Wow. Probably the most rational case I've seen for Hillary. At least a good non-screecher.
I loathe seeing them go negative on each other. And there's so much I dislike about them both.
Perhaps you'll make it easier for me to really support Hillary should she get the nomination.
Posted by vicki at February 15, 2008 06:49 AM"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle." Uh, NO. Millions of us fully understand the stakes in the battle. But millions of us don't have the power to sit in the Senate and vote. Being absent when those votes are taken isn't helpful...and that goes for Clinton and Obama.
And being the best candidate in the race doesn't mean squat if you cannot win the race. Winning the WH is the goal, as you say eriposte, and whomever the candidate is, the result of a failure will be historic. It's all about winning the GE. period..
Your link to Joe Wilson's article doesn't seem to work for me, but here's another link I posted a here couple of nights ago, hosted by the Huff'
Posted by Joe at February 15, 2008 07:00 AMWow, this is a superb post.
"She's the Energizer bunny of Energizer bunnies"
Maybe Hillary can pick this great line up! And what a commercial it woiuld make! Dress her up with the shades, base drum and cymbals!
Hillary is now going to attack and tear Obama down all the way to the convention. Especially if she wins a single state in the next month. She's already said Team Clinton is taking this to the convention, no matter what.
This extended primary will show us why the Repubs (who know how to win elections) have already united behind a candidate many of them find distasteful. Because they know that lengthy primaries are corrosive and destructive. We do, too, that's why the whole Super Tuesday thing was set up.
But it didn't turn out with a coronation of Most Influential Power Couple in American History (tm) so that idea has had to be scrapped in favor of dragging a popular candidate with broad base appeal (winner of around 2/3 of 30-plus contests) down to the level of negatives that Hillary has had for the past decade as a national figure.
The Repubs are loving this. If you don't think that, you're clueless.
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 07:07 AMPersonal endorsements don't hold much weight with me. Whether it was Ted Kennedy, for whom I have considerable respect or Maria Shriver?!? recommending Obama, their opinions are just that, opinions. The closer the personal relationship, the less weight I'm willing to assign. I have been called as a reference for friends. Despite any personal misgivings I may harbor as to their ultimate qualifications for the job, I usually endorse them heartily.
The fact that Time and again, she reached out to my wife makes me suspect he has personal affection and gratitude for Hillary. There's nothing wrong with that. I believe, I may actually like Hillary as a person more than Barack. I don't know either one at all, really.
However, it's performance that counts, not warm, fuzzy gratitude. As T2 said, millions of us, in the real world, were not fooled at all by the mendacity of the Bushies. Hillary's votes tell a story in themselves. When it counted, she punted.
Glowing endorsements, even by those some would want us to worship as heroes count for squat. Experience being beaten up by the right wing noise machine are a remarkably odd assertion of qualification to be President, or even to predict future success, in my own not so humble opinion. Thanks for all you've done, Joe! I wish to you and your lovely wife, future success and happiness.
Posted by DeminNewJ at February 15, 2008 07:22 AMI'm with Steve Soto. It's time to reconcile and move on.
eRiposte- start looking for your next single-issue 'passionate' cause.
Maybe you can find proof that Obama eats 'yellow cakes' for breakfast with his cousin...
Posted by tfitznc at February 15, 2008 07:47 AMHillary is likeable enough for me. Too bad my vote is from MI.
Posted by Sharon at February 15, 2008 07:54 AMeRiposte, Does Hillary say if she will lift gag orders on Valerie Plame-Wilson and or Sibel Edmonds?
Posted by Seven of Six at February 15, 2008 08:08 AMWell said! eriposte, in terms of bravery it's nice to see you keep coming back and posting on this knowing the "duck -incoming hit" will be severe and swift...especially in the face of such glowing left blogosphere Obama support...even here, there are some in this thread telling you to just give it up when last I checked no candidates have reached the delegate magic threshold number yet and no winners have been declared....winners never quit, quitters never win. Thanks.
An endorsement by a Republican is really not likely to get me to tingle all over. Really quite the opposite.
Posted by Tim at February 15, 2008 08:28 AMAnother nice post, eriposte, and what emal said...
