sen. Obama has what it takes to not just beat the Republicans in November, but unite and inspire the best from us in the coming years.

    #613766

    k
    Participant

    I stayed my course and stuck with Hillary despite the glares and obvious disappointment my precinct felt towards me. It was a very odd feeling. Many of the voters reflected the smug feeling I get from Obama. We ended up with a 5-2 for Obama, but not without several folks speaking for Hillary. The Hillary hatred is unjustified and sad. I wish our nation good luck as we democrats are now forced to stand behind a man with a lack of experience as he takes on a country in a condition we have not seen in decades. I will vote for Obama, but my heart belongs to Hillary.

    #613767

    Magpie
    Participant

    It’s really interesting to read these posts. I didn’t attend a caucus because I still refuse to chose an alliance to one party. I did attend the Democratic caucus in 1976 and as a youngster, felt completely alienated. It is a good thing that this has obviously changed. My spouse did caucus and was outvoted about 3-1 in our district. One of the truly interesting changes that I am seeing is that money and fame trumps race (OJ), but it still looks like sex still trumps all…I have read over and over how poorly Hillary Clinton does with men. Obama has a huge lead (I believe double digits with men). There may very well be some truth in the fact that Obama is more electible than Hillary Clinton, particularly the Evangelicals might stay home if Obama is the candidate and come out and vote against Hillary by voting for McCain because they hate her so much. It seems that Obama is coming out of this weekend as the front runner, but once the candidates are chosen, the real key to who wins might be the choice of vice president. Does McCain chose someone who panders to the Evangelicals? Does he chose Condoleeza Rice (what a cog that would put in the wheel)? Yikes, finally an interesting election in my life time. I just wish someone viable would run against Jim McDermott. I’m about as tired of him as I could possibly be.

    #613768

    JoB
    Participant

    Magpie, we do live in interesting times, don’t we. i think the chinese view that as a curse, but an old rebel like me had to think it is a good thing.. especially since we have been living in such distressing times.

    whoever our candidate is, and i don’t think we know yet in spite of the polls and primaries, we will have to find a way to make it work.

    #613769

    Julie
    Member

    You’re all going to think I’ve got a one-track mind; I really do have more interests and issues than this, but I can’t resist pointing out that if we used an instant runoff system, Kaleigh would be able to vote for Edwards, without throwing away that vote, and JoB, add, BobLoblaw, and anyone else whose heart was with Clinton (or Obama), but worried about whether Obama (or Clinton) might more likely win against the Republicans, would be able to just rank their first choice ahead of their second choice, and rank all Republicans last.

    Magpie is like many voters in not wanting to affiliate with either major party; she or he, and the many voters who feel more affiliated with a minor party, could under an instant-runoff system participate fully without “throwing away” that vote. Their true opinions would be counted, and not lost in the two-party tug-of-war. (Magpie, I defend your right to vote, but I deeply disagree about Jim McDermott!)

    If you ended up voting for Obama, but you really think Clinton would be the better president (or vice-versa), your true opinion is not reflected in your vote. The plurality voting system we have forces us to engage in this kind of strategic voting; strong evidence our democracy isn’t really reflecting the opinions of the citizens, and is therefore less democratic than it should be.

    #613770

    JoB
    Participant

    Julie, i think instant runoff voting is a good idea.. but am not sure how it would work within the context of a two party system… and as long as we have a two party system, i have to defend each party’s right to choose their own candidate their own way. that is one of the privileges of party membership.

    i think we need to change our primary system to give all members of each party an equal chance at choosing the candidate tho… how about a real super tuesday with all the primaries on one day so that those in what are now later primaries had as much choice as those in earlier… with instant runoff thrown in.

    now that would let the parties know what the people thought! and it should cut down on campaign expenses too.

    #613771

    Julie
    Member

    Clarification: The parties still get to choose who’s on the ballot, and how many, with their party branding, with whatever system they choose. It doesn’t make sense for someone to run as a Democrat if the Democrats haven’t agreed they can use the label. (As an example, Pierce County will be using IRV for local and county elections starting this year. The Pierce County Democratic Party has decided to allow up to three candidates to run as Democrats in their local races.)

    And, yes, we need to shorten the campaigns. I also think we need to publicly fund these shorter campaigns, and we need proportional representation. Many reforms needed. IRV is just one.

    #613772

    JoB
    Participant

    i couldn’t agree with your more.

    #613773

    JoB
    Participant

    don’t you think the campaigns can sometimes just be a public cr.pometer.. just to see how much people will buy before they close the sale?

    on my more cynical days, that’s what i think.

    #613774

    JanS
    Participant

    JoB…I’ve thought that many times. It’s sometimes amazing to me that people expect something of substance in a rally speech, in a commercial. None of that gets really down to the brass tacks of the real ideas, who is going to do what. I much prefer one on one interviews with someone who will ask really tough questions, not planned debates with generic questions.I think that we could really cut a lot of campaigning with a little change in the way things are done. This goes on for way too long, and costs way too many dollars that could be going to something a whole lot more worthwhile.

    mmm…I was just imagining a “National Primary Day” or a “National Caucus Day”…You could do it in April, have the convention in July, get on with the campaign, and get it over with in November. Dream on, huh….

    #613775

    kathy
    Member

    Just saw a comment in Paul Krugman’s NY Times editorial this morning that is exactly what I’ve been trying to say about this Obama-train. The Obama-train is very attractive in the fervor it excites. Krugman writes, “I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration – remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.” While Clinton doesn’t have the same charisma, she is offering us detailed-backed solutions. She knows how things work and how to get them done in Washington.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ex=1360472400&en=5f0ee81a0e142005&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

    #613776

    JoB
    Participant

    i wish i had a national pulpit for these last few primaries.. tho it doesn’t seem it would do much good:)

Viewing 20 posts - 76 through 95 (of 95 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.