Clinton's Triple Win Sets Up a Long, Ugly Slog to Pennsylvania
| Tue Mar. 4, 2008 9:58 PM PST
Now it's on to the Democratic death-march in Pennsylvania.
By winning decisively in Ohio and Rhode Island and narrowly in Texas, Senator Hillary Clinton managed to keep her presidential aspirations alive and guaranteed that the bitterly-fought Democratic contest will slog on for weeks, at least until April 22, when Pennsylvania (with its 188 delegates) votes. With these victories, Clinton put an end to Barack Obama's streak--though he still maintains a significant, if statistically slight, lead in the delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses. (Due to the rules governing Texas' odd joint primary-caucus, it seemed possible on Tuesday night, even probable, that Obama would pocket a majority of the delegates there, despite placing second in he popular vote.) More important, Clinton earned the right to claim that her case against Obama, which she and her aides sharpened in recent days, has been seconded by Democratic voters, including two important blocs for the party: blue-collar Dems in Ohio, a decisive state in general elections, and Latino Democrats in Texas. Obama netted his only primary win of the night in Vermont.
At long last, Clinton and her strategists seemed to have gained traction with their attacks on the candidate of hope. As Firewall Tuesday approached, the Clinton campaign did not introduce any new themes. But it did tinker with the mix and accused Obama of falling short on integrity, credibility, and experience. This new mash-up was a success. Catching a break because the corruption trial of Obama's onetime friend and contributor Tony Rezko began this week, Clinton aides repeatedly clamed there were "unanswered questions" about Obama's relationship with Rezko. Obama's aides countered that there were no unanswered questions about this much-investigated episode. (Obama, accused of no wrongdoing in the Rezko matter, has acknowledged it was dumb for him to have entered into a real estate deal with Rezko, especially since the politically-wired developer was under investigation at the time.) Prodded by the Clintonites, reporters started grilling Obama anew about Rezko. And being asked about the dirty dealings of a former pal is never helpful to a candidate selling change and reform. Simultaneously, Obama's camp came under heavy fire--from the Clinton campaign--for falsely denying that a campaign adviser had met with Canadian officials and discussed Obama's position on NAFTA. (The aide denied press reports that he had told the Canadians that Obama's criticism of NAFTA was merely political posturing.) It looked as if Obama the Inspirer was not playing straight.
While casting Obama as just another shifty, sleaze-tainted pol, Clinton and her lieutenants pumped up the volume on their well-worn charge that he's not ready for prime time--that is, when the phone rings in the White House in the middle of the night because there's a crisis somewhere. The Obama camp quickly cooked up a clever retort--Clinton failed her red-phone moment by voting for George W. Bush's Iraq war measure--yet Clinton's heavy-handed commercial, if it did not persuade any individual voter in Texas or Ohio, did define the discourse (and media coverage) in the days before these primaries. Experience, not hope, was the main subject of the debate. Advantage: Clinton.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
On top of all this, Clinton succeeded where she had recently faltered: convincing working-class Democrats that she's their woman. In the contests after Super Tuesday, Obama penetrated into Clinton's base and coaxed away such voters, as he racked up eleven wins in a row. In Ohio on Tuesday, Obama fared well among Democrats who attended college (53 to 46 percent), but Clinton clobbered him among Democrats who did not (62 to 37 percent). She also walloped him in union households (54 to 45 percent). With the economy rated as the top concern of Democratic voters in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island (it tied with the Iraq war in Vermont), Clinton scored with her steady--if not always inspiring--insistence that she's a heavy-lifter when it comes to kitchen-table issues. She also renewed her bonds with other core voters: women and the elderly.
In Texas, the Democratic electorate was more split. Clinton won 64 to 34 percent among Democrats over 65 years of age. Obama led narrowly in the under-64 group, 51 to 48 percent. In other words, the old folks kept Clinton competitive. So, too, did Latinos, who went for Clinton 63 to 35 percent. White Democrats in the Lone Star State favored Clinton by an 11-point margin. Voters with incomes over $50,000 supported Obama, 52 to 48 percent. Those earning less went with Clinton, 51 to 49 percent.
Clinton's advocates will now argue it's back to the pre-sweep days--when she won in New Hampshire, Nevada, and several Super Tuesday states by assembling a coalition of classic Democrats--and the race is on. But the math doesn't change. As Obama's campaign aides have been maintaining for weeks, Clinton's triumphs in Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas will not net her a significant pickup in delegates. "We have nearly the same delegate lead we had this morning," Obama told supporters at a rally in San Antonio, as the Texas results came in.
The Obama and Clinton spinners will bicker over the significance of the March 4 contests. It's a paradigm shift, the Clintonites began asserting on Tuesday night before all the votes were counted, and momentum is ours. The Obama campaign countered, It doesn't much change what counts: the delegate tally. But the results in Ohio and Texas do show that what Clinton did right before these elections was effective. Among Democratic voters in Texas, 29 percent told exit pollsters they had decided whom to vote for in the week prior to the election. This group chose Clinton 56 to 42 percent. Those who decided earlier went with Obama, 51 to 48 percent. In Ohio, those who decided in the last three days broke for Clinton 61 to 38 percent. Were the late-deciders responding to the Clinton campaign's jabs at Obama? No doubt, that's the lesson that will be drawn inside Clinton HQ: this stuff works.
The Clintonites now have what they must regard as a formula for victory--or, at least, near-victory. Winning the coming primaries may not gain them all the pledged delegates they need to catch Obama. But perhaps they can draw close and then figure out how to work the superdelegates issue (and the matter of Florida's and Michigan's nonexistent delegates). That means six weeks of perfecting their slam-Obama campaign before the Pennsylvania primary. In the meantime, Wyoming will hold a caucus on March 4 and Mississippi will conduct a primary on March 11.
This will be a long, tough grind for Clinton and Obama--and their party. Participating in a fiercely competitive and extended Democratic race has helped Obama improve his skills as a debater and campaigner--Clinton, a veteran politician, had less room for improvement--but Democratic party officials will inevitably worry that a six-week-long (or longer) cage match will do damage to whomever prevails and goes on to face Senator John McCain in the general election. Yet there may be no way to prevent such a slugfest. Obama has a lead in pledged delegates. He won't be turning tail--not even if he loses Pennsylvania. And Clinton's triple win on Tuesday allows her to tell anyone who asks her to abandon the race to kiss off.
"As Ohio goes, so goes the nation," Clinton proclaimed during a brief victory celebration in Columbus, Ohio. And so will go the Clinton campaign--full-throttle. Her March 4 wins will encourage Clinton--or her surrogates--to blast away at Obama. And though Obama earlier in the campaign demonstrated an ability to absorb attacks and stick to his own game plan, he may--after Ohio and Texas--feel pressure to respond in kind. Certainly, he cannot be a punching bag for six weeks. So there will be blood, and Pennsylvania will be the battlefield.
Comments
Obama won the delegate majority in Texas. His popular vote fell short a few percent (4-5). Ohio was a different story. Billary took Ohio. RI and Vermont were split and are not relevant anyway.