Posted by iamcoyote at February 15, 2008 08:30 AMI know Sen. Clinton is not the perfect Democrat. Guess what, no one is.
Thing is, the press will dwell on Hillary's imperfections, and simply won't with Barack.
Is that fair? No.
But I really, really want a Democratic president for the next few years.
Posted by dj moonbat at February 15, 2008 08:59 AMExcellent. I think that is what comes through, this dignity. It amazes me when they denegrate her experience and her battle wounds. It's gonna be a rough ride and I think she is the best equipped.
Posted by stellaa at February 15, 2008 09:05 AM.., and simply won't with Barack.
dj, you think you might want to rephrase that to, and simply haven't.... yet ...with Barack.
We are a looooonnnnnngg way out from the general election...let's not forget the track record and history of the media coverage and narratives of the Democratic nominees compared to the Republican nominee.
Posted by emal at February 15, 2008 09:10 AMThing is, the press will dwell on Hillary's imperfections, and simply won't with Barack.
And you think that it will be all smiles and sunshine with Barack, once he reaches the GE against the media darling McCain?
2 Questions; what are you smoking? And where can I get some?
Posted by Blue Jean at February 15, 2008 09:11 AMI voted for Obama, but I think she has done very well in the primaries IN SPITE OF Mark "micro-trend" Penn. She'd probably be the frontrunner right now if it wasn't for that tool.
We have two very strong candidates and I think it's only been campaign strategy that has made the difference so far. The fear of Mark leading the strategy for a general campaign was one of the factors in my decision. I'll be happy with either candidate, but I think we can agree that he needs to go.
Posted by Gryn at February 15, 2008 09:17 AM2 Questions; what are you smoking? And where can I get some?
1. Crystal meth
2. Trailer park
Seriously, though, I do think the press has just decided that they like Obama. In fact, I think they may even like him better than McCain.
But even if that's not true, the margin in adoration would be much, much closer than it would be in a race between McCain and Clinton.
Posted by dj moonbat at February 15, 2008 09:24 AMGryn highlights one very important difference between the candidates which would play out in the general election: Clinton promises a campaign like the last two, with the battle fought in a handful of states like Ohio and Missouri. Obama is promising a broader playing field, into states like Virginia and Colorado, and building the Democratic Party in states we are likely to lose.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 15, 2008 09:33 AMHow's work?
Hardcore.
Posted by dj moonbat at February 15, 2008 09:36 AMFighting The Good Fight
Sen. Obama's Politics of Division
I generally stop at the headlines. One tends to know where Margaret is going with these political screeds.
I loathe seeing them go negative on each other.
Me too. It's like Clinton is smashing a cute fuzzy little kitty named "Hope" into bloody bits with a croquet mallet, mayhaps having a negative outcome with some voters. But smashing the kitty will have no effect on the superdelegates, maybe. And I think it's just horrible that Obama won't debate her after 18 debates and 2 more to go -giving her some free airtime since she is flat freaking broke.
Seriously, though, I do think the press has just decided that they like Obama. In fact, I think they may even like him better than McCain.
Good to see ya, dj! Hardcore, eh? I thought you were a lawyer, not a pornographer...oh, same thing, huh? (^_^)
I think one more thing that really makes a difference is that I get the impression that if Hillary's the candidate, she's not going to get nearly the fervent and instantaneous defense against the dark arts zapping that Obama would from the online activists and bloggers. Sure, they'll support her, tepidly. And if she lost the GE, which I don't think she will, but if she did, she might as well leave the country. She's more hated now than Bush, I think, and if she lost, she'd be more hated than Bin Laden. Sure, she's got a lot of people supporting her in the primaries, but that's if they don't have to do much but check a box. She's got nowhere near the quick-strike capability as Obama, and that's what'll make him able to withstand the heat in the GE.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 15, 2008 09:44 AMGood post. I have to agree that HRC is the best out there. The problem is that the media have trashed her and Bill for so long, that the Democrats I know, who are in love with Obama, just "don't like" her. When I ask them why, they have no answer, except to repeat that they "don't like" her. Earth to these clueless Dems. Obama will never win the general election. The Rethugs will chew him up and spit him out. He will be portrayed as a Black Muslim terrorist, his links to shady contributors will be emphasized and his try at being all to everyone will be nothing to anybody. Hillary may have a chance in the GE, but we should prepare ourselves for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave to become a long-term care facility for John McCain
Posted by joanne at February 15, 2008 09:57 AMHmmm. This little legacy from the Clinton administration seems to be the gift that just keeps on giving. Thank God I have an Amex Business Card and a gat.
