Democrats & Liberals Archives

Eight Arguments Against Hillary Clinton

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would be vastly preferable to John McCain. Having said that, there are a lot of good reasons for Democrats to support Obama over Clinton.

1. The Clinton Restoration – This problem has bothered me as long as Hillary Clinton has been considered a presidential contender. Philosophically, I don’t like the idea of the Clintons doing an end run around the 22nd amendment. Pragmatically, what makes us think that they will accomplish universal healthcare, and other items on the progressive agenda, when they already failed once?

2. The Need to Look “Tough” – The scenario: Hillary Clinton has just been sworn in, and Iranian aircraft are harassing American warships. The media are all buzzing about how this is a big test of whether Clinton is “strong” and “tough” (=militaristic) enough to be President. Conservatives want her to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. Her Democrat allies, especially women, are worried that if she looks weak (=open to diplomacy) she will not only cripple her own presidency but haunt female presidential contenders for decades. Hello, World War III.

3. Bill’s Big Mouth – This is one thing I didn’t see coming. Despite his reputation as a masterful politician, Bill has been a complete ass during his wife’s presidential campaign. (I will leave it to psychiatrists to figure out why.) Comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson was about the stupidest thing he could have said. He will probably think of something equally dim to say about John McCain. Is he going to compare him to James Stockdale? All these POWs are alike, right?

4. Another Part of Bill’s Anatomy – ‘Nuff said.

5. The Scandals – We all know the list. Hillary Clinton argues that she has been tested and survived, whereas Obama hasn’t. This argument makes some sense, until you realize how many of the Clintons’ problems were self-inflicted. There is a good reason why Obama has never had to convince people to overlook an affair with a subordinate – because he hasn’t had one. (Or if he has, he has been remarkably discreet.) There is also a good reason why he hasn’t been investigated for taking money from China… You get the idea.

6. “Relitigating the Sixties” – These words from Obama convinced me more than any others. Pardon my profanity, but I’m tired of hearing about the f&*king Vietnam War protests, f&*king Woodstock, and all the other f&*king cultural detritus that Baby Boomer liberals carry in their flower-painted VW microbuses of political nostalgia. These things happened before I was born. Barack Obama was making mud pies at the time. That’s a good thing.

7. New QB, New Playbook – The Republicans have been fighting the Clintons for years now, and they know all of their tricks: the triangulation maneuver, the blame-the-accuser defense, the “I’m getting verklempt” ploy, etc. With Obama, it’s a whole new ballgame.

8. Opinions have Hardened on Clinton
– Once people have developed an opinion about a national figure, it is hard to change their minds. Take Al Gore. Just about every significant stance he took in his political life has been vindicated, but his critics could care less. If Jehovah Himself parted the clouds and said that Gore was right about everything, then Fox News and right-wing talk radio would be filled with people trying to undermine His credibility as a source. The same thing holds for Hillary (who has definitely NOT been right about everything.) Nothing is going to change a lot of people’s opinions about her. Obama largely has a clean slate, and even many conservatives find him to be an appealing person.

Posted by Woody Mena at February 13, 2008 1:09 PM
Comments
Comment #245197

Woody,
Both Hillary & Obama bring a lot of positives to the table. but after all is said and done, Obama brings more; he shows the ability to lead through oratory and an inspiring message about the need for Americans to work together. It’s great to hear, and a reason to actually hope the US will actually represent something decent abroad at some future date, and maybe even get something worthwhile done at home in the meantime.

There are tremendously powerful forces arrayed against Obama. Bush and McCain are doing their best to strike fear into Americans, and the Defense Industry has a lot to lose if the liberals win.

Underlying forces of division and fear and evil command a lot of power and a lot of money, and those underlying forces will not go away quietly.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #245201

Add one more argument against Obama he is an Anti Patriot since he refuses to wear the flag on his lapel.

Bill and Hillary and all the Repubs wear the flag. Only Obama is too good for it

Posted by: eddy at February 13, 2008 2:45 PM
Comment #245203

Eddy,
That’s pretty funny, and just confirmed what I already suspected- it’s a sure giveaway- anyone who wears a flag on their lapel is advertising the fact that they are a flaming *******.

Clarencec,
I’m sure you will join me in condemning anyone who would use race as a qualification for the presidency. In addition, while it shouldn’t actually matter what religion he is, Obama is a Christian.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #245204

eddy,

Are you wearing an American flag on your lapel right now? And if you are wearing one, certainly there are some other things you believe in and love that you don’t literally wear on your sleeve.

claranec,

Well, we’ve gone through all of the bigoted, small-minded arguments now…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 13, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #245208

woody

obama on the surface seems like a nice guy. i could probably sit down and have a beer with him, and shoot the bull so to speak, or get along fine with him at a bbq, if he were my neightbor. the problem is i don’t agree with his stand on most issues, and i think he lacks exprience. hillary on the other hand, i guess if you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all, so i won’t.

Posted by: dbs at February 13, 2008 3:26 PM
Comment #245209

Woody, as I see it there is only one reason that clearly justifies Obama over Clinton. And that is approach to the future.

Clinton’s approach is partisan and ideological. Obama’s is to take the best of all partisan approaches, reject the worst of all of them, and go pragmatic in creating solutions.

It is all the difference in the world as far as I am concerned, and this difference while subtle, is palpable in their campaign speeches. (Example: Clinton uses the word “I” constantly. Obama uses the word “We” nearly constantly. “I” denotes Clinton’s way. “We” denotes what we all know or come to know will work. “I” denotes ego. “We” denotes public service as opposed to personal victory, and consensus. This is but one of many demonstrable differences that reflect a very different approach to the presidency between these two candidates. McCain’s speeches are like Hillary’s in his use of the word “I” denoting what he will do for the country, rather that we must do together for ourselves and our nation’s future.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #245210

8 reasons why McCain is the better candidate:

1. He has more legislative experience that both H&O combined

2. He appeals to the Regan Democrats

3.He knows what we are up against with the Muslim movement (actually, Hillary does too but she would never say that)

4.He is a dedicated war hero who gave his youth, blood,and health to this country

5.He doesn’t live in the tip toes thru the tulips world of Obama.

6. Once the Republican slime machine gears up and turns every rock over,he will crawl back under that rock next to Kerry and Gore. The varsity game is approaching. (Including the Mighty Eagle, I may add)

7. McCain will get Joe Mentum Lieberman on the ticket, and in one fell swoop will negate the liberal Jewish vote (and money).

8.Ted Kennedy will make every living person with an IQ over 50 puke at the convention. He lives The Last Hurrah, doesn’t he?

Extra Points:

9. Geez, I actually feel sorry for Bill after all these years. Not

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at February 13, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #245213

9. Millions will not show up just to vote against Obama.

Posted by: kctim at February 13, 2008 3:48 PM
Comment #245212

SE,

In regard to #7, I really can’t see the Republicans rallying behind a moderate Jewish Democrat for vice-president. Don’t forget, he is pro-choice.

As for the liberal Jewish vote, being a card-carrying member of the group I can promise you that he would not sway many of us to the GOP side.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 13, 2008 3:48 PM
Comment #245215

Well neither of the choices are the greatest, but lack of experience, muslim background, and oprah has made up my mind, that this democrat will be voting for McCain, and I guess you can figure out who I am talking about.

Oh I wear a flag pin everyday, and yes it does make a difference, along with 20+ years in the military.

Posted by: KT at February 13, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #245218

In the Virginia primary, Obama won by a large margin. Hillary garnered 24% of the vote.

That 24% that voted for Hillary outnumbered ALL of the Republican votes combined.

The MSM has been playing up the horse race aspect of the elections, and almost completely ignored what is happening with overall Democrat v Republican turnout. Democrats are turning out at a rate of 2:1 or more, even in states like Virginia.

If the trends hold, which is highly likely, Obama will be the Democratic candidate, and if primary turnout is any indication, he will probably win the presidency in a landslide of epic proportions.

SE,
There is no chance of Lieberman being the VP, none. Lieberman represents the insurance companies, so he certainly carries the backing of a very powerful powerful special interest. He also has a history of voting along relatively liberal lines when it comes to domestic issues. However, the “Senator from Israel,” as some have called him, would be front and center along with McCain on the issue of Iraq.

According to the latest poll, 64% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Regardless of what you may think about that issue, it would be pretty foolish to run for office knowing almost 2/3 of voters are going to vote against it…

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2008 4:14 PM
Comment #245220

KT,
As a person who served in the military, you would probably find the book “Catch 22” by Joseph Heller especially funny. Read the scene about loyalty oaths…

Or just watch the movie “Office Space” where they talk about wearing “flair.” Same sort of point, but in a commercial context.

Wearing patriotic “flair” is… um… never mind.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2008 4:21 PM
Comment #245225

Woody… I agree with you that Obama is the better candidate, but a few of your points are flawed:

1. There is no “end run around the 22nd ammendment” here. Hillary is her own person. She ran for and secured a seat in the US Senate and has used that seat for the last 7 years to prepare her run for the White House. The fact that Slick Willy is her husband niether qualifies nor disqualifies her for the office.