Obama has been getting too cocky and by trying to overpower Billary with TV cash, he has only succeeded is squandering his edge as an "underdog" and, more importantly, someone who is getting votes from people who think he can save this country through novel approaches. His strategists also failed him with that inane TV ad, about him being better at answering the "red telephone" because he voted against Iraq invasion. First of all, it's a non-sequiter and secondly, the Iraq military action is not over. While people are very unhappy about the lack of success, the ridiculous spending and the great loss of life, counted in that number are those who would have preferred a 3-state solution and those who would have just bombed the crap out of Iraq. This is especially true in Texas where much of the military spending is done.
When all the delegates are counted, Billary may have netted a loss for the day. The other posters are correct when they say that Billary can't win a sleaze contest with anyone, which is part of the reason why we have George W Bush right now. Also, the news media has turned against Obama, probably because they do not want the contest over yet (self preservation).
Obama is faced with a paradox. Either take off the gloves and begin the mutual assured destruction of the democratic party or be subjected to Billary's campaign by innuendo.
Either way, Obama needs to demote whomever made strategic decisions in the Texas and Ohio contests. I get the feeling they must have been lawyers, who are great at producing money but awful at spending it and have no clue what lurks in the 'reptilian' portion of the human brain?mainly because they are too close to it themselves.
Hmmm, what did Hillary do in the so-called 35 years of public service and as first Lady: After graduating from Wellesley she attended
Yale Law School, where Hillary focused on questions about how the law affected children and began her decades of work as an advocate for children and families. As a law student, Hillary represented foster children and parents in family court and worked on some of the earliest studies creating legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children. Following graduation, she became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund.
After serving as only one of two women lawyers on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon, Hillary chose not to pursue offers from major law firms. When Hillary Clinton move to Arkansas she continued to work for children and families. Hillary ran a legal aid clinic for the poor when she first got to Arkansas and handled cases of foster care and child abuse. Years later, she organized a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. When she was just 30, President Carter appointed her to the board of the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor.
When Bill Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas, Hillary continued to advocate for children, leading a task force to improve education in Arkansas through higher standards for schools and serving on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, helping them expand and improve their services. She also served on national boards for the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Care Action Campaign, and the Children's Television Workshop.
She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm. She led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which played a pioneering role in raising awareness of issues like sexual harassment and equal pay. Hillary was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.
As First Lady in the White House The foreign policy achievement most often credited to Mrs. Clinton came in 1995, with her speech to the United Nations conference on women in Beijing, where she declared that "human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights." She also tangled with Chinese officials, she said, and refused to bow to pressure to soften her remarks.
"She had a good balance of being firm on these issues, even if they clearly covered Chinese sins, but also understanding the need for good relations with China," said Winston Lord, then the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, who briefed and accompanied her on the trip.
In visits to Bosnia and Kosovo after the American-led bombing of Serbia, she entered war zones before officials believed it was safe for her husband to go and acted as a spokeswoman for American interests. Many officials ? including Madeleine K. Albright and Richard Holbrooke in the administration and Tony Blair, then Britain's prime minister ? turned to her at times to help in convincing Mr. Clinton to take on Serbia.
As First Lady she was instrumental in the creation of CHIP, (Children's Health insurance Program) which is the basis for children's health insurance in this country. She advocated for funding and research for breast cancer and other women related health issues.
And as obvious as it has to be to any intelligent person, a person with the desire and intelligence of Hillary Clinton would gain a great deal of experience as First Lady in the White House, especially as she was actually involved to such an extent she did travel around the globe in the interests of the USA at the behest of the President.
Obamaites will attempt to discredit her experience as First Lady because that is the only way Obama can try to achieve a comparative level of experience. But the truth is Hillary's experience as First Lady is a tremendous experiential advantage over Obama; and he knows it, so he has and will continue to attack her experience by ridicule, denunciation and by not giving her the credit Hillary is due for her public service as first lady.
Obama asks, "has she signed any treaties?" Well isn't their only one person who can sign treaties anyways? What a sophomoric approach; it's as though he is debating in a collegiate debate and trying to score debate points. Well lets ask this, "has she been involved in any sort of ambassadorial or principled discussions or dealings for the White House"? The answer is an emphatic yes! Her trips to Bosnia were done on behalf of the President into war zones considered too dangerous for him! And in China she represented the human rights interests of the United States and gave a formal address to the UN on these matters. No she didn't sign any treaties there but then neither did the VP or any other senior level member of the executive. The point is that her experience as First Lady is at least as valuable as being Vice President because she actually did get involved in many diplomatic and human rights issues all across the globe.
Once the Obamaites stop trying to denigrate Hillary Clinton's great public service record and her service and her 8 years of service as First Lady then maybe their can be a real dialogue about how these two can turn our country back from the neo-con paths of madness and stupidity.
This country is in dire straits, militarily, internationally, economically and ideologically. Even our Supreme Court is controlled by neo-con fascists. The next President has a ton of work to do from day one because they have literally to clean house at the same time as they begin to implement the solutions necessary to save the economy for the middle and poorer classes and address Iraq and Afghanistan and so much more. This next Presidency will inherit the most difficult time this county has ever faced out side of the depression and WWII.
Think about what really is at stake here in this election. It is a monstrous tasks which will befall any one elected President. Just look a the real experiences of both candidates and make an honest informed decision based on their real life's records. Don't listen to your heart, whether you are black or white, green, red or purple, man or women. Don't listen to your pastor or preacher or your wife or husband. Make your own decision based on relevant actual facts. Then decide and vote.
I'm not telling you who to vote for; I trust you will use your good, honest, rational judgment and pick the one candidate who you know can bring this country back from the neo-con induced social inequity and international madness.
Lisa:
I like Judge Judy Sheinlein or, Samantha Power (with commentary included) as two personalities, who might gain my respect as candidates.
Biologically, women are 100-percent exactly the same as men, with one exception: Hormones.
Their pro-active hormones might not impede progress in most CEO activities, but in some critical areas, the difference may become dispositive. We don't know because to my understanding, no woman has ever (yet) had her fingers on any nuclear 'football'.
I for one do not believe that women should be permitted into combat. I know you won't like to hear this but in the interest of candidness, the hormone differences ultimately create tangible strengths and weaknesses. For one example, yesterday, I heard of a second instance of dentists who do root canal procedures on patients WHO DO NOT NEED THEM (for the money). Both are men. I just do not see women as being able to compromise themselves that way. I am now looking for a woman dentist. Now, should I force myself to be politically correct and not make this distinction? Maybe with your teeth (and for the right price).
Hillary is not only not a good candidate, she is a horrible one. Which is probably why some men accuse some women of supporting her?solely because she is a woman. Its hard to figure out otherwise. She was brought up all the way by her Husband's power base. Therefore, had Bill been gay, today we would not have a woman candidate. The purpose of the 8-year term limit is to prevent any person from gaining this level of power. Except, Billary found a work-around.
In that one regard, her qualifications have the same defect as George W, Bush. Too much brand and not enough quality.
The voting public has been brainwashed into the belief that she is the natural Democratic fit. All she is good at is adopting study-grouped positions, which have been pre-calculated by lawyers to garner the best reaction. But she can't study-group-away peoples aversion to her. She is also steeped in sleaze. Samantha power called her a "monster" and quickly apologized. I call her a "Frankenstein" with no apologies. (As a troll, I know a Frankenstein).