Posted by phidipides at February 15, 2008 10:14 AM"a lawyer, not a pornographer"
"if she lost she'd be more hated than Bin Ladin"
make WH "a long-term care facility for McCain"
Double LOL! God, you guys are funny today.
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 10:22 AMjoanne, blaming the media won't cut it when campaigns need to use the media. Bill Clinton had an amazing media operation in 1992 which manipulated the campaign narrative in his favor. Hillary Clinton has been unable to do that this year but Barack Obama has. To suggest that Barack Obama will lose because he happens to have a superior media operation is a little odd. Sure, the Republicans will attack Obama (or Clinton) hard. Obama's the one who has shown more ability to frame the race in his favor, though.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 15, 2008 10:22 AMI don't think Hillary Clinton would be hated if she lost. John Kerry said to nominate him because he was electable and he lost with disastrous consequences, yet he is well liked in the Party thanks to the spine transplant he received after losing.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 15, 2008 10:26 AMeriposte:
Nobody will defer about Joe Wilson's argument why Hillary is the best candidate in the presidential race. However, her refusal to admit that her Iraq vote was a mistake and her voting YES for Kyle-Lieberman resolution on Iran did her in. Her explaination that she voted YES on Iraq to give Bush authority that he misused. Well, she did it again with her Iran vote.
Let us face it. She had her eye on General election and did not want to be attacked by Republican spin machine that she is weak for national security. In other words, she let the Republicans define her. That was the mistake. Obama came out against the war from the begining and democratic and independant voters liked that.
Posted by suresh at February 15, 2008 10:36 AMTo suggest that Barack Obama will lose because he happens to have a superior media operation is a little odd. Sure, the Republicans will attack Obama (or Clinton) hard. Obama's the one who has shown more ability to frame the race in his favor, though.
I agree CA PJ, though I think the Hillary hate would continue. She's not Kerry, either, she's got a whole different level of hatred aimed at her that hasn't waned in all these years. It's become a franchise, pretty much, complete with merchandising. But there was a lot of Kerry bashing on the 'nets after he refused to fight in Ohio, it just eroded over time, and now that he's endorsed Obama, he's back on the good side of the 'nets.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 15, 2008 10:51 AMThe problem I have with the Clintons is the extent to which they've enriched themselves and their friends with cozy business deals. I know it's par for the course for former presidents to recieve hefty salaries and speaking commissions after leaving office, but the Clintons never seem to miss a single opportunity to do so. It's the Clinton sleaze factor that's really bothering voters like me, who would rather take a chance on an unknown like Obama rather than further institutionalize the Clinton's oligarchical tendencies.
Posted by just a guy at February 15, 2008 10:56 AMCPJ,
I live in a red state and Obama has done nothing down here to build the party. He came opened up offices in locations with heavy AA populations in order to max out the black vote down here and then promptly left the state. For all the whining on the nets w/r/t Terry Mac, we were better off down here with him. The DNC had money and would help the states out whereas we haven't gotten much of anything lately.
Obama campaigned in all the typical places and did nothing to try to expand the party. Why would someone want to join the Democratic party when Obama implies that there's something wrong with the party? He can't even say he's proud to be a Dem.
So, I don't buy into the meme that Obama is going to build the party. Obama is about Obama and nothing else. My mind could have been changed but he failed to do anything different than the same old, same old.
Posted by Ga6thDem at February 15, 2008 11:02 AMBeautiful post! Thanks for that. I need this kind of soothing to drown out the stream of HATE.
Posted by lima beans at February 15, 2008 11:22 AMCA PJ,
Did I say that Obama has a superior campaign staff? Not--I did say that the Clintons have been through a sludge of negative media for too many years to count. Until Obama has his underwear drawers gone through by the Rethugs, and his subsequent reaction to that, all bets are off and we're looking at President (barf) John McCain.