2. Let’s be clear about what you mean by Iranian aircraft ‘harrassing’ American warships. Do you mean flying around them but not firing? Do you mean firing warning shots that land just off the bow while our ship is in international waters? Do you mean firing warning shots that ‘accidentally’ kill one of our Navy seamen? Do you mean shooting a few missiles at the ship because it entered Iranian water? All of these things carry different connotations, and each could be justified as ‘harrassment’. Your blanket statement is not specific enough to damn Hillary, but is just specific enough to lead readers to believe that you may be right. It is vague, at best, and at worst is a transparent attempt at baselessly attacking her just to make Obama look better.

4. Who the heck cares?

5. Your saying “There is a good reason why Obama has never had to convince people to overlook an affair with a subordinate” is completely irrelevent. To my knowledge, Hillary has never had to convince anyone to look over an affair of hers with a subordinate… remember, Hillary is running here, not Bill.

Again, I agree that Obama is the far superior candidate. And you do make some good points (nos. 6,7, & 8 especially), but we should make valid arguments for the cause and not simply throw out red herrings.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at February 13, 2008 4:57 PM
Comment #245227

KT, your vote will be a minority vote. The reason is that you would buy that Muslim background so gullibly. Obama was born and raised as a Christian. Not very Christian of you to judge another Christian thusly, is it?

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2008 5:00 PM
Comment #245230

Ok David and how am I suppose to judge him, and no he was born a muslim, lived in a muslim country, and started his education as a muslim. He is a new christian.
Oh the bible also talks of false messiah’s, and everyone thinks he is the next best thing since sliced bread and tp, sound like they are making him a messiah.

phx8 I saw Office Space and thought it was a funny movie. I wonder if he will have a flag in the Oval Office if he is elected.

Posted by: KT at February 13, 2008 5:08 PM
Comment #245231

Someone above said Obama has a clean slate. I agree. And over the next decade he can write experience on that slate to prepare him for the WH. Until then, he is a novice with a message of “change” whatever that means. When it comes down to just Obama and McCain, the gloves will come off and we’ll begin to understand just what Obama means by change. That will indeed be interesting.

Posted by: Jim M at February 13, 2008 5:13 PM
Comment #245234

David… I very RARELY agree with you… and quite frankly really don’t like it when I do… but you are dead-on right in your response to KT about the minority nature of that poster’s opinion… so right, in fact, that the opnion is so far in the minority that the last comment doesn’t even deserve response.

I will choose to recognize this (presumed) American’s right to free speech, shrug my shoulders at the silly nature of the statements, and move on to attempt to debate real issues.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at February 13, 2008 5:17 PM
Comment #245235

Are we more bothered by wife following husband than son following father? Maybe Hillary would follow Catherine the Great’s example.

Hillary bombing Iran to look tough? Are we too sensitive about Obama wanting to add the A-man to the list of asses we have to kiss in the Mideast?

Bill should stay in NY at the UN, and it’s really Bill2, ask an open heart surgery patient.

“ability to lead through oratory”, you mean like some megalomaniac 3rd world dictator, this is the part about Obama that stumps me the most. Who is actually impressed by that besides Aaron Sorkin?

Oprah Winfrey could be as much a problem for Obama as Bill is to Hillary. Maybe all persons over 200 lbs will have to have mandatory liposuction.

Wear an American flag on your lapel, or hat in my case, and see the looks you get. It’s like when I moved to Chicago and still wore my Orlando Magic hat, but worse.

The word “I” has never been used by Obama? Get real.

“the Republican slime machine gears up and turns every rock over”. They don’t even have to do that, they can do it subliminally. Everyone remembers Willie Horton in 1988, but nobody rememebers that someone named Morton Downey Jr sudddenly appeared and was all over the airwaves, bringing with him Al Sharpton and a class of lesser clowns. After Bush41 won, there was no more Morton Downey. No offense to Sharpton, who recognizes the process and is keeping a lower profile.

Lieberman has already said he will support the candidate who supports the war in Iraq. I think Huckabee will be the Rpblcn VP if they have to get him to shut up at the convention.

Obama looks Sicilian to me. I am more worried about other connections than religious ones. I’m more irritated by TK’s arrogant son than the enbalmed remains of the senior senator from Massachusetts, but to go along with the McGovern analogy, I think Obama should pick Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger as his running mate.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 13, 2008 5:19 PM
Comment #245239

Talk about narrow-minds, ignorance and single-purposes !!
No wonder everyone is getting to hate us…with mindsets like some of these, we are only isolating ourselves. I’ve got news…we are in the minority here, and the rest of the world is leaving us in the dust.
And do you really believe that a piece of metal is the heart of our beliefs? I don’t have to show anyone else that I love this country…but if you are around me and don’t stand for the National Anthem, you’re gonna get smacked.

Posted by: Jane Doe at February 13, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #245243

KT

Obama’s father was a muslim who turned agnostic before Obama was born. Obama has attended the same Christian church for 20 years. The last fact hardly makes him a new Christian. The republican slime machine is already spewing forth false claims. It seems that some of you are more than ready to accept any old rumor that gets circulated. Especially when it helps your cause. Just one of the little details about the republican party that the majority of Americans have come to detest.

Posted by: RickIL at February 13, 2008 5:43 PM
Comment #245250

New Christians, or conversos, was a terminology used during the period after everyone in Spain had to convert or leave, by the Inquisition, so this guy is in really good company.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 13, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #245251

Doug,

In regard to your points:

1. “Man and wife is one flesh.” - Hamlet

Bill will be back in the White House. This is perfectly legal, but I don’t have to like it.

2. The details are irrelevant here. I’m just trying illustrate the fact that Hillary will feel like she has to overcompensate in the defense area. It’s not like she hasn’t done it before.

4. Many people care, especially when it ends up in court.

5. The Clintons are a package deal.

KT,

Obama was NEVER a Muslim, and he is not a “new Christian”. As RickIL noted, he has been a Christian for two decades.

I guess I had the wrong idea about Christians. I thought thought they wanted everyone to accept Jesus. Apparently it doesn’t apply to guys named Barack.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 13, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #245254

RickIL… although I am certainly not one to defend the Republican party, I do think we need to be even and objective when we debate things… your over-generalization about the Republican party accusing Obama of being a Muslim is rather transparent. It especially holds no water because your response is aimed at KT, who, in their first post on the subject, says, “…has made up my mind, that this democrat will be voting for McCain.”

You rail against the Republican party for this offensive attitude, and yet it is a self-described Democrat that holds the view which you speak against…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at February 13, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #245261

It isn’t illegal to be a muslim, is it? Or to change religions? Someone describes themselves as a Democrat who wants to vote for McCain, and is talking about the b word book and false messiahs? Please, how gullible can you get. It’s like the guys that post with 2 different names, like no one can recognize the writing style. One apparently has schizophrenia, and posts different views, the other just posts the same views with different names on different days.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 13, 2008 8:05 PM
Comment #245274

Woody, right on. Great List.
You wrote:

5. The Scandals – We all know the list.

Since I don’t really think that many people do actually know them all, or perhaps have forgotten quite a few of the Clinton’s Many Scandals, I think this link is important for folks to read:
With Friends Like These…

Btw, I’ve been reading that Obama already has the nomination in the bag. Even with Florida and Michigan’s delegates factored in, Hillary isn’t at all likely to win at this point.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 13, 2008 9:50 PM
Comment #245275

Thanks, Drudge, now go back to posting with your other ID

Posted by: ohrealy at February 13, 2008 9:52 PM
Comment #245276

There are more than eight reasons not to support Hillary. She has taken money from the corporations that are destroying our economy and our country with their greed. Hillary’s politics can’t be far from her husband’s, one thing I have never been able to forgive Bill for was signing NAFTA and GATT into law, for God’s sake those were both bills that were engineered by George H.W. Bush…what was he thinking. I am an old man, I am and have been a dyed in the wool democrat all my life but God help me I cannot forgive Bill for that one act.

Posted by: Bill at February 13, 2008 9:59 PM
Comment #245278
The MSM has been playing up the horse race aspect of the elections, and almost completely ignored what is happening with overall Democrat v Republican turnout. Democrats are turning out at a rate of 2:1 or more, even in states like Virginia. If the trends hold, which is highly likely, Obama will be the Democratic candidate, and if primary turnout is any indication, he will probably win the presidency in a landslide of epic proportions.

Turnout in primaries doesn’t correlate at all with—much less predict—what will happen in general elections. And there are MANY reasons for that.

First of all (and you mention Virginia as an example) there was still a competitive and meaningful Democratic primary held in Virginia, while everybody already knew that McCain was going to be the Republican nominee.

This will be true for the next month at least. Republicans have far less reason to vote than Dems because the Republican nominee is already a done deal.