Women should not favor a "Frankenstein" representing their best hopes and dreams.
Lisa:
These public blog conversations are often more for the benefit of those who read then those who chime-in with comments. Clever or 'Orwellian' use of semantics, subtle shifts in tenses, first, second & third person references--not to mention misquotations or far-flung analogies, can all be combined to make any position seem either more justified or lacking justification. (And this is one of the problems humanity faces, which is why I am a troll.) However, as time-and-tides elapse, it is the passive readers who begin to see beyond the window-dressing. You empower me and I empower them. Which is basically why we hear the expression: "He's a troll ? don't feed him". Posters of such statements know that the net-result of engaging me (and certainly some other troll people) is to provide the forum for discussion and ultimately enlightenment. The objection becomes similar to a courtroom objection, wherein one side wishes the jury not to consider certain points or hear certain statements.
April 1, 2008
Pensacola, Florida
leonwalker@cox.net
Hillary Clinton: Lies Have Short Legs
Senator Hillary Clinton's repeated telling of a shocking fabricated and later recanted story of her arrival in a Bosnian combat zone "under sniper fire" is absolutely ghastly. This horrific fabrication is not only a very telling indictment of her credibility and integrity; it reveals a clear vision of a ruthless woman lost in self consumption.
I have no apprehension for having made the aforementioned scalding comments because two decades ago I myself served. At one point in my career I was a crewmember aboard the carrier "United States Ship Independence". During my service on that vessel we were required to launch aircraft and drop bombs on the nations of Grenada and Lebanon. Tensions were high and in Lebanon our aircraft were engaged and one was shot down. Through it all I never felt particularly threatened. Why? Because I was an Air Traffic Controller and I sat comfortably in my air conditioned work center, dozens of miles off shore, deep within the skin of a well protected ship. That my fellow Americans, is the maximum extent to which I can embellish these events. Oh wait! When "Battle Stations" were announced, I did have to put on my ball cap and tuck my pants into my socks.
Now some years later, the First Lady of the United States, flies into Bosnia with her teenaged daughter. As would be procedurally appropriate they got a routine briefing equivalent in significance to: "Hey Hillary, tuck your pants into your socks" followed by an uneventful landing and an informal reception on the tarmac. From these actual routine events, came a tale so outrageous it was nearly tantamount to she, Chelsea and Sinbad slithering across the tarmac cradling rifles with night vision scopes and with bayonets in their teeth. Thank God it was daylight or she might have claimed it was 3:00 AM.
I can not fully relate to all of the families of those who faced combat, injury or death in Bosnia or the Gulf War or Iraq or any other conflict or police action in recent American History or years prior. Still I know that there have been so many who served under austere and life threatening conditions sacrificed through injury and those who died for this country. So for anyone and in particular a candidate for President of the United States, to manipulate the reality of exposure to, or service in dangerous conflict as she has done is the height of depravity. To attempt to beguile an American public which includes those who are serving, those who have served and those who have sacrificed, all of the families and all fellow citizens is beyond comprehension. What is more, and that which can only be considered the height of gall is, to date I am aware of no apology.
At fifty four years old I have seen many things. I have a fairly good understanding of politics and the tactics that can make politics both enjoyable and disturbing. I am not however a political junkie so perhaps my memory data banks are some what limited. Still, I can scarcely recall anything so calculated and outrageous in my remembrances of prior political contests.
I believe this will be the final element in Senator Clinton's undoing in this political campaign. She had already begun setting the bridges ablaze with her tactics throughout and more recently, the veiled threats to the Democratic Party Leadership were a mistake. Seemingly she and her campaign never figured out that something was changing. She brought the same old script and played the leading role in the same old dreary production of "Washington Politics As Usual".
At the end of the day I believe this gifted woman was blinded by dangerous ambition and she lost sight of the real prize. The real prize being the trust and confidence of the American people. Sadly, the American people have a clear vision of that which she never hoped to reveal. The hole in the place where her soul should be.
Leon A. Walker
© Leon A. Walker, April 2008 ? Approved for use by any recipients, viewers or holders.
Obama won the delegate majority in Texas. His popular vote fell short a few percent (4-5). Ohio was a different story. Billary took Ohio. RI and Vermont were split and are not relevant anyway.
Obama has been getting too cocky and by trying to overpower Billary with TV cash, he has only succeeded is squandering his edge as an "underdog" and, more importantly, someone who is getting votes from people who think he can save this country through novel approaches. His strategists also failed him with that inane TV ad, about him being better at answering the "red telephone" because he voted against Iraq invasion. First of all, it's a non-sequiter and secondly, the Iraq military action is not over. While people are very unhappy about the lack of success, the ridiculous spending and the great loss of life, counted in that number are those who would have preferred a 3-state solution and those who would have just bombed the crap out of Iraq. This is especially true in Texas where much of the military spending is done.
When all the delegates are counted, Billary may have netted a loss for the day. The other posters are correct when they say that Billary can't win a sleaze contest with anyone, which is part of the reason why we have George W Bush right now. Also, the news media has turned against Obama, probably because they do not want the contest over yet (self preservation).
Obama is faced with a paradox. Either take off the gloves and begin the mutual assured destruction of the democratic party or be subjected to Billary's campaign by innuendo.
Either way, Obama needs to demote whomever made strategic decisions in the Texas and Ohio contests. I get the feeling they must have been lawyers, who are great at producing money but awful at spending it and have no clue what lurks in the 'reptilian' portion of the human brain?mainly because they are too close to it themselves.
Hmmm, what did Hillary do in the so-called 35 years of public service and as first Lady: After graduating from Wellesley she attended
Yale Law School, where Hillary focused on questions about how the law affected children and began her decades of work as an advocate for children and families. As a law student, Hillary represented foster children and parents in family court and worked on some of the earliest studies creating legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children. Following graduation, she became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund.
After serving as only one of two women lawyers on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon, Hillary chose not to pursue offers from major law firms. When Hillary Clinton move to Arkansas she continued to work for children and families. Hillary ran a legal aid clinic for the poor when she first got to Arkansas and handled cases of foster care and child abuse. Years later, she organized a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. When she was just 30, President Carter appointed her to the board of the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor.
When Bill Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas, Hillary continued to advocate for children, leading a task force to improve education in Arkansas through higher standards for schools and serving on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, helping them expand and improve their services. She also served on national boards for the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Care Action Campaign, and the Children's Television Workshop.
She also continued her legal career as a partner in a law firm. She led the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which played a pioneering role in raising awareness of issues like sexual harassment and equal pay. Hillary was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.
As First Lady in the White House The foreign policy achievement most often credited to Mrs. Clinton came in 1995, with her speech to the United Nations conference on women in Beijing, where she declared that "human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights." She also tangled with Chinese officials, she said, and refused to bow to pressure to soften her remarks.
"She had a good balance of being firm on these issues, even if they clearly covered Chinese sins, but also understanding the need for good relations with China," said Winston Lord, then the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, who briefed and accompanied her on the trip.