Posted by joanne at February 15, 2008 11:43 AMTime and again, she reached out to my wife - outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson - and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the radical right’s thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues.
Okay, here's my question: What is Hillary's response to this? What does she want to happen? For many of us, the response was, permit Fitzgerald to investigate this completely, prosecute the offending persons, and punish the wrongdoing. It also meant impeachment of Bush, Cheney, and/or Gonzales if they were proven culpable in either the initial leak/smear or the subsequent coverup (including the commutation of Libby's sentence).
But what did Hillary want? Did she want Bush and Cheney impeached? She didn't call for it and she didn't act like it. Did she want criminal behavior prosecuted? Once again, I see no evidence for it.
Private phone calls to the Wilsons, urging them to keep a stiff upper lip, may have personal meaning to the Joe and Valerie, but they were largely meaningless in terms of reigning in the bullying behavior.
Again, I ask, what did Hillary want to happen? Impeachments? Censures? An appointment of a special prosecutor? And, whatever it was, why didn't she publicly try to make it happen?
Posted by space at February 15, 2008 12:34 PMDid I say that Obama has a superior campaign staff?
You did without realizing it. Obama does indeed get more positive media than Clinton. That is not an accident. Maintaining the right media narratives for your candidate (and your candidate's opponent) is a vital part of modern campaigning. Markos Moulitsas offers an pertinent example of poor media management by the Clinton campaign.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 15, 2008 12:41 PMPerhaps Hillary voted present, like Obama. Now, let's get down to it. Supposed criminal behavior was dumped on the Clintons (who can forget that Hillary killed Vince Foster in her secret apartment, dumped his body on GW Parkway, etc.)? Who knows what HRC thought about or said about all this? The media are too engrossed in discussions about her thighs, cleavage, cackle and wrinkles. If Obama wins this nomination, you will probably see lots of coverage of his hair, ties, and, maybe whether he wears earth tones, but maybe not. After all, that would not be fair now, would it?
Posted by joanne at February 15, 2008 12:49 PMCA PJ
Apparently, you are just so much more savvy than I about what I mean to say. I leave it to you and the genius Kos to tell me my thoughts.
Posted by joanne at February 15, 2008 12:53 PMWhen will white men stand up for white women?
After seeing the latest Jesse Jackson Jr. bare knuckled attempt (with apparent success ) to pressure black super delegates to switch to Obama solely on the basis of "an historic" black Presidency, I am furious at all the liberal and progressive white men who are passively watching this despicable charade without raising a voice. What about an historic white female Presidency? It is just as interesting that the truly brave men,who lend their voice in calling out this hypocrisy, like Joe Wilson and Eriposte, are few and far between in the so called progressive media. (and this post is not directed to those progressive men). )
So why is it that few progressive men in the blogosphere and virtually none in the MSM are standing up for one of the few white woman eminently qualified for the job but are quick to support the African American? Could it be that the debate is less about the best candidate rather the most politically correct candidate...and the politically correct candidate according to these liberals is not female? It appears that the color of skin is a more important determinant of a progressive President than her femaleness. Why is this instructive? Because of the refusal to examine Obama on the merits. Because of the focus on the "historic" nature of his candidacy without regard to his readiness.( A white man or white woman would be laughed off the stage if they were running for President with an equally thin resume). Which brings us to the hypocrisy of the debate. Certainly the level of vitriol dished out by Obama supporters towards a white women removes all doubt about the nature of the attacks. But much worse is the silence of white men. BE on notice...many women will not forget this. The resentment is palpable among those who passionately support Hillary. Because this has now become the Affirmative Action Project for President. And a white woman is being pushed around because of her sex and color. And instead of defending the woman against such despicable attacks, these lofty liberals and progressives join in them, under the pretext of supporting a more progressive and appropriate standard bearer, who they then subject to a different and lower level of scrutiny.
So white men, who gave the vote to black men before giving it to women, will have a lot to answer for if they nominate Obama as a result of pressure from the likes of Al Sharpton, Donna Brazile and others in this politically correct environment. It is not OK to subject the first female candidate to a different standard and ignore completely the debasement and hate emanating from the media and political elite, let alone Republican noise machine.