But even that wasn’t true, the numbers of primary voters still doesn’t correlate to general elections. It never has. If you could turn out more Dem than GOP primary voters in Utah, all it would mean is that the Dem voters are excited about getting to have their say during the one time they can. It doesn’t mean anything for the general election.

Posted by: Liam at February 13, 2008 10:25 PM
Comment #245282

Liam
Sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me. It is hard to ignore the hope and energy stirred up by Obama although I am sure you will try.About the only thing likely to bring out Reps in droves would be HCs nomination.I would put that as #9 on Woody’s list.

Posted by: bill s at February 13, 2008 11:13 PM
Comment #245285

The de-bunked planted rumors about Obama being a Muslum mole,attending a madras etc.are simply a cover for those that would be more at home shouting,”nigger,nigger,nigger!” at the top of their lungs but are embaressed by their own bigotry.

Posted by: BillS at February 13, 2008 11:33 PM
Comment #245287
Thanks, Drudge, now go back to posting with your other ID

Ah yes, when Obama’s supporters aren’t being labeled “cult members” then we’re alternately being labeled “Drudge” by the Clinton supporters, simply because we don’t like the Clinton Legacy of Shame and Degradation they gave to our party at all. Meanwhile, we realize that all this childish name calling probably has a lot more to do with how the Truth really Hurts. Not to mention how some folks can’t handle the Truth…

It’s either that, or maybe it’s just because Clinton’s entire organization is presently melting down in the middle of crisis mode? Or that she didn’t even notice how her big money, corporation and special interest financed campaign was being so mismanaged that it was going completely broke? (Wow, what amazing “leadership skills” she’s bringing to “Day One”, eh?) Or could it be because she’s losing in so many states, and by such greater margins, and in every single demographic now? Or does it have anything to do with the fact that they’re now reduced to using the “Giuliani Strategy” by focusing all their energy on Texas, and that doesn’t seem too strong or bright a move in the greater scheme of things?

Maybe it’s rather more quaint. Perhaps Obama voters are just being told to pucker up for some good old fashioned sour grapes?
Or maybe all of the above…

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 13, 2008 11:52 PM
Comment #245288

Try actually reading what other people write, instead of just pouring forth the propaganda. We already recognize that Hillary is unlikely to win. It is a dead giveaway when they have to use their own money, it means the money is going to Obama, who is now and has always been what you claim Hillary is. Also McCain couldn’t hold out any longer, and is finally calling Obama on the campaign of platitudes, Hope and Change, but maybe those are his daughters names.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 14, 2008 12:01 AM
Comment #245289

Bill, I”m fully aware of—and don’t discount at all—the power of the enthusiasm that Obama stirs up.

All I’m saying is something that’s true. Primary voters don’t predict general election voters, and primary turnout doesn’t predict what will happen in any given state with general election turnout. This isn’t a politically partisan point—it’s just an historical fact.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all, for example, if BOTH Clinton and Obama get more votes in the upcoming Texas primary than McCain. Not saying it will happen, but it wouldn’t surprise me. And that’s because the Dem nomination is hotly contested and the Republican nomination isn’t. But if it plays out, would it mean that a Dem candidate is going to win Texas? No, it doesn’t.

Posted by: Liam at February 14, 2008 12:03 AM
Comment #245290

Note to former Edwards supporters (I too, was one): While Edwards has been dragging his feet trying to make up his mind between the two candidates, Ben Brandel, his former campaign director of Online Engagement has made up his own mind, and decided to weigh in:

Why John Edwards Believers Should Support Barack Obama
Can We Still Build One America? Yes We Can

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 14, 2008 12:08 AM
Comment #245292
Also McCain couldn’t hold out any longer, and is finally calling Obama on the campaign of platitudes, Hope and Change, but maybe those are his daughters names.

You sound very angry and bitter. Much like McCain sounds - when he isn’t calling Democrats “the enemy” and trying to stir up fear in the hearts of Americans, or promising a century-long commitment of our troops in Iraq, that is.
The reason that both McCain and Clinton use the word “Platitude” on Obama isn’t because he doesn’t have ideas, it’s because the two of them combined aren’t able to be as eloquent in their best moments of public speaking as Barack Obama is on his worst day.
The truth is, they’d give their eye teeth to stir up the kind of excitement and enthusiasm that he has in the American people with his articulate and inspiring oratory.

Moreover, if John McCain really wants to try running against the idea of bring Hope and Change to the tired, overworked, money pinched, healthcare deprived, and war weary people of this nation after the insane train wreck of the Bush Administration, then let him.
He is only asking to LOSE. And I mean BIG TIME.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 14, 2008 12:29 AM
Comment #245295

Liam,
The 2008 primary turnout can be an indicator of total turnout.

In recent election campaigns, there has not been a comparable situation. In recent elections, there has either been an incumbent, or an institutional candidate who has become the defacto nominee in just a few primary votes. 2008 really is unique in that respect.

It doesn’t take a crystal ball or a sophisticated analysis of primary votes to figure the Democratic candidate will almost certainly win in 2008.

What is surprising to me is just how good the Democratic candidates have been, and how weak and ineffectual the Republican ones have been. The Republican candidates, including McCain, seem incapable of coming up with a positive message. Instead, McCain in particular seems to be determined to support Bush administration policies.

Maybe McCain has some sort of grand plan. Maybe he’s relying on Bush to start another war, maybe with Syria or something, to save the McCain campaign. Who knows? Because right now, when it comes to compelling ideas, it sure seems like McCain has a tin ear.

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2008 1:16 AM
Comment #245296

phx8,
I have to take exception to your statement that “McCain seems determined to support Bush administration policies.” To name a few notables, McCain has been an EXTREMELY vocal critic of the administration’s conduct of the war, the use of torture, irresponsible fiscal policy (“spending like drunken sailors”). It’s fine to disagree with McCain on any number of policy issues, as many Dems and Reps alike do, but one can hardly call him a yes man for the administration, or any particular ideological camp for that matter.

Separately…I think it’s patently clear that Hillary shares the taint of Bill’s scandals. Somehow she is touted as a champion of women’s rights, yet she has ridden shotgun on several campaigns to attack women once Bill’s dalliances with them have become public (e.g. Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky).

As a right-leaning independent, I hope it’s a McCain vs Obama campaign, ie a contest between two men of high character leading a national debate of significantly different approaches to moving the country forward.

Posted by: boojum at February 14, 2008 2:00 AM
Comment #245297

Barack Obama raked up another win over the weekend. He won the caucus in Maine allowing him to narrow the gap between him and Hillary Clinton. Voters braved harsh conditions such as harsh winds and snowfall on Sunday to vote for the statewide caucuses. The votes will help to decide how the state’s 24 delegates will be allotted at the party’s national convention in August. Obama secured 15 of Maine’s delegates while Clinton won nine.

The win follows wins in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington State and the US Virgin islands. All five weekend wins ensures that he is now neck and neck with Clinton. Obama was jubilant over his win and announced to a crowd of supporters that, “we have won on the Atlantic Coast, we have won on the Gulf Coast, we have won on the Pacific Coast” and places in between.”

Posted by: Presidential Elections 2008 at February 14, 2008 3:48 AM
Comment #245298

Obama is a machine candidate. People who claim that he is somehow an outsider are full of it. Hope and change are platitudes. He can’t get specific, because then he would lose support of people who might not want whatever change he claims to offer.

The Clinton legacy is cleaning up Bush messes, balancing the budget, community policing, world stability, containment of Iraq without war, and the first serious attempt at national healthcare. Where is the shame and degradation in that? Some sex scandal like the one that happened to Obama’s senatorial opponent? I am starting to get suspicious of why that information came out.

Is the real purpose to get people who support Clinton to not vote for Obama? Because we don’t need trade treaties? Because our economy exists apart from the rest of the world and needs to be protected from it? Is Obama even opposed to those treaties? Has he ever gotten that specific about anything? Now move the target to Hillary because that’s what the Rpblcns do, Hillary bad, Drudge good, we’ve seen it before.

John Edwards believers? Was it a religion? Edwards views are quite different from those expressed here by his “believers”, aside from being a cosponsor of the Iraq war resolution and voting for the Patriot act.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 14, 2008 6:45 AM
Comment #245300

Doug Langworthy

A poor choice of words on my part. I did not directly imply that KT is a republican. But after reading my reply I can see how that can be assumed. In order to satisfy my personal curiosity I did a quick search on Obama Muslim. The first link that pops up is a Feb 11 Newsweek article about this very subject and if Obama can in the long run overcome this false association. The facts according to the article states that there are emails being circulated falsely attesting to Obama’s Muslim faith. I immeadiately think of the swiftboating scheme of the last election cycle. While I have no proof that republicans are responsible for this false accusation, it is for obvious reasons of past behavior, easy to associate it with republican election ploy.