In visits to Bosnia and Kosovo after the American-led bombing of Serbia, she entered war zones before officials believed it was safe for her husband to go and acted as a spokeswoman for American interests. Many officials ? including Madeleine K. Albright and Richard Holbrooke in the administration and Tony Blair, then Britain's prime minister ? turned to her at times to help in convincing Mr. Clinton to take on Serbia.
As First Lady she was instrumental in the creation of CHIP, (Children's Health insurance Program) which is the basis for children's health insurance in this country. She advocated for funding and research for breast cancer and other women related health issues.
And as obvious as it has to be to any intelligent person, a person with the desire and intelligence of Hillary Clinton would gain a great deal of experience as First Lady in the White House, especially as she was actually involved to such an extent she did travel around the globe in the interests of the USA at the behest of the President.
Obamaites will attempt to discredit her experience as First Lady because that is the only way Obama can try to achieve a comparative level of experience. But the truth is Hillary's experience as First Lady is a tremendous experiential advantage over Obama; and he knows it, so he has and will continue to attack her experience by ridicule, denunciation and by not giving her the credit Hillary is due for her public service as first lady.
Obama asks, "has she signed any treaties?" Well isn't their only one person who can sign treaties anyways? What a sophomoric approach; it's as though he is debating in a collegiate debate and trying to score debate points. Well lets ask this, "has she been involved in any sort of ambassadorial or principled discussions or dealings for the White House"? The answer is an emphatic yes! Her trips to Bosnia were done on behalf of the President into war zones considered too dangerous for him! And in China she represented the human rights interests of the United States and gave a formal address to the UN on these matters. No she didn't sign any treaties there but then neither did the VP or any other senior level member of the executive. The point is that her experience as First Lady is at least as valuable as being Vice President because she actually did get involved in many diplomatic and human rights issues all across the globe.
Once the Obamaites stop trying to denigrate Hillary Clinton's great public service record and her service and her 8 years of service as First Lady then maybe their can be a real dialogue about how these two can turn our country back from the neo-con paths of madness and stupidity.
This country is in dire straits, militarily, internationally, economically and ideologically. Even our Supreme Court is controlled by neo-con fascists. The next President has a ton of work to do from day one because they have literally to clean house at the same time as they begin to implement the solutions necessary to save the economy for the middle and poorer classes and address Iraq and Afghanistan and so much more. This next Presidency will inherit the most difficult time this county has ever faced out side of the depression and WWII.
Think about what really is at stake here in this election. It is a monstrous tasks which will befall any one elected President. Just look a the real experiences of both candidates and make an honest informed decision based on their real life's records. Don't listen to your heart, whether you are black or white, green, red or purple, man or women. Don't listen to your pastor or preacher or your wife or husband. Make your own decision based on relevant actual facts. Then decide and vote.
I'm not telling you who to vote for; I trust you will use your good, honest, rational judgment and pick the one candidate who you know can bring this country back from the neo-con induced social inequity and international madness.
Lisa:
I like Judge Judy Sheinlein or, Samantha Power (with commentary included) as two personalities, who might gain my respect as candidates.
Biologically, women are 100-percent exactly the same as men, with one exception: Hormones.
Their pro-active hormones might not impede progress in most CEO activities, but in some critical areas, the difference may become dispositive. We don't know because to my understanding, no woman has ever (yet) had her fingers on any nuclear 'football'.
I for one do not believe that women should be permitted into combat. I know you won't like to hear this but in the interest of candidness, the hormone differences ultimately create tangible strengths and weaknesses. For one example, yesterday, I heard of a second instance of dentists who do root canal procedures on patients WHO DO NOT NEED THEM (for the money). Both are men. I just do not see women as being able to compromise themselves that way. I am now looking for a woman dentist. Now, should I force myself to be politically correct and not make this distinction? Maybe with your teeth (and for the right price).
Hillary is not only not a good candidate, she is a horrible one. Which is probably why some men accuse some women of supporting her?solely because she is a woman. Its hard to figure out otherwise. She was brought up all the way by her Husband's power base. Therefore, had Bill been gay, today we would not have a woman candidate. The purpose of the 8-year term limit is to prevent any person from gaining this level of power. Except, Billary found a work-around.
In that one regard, her qualifications have the same defect as George W, Bush. Too much brand and not enough quality.
The voting public has been brainwashed into the belief that she is the natural Democratic fit. All she is good at is adopting study-grouped positions, which have been pre-calculated by lawyers to garner the best reaction. But she can't study-group-away peoples aversion to her. She is also steeped in sleaze. Samantha power called her a "monster" and quickly apologized. I call her a "Frankenstein" with no apologies. (As a troll, I know a Frankenstein).
Women should not favor a "Frankenstein" representing their best hopes and dreams.
Lisa:
These public blog conversations are often more for the benefit of those who read then those who chime-in with comments. Clever or 'Orwellian' use of semantics, subtle shifts in tenses, first, second & third person references--not to mention misquotations or far-flung analogies, can all be combined to make any position seem either more justified or lacking justification. (And this is one of the problems humanity faces, which is why I am a troll.) However, as time-and-tides elapse, it is the passive readers who begin to see beyond the window-dressing. You empower me and I empower them. Which is basically why we hear the expression: "He's a troll ? don't feed him". Posters of such statements know that the net-result of engaging me (and certainly some other troll people) is to provide the forum for discussion and ultimately enlightenment. The objection becomes similar to a courtroom objection, wherein one side wishes the jury not to consider certain points or hear certain statements.
April 1, 2008
Pensacola, Florida
leonwalker@cox.net
Hillary Clinton: Lies Have Short Legs
Senator Hillary Clinton's repeated telling of a shocking fabricated and later recanted story of her arrival in a Bosnian combat zone "under sniper fire" is absolutely ghastly. This horrific fabrication is not only a very telling indictment of her credibility and integrity; it reveals a clear vision of a ruthless woman lost in self consumption.
I have no apprehension for having made the aforementioned scalding comments because two decades ago I myself served. At one point in my career I was a crewmember aboard the carrier "United States Ship Independence". During my service on that vessel we were required to launch aircraft and drop bombs on the nations of Grenada and Lebanon. Tensions were high and in Lebanon our aircraft were engaged and one was shot down. Through it all I never felt particularly threatened. Why? Because I was an Air Traffic Controller and I sat comfortably in my air conditioned work center, dozens of miles off shore, deep within the skin of a well protected ship. That my fellow Americans, is the maximum extent to which I can embellish these events. Oh wait! When "Battle Stations" were announced, I did have to put on my ball cap and tuck my pants into my socks.
Now some years later, the First Lady of the United States, flies into Bosnia with her teenaged daughter. As would be procedurally appropriate they got a routine briefing equivalent in significance to: "Hey Hillary, tuck your pants into your socks" followed by an uneventful landing and an informal reception on the tarmac. From these actual routine events, came a tale so outrageous it was nearly tantamount to she, Chelsea and Sinbad slithering across the tarmac cradling rifles with night vision scopes and with bayonets in their teeth. Thank God it was daylight or she might have claimed it was 3:00 AM.