Posted by lily15 at February 15, 2008 01:15 PMHowever, I will vote Democratic...however reluctantly...because Republicans are even more despicable...But again, I emphasize, it is the unfairness and the hypocrisy of this race that is appalling.
Posted by lily15 at February 15, 2008 01:26 PMIf there is anything that risks losing the general election for the Democrats in November it is the propensity of the OFB and Team Hillary do label anyone who criticizes their candidate as a racist or sexist, respectively.
My sense from the last 8 years has been that most Americans did not like having their patriotism questioned every time they disagreed with Bush. And I suspect, that if the voters sense that a Obama or Hillary presidency will lead to 4-8 years of rampant charges of racism or sexism every time the President doesn't get his or her way, that voters will reject the Democratic candidate.
I can tell you that I find lily's post quite offensive. I am not an Obama supporter, but the accusation that anyone who would dare support another candidate must be sexist is revolting.
"It appears that the color of skin is a more important determinant of a progressive President than her femaleness."
No. It would appear that a candidate who speaks with passion and vision is more attractive than one who simply claims that they are the smartest and most capable. Obama's message is that he is the right candidate for this moment in time. Hillary has never done a good job of making that pitch.
Posted by space at February 15, 2008 01:37 PMWith regards to several comments, it is obvious folks on this website are passionate about the Democrats, and with the exception of a few, are open to discussion. My real bug-a-boo is that we are setting ourselves up for defeat in November. CA PJ can bite me on this, but that is the real dilemma. No one cares which Dem has the best media presentation, who spouts the best lines, who inspires the choir. The real problem lies with a hostile media and the ignorant voters who continue to vote against their own self interests (like good jobs, health care, education, the Iraq war...). A real case has to be made against the situation which has gotten into the mess we're in. Obama is untested, he talks about "reasoning" with Republicans on abortion, Social Security and other vital issues to the majority of Americans (the ones who the Republicans do not represent). There is no reasoning with these people--you have to get down and dirty just to keep up. This has been the gist of my missives this afternoon.
A white man or white woman would be laughed off the stage if they were running for President with an equally thin resume,
Wasn't John Edwards' resume just as thin when he ran in 2004? He was taken quite seriously.
Posted by CG at February 15, 2008 02:12 PMjoanne, I've been reading right along here and silently applauding and nodding my head in huge agreement with most of your posts and comments...thankyou for your voice today...hope you stick around.
It's the Village media coverage of the campaigns that count ...unfortunately...and when you've got so many right now on the left blinded by The Light and not objectively looking at negatives/weakness in their candidate...well we're in bigger trouble than I thought...no matter who the eventual Democratic nominee is.
Posted by emal at February 15, 2008 02:25 PMCG:
Exactly. Hillary is a junior Senator in her second term with no executive experience to speak of, save that obtained as First Lady. Obama is a first term Senator with state legislative experience.
The "experience" differential between Obama and Hillary pales between the experience differential between Obama or Hillary and Biden, Richardson, Dodd, or Kucinich. If "experience" is the deciding factor in picking a Presidential nominee then Obama and Hillary wouldn't make anybody's short list.
Posted by space at February 15, 2008 02:33 PMMy real bug-a-boo is that we are setting ourselves up for defeat in November. CA PJ can bite me on this, but that is the real dilemma. - joanne
Personally, I think divining who is "electable" is a fool's game. Certainly the Democratic Party ended up looking foolish for choosing the "electable" candidate in 2004, only to have him lose. I think we should just vote for the candidate we want, each of us for our own reasons. Since you bring up electability, however, let's talk about it.
No one cares which Dem has the best media presentation, who spouts the best lines, who inspires the choir. The real problem lies with a hostile media and the ignorant voters who continue to vote against their own self interests (like good jobs, health care, education, the Iraq war...). A real case has to be made against the situation which has gotten into the mess we're in. - joanne
You should care very much about media operations if you want to win in November. The media isn't necessarily hostile to Democrats, as some Democrats (Bill Clinton for example) are successful working the media. You want to appeal to voters on issues and how they've been voting for the GOP against their own interest. That's great in an ideal world but it doesn't work. We saw it in 2004: after John Kerry kicked Bush's butt in all three debates, the polls didn't budge.