Posted by: RickIL at February 14, 2008 9:22 AM
Comment #245301

I take exception to McCain and Clintons efforts to take my hopes of a better day in America away. For these two to accuse Obama of preaching a false message simply because he is not facing the realities is nothing more than bunk. In essence they are saying that there is no hope for resurrecting our government. They have no hope that change is possible. We must live with the old tired and corruptive politics of the past. Past policy and continued stalemate are the way forward. Hillary gives false promises with few specifics. McCain assures us that we will continue down the same road that has been so successful for the last eight years. I am sorry folks but these two are campaigning on nothing more than who is going to be in charge of continuing past practice.

Obama is campaigning on a platform of change. Not promises he knows he can not keep. His is a message of practicality infused with a hope that we can leave the old road of hateful gridlock and pursue a new avenue in which our governmental institutions can actually work together and once again become a functional entity. I feel he is genuine in this desire. It is my hope, and I think the hope of most Americans, that our current approach to policy making may once again become productive and corruption free as possible. One thing is for sure, his two opponents will guarantee that little will change from the present.

Without the notion of hope I see no viable reason to go to the polls.

Posted by: RickIL at February 14, 2008 10:01 AM
Comment #245302
Obama is a machine candidate.

You can’t be serious. Do you even know what a political machine is? Obama has survived by getting a lot of small donations from people who can never expect anything in return.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 14, 2008 10:07 AM
Comment #245306

The only real change I expect from Obama, should he be successful in obtaining the WH is…change his mind and spend even more taxpayer money to stay in office.

Posted by: Jim M at February 14, 2008 10:51 AM
Comment #245313

ohrealy:

Where is the shame and degradation

Shame:
Having an affair with a 21 year old in the Oval office, and then lying to Congress and the American people about it, rather than tell the truth.
Pardoning Marc Rich. For many other shady and corrupt deals that have brought shame on our party, see previous link above.

Degradation:
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) headed by the Clinton’s, have through their policies completely degraded our party’s entire platform. Democrats used to be all about fighting for economic and social justice and opportunity for the middle class and the poor. But after Reagan won in 1980, the DLC took over the party and started supporting corporate interests (in exchange for campaign donations or business deals that lined their own pockets) over the needs of average citizens - just like the Republicans have always done. Meanwhile, their rhetoric never changed from the rest of the politicians in our party, but the outcomes certainly have.

Btw, when we look at how few Democrats were elected to Congress during the Clinton years, there is no reason for anyone to believe that the DLC was somehow doing our party a big favor by mimicking the policies of the GOP.

ohrealy:

Because we don’t need trade treaties? Because our economy exists apart from the rest of the world and needs to be protected from it? Is Obama even opposed to those treaties? Has he ever gotten that specific about anything?

Obama’s victory speech, February 12th:

This is the new American majority. This is what change looks like when it happens from the bottom up. And in this election, your voices will be heard.

Because at a time when so many people are struggling to keep up with soaring costs in a sluggish economy, we know that the status quo in Washington just won’t do. Not this time. Not this year. We can’t keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it’s a game that ordinary Americans are losing.

It’s a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk. That’s what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that’s why they won’t drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America.

It’s a game where trade deals, like NAFTA, ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wages at the local fast-food joint or at Wal-Mart. It’s what happens when the American worker doesn’t have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that is why we need a president who will listen not just to Wall Street, but to Main Street, a president who will stand with workers not just when it’s easy, but when it’s hard, and that’s the kind of president I intend to be when I’m president of the United States of America.”

When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice. John McCain won’t be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning. Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for a hundred years in Iraq, which is reason enough to not give him four years in the White House.

If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan, and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden; and instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and hospitals, our road and bridges - and that’s what the American people need us to do right now.

And I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his “conscience” to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war; that he couldn’t support a tax cut where “so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate.” But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he’s all for them.

Well I’m not. We can’t keep spending money that we don’t have in a war that we shouldn’t have fought. We can’t keep mortgaging our children’s future on a mountain of debt. We can’t keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. It’s time to turn the page.

Obama today:

“We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control,” Obama said in Wisconsin, which holds the next Democratic nominating contest on Tuesday.

“It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington — the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy.”

He used the occasion to criticize both his main rivals, Democrat Clinton and Republican McCain, saying they had wasted billions of dollars and cost thousands of lives by supporting an unnecessary war in Iraq as U.S. senators.

He accused Clinton of changing her stance on the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada, saying she supported it when it was signed but now says “we need a time-out on trade.”

“I don’t know about a time-out, but I do know this — when I am president, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers,” Obama said, adding he would end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

Want more specifics?
Here is where anyone can find them.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 14, 2008 11:43 AM
Comment #245319
It’s fine to disagree with McCain on any number of policy issues, as many Dems and Reps alike do, but one can hardly call him a yes man for the administration,
Oh, I don’t think it’s very hard at all.
or any particular ideological camp for that matter.

McCain does tend to be quite a flip flopper, so it is often hard to know exactly where he stands. Even regarding the war and occupation that he wants to keep going for up to a century, his “straight talk” can be difficult to decipher.
For example:

Feb. 1, 2007
“things have gotten markedly and progressively worse, and the situation in Iraq can now best be described as dire and deteriorating.”

April 1, 2007:
Americans are “not getting the full picture” of what’s going on in Iraq.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 14, 2008 12:21 PM
Comment #245320

JaneDoe,

I pledge allegiance to the idea of America, for which it stands in the Declaration of Independence, and to the checks and balances intended to preserve these United States against the extremists who will surely attempt to undermine the idea of America, and force the people into servitude.

It’s the only Pledge of Allegiance I will ever take again in this lifetime. As for the star spangled banner, cute little war monger’s song. I would have preferred a less bombastic LOVE song. War should never be the foundation or emblem of a nation. Smack away.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 14, 2008 12:31 PM
Comment #245321

So David under your view, then the American Revulation should have never happened, and we would still be part of england. “War should never be the foundation or emblem of a nation.”

So all the original Patriots are nothing, because they started it. Come on David I know you are meaning something else.

For those that think I am a republican, I am not. I am a Democrat that is not happy with the two choices that the party has running, one is a big mouth, the other in my opinion lacks experience. I am not a racist, as I would have loved to seen Colin Powell run, but after getting screwed by Bush the WORSE, I think he felt that he had taken enough BS and wanted to get on with his life.
Problem with politics today is it not necessarily the most qualified that gets in(i.e. current office holder), but the one with the most money, and can bs the people the most. They all say what they think you want to here.

KT

Posted by: KT at February 14, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #245323

More flip floppery:
McCain, a formerly tortured pilot, is totally against torture, right?
Uh, well no, he WAS formerly against torture, but presently he’s all for it because it might help him win amongst the conservative base of the GOP. Who, as we all know, really approves of the torture.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 14, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #245326

Soaring oratory centering on the word “change” is sending many into ecstasy. This is a very interesting psychological exercise. When Obama uses the word change, his audience can interpret this to mean whatever they perceive as change and agree. Motivational speakers abound in the corporate world and companies pay huge sums to the best ones to fire up their management. Great sport coaches have the ability to inspire the team to do better. Parents give great inspiring advice to their children with instructions how to “change”. Religious leaders such as Billy Graham inspire us to do better by changing our lives. When change leads one to actually do something that will make their lives better it is a positive tool.

Unfortunately in the case of Obama, we really don’t know what he…Obama, intends to change. He speaks of how he will inspire us to make the necessary changes to better our lives. Conservatives and liberals have both been fighting for change for decades and in the effort, have produced considerable frustration, confusion and stalemate. We send our representatives to Washington based upon their pledge of change. We expect them to make the changes we want. And, we are disappointed time after time when the change we expected doesn’t happen. Talk to an alcoholic with a hang-over and you will hear pledges of change. Talk to anyone on New Year’s eve and you will hear resolutions to change. Talk with the philandering husband or wife who has just been caught cheating and you will also hear vows of change.

What are we to make of Obama’s pledge to change Washington? He hasn’t shared with us yet exactly what form of change he will advocate, just generalities of his expectation of us to force the change upon our government with his help. How exactly will this work? Will the congress suddenly become a place of congeniality between liberal and conservative issues? Will American’s suddenly become charitable and forgiving with only altruistic motives? Will all sides of the political spectrum begin to work with cohesion?

Will you see change that suits you, and everyone else? No. That is an impossibility. Some will be pleased, some will be pissed-off, and most will say business as usual. A president who sits in the white house based upon a pledge of change, with no concrete plans to achieve that change, is doomed to fail by disappointing everyone. What will Obama’s first act as president be to make change happen. We don’t know, he hasn’t told us. Will he wait until we tell him what to do or just fumble around trying to come up with a plan?

There is a difference between calling for change and being inspirational. A truly inspirational speaker is one whose words actually changes behavior. Merely calling for change will change no one. We will be left disappointed and confused. That we need definate, planned, workable, affordable, uplifting change is not being argued by me. Obama’s call for change, without the accompanying specifics and sacrifice is merely a pleasant voice…not a leader. Obama is a follower, he wants to follow the majorities lead to some promised land that is ill-defined and whose boundaries are not known. What we need is a leader…not a follower.