I can not fully relate to all of the families of those who faced combat, injury or death in Bosnia or the Gulf War or Iraq or any other conflict or police action in recent American History or years prior. Still I know that there have been so many who served under austere and life threatening conditions sacrificed through injury and those who died for this country. So for anyone and in particular a candidate for President of the United States, to manipulate the reality of exposure to, or service in dangerous conflict as she has done is the height of depravity. To attempt to beguile an American public which includes those who are serving, those who have served and those who have sacrificed, all of the families and all fellow citizens is beyond comprehension. What is more, and that which can only be considered the height of gall is, to date I am aware of no apology.
At fifty four years old I have seen many things. I have a fairly good understanding of politics and the tactics that can make politics both enjoyable and disturbing. I am not however a political junkie so perhaps my memory data banks are some what limited. Still, I can scarcely recall anything so calculated and outrageous in my remembrances of prior political contests.
I believe this will be the final element in Senator Clinton's undoing in this political campaign. She had already begun setting the bridges ablaze with her tactics throughout and more recently, the veiled threats to the Democratic Party Leadership were a mistake. Seemingly she and her campaign never figured out that something was changing. She brought the same old script and played the leading role in the same old dreary production of "Washington Politics As Usual".
At the end of the day I believe this gifted woman was blinded by dangerous ambition and she lost sight of the real prize. The real prize being the trust and confidence of the American people. Sadly, the American people have a clear vision of that which she never hoped to reveal. The hole in the place where her soul should be.
Leon A. Walker
© Leon A. Walker, April 2008 ? Approved for use by any recipients, viewers or holders.
Hillary Clinton complains that the news media is biased against her. Actually, the opposite is true.
The news media have respectfully (not to say timidly) refrained from revisiting the corruption and abuses that have marked her and her spouse's careers -- the Whitewater, Travelgate, Chinagate and cattle-futures scandals; the illegal closed-doors health-care meetings; the pardoning of convicted criminals who had bribed Tony Rodham, Hillary's brother, to sway the President; the using of uniformed Marines as errand boys and waiters; the hiring of detectives to dig up dirt on the women seduced by the President; the claiming of gifts to the White House as personal property; the scores of violent and untimely deaths of potentially threatening witnesses (Vince Foster, Bill Shelton, Jerry Parks, Mary Mahoney, to name some.)
Cleary, Obama's high -minded rhetoric is starting to lose appeal. To defeat the Clintons at their game, to come across as a fighter, he must start responding to their negative ads by dredging up their sleazy past. There would be plenty of sleaze, volumes of it, from which to draw.
Carlos Navarro
Davidson, NC
No, Carlos you are wrong about this. Hillary Clinton's past has been more than thoroughly vetted and what you cite is seriously old news and not worthy of current debate.
I am a solid Obama supporter, but cannot support further pseudo-review of old Clinton dirt. Remember, the taxpayers of this country already paid millions upon millions of $$ investigating the Clintons...let it go already.
Concentrate on the present and the future! I will continue to support Obama but will never consent to re-trashing of Bill/Hillary Clinton over past nonsense.
The NAFTA issue unmasked Obama as a two-faced hypocrite and a con man.
He makes all this sanctimonious speeches about how different he is from other politicians and then gets caught speaking with a forked-tongue.
He almost pulled a fast one by trying to get Hillary to quit in the middle of the contest while everyone was mesmerized by his B.S. smooth-talk and soothing words (high-minded rhetoric to some people).
Not so fast Obama, we're on to you now. We're staying with Momma.
Katerm, why are the Hillary scandals any less significant because they've been investigated and found true. Hillary has 20 Rezko's in her past and now that the press has followed her whining and looked into his past, they'll swing back against her.
And Ruel, have you stopped reading? The Canadians have confirmed that the anonymous internal memo is inaccurate. Sorry that you don't have your "gotcha" moment. Hillary would rather call the Canadian consul general a lawyer so she can win the election; nice experienced diplomat, she sure is... not.
JohnnyU: I say this because they have in fact not been found true. If they were, the Clintons would not be around campaigning as they are today. They are literally the most investigated folks in D.C. in literally decades, and no charges have stuck to them (unless you count the ridiculous impeachment which also didn't result in conviction). Again, I support Obama. Just don't keep bringing up this old nonsense and expect it to stick.
So you don't think Obama constantly, consistently and uniformly discrediting and ridiculing Hillary Clinton's 35 years of public service for children, women and families precipitated the Clinton campaign's "jabbing " back at Obama? The latest and most effective jab was brought about by the Obama camp itself. Remember his own associate went to Canada and, according to this associate, was misunderstood by Canadian politicians. "No I did not say Obama was posturing about Nafta". That's what Obama's associate said. But the Canadian report states there was no miss-understanding about Obama's Nafta sentiments as expressed by Obama's man.
Lets be quite frank about one thing and ask what the heck Obama's man was doing in Canada discussing Nafta in the first place? Any reasonable and logical person can only conclude that what the Canadian report says is absolutely true! Such an assertion by one of this country's friends is to be taken seriously and is political fodder and therefore needs to be openly debated. And for the Clinton campaign not to at least address this issue with a political jab would be absolutely ridiculous. And there is more to be gleaned from this episode and that is that Obama is again exposing how terribly inexperienced he is in foreign affairs. What he caused to happen in Canada is something only a novice would do.
Here Obama was cruising along and he sends one of his people to assure Canada that when he is President Nafta is essentially safe. How presumptuous in the first place and how politically stupid over all.
And although this article implies that Hillary Clinton is the first to use underhanded politics the truth is that Obama has been attacking Hillary Clinton's credentials even before Iowa when he was saying over and over, "what about being the first lady qualifies you for the Presidency?" What an insult and degrading posture to take against a women of great intelligence and with a long record of public service. She was there in the White House and I'm sure she was privy to just about every thing that went on there and that has to be one of the most valuable experiences for an aspiring President as I'm sure many a vice president will attest.
And there are a lot of issues Hillary could hammer at but she has chosen to concentrate such jabs as related to the real issues of this campaign and rightly so.
What amazed me until tonight is that many Obama pundits recently were saying that Hillary should graciously bow out and allow Obama the nomination because his delegate lead is insurmountable. Hogwash!
Right now there are approximately 90 delegates which separate the two and there are about 600 left in the remaining primaries. Three pro-Clinton states have about 286 delegates to win or lose between them. Pennsylvania has 188 and according to everything I've read and heard is heavily pro-Clinton much like Ohio's mix. Give Hillary 118 there and Obama 70. The same holds true for West Virginia where 39 delegates await the campaign. Here give Hillary 24 and Obama 15. In Kentucky there are 59 delegates again favoring Hillary. Give Clinton 38 and Obama 21. In this admittedly optimistic Clinton scenario Obama's delegate lead is almost gone and since 2 dozen super delegates have switched to Obama it is possible that now, in light of Hillary's positive showing, some will switch back to Hillary. Even if the rest of the delegates split to favor Hillary or Barack niether will have 2025 delegates unless all the super delegates swing to either one.
The truth of the matter is that this race will not be decided until the convention because neither candidate will muster the 2025 delegates needed to claim victory. And this is great news for politics in America and for the Democratic Party. The excitement generated by this campaign will bring more and more citizens out to vote in the Presidential election and the overall winner will be the America people. We will embrace the democratic process again and vote who we want in office. The issues will have been repeated over and over. The candidates will be as transparent as a sheet of glass after all the dust and dirt settles and America will show the world how a civilized democracy works in such an active and bustling country.