The voters who decide elections are low information voters. They're not going to delve into a candidate's website or even listen to the details in a speech. They "vote with their gut" more or less for who they want to see on their TV the next four years. The winner of the general election is the candidate who would win a race to be Prom King. It's ridiculous, I know, but that test works for at least a generation.
So how do you reach the low information voters? You plant a narrative in the media and reinforce it every day. Bill Clinton probably said "we must have the courage to change" 10,000 times in 1992. Barack Obama has planted the narrative in the media that he is a good guy bringing hope, change, and a new breed of politics to America. That is how you reach low information voters and win elections.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 15, 2008 03:06 PMWhen will white men stand up for white women?
Some people are voting for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman; some people are voting for Barack Obama because he's African-American. A few are no doubt voting the opposite way on each count, but it isn't fair to label people who vote the wrong way as sexist or racist.
It would be thrilling to see a woman break through the ultimate glass ceiling; it would be thrilling to have America rise above our hateful past and be represented by an African-American. Either way, America will be a better place the minute either Clinton or Obama is sworn in before they enact a single policy. Nevertheless, alot of us choose to just vote for the candidate we most want to be president and leave race and gender out of the decision. There's nothing wrong with that.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 15, 2008 03:17 PMeriposte,
spot on analysis. I remember reading over and over that Bill Clinton thought winning the nomination would be harder than the general. And I also remember that I internally agreed with him. No one now remembers that.
There was a diary at dkos who asked for chances to win the nomination, when Hillary had a 20% lead in the polls. I gave her about 40% chance. The reason was that: She was the frontrunner. But I have watched too many elections not to know this. A frontrunner has a target on her back. Sure, everyone prefers to be the frontrunner, but even in the best situation, when the frontrunner is formidable, I see her chance of clinching it is no better than 50%.
Add to the fact that she had 8 opponnets, not one or two. So, there could be 5 (not counting Kucinich and Gravel) ways of something surprising you and throwing the race wide open. That maximized the ability of the opposition and minimized her ability to focus on the weakness of one candidate in particular.
Add the press (a 2,000,000 pound guerrila in the room that everyone ignores) and you realize that this woman is simply remarkable.
I agree with you that her campaign made mistakes, but disagree with those who say she made a blunder on MSNBC debate about immigration (with Russert). That was a gotcha debate, and she passed it very well. Dodd and Edwards jumped on the chance to make it look like she took many positions. She didn't. But the press, desperate for a narrative and starting point to pile on her, started right there.
I am sad for the stupidity and pettiness of the democrats. The list includes Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Donna Brazille, Markos, Josh Marshall, and this is just the list of people I respected until now, and no longer do.
Jane Austin has her heroin say in Pride and Prejudice, "to this moment, I never knew myself". Well, Jane, to this moment, I never knew the true pettiness of the so-called progressive men. To this moment, I didn't know the chauvunism and pettiness that is so aboundant.
MSM, I expected. But not this.
Doesn't it remind you of the scence in the movie, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner", when the priest tells the father, "Oh, there was a bigot underneath there all along"?
Posted by ghost2 at February 15, 2008 03:49 PMWell, Jane, to this moment, I never knew the true pettiness of the so-called progressive men. To this moment, I didn't know the chauvunism and pettiness that is so aboundant. - ghost2
Are the millions of white women who support Barack Obama petty chauvinists too?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 15, 2008 04:42 PMA great example of how to set up a media narrative is from progressive hero Russ Feingold. He was running as the underdog in a 3-way Senate primary in 1992. To get media attention and frame his candidacy, he painted 3 promises to the people of Wisconsin on his garage door. It gave the media something to talk about and the narrative that Russ is an honest ordinary guy who would stick to his Wisconsin roots. It had very little to do with the pressing issues of the day, but it was brilliant and successful media manipulation. We need a good media campaign from our nominee.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 15, 2008 05:42 PMDear All,
Hmmmm? Where exactly was Joe Wilson's great ADVICE, and for that matter all the other former Clinton Presidency's BRILLIANT foreign policy re-treads, when Sen. Clinton decided to vote to give Bush authorization to bomb Iraq back into the stone age? Duplicity, thy name is Clinton.