Posted by: Jim M at February 14, 2008 2:20 PM
Comment #245327

Jim,
Here is an detailed listing of the campaign platform for Obama, issue by issue. Hopefully that will be specific enough:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2008 2:27 PM
Comment #245328

Latest scandal involving a backer of Hillary Clinton.

Clearly what some wish to call “experience” others are sure to call “ammunition.”
Does the Democratic party really want or need this?

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 14, 2008 3:21 PM
Comment #245331

phx8:

Jim,
Here is an detailed listing of the campaign platform for Obama, issue by issue. Hopefully that will be specific enough

I don’t think folks who make comments such as Jim’s are the kind who really do want specific details. Instead, it’s more fun to complain about things and lob insults at Obama. Looking at his platform would be too much trouble, as would having to wrap their brains around the idea that inspiring oratory tends to make a lot of other people want to find out more.

Unfortunately, this seems to be true among Hillary supporters, also. Perhaps that’s why her strongest support is still coming from voters who are less educated overall? Finding out more is absolutely taboo to some folks, and I imagine it’s got to be a whole lot easier to claim that there is no substance to Obama’s platform when they haven’t read it, and to claim that those voting for him have been sucked into a cult of personality.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 14, 2008 3:57 PM
Comment #245333

Veritas,
The impressions people have are often a reflection of the media through which they receive it.

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2008 4:13 PM
Comment #245337

In a way, though, the specifics of the platform are not the point of the Obama campaign. The specifics are not all that much different from Hillary’s platform. But it is the overall approach, the attitude, which distinguishes Obama from Hillary and John Edwards and other candidates. The point of the Obama campaign is that “yes we can” work together. It’s an inspiring call for unity.

Maybe it’s useless. Maybe it’s naive. Maybe it will fail.

But it’s certainly worth a try.

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #245338

“The details are irrelevant here.”
Maybe that should be the motto under the title of this website.
Obama is a machine candidate. “You can’t be serious. Do you even know what a political machine is” Yeah, the Daley machine, which put Obama up for the USHOR against Bobby Rush after Rush had the temerity to run against the hereditary mayor of Chicago. Obama shares consultants with the mayor. In that election, Clinton backed Rush because Obama was such a lousy member of the state senate, vacationing in Hawaii went he should have been voting in Springfield. Like I said before, Obama is our Bush, all hat no cattle.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 14, 2008 5:14 PM
Comment #245339

Jim,
Here is an detailed listing of the campaign platform for Obama, issue by issue. Hopefully that will be specific enough:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2008 02:27 PM

Thanks for the link phx8 and I have read it before today. I will cede the point that he does have a few specifics in the website with most of it simply talking about “change”. However, most of the specifics pertain to spending more taxpayer money (AKA) income redistribution. His trade policy promotes open markets (President Bush addressed this same issue in his SOTU message) and pressuring the WTO. Fix Nafta, well, his own party helped to put this and other trade agreements in place. I could go on, but my point is that his primary call for change involves spending more tax dollars, confiscation of wealth from those deemed to have too much, taxing our corporations to make us (American workers) even more disadvantaged in the world market, and of course, the old liberal bug-a-boo scare tactic of “man-made” global warming. Those serious scientist who have dug a little deeper are now disavowing much of the “consensus” theory.

Posted by: Jim M at February 14, 2008 5:28 PM
Comment #245341

Ohrealy,
You forgot to mention that the “machine candidate” Obama was defeated by the incumbent Rush. You also forgot to mention Obama turned out to be a very competent state senator:

” As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.” (Wikipedia Barack Obama)

“All hat…”? Read his books. He actually used to lecture on constitutional law. He can stand up in public and actually speak, and he can actually write. It’s amazing. We haven’t seen that in an executive for over past seven years.

Bobby Rush is still in the House. Some machine…

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #245346

Jim M

What we need is a leader…not a follower.

Yes Jim what we need is a leader. A leader that will dare to take us down a road of substance rather than a road of ruin. The old school notion of how our politicians should behave is exactly what is wrong with todays politics. Those old timers who have so successfully molded it into the mess it is for the last few decades are no longer seen as the answer to our problems. It is quite clear that their corrupt policies and refusals to accept change will no longer be tolerated by the voters of a new generation.

Obama is the candidate that is not supposed to win. He is a black man in a white mans arena. His ideals are solid and not in keeping with those of old school politicians. He gives us no false promises, recognizes and clearly believes in the need to take a new direction in government. The very fact that he may receive the nomination is a statement in itself. A statement to all those supporters of corrupt old school politics who do not see the value in change. A statement to all those old school politicians who see no real need to change their ways. To continue in the same direction under the influence of the same powers is not a healthy direction for our country. It is the poor outdated leadership of old school politics that afflicts our country today. I fail to see the logic of continuing down the same road to ruin. I would rather take my chances on an unknown with substantive values than continue with the desceptive leadership we do know.

Posted by: RickIL at February 14, 2008 6:14 PM
Comment #245349

On shame and degradation, it is very odd how someone claiming to be a Democratic supporter of Obama, has views identical to Bill scarlet letter McCullom, the guy who was more responsible than anyone for inflicting Bush43 on us. It’s odd because I have a wide acquaintance of Democrats and have never ever not even once heard anyone of them express anything like that view. I know a couple who are very religious anti-abortion activists, members of the St. Francis Animal Protection Society, Friends of Insects, make sandwiches for the homeless at their church, and they have a large picture of Bill and Hillary on display. I have heard it from people who watch oreilly and even those who like ron paul, but never from anyone on our side of the aisle.

On pardoning Marc Rich, I only object that he did not put his pardon in with more packing peanuts.

One the Pledge of Allegiance, it has always irritated because of the source, but come on, The Star Spangled Banner is our non-sectarian national prayer.

It is a sorry state of affairs when Jim M(orrison?) had the most sensible post in the thread, then he managed to revert back to his normal confiscation rhetoric in his next post.

I live in suburban Chicagoland, I know Bobby Rush is still in the USHOR. I actually know more about him than Obama, even though I never voted for Rush and voted for Obama twice.

I like to laugh when people use Wikipedia articles as references, because the articles are guaranteed to be biased.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 14, 2008 7:06 PM
Comment #245354

Ohrealy,
Let me know what resource you consider unbiased, and I will cite Obama’s accomplishments in the IL Senate. Oh wait. You never refute the content, just the fact that it is cited in Wikipedia, which is “guaranteed” to be biased. While some Wikipedia can be biased due to the collaborative nature of its editing, that does not mean all articles are biased. Wikipedia often supports statements with citations of sources. Here are the original sources for my quote as cited in the Wikipedia article:

Slevin, Peter. “Obama Forged Political Mettle in Illinois Capitol”, Washington Post, February 9, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-01-14. See also: “Obama Record May Be Gold Mine for Critics”, Associated Press, CBS News, January 17, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-01-14. “In-Depth Look at Obama’s Political Career” (video), CLTV, Chicago Tribune, February 9, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-01-14.
a b Scott, Janny. “In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd”, New York Times, July 30, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-01-14. See also: Pearson, Rick; Ray Long. “Careful Steps, Looking Ahead”, Chicago Tribune, May 3, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-01-14.

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2008 7:30 PM
Comment #245355
On shame and degradation, it is very odd how someone claiming to be a Democratic supporter of Obama, has views identical to Bill scarlet letter McCullom, the guy who was more responsible than anyone for inflicting Bush43 on us. It’s odd because I have a wide acquaintance of Democrats and have never ever not even once heard anyone of them express anything like that view. I know a couple who are very religious anti-abortion activists, members of the St. Francis Animal Protection Society, Friends of Insects, make sandwiches for the homeless at their church, and they have a large picture of Bill and Hillary on display. I have heard it from people who watch oreilly and even those who like ron paul, but never from anyone on our side of the aisle.

Well, you’d better get used to hearing from liberal Democrats exactly like me, who are thoroughly sick of the same old, corrupt politicians running our party, not standing up for our true ideals, and doing little or nothing for the people.
Who the hell do you think is voting for Obama anyway?
Maybe you see no shame, and thus also see no problem with the degraded, bastardized “liberalism” these people stand for, but it’s Democrats who aren’t interested in giving the Clintons the reigns of power, and the keys to the Whitehouse again, who are calling for this changing of the guard.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 14, 2008 8:00 PM
Comment #245356

It looks more like you are trying to make sure people who supported Clinton don’t vote for Obama. Good luck with that. It sounds like a really great strategy for getting 5 or 10 total electoral votes in December.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 14, 2008 8:23 PM
Comment #245380

I plan on supporting the democratic nominee whether it be barack or hillary. I find both far superior to any republican.

I am excited that there is finally a woman and a person of color running. I do not love barack as some here do nor do I hate hillary as some here do.