After all is said and done I support Hillary because I've watched her on the national stage and have been privileged to observe a gracious and true public servant of high intelligence and character. There are some who believe Obama has what it takes. I am not one of those. I admit he is a wonderful orator and has fired up the voters in this country for and against him but after all is said and done Hillary Clinton is the most qualified because of her record, her experience and the solutions she proposes and will enact.
I honestly believe Obama supporters are some of the worst Clinton Haters in politics.
1. The first person to make a personal attack was Barack Obama. He said that Hillary Clinton was unelectable.
2. The first person to make a racial or sexist comment was Chris Rock, who made a racist AND sexist comment last November. He told Obama's audience that they would be embarrassed if "they voted for the white lady."
3. We can all agree that the media has proven itself to be fools over and over and over in this campaign. They discounted the ad Jack Nicholson did for Clinton last Friday. I think it was one of the most timely ads of the campaign. It gave white guys an opportunity to vote for a female Commander-in-Chief, to the cheers of the coolest white guy on the face of the planet.
Johnny U: Read this:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080302/nafta_memo_...
_______________________
Anonymous internal memo? You wish.
Official Canadian Embassy (Washington) statement:
The Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on Monday saying its envoys "regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials."
The statement went on to say that in the recent report from the Consulate General in Chicago, "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA.
"We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."
Yessir, it's ALL about Hillary! The GOP is loving the Dems slugfest. IF, and that's a big IF, Clinton ends up the Dems candidate this November....they lose the White House, you get a Prez. McCain for 4 years. That's not the only wake-up call the Dems will get - the turnout for GOP will be large. Will they be voting for McCain? NO, the turnout will be to vote AGAINST Clinton....AND....Speaker Pelosi will be history, the large turnout will lose the Dems' majority in the House.'
It's the first time in history that the GOP is loving a Clinton!! Go girl go - you are on a role of destruction
Try this "delegate calculator" and find me a way that Clinton gets to the number she needs? http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/
Also, please list 5, just 5, issues that HRC can boast as experience? I have looked and can't find them. (being First Lady does not count as experience to be a President) Whitewater, filegate, cattlegate, and all the other ....gates of the Clinton years aren't the kind of experience I want to see in the Prez. either.
Obama won the delegate majority in Texas. His popular vote fell short a few percent (4-5). Ohio was a different story. Billary took Ohio. RI and Vermont were split and are not relevant anyway.
Obama has been getting too cocky and by trying to overpower Billary with TV cash, he has only succeeded is squandering his edge as an "underdog" and, more importantly, someone who is getting votes from people who think he can save this country through novel approaches. His strategists also failed him with that inane TV ad, about him being better at answering the "red telephone" because he voted against Iraq invasion. First of all, it's a non-sequiter and secondly, the Iraq military action is not over. While people are very unhappy about the lack of success, the ridiculous spending and the great loss of life, counted in that number are those who would have preferred a 3-state solution and those who would have just bombed the crap out of Iraq. This is especially true in Texas where much of the military spending is done.
When all the delegates are counted, Billary may have netted a loss for the day. The other posters are correct when they say that Billary can't win a sleaze contest with anyone, which is part of the reason why we have George W Bush right now. Also, the news media has turned against Obama, probably because they do not want the contest over yet (self preservation).
Obama is faced with a paradox. Either take off the gloves and begin the mutual assured destruction of the democratic party or be subjected to Billary's campaign by innuendo.
Either way, Obama needs to demote whomever made strategic decisions in the Texas and Ohio contests. I get the feeling they must have been lawyers, who are great at producing money but awful at spending it and have no clue what lurks in the 'reptilian' portion of the human brainmainly because they are too close to it themselves.
Submitted by Kathy Giannini (not verified) on Wed Mar. 5, 2008 2:26 AM PST.
I live in France -- in the aftermath of a presidential election whose female candidate got more than side-swiped by the press during the campaign. I was appalled by CNN coverage of that race and therefore sensitized to the possibility of a possible sexist slant in the media.
I don't think anybody would argue with the fact that up until the last few days the media have been lenient with Obama and hard on Hillary. And those last few days have been telling.
The media seem to have an undue influence.
This morning in France (2 am in New York) I tried to see a little footage of newscasters at CNN on the results of Ohio and Texas. What I found was a clip showing a series of mini-interviews of voters who were willing to share their vote with us. Among them was an older, full-bodied black woman named something like "Dibbles" who introduced herself as a nurse and a minister. She had this to say about the candidate that she voted for :
"She implement change. She stands on her words. She do what she say. She bring it home."
The eloquence of the woman struck me all the more in that she was going against
the trend among black voters.
Another woman -- fifty-year-old and white -- voted Obama, saying that this was the first time she had ever voted in a primary. She also was an exception to the tendencies within the demographic group of older white women.
The interviews reminded me that the process of primaries and general elections is complex and that there are INDIVIDUALS who are thinking things through. That the Democrats have the privilege of focusing people on this election should be applauded. That there are voters resisting all the "versions of what's happening" and voting free on their own convictions constitutes an ESSENTIAL part of the process.
As to David Corn's preoccupation with Obama being used as a punching bag, this is NOT about electing OBAMA but about electing a president. Let him and Hillary put their ultimate commitments where their mouths are, let them run together on the same ticket
in whatever order the Democratic Party decides, but let's not deprive the voters than remain of their voting rights.
wow, Clinton wins Ohio! This is excatly why we have a sub prime mess. We do not know how to count! Clinton has not won Ohio. She has probably netted 5 to 7 delegates in Ohio which is wiped out by the net delegates won by Obama in Vermont!
It only makes sense to talk about winning a State in the electoral college winner take all USA general election.
The choice of a nominee is the party's method of canvassing the views of citizens everywhere in the Country. Thus a whisper from Idaho is as important as a shout from California.
This is not the general election where you can win CA, MA, NY, OH and a few other States and be declared a winner! Thus, it is equally senseless to claim that we win the big states or the blue states or any number of the extravagant claims being made by the media and Clinton campaign.
Wake up from the sub-delegate crisis, media! It is the same miscalculation that has sunk the Clinton campaign! She cannot figure out this simple electoral math but she wants to run the country.
Jokers!
I am glad to see Obama stay above this dirt that Clintons have been throwing.
But what if he decides to:
1. Clearly run ads that show a family life in White House with the Obamas and their children rather than a bunch of Monica L.s running around?
2. Clearly bring up the issue that he attends breakfast prayer sessions with Hillary as a Christian and wonders why she said she was not sure about his religion?
3. Explain his manufacturing vision of America as an Automated Society with Green jobs etc.
4. Explain that he will bring the troops back home and establish peace because he will seek the help of the international community-- including Iran and Syria -- without whom nothing can be done in Iraq.
5. Explain he had the Vision and the foresight to identify attacking certain uncontrolled areas of Pakistan that provide terrorists refuge--now being implemented
6. Explain that the way to bringing Al Qaeda to their knees is by issuing a request as a Christian nation's leader to the Imams and Priests of Mecca to prohibit Al Qaeda members from praying towards Mecca for killing women and children--or whatever-- use legitimate tactics prescribed by their religion against them. In other words show your grasp of these details.
7. Have your white grandma besides you-- for anyone unsure of his race.
8. Don't jump in and use things like NAFTA-- the Clintons have done enough good and bad things that will haunt them
9. Campaign a lot harder with your surrogates and make sure they don't make faux pas like Michelle's unpatriotic moment.
All I have to say is to quote the Pretenders song that, ironically enough, Rush Limbaugh uses as his opening theme (coincidence? I think not, considering he WANTS Clinton to win):
A, O, WAY TO GO, OHIO! Thanks a lot, you are doing your part to vote us into a McCain presidency.
As a Democrat, Obama supporter, and someone who is getting sick and tired of the bickering between the two camps in general, I have to hope that Howard Dean can convince Hillary to throw in the towel. It will not work if she's on the ticket. The delegate count and the polls prove it.
i hope howard dean can roll up his sleeves and fix this mess.
the clinton candidacy ended tonight. the math isn't there for her. she got three wins, but she didn't get the tko she desperately needed, and it looks like she'll end up losing the delegate count in tx. what we'll get now is 6 weeks of obama and hillary sniping at each other and exposing each other's weaknesses. obama needs some seasoning, but 6 weeks will be overcooking him.
and if hillary somehow wrangles out the nomination at the convention, well, her goose is cooked in the general then. she's the best candidate for mccain to run against. he'll chew her 'experience' up and spit it out when comparing their senate records. and on the war? well, we'll see hillary as the 'me too' candidate as she tries to hew rightward for the general election, except she'll be debating her matching positions on the war (voted for it, for the surge) with a former pow.
what i think the democrats need now is a unity ticket. obama for prez, hillary for vp. they compliment each other's strengths. she could be his cheney, except not incompetent. together, they could win. separately, well, obama's chances are slightly better than hers, but why take the risk.
Ahh, the Democratic party - talk about eating their own. Let's see - Hillary can't/shouldn't win because she married Bill/had a failed healthcare plan as first lady (and since when do we care what the heck first spouses do or don't do)/didn't bake cookies/is a lawyer/voted pro-con depending on what YOU (usually someone NOT from NY)want/according to the Pundits, wears pantsuits/shows cleavage. . .
We love retro in this country - so, welcome back early 1950s when women were women who knew their place and shut their face. Rise up Obama Rise Up and save us from ourselves. . .take us to the promised land of diversity without controversy, place without race, and happy happy people everywhere.
Submitted by www.democratz.org (not verified) on Wed Mar. 5, 2008 5:14 AM PST.
I don't find the 3am phone call that Hillary Clinton would get very concerning but rather the phone calls from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies in the afternoon that she gets.
Submitted by www.democratz.org (not verified) on Wed Mar. 5, 2008 5:17 AM PST.
I don't find the 3am phone call that Hillary Clinton would get very concerning but rather the phone calls from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies in the afternoon that she gets.
Get the Hunchback of John McCain T shirt at http://hunchback.democratz.org
I apologize for the accidental multiple posts.
As predicted -- the hidden racism of the rust belt rears its ugly head in Ohio.
Pennsylvania is no better: a state where white people aren't afraid to use the n-word, where blacks are still second class citizens, and where an antiquated primary system closed to the independent voter guarantees a landslide for the party machine candidate.
Ironically, Ohio and Pennsylvania will most assuredly vote for McCain, because as they have a racist side, they also have a sexist side, and there's no way a woman wins a battle over the 3AM call against McCain.
So congratulations in advance for a Pyhrric victory, and recognize that the blood of the ensuing McCain administration is on your hands.
Given the disasters we're facing, perhaps it's best that McCain serve the next four years. Then perhaps you party machine DLC corporatist slugs will get the message that we've had it with your ilk. As for me, I'm weary of two-faced thievery of Republicrats, and so I'm just tuning out for the rest of this disaster, and certainly won't concern myself with the false choice between Clinton and McCain.
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Wed Mar. 5, 2008 6:26 AM PST.
Congrats to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton who on 1/20/09 we will be able to address as President Hillary Rodham Clinton. A woman's place is in the house...The White House, and certainly this woman, who is the most qualified person to seek this office in modern times, deserves to serve as President. What an inspiration she is to everyone, not just women.
Submitted by eye Doc (not verified) on Wed Mar. 5, 2008 6:58 AM PST.
No John, you're the one who isn't reading. The Canadians have confirmed that Goolsbee met with the Canadians. There was even a memo that was typed up by the Canadians regarding what was discussed at this meeting. Obama blatantly lied and said no meeting took place. And, he's been caught. And, if anyone believes Obama's story about how doing the real estate deal with Rezko was just a dumb mistake they're making a terrible mistake. This was a completely calculated scam that Obama and Rezko engaged in and it will eventually be exposed as such.
But, Hillary has her own problems. all the scandals from her past are going to be resurrected and she's going to have to answer for them all over again. She's been vetted to some extent in the past, but she's never been vetted with the intensity that she's going to be vetted with in the near future.
Hillary, is a virtue and a true inspiration for all South Africans. She shows the kind of ability that one can compare with the type of leadership of Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki.
She has grown as a wife, mother, woman and especially as a leader over the past couple of years.Her leadership ability and experience makes her the right person to lead the Democrats and the American people into a new decade.
Change is good, but one needs an experience person to drive the change process.Hope is fine, but an unexperience person may not be the best person to give hope, in a time where the Republicans had destroy the good name of the American PEOPLE.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, is the change that America needs.......
Oh, pul-eeeze. I am so happy that HRC has finally pulled off the gloves and really gone after Obama. Boo hoo....the.Clintons are picking on poor little Obama. The Clinton slime machine... Oh, the shame of it....the inhumanity....Like it or not, politics are a dirty business....just wait until McCain gets to really whack Obama. You think it's bad now?
I am so sick of all the cable news networks decidedly anti-Clinton slant, that I don't even bother to watch anymore. Just seeing Matthews' face makes me switch channels. She's been damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't. Why, pray tell, should she drop out of the race? She is getting people to vote for her.
Quite frankly, I am so sick of seeing AFrican-American voters voting for Obama just because he's a "brother". First of all it's insulting to African Americans intelligence and second of all, if that isn't racism, I don't know what else is. Yah, Yah, I know, white people did it for years. I get it. But hey, don't you think issues matter more than race or gender? I do. I resent people who had pledged their vote being pressured to vote for the black candidate and then being told that the Clinton's are using race against Obama.
I also don't want to leave my future up to those 18-29 year olds who are the biggest support of Obama. When have they had to pay a mortgage, buy health insurance, be worried about saving for retirement, or about social security? Please. Don't tell me that there are those who are serious about the political policies that each of the candidates espouse. Most of them are still living at home with Mommy and Daddy and expecting someone else to take care of them. They are the celebrity watching generation who lap up all the glitz and glamour around the Paris Hiltons, the Britney Spears. Well versed in theory but not in the practical.