I do not see barack as the second coming nor do I see hillary and bill as twins. She is not responsible for her husband and as a person deserves to be considered for the office of president based on what she brings to the table and what she can get done. I am tired of the sexism exhibited here that continues to perpetrate the myth that a woman is only as good or as bad as her husband and that she is an extention of him. Hillary is 5 years older than me and for a woman of my generation to get where she is today fighting in a man’s world, having grown up in a man’s world, having been told as children that the best thing for you is to marry well and have children, to look only to a job as a teacher, social worker, a caring professional-to be where she is, having overcome what she has overcome-I feel she deserves respect for that. We accept how the republicans and the right wing and some left wing media has protrayed the clintons and continue to spout this stuff adnauseum. Is Hillary perfect-no. But she deserves better than what she is getting here.

As for Barack, I am impressed by his intelligence and his ability to communicate. He is a dynamic speaker but I want more from him. I have been to his web site and I have listened to his speaches and like a good car salesperson he gives people what we want to hear. I wonder if we had not just had 7 years of the most awful president if we would be so sold on Barack and his message. Would we care as much for this change he talks about. I think that if Barack had more experience he would be the perfect candidate. I would have no doubts about his ability to lead the country.

I am not for or against Barack. I am not for or against Hillary. I just don’t want to demonize or glorify one candidate over the other. I will be happy with either as a president. I have already voted in the my state’s primary and John Edwards is out so I will have to wait to see who the rest of the country decides will be the nominee.

Posted by: Carolina at February 15, 2008 8:36 AM
Comment #245389

Carolina,

I agree that Hillary Clinton is vastly preferable to a Republican president.

I am tired of the sexism exhibited here that continues to perpetrate the myth that a woman is only as good or as bad as her husband and that she is an extention of him.

I don’t think it is sexist to consider Hillary and Bill a package deal. If she really wants to stand on her own two feet, than she can’t talk about how great the years of the Clinton presidency were. It sounds like you want to let her have to both ways: get credit for her husband’s accomplishments without getting marked down for his misbehavior.

There is a vast difference between running as a second-term Senator and running as the former First Lady. She is clearly trying to get credit for being the former First Lady. This is a fair argument to make, but she can’t seriously expect people to ignore the baggage.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 15, 2008 10:57 AM
Comment #245395

Woody

Excuse me if I don’t accept how you define sexism. Are you or have you ever been a woman if not then I’m not sure you can really know or understand. I don’t see how her talking about how great the clinton years were means that she is a package deal. I talk about how great the clinton years were does that make me a package deal with them as well.

No president unless he was unmarried did anything without the support and backing of a spouse. Do I think that means she should get full credit for Bill’s accomplishments? No-I have not heard her say that she should get credit for things Bill accomplished. Do I think she learned from him while in the white house-yes I do and can he help support her in her quest to move the country to the prosperity we had under clinton-yes.

Should she be held accountable for his misbehavior-again that is sexist. Its always the same-she must not be doing something right or he wouldn’t stray.

So based on your argument any person that runs for president has to content with baggage of any family member that was ever president or ever ran for president.

Posted by: Carolina at February 15, 2008 12:59 PM
Comment #245401

KT replied:

So David under your view, then the American Revulation should have never happened, and we would still be part of england. “War should never be the foundation or emblem of a nation.”

So all the original Patriots are nothing, because they started it. Come on David I know you are meaning something else.

Quite Right. I meant what I said, not what you think I said. The Revolutionary War was a means to an end. NOT a foundation for a nation. That is evident in our founding documents which speak to a future of peace, welfare, and liberty, checks and balances, for which a military is established NOT as a foundation for an aggressive nation, but, as a means of defense against attackers and peace preservation after they are repelled.

Hitler’s Germany was predicated on War and Conquest. As was Alexander’s empire, and Napoleon’s France. None proved to be successful in the preservation of those empires. A nation, like any aggressive person who preys on others, is not long for this world, as they create the very enemies that will be their undoing.

So, I meant what I said, “War should never be the foundation or emblem of a nation.” As a result of our invasion of Iraq, al-Queda and terrorism have grown and are flourishing throughout the world - the exact opposite of what Bush intended by his unfounded and unjustified invasion of Iraq, which posed no threat to our homeland.

Prior to invading Iraq, al-Queda had no market for its propaganda that the U.S. and its allies were aggressors. The civilized world were on our side or at least understanding of our invasion of Afghanistan which was home to the masterminds of our 9/11 attackers. After invading Iraq, the millions of people in the world saw truth in al-Queda’s claims that we are the aggressors. We grew the market for al-Queda’s propaganda, rather than diminishing it. We created the enemies we now fight today in an unwitting concert with al-Queda. We lived up to al-Queda’s propaganda, and gave it credence. As all aggressor war based nations in history have sown the seeds of the resistance and undermining of their conquered empires.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 15, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #245413

Carolina,

OK, you’ve got me. I’ve never been a woman. Does that mean that I can’t dissect the validity of Clinton’s campaign message? “It’s a female thing, you wouldn’t understand” is a slogan, not an argument.

No president unless he was unmarried did anything without the support and backing of a spouse… Should she be held accountable for his misbehavior-again that is sexist. Its always the same-she must not be doing something right or he wouldn’t stray.

Like I said, you are trying to have it both ways.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 15, 2008 3:46 PM
Comment #245414

Woody:

I don’t think it is sexist to consider Hillary and Bill a package deal.


I don’t either, and I am a woman who places herself firmly in the feminist camp. Hillary IS running as a package deal with her husband, just as Bill Clinton painted them as a package deal when he ran for president.
Indeed, Hillary’s supporters aren’t actually voting for the first woman president, they’re actually voting for a first couple. And the truth is, without Bill, Hillary would likely not be where she is today.

If she really wants to stand on her own two feet, than she can’t talk about how great the years of the Clinton presidency were. It sounds like you want to let her have to both ways: get credit for her husband’s accomplishments without getting marked down for his misbehavior.

Clinton and her supporters are not only trying to let her have it both ways, they’re attempting to let her take credit for Bill’s successes, and at the same time distance her from his unwise decisions, or outright failures.
This is just what they are doing currently with NAFTA. Hillary is now trying to make the claim that she was always secretly against it, but didn’t feel she could say anything publicly. Meanwhile, there are numerous instances of her championing NAFTA during those same years, and holding it up as one of “their” clear policy successes.
This tactic is nothing but dishonest. Since she is running on the supposed perfection of the 90’s, she has to be held accountable for everything they did, not just some of it. Naturally that has to also include the fact that she totally failed when it came to reforming health care in any way at all.

There is a vast difference between running as a second-term Senator and running as the former First Lady.

There is indeed. But then, she HAS to run on her husbands record because she has done so little building her own record of achievements as a Senator.
This is what makes me laugh the most whenever she repeats the line about “her 35 years of experience.” Her own record in the Senate is what truly matters if folks want to judge her on what she can do and how she could lead all on her own. And, there isn’t a whole lot there to praise her for, or to recommend her for the job of America’s leader, other than the fact that she is married to Bill.
What is very amusing about Clinton’s supporters is that they never have much to say when you ask them what exactly she has done. Oh sure, she’s put her signature onto some legislation, but hasn’t lead the way on anything herself.

In contrast, Obama has already displayed much stronger leadership skills during his short time in the Senate with quite a few pieces of legislation. This is how we know he has the skills it takes to make things happen.

She is clearly trying to get credit for being the former First Lady. This is a fair argument to make, but she can’t seriously expect people to ignore the baggage.

I don’t think most people judge her for what Bill did with Monica - even if many of us do wonder how on earth she would choose stay with him afterward. What does seem crystal clear however, is that she is fully and completely yoked to Bill in the political sense, and that she could not, and would not have been able to run for president without him.

Personally, I’d love to vote for a woman president. But I’m not interested in placing tokenism above true ability when it comes to the presidency of my country. Therefore, I’m willing to wait until a strong, independent and accomplished woman comes along who I know can and will be a good leader all on her own.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 15, 2008 3:50 PM
Comment #245417
Eight Arguments Against Hillary Clinton

Here’s a few more …

Hillary Clinton’s Voting Record/Statements/Positions:

  • 2006 PorkBusters Hall of Shame:
    • Robert Byrd (D-WV) (lifetime pork-barrel achiever)

    • Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

    • Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

    • Ted Stevens (R-AK)
  • January 2006 Porker of the Month: Sens. Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)

  • February 2005 Porker of the Month: New York Sens. Hillary Clinton (D)& Charles Schumer (D) {bringin’ home the pork, bringin’ home the pork, we’re all…}

  • Provided by tax-payers: Hillary Clinton’s $514,148 per year lease (2001) with the most expensive hometown office of any U.S. senator.

  • Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

  • Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)

  • Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006) {This isn’t the norm for a Democrat politician; could it be Hillary was following the poll numbers?}

  • Opposes illegal immigration, but doesn’t vote to follow up. (Jan 2007) {see previous; seems so}

  • Hillary’s voting record grade on illegal immigration: “D” {John McCain: “D” , Barack Obama: “D-” … all pathetic}

  • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006) {just as soon as we get another amnesty passed like the one in 1986 that quadrupled the problem}

  • In January 1996, a long sought-after copy of billing records from the Rose Law Firm were identified and turned over to prosecutors by Carolyn Huber, a White House assistant to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ms. Huber, herself a former Rose Law Firm employee, recognized the records and realized that they had been among papers that she had removed six months earlier from the First Lady’s book room on the third floor of the White House. The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of various investigative subpoenas for two years, sparked intense interest about how they surfaced and where they had been. Shortly after the discovery of the records, Hillary Clinton made history — she became the only First Lady ever called to testify before a Grand Jury inquiry.

  • Voted for Iraq war (Apr 2007) {Hmmm … I see a “If I knew now what I was supposed to know then” moment coming on}

  • Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) {OK, pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion, but what’s up with this?}

  • Critic of Iraq war, but did not recant 2002 vote in its favor. (Nov 2006)

  • Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

  • Regrets George Bush (43)’s handling of war, but not her own vote to allow it. (Oct 2006) {there’s nothing hypocritical about that, eh?}

  • Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)

  • states: NY share of federal taxes is too high. (Feb 2000) {What does she want? A lower tax percentage for New York residents? Could this be pandering for votes?}

  • Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005) {this is partly why our tax system is now REGRESSIVE}

  • Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006) {yet, she did it again! this is partly why Warren Buffet (2nd wealthiest person in the U.S.) can pay a smaller tax rate than a secretary making only $60K per year; our current tax system is REGRESSIVE among other 10+ abuses in the U.S. which did not all come about by mere coincidence}

  • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007) {Heck no, we can’t have any of that. That might make it harder to vote on pork-barrel, corporate welfare, graft, etc.}

  • Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

  • states: Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007) {Really? With a Pork-Barrel (www.cagw.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=109&repId=455&session_num=0&page=legScore) report Card Grade of 14%, and two porker of the month awards?}

  • And lastly, this is kinda funny. From the smile on Hillary’s face, she does too!

  • More: ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Posted by: d.a.n at February 15, 2008 4:14 PM
Comment #245418

David said “So, I meant what I said, “War should never be the foundation or emblem of a nation.” As a result of our invasion of Iraq, al-Queda and terrorism have grown and are flourishing throughout the world - the exact opposite of what Bush intended by his unfounded and unjustified invasion of Iraq, which posed no threat to our homeland.”

David I do have to agree with that in part, but the Star Spangle Banner was written during a war, which helped define our country, that the Americans were willing to fight for the freedoms you stated in your entry. If you don’t agree with it so be it, but there are those of us that do.

It is the military that protects and allows you to post here and other places and to enjoy the freedoms that we have, not just the 3 branches of government.

One thing this country has not had which everyone else have seem to have had, was a overthrow of the government by the military, why? The military understands that it is to support the government and those currently in power.

KT

Posted by: KT at February 15, 2008 4:22 PM
Comment #245424

Veritas Vincit

excellent post. You would make Obama proud.

So tell me what he has done in congress. You suggested he had done quite a bit. In my research I found minimal evidence of his so called strong leadership skills. I would love to jump on the Barack bandwagon so please let me know what it is he has done that makes him more qualified than Hillary.

The last time I checked Hillary had introduced four bills in 2008 but Barack hasn’t introduced any so far in 2008. Of course I may be behind a few weeks in my research. So if I am wrong my apologies.

Also sometimes women are their own worst enemies and can be harder on women than men in their expectations.


Woody

You certainly are entitled to your opinion and I agree that you have the right to comment on how you see the Hillary and Bill thing. I see it differently. I think sexism is so enmeshed in our society that frequently it is there and we don’t even recognize it. My post was purely food for thought.

Posted by: Carolina at February 15, 2008 5:12 PM
Comment #245427

It is also so enmeshed in our society that it is frequently “recognized” even when it is not there.

Posted by: kctim at February 15, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #245433

Carolina:

So tell me what he has done in congress. You suggested he had done quite a bit. In my research I found minimal evidence of his so called strong leadership skills. I would love to jump on the Barack bandwagon so please let me know what it is he has done that makes him more qualified than Hillary.

From Wikipedia:

109th Congress Senate bill sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Obama discuss the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act. Senate bill sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Obama discuss the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act.[56]

Obama took an active role in the Senate’s drive for improved border security and immigration reform. In 2005, he co-sponsored the “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).[57] He later added three amendments to the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act”, which passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the U.S. House of Representatives.[58] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the Mexico–United States border.[59] President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it “an important step toward immigration reform.”[60]

Partnering first with Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. “Lugar-Obama” expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[61] The “Coburn-Obama Transparency Act” provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.[62] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the “Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act,” marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[63]

110th Congress

In the first month of the newly Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, Obama worked with Russ Feingold (D–WI) to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act”, which was signed into law in September 2007.[68] He joined Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.[69] Obama’s energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.[70] Obama also introduced the “Iraq War De-Escalation Act”, a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008.[71]

Later in 2007, Obama sponsored with Kit Bond (R-MO) an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges, and calling for a review by the Government Accountability Office following reports that the procedure had been used inappropriately to reduce government costs.[72] He sponsored the “Iran Sanctions Enabling Act” supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran’s oil and gas industry,[73] and joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism.[74] A provision from the Obama-Hagel bill was passed by Congress in December 2007 as an amendment to the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill.[74] Obama also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[75] After passing both houses of Congress with bipartisan majorities, SCHIP was vetoed by President Bush in early October 2007, a move Obama said “shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans.”[76]

Carolina:

The last time I checked Hillary had introduced four bills in 2008

Interesting. Guess she’s trying to make up for not doing much of anything before now. Btw, What are these bills?

but Barack hasn’t introduced any so far in 2008.

Yeah, I think he’s been kind of busy running for president since the beginning of the new year.

Also sometimes women are their own worst enemies and can be harder on women than men in their expectations.

Yes, women can be their own worst enemies sometimes. One of those ways is when they insist on seeing sexism around every corner when it might not even be there at all. As for expectations, if we want to be taken seriously we have to be at least as good, if not better at doing things than our male collegues are.
Collectively we women have come a hell of a long way, and we’ll undoubtedly go even further as the years go by.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 15, 2008 6:10 PM
Comment #245436

Carolina, thanks for:
“Are you or have you ever been a woman”
I’m still laughing.
He should have responded again with
“The details are irrelevant here.”

Women are the object of more hate than any other group of people, and most of it is on a very personal level, instead of as members of a group. There is nothing about Hillary that engenders the hate, the problem is usually displaced anger, which can also be depression turned outwards towards other people.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 15, 2008 7:07 PM
Comment #245443

Ohrealy:

Women are the object of more hate than any other group of people,


I have to say that this has not been true in my experience overall - even though I have worked with a few overbearing macho men who mistakenly thought that all males are naturally superior to women.
No, in general I’d have to say that I’ve personally witnessed much more hate being directed at people due to their ethnicity and/or race during the course of my lifetime.

and most of it is on a very personal level, instead of as members of a group.
I don’t know about you, but I consider “hate” or even “dislike” much easier to take when it’s actually delivered on a personal level, rather than when it’s being directed at all members of a group. Because it follows that the former situation would tend to have some rationale, while the latter wouldn’t. Hatred directed at entire groups of people is nothing more than mindless prejudice.
There is nothing about Hillary that engenders the hate,

In your opinion.
In my own opinion, her actions and the outcomes of them have given me several reasons not to trust, like, or respect her. Not because she’s a woman, but because she and her husband have sold out our country and our party in certain definitive ways, and have been dishonest and corrupt as well.

For instance, Bill and Hillary’s pushing for and subsequent trumpeting of, NAFTA which was sold to the country as some sort of wonderful opportunity we absolutely needed to take, but which did nothing whatsoever to benefit the average citizen. NAFTA took jobs out of this country (and has hurt the environment) only to benefit the wealthy. Of course she and her husband had to know it would. But, now that she’s running for president and wants to distance herself from the outcome of their formerly touted trade policies, she says: “NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would.”
Well, I’m afraid I must call bullsh*t on Mrs. Clinton, because it delivered just what their big corporate campaign contributors wanted, and they knew exactly what they were doing when they were signing it into law. The Clinton’s failed to even try to develop NAFTA tri-national commissions on labor and the environment into policy-making institutions. Accordingly, and just as all of us who opposed NAFTA had predicted at the time, the outcome has been nothing short of a total disaster for American labor, and the environment.
Now she says she wants a “Time Out on Trade” — but it’s a little too late, and we know they can’t be trusted.

We can also talk about how the Clintons thought it was a great idea to give permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to the People’s Republic of China (again, to benefit their wealthy friends) a move that automatically followed with the loss of American jobs to a low wage workforce in China, and an increase in the American trade deficit.