Every single one of the supposed Clinton scandals have been investigated and proved inconsequential. Every single one of them. I still do not know why they generate such an amount of hate out there when the two of them have devoted their entire adult lives to service in this country.
I want someone who is grounded in reality to be my president. We voted for someone before who had little or no experience in running anything and look what we got. I'm not saying that Obama is comparable to GWB, but.....
What is happening now is the fawning press for Obama is now just starting to lift a few rocks and see what lives under them in Obama's life. They have essentially given him a pass ever since he dithered back and forth about running for President.
These are serious times. We don't need a rock star President. We need someone who knows what it means to work and work hard.
Hilary came to the Presidential contest as though she had divinely been the inheritor of the White House. It makes sense, since America, a nation of 300,000,000 does not seem to mind living under a seemingly dynastic system, in which two families, the Bushes and the Clintons would occupy the White House for well over thirty years straight; granted, that is not my issue with Hilary. To this end, she, Billy and her click will go to any sleasy extent to win. Unfortunately, her negative tactices are bloodying, not only Obama's message of hope and change, but ultimately the Democratic Party itself, giving credence in the process to the fact that even if Obama goes to the general election he will not have enough meat left on his skeletal body to withstand the visious blows from the mighty Republican Party, comes the general election. Obama has been running a noble contest based on the credo of this great nation that power does not have to be passed on from one powerful hand to the next. For one thing, I'll be among the thousands who will feel disanfranchised if it turns out that the Super Delegates cut some under-the-table deals with Bill and Hilary against the will of the American voters.
Submitted by W. (not verified) on Wed Mar. 5, 2008 8:10 AM PST.
It's debatable whether or not you can count Hillary Clinton's time as first lady as "experience." But to say that she is the most qualified to seek the office of President in modern times is a bit silly -- unless you only count the last 7 years as "modern times."
She has served 7 years in the Senate. That puts her slightly ahead of GWB (6-yr Gov) and slightly behind Reagan (8-yr Gov) and Carter (4-yr St. Sen, 4-yr Gov). She's way behind GHWBush (4-yr Rep, 8-yr VP); Ford (24-yr Rep, 2-yr VP); Nixon (4-yr Rep, 2-yr Sen, 8-yr VP); LBJ (4-yr Rep, 12-yr Sen, 3-yr VP); JFK (6-yr Rep, 8-yr Sen); and DDE (5-star Gen, 2-yr Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, 2-yr Supreme Commander of NATO.
When will you start discussing WHERE these delegates are coming from? It's NOT just the total number of delegates, it's how and where they were won.
Obama is good at rounding up delegates through caucus states, oftentimes in states that go RED in the general election. He has not shown that he can carry major blue states.
Clinton has won BIG with major delegate states such as California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio...and more.
Folks, in the end you want a candidate who can carry enough voters in states with big delegate counts (like Ohio and Florida) in order to win the presidential election. Caucus state wins, and wins in small, traditionally RED states like Idaho, do not win the presidential election.
And if you want the super delegates to cast their votes according to the will of the people in their particular state, then Massachusetts' super delegates such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy must give their votes to Clinton!
Turn around is fair play...
My view from Oregon
To All those up on your high horses, leading the Obama band wagaon:
Do you really think a country that elected that Fuc**ng Monkey Man for 8 years would ever let Obama be president? Where have you all been?
If he does get elected, I give him one month in the white house, before the GOP bends him over his presidential desks and gives it to him good. poor Obama, he doesn't even see it coming.
I've said it before, but I'll say again because you all aren't that bright: pull your heads out of your over-privileged asses and face reality. Hillary IS the ONLY chance of beating the GOP. Get over it, now move on.
Re: C'mon Obama--: Quit Thinking You Can Stay Clean In A Mud Fight, Also
Hillary's Commencement Speech
I'd definitely bet the ranch that GWB- -who merely followed the Clinton paradigm--totally enjoys getting all the "credit". Among the biggest lies ever told was that Hillary had been "vetted." It's little known she took the 5th 200+ times, let alone their career-long involvement with the most nefarious characters, & their convoluted schemes such that the sheer complicity of smoking guns proves fatiguing to most, if not intimidating. One would think NAFTA, at least, would have been an issue, but it took almost a generation to hear, just recently, from a big union leader (whose rank & file voted to endorse O) that: "Finally, our workers begin to connect the dots." In a democracy they would have read it in the press-- 15 years ago, before Bill disabled the free press. That they cultivate the worst of us & our instincts, has to be chief among the reasons why I've always seen Hill & Bill as so uniquely threatening
Birth Of The Clinton Paradigm
Hillary's Commencement Speech
Wellesley College
1969 Student Commencement Speech
Hillary D. Rodham's (Problem With Empathy)
May 31, 1969
Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of the Wellesley College Government Association and member of the Class of 1969, on the occasion of Wellesley's 91st Commencement, May 31, 1969:
"Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3% of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage. We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends? The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective. The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago. We arrived not yet knowing what was not possible. Consequently, we expected a lot. Our attitudes are easily understood having grown up, having come to consciousness in the first five years of this decade -- years dominated by men with dreams, men in the civil rights movement, the Peace Corps, the space program -- so we arrived at Wellesley and we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities".
That may be so, but when Obama starts dealing in sludge, do you think none of it will stick to him? He's in a corner: How can he claim to be the champion of a new kind of politics while enaging in the old kind? Either he's the candidate of "change," or he's more of the same. He loses either way.
Hillary is polarizing and has zero chance of beating the Republicans. Obama is a Democrat and will get hosed by Diebold. McCain is the annoited one who will provide the USA with 8 more years of quagmire and death. Yeah, Death! Go team.
"We cannot just pull out"
General Aleksandr Naborov, Kremlin, 1982 Former Soviet General
I'm glad someone besides me is sick and tired of the Obama faerie tale. I know there are still those mesmerized by his "hope" campaign, but I hope they are beginning to see that there is nothing there to be hopeful about!
Hillary can actually win the election. She will certainly get my vote.
Forgetaboutit... This thing is so over. Don't underestimate Barack. He like the coach of a good team. Given time to prepare, he will take PA and the other states he already way out ahead in. Does the media forget about the large lead he has in other upcoming states. She cannot afford to lose a state, and there are nearly gauranteed wins for him upcoming. They're gonna be smart. No worries.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Wed Mar. 5, 2008 12:28 PM PST.
Even with the numbers last night HRC would have to win every contest at 62 to 38 to get ahead 5 electoral votes, if she only wins ALL the next contests at 61 to 39 she still loses by 5 electors.
Barack has already won.
That is for the fact based community not the unicorns and rainbows sect that still thinks HRC can do anything except more damage to her party.
;=)
I'm from Indiana and we here do not consider it tearing the Democratic Party apart because the Democratic candidate is not decided yet. NO one should drop from the race until the race is actually OVER -- we all deserve a say in this election!
Whatever happens after the two frontrunner campaigns chew one another up, they can always blame the McCain victory on Ralph. After all,blaming Ralph kept the campaign managers from 2000 and 2004 employed in 2008. So what if taking on his issues would be a winning strategy? It's so much easier (and less controversial) to Blame It On Ralph!!