Or maybe we can talk about her vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, which allowed the Bush Administration to take us into a war and occupation in Iraq for no good reason. Another maneuver that was transparently stupid that she wants to be dishonest about and make excuses for, now that she’s running for president.

So, you see I have some precise and extremely valid reasons for not liking the two headed Clinton entity - and none of them have anything to do with the fact that one half of that entity is female.

the problem is usually displaced anger,

My problem with the Clintons is that they’ve done things which I, being a liberal, have strongly objected to. These actions have caused me to get angry, not to mention disgusted, when they turn around and try to lie or sugar-coat them.
None of my anger is displaced, I assure you.

which can also be depression turned outwards towards other people.

Or alternately, can engender impatience with fellow Democrats who refuse to acknowledge that while some of the Clinton’s policies were good ones that can be held up for praise, there are others that have been horribly stupid and unwise, and horribly damaging to our nation. Impatience also with the fact even though the Clintons have proven themselves to be far from honest about the outcomes which are the direct result of their political leadership, those who wish to deify the these two claim to see no problem at all with anything they’ve done, including their high level of dishonesty, or corruption.

Depressing? You bet it is.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 15, 2008 11:50 PM
Comment #245470

Veritas Vincit

Thank you for the information on Barack. I am not inclined to develop and post a long list of Hillary’s accomplishments as it is obvious that your opinion re: Hillary and Bill is unchangable and I would be wasting my time.

Believe it or not I am not a Hillary supporter. I was for John Edwards. However, I don’t hate her as some posters do and felt a need to defend her. I still don’t understand the hatred of Bill and Hillary.

I did read this yesterday and found it very interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/15/kaye.ohioracegender/index.html

Also, I do not look for sexism in everything but sometimes it is so glaring it is hard to miss.

Posted by: Carolina at February 16, 2008 8:39 AM
Comment #245481

The opposition did a little video when Nancy Pelosi became speaker, showing all the people they dislike that might take over the world with NP in charge of the USHOR. On Nancy, they showed a series of photographs of her with different hairstyles, which I guess people find disturbing about women, they can “change” their appearance.

On Hillary, people are complaining about everything, but they never get to the most basic thing that was a problem. Their views are from media perceptions and pop culture sources like wikipedia, and actual history is irrelevant.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 16, 2008 11:43 AM
Comment #245483

Carolina:

I am not inclined to develop and post a long list of Hillary’s accomplishments

I didn’t ask for a long list of Hillary’s accomplishments. If I’d wanted that I could simply go to her website and read whatever puff piece they’ve put up on her lifetime of “experience.” Besides, when it comes to her time in the Senate, I went and did my homework, and so I am fully certain that she doesn’t have much of anything to list. I was only asking about the four bills she has just introduced in 2008, since you had brought them up. If you don’t know anything about them, that’s perfectly fine, and you could have just said so.

However, I don’t hate her as some posters do and felt a need to defend her. I still don’t understand the hatred of Bill and Hillary.

For me, it isn’t hate. It’s that over the course of their time in the White House I grew to strongly dislike their leadership (actually, the DLC’s version of “liberalism” in general) and the way it has undermined our party’s principles. I also came to see that I can place no trust in many of the things the Clinton’s say. Therefore, over time most of the respect I once had for them has steadily eroded.
I am more than ready to turn the page on the Clinton’s, and am hoping that Obama’s leadership can give us a new direction and move us forward.

Ohrealy:

On Hillary, people are complaining about everything, but they never get to the most basic thing that was a problem. Their views are from media perceptions and pop culture sources like wikipedia, and actual history is irrelevant.

Man, that is weak. Very weak. You’ve got nothing.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 16, 2008 12:33 PM
Comment #245503

Veritas Vincit

Oh my what to say. I guess I could just say nothing which is what I think I’ll do.

Posted by: Carolina at February 16, 2008 2:33 PM
Comment #245504

Ohrealy

I certainly agree with your posts.

Posted by: Carolina at February 16, 2008 2:35 PM
Comment #245516

Now that Denny Hastert is retiring, we are running seriously low on the gravy train in Illinois. I had hoped that Hillary would at least bring a big library to Park Ridge, but with Illinois voting against her, it does not seem likely. If Obama manages to be nominated, and McCain manages to shoot himself in the foot every month between now and the election, there is a remote possiiblity that Obama might become the 44th POTUS. If that remote possibility happens, here are some of the things that I would like for Illinois, remembering that we must outdo the Rpblcns in order that we do not disappoint them:

Arlington and Annapolis are indefensible in case of war. The Naval academy should move to Great Lakes, and the Pentagon to Argonne.
A National Institute of Technology to be funded at Fermilab, with a level of commitment to excellence that will make MIT and and CalTech look like Bob Jones and Pepperdine.
All utility wiring in Northest Illinois to be moved underground as a commitment to homeland security.
All MREs to be provided by McDonalds, hey it’s what they really want, right?
The old penitientiary in Joliet should be renamed Bush House, and used to house all the members of the current administration when they are convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors. They could actually be featured on the next season of Prison Break, but of course get paid prison wages instead of union scale. We don’t want them to compromise their principles.

You have to have some crazy demands to get the real ones, so:
Mayor Daley, Obama’s benefactor, to be declared as a Prince of the Holy American Empire.
Alien bodies to be moved to Rantoul.
Gold in Ft Knox be melted down and used to line the new runways at Ohare.
CIA Headquarters to be painted with phosphorus in Day Glo Orange.
FCC to fine any television station that ever shows even a picture of Donald Trump or Paris Hilton.
Change the name of Baltimore to Poeville.

not Illinois related suggestions:
Wikipedia to be declared as a real encyclopedia, wait, no, that’s really belongs in the crazy category.
Finally eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities and replace it with a Department of Music, with Alexandra Patsavas to be nominated as Secretary of Music. Wait, no, make that an Illinois suggestion, this should be in Evanston.
The State bar associations should have to expel the same number of old members as the new members they admit each year.
Remove all taxes from alcohol.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 16, 2008 5:53 PM
Comment #245520
Oh my what to say. I guess I could just say nothing which is what I think I’ll do.

Okay, Carolina. I know that you don’t agree with me, but I hope you at least realize that I’m an honest person who only has the best interests of the Democratic party at heart. It’s so important that we don’t lose this election, but if Hillary is our nominee, the GOP is going to swiftboat her - and this time they aren’t going to need lies in order to do it.

Here is an example of the kind of Clinton corruption that they’re sure to use against her in the general election.
In only five days that court case is set to begin. No wonder McCain said he was hoping that he would run against Hillary!
If she had won on Super Tuesday, the GOP would have had it in the bag.

Maybe it’s needless to say, but I’m so damn glad that we’ve got Obama.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 16, 2008 8:05 PM
Comment #245547

veritas vincit

You just don’t give up do you? You certainly do have a strong need to be right.

So here goes: I agree with you, you are right, Hillary is a skunk, she is evil and bad.

Happy now!!!

Posted by: Carolina at February 17, 2008 8:17 AM
Comment #245558

Carolina:

You just don’t give up do you? You certainly do have a strong need to be right.

I have a strong need to get at the truth, and when I feel that I’ve found it, to share it with others. And yes, I do tend to be very persistent.
I realize that can be annoying.

So here goes: I agree with you, you are right, Hillary is a skunk, she is evil and bad.

Happy now!!!

No, because you don’t sound at all sincere.
Did you look at that rightwing website I linked to? Did you see that the GOP has a smoking gun in video form of blatant Clinton corruption at their disposal to use against them The Democratic Party in the general election?

I’m sorry if I’ve annoyed you. I’ll shut up now.

Posted by: veritas vincit at February 17, 2008 1:12 PM
Comment #245576

Veritas Vincit

Oh I will be sad if you go away. I must admit-I have been jerking your chain alittle.

You are certainly right. I was not serious in my last post just wanted to see what kind of reaction I would get.

NO I did not go to the website you recommended. I am sure that the GOP has all kinds of things lined up for Hillary should she get the nomination. I fear they also have all kinds of things lined up for Barack as well.

I am terribly scared about the coming election and fear the repubs will steal it as I feel they did in 2000 and 2004.

I think for the time being I will stay away from posts re: Hillary. It obviously does no good to try and defend her.

I think Barack would make a fine president and will do everything I can to support him. Should Hillary get the nomination I will do everything I can to support her as well.

Posted by: Carolina at February 17, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #247258

Duh!!

Posted by: Al George at March 7, 2008 3:22 AM
Comment #351420

Ahem?
Al Gore’s positions vindicated. Even the second-star-to-
the-right-and-straight-on-till-morning inhabitants buy his claptrap. His science can be debunkt with a fourth grade science book and he did NOT create the internet. These are not “mistakes, they are lies. Al Gore is a LIAR. Nice to see you have kept up the “faith though.
ANd Barak, name an actual accomplishment.

Posted by: Stephen at August 24, 2012 12:47 PM
Post a comment