And, where exactly is Bin Ladden?
I guess they are all somewhere making triangles.
I'm sorry but Joe Wilson, et al are a bunch of Washington insiders (re: snobs) looking for their next meal ticket and future invitations to a few more Georgetown cocktail parties.
I recall that, in his 1st partisan op-ed for Clinton, he described the Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago, where Obama and I live, as "PROVINCIAL"....Gee, I guess "once you've seen Niger,....."
Let's see, a boatload of Nobel winners, the University of Chicago, and the most diverse and progressive neighborhood on the planet is....wait for it.....PROVINCIAL.
Case Closed.
You see, sometimes the answer is right in front of you. While Joe Wilson's NYT Niger op-ed was a responsible act of a patriot, his current posture has to be viewed through the lens of partisan politics. As are the majority of "ra-ra" responses to this unoriginal.. and misguided.."what HE said" thread.
Exactly what would George Washington (re: Wilson) have said about Thomas Jefferson (re: Sen. Clinton) if he decided to vote against the Revolutionary War?
How about: "WTF am I backing this "sell-out" for?"
Again, not to put too fine of a point on it, BUT, where were Team Clinton's advisors when Sen. Clinton voted for the war? How have they tap-danced since then to minimize the blood and treasure lost since her vote?
Anyone on this DB who is for Clinton has to tell me how they are getting around that one. Her excuses for this and other triangulating votes "FOR THE WRONG WAR(S)" are obviously OK with some...NOT ME..!!!
To be clear, I'm not against war (nor am I a pants wetting, chicken-hawk Republican), just the wrong war. No Clinton apology? No Clinton remorse?
Just dead Americans and an Iraq war driven "near" recession bankrupting our economy.
Gee, tell me about that health care plan again? Which Democrats are going to be left in Congress to vote for it? OBAMA HAS COAT TAILS..!! CLINTON HAS ,,wait for it....OVER PAID AND INCOMPETANT SELF-SERVING ADVISORS..!!
Her latest "nuclear" foot in mouth, about Obama and Exelon, only proves that she doesn't have a clue. Mark Penn's company lobbied Obama for Exelon. Obama refused to deal with them, got a weakend version of the legislation passed in spite of Penn's efforts with REPUBLICANS, AND, Sen. Clinton signed on to the final bill.
Sound familiar? Gee, why is she blamming Obama when she signed on? SOUND FAMILIAR? I'm sure, like Bush, Obama tricked her...AGAIN..!!
So, either she's NIEVE, or STUPID or a triangulating self-serving back-stabber.
None of those qualities are desirable in a president...AGAIN..uh..considering the alternative.
Speaking of Mark Penn, his company represents "BLACKWATER"...!!!
Yeah, tell me again exactly what CHANGE you are backing with Sen. Clinton? Oh yeah, more CHANGE in the Clinton's pockets for keeping Blackwater working in Iraq, Iran and anywhere else money trumps PRINCIPAL and PATRIOTISM.
One World,
Domino49
PS.
Tell Joe Wilson to stay out of Hyde Park. He might get NUKED..After all, the atom bomb was invented in Hyde Park at he University of Chicago...How PROVINCIAL..!!
Posted by Domino49 at February 15, 2008 08:04 PMthanks, e'rip,
steve soto's post irritated me.
my thought - steve's a "summer soldier, sunshine patriot". the crowd changes and then,
quite mysteriously,
steve changes.
steve needs to buck up.
sports teams and political teams who WIN also screw up, royally.
but the calvinist in us says, if you win you are "good".
but if you lose,
every thing you did, or did not, do becomes a possible subject of criticism.
the fact is that any political campaign will have its good strategies, and its bad strategies. it will have its lucky victories, and its really dumb defeats.
for christ's sake steve -
remember to keep your eyes on the prize.
we have never had a woman president.
clinton is the first woman, and probably the only one who will come along within the next decade, who has the public status and the experience to campaign for the presidency.
a woman as president, i believe, would change this country, and its politics, in many very positive ways.
of course, my argument for a woman president is made "ceteris paribus" - other things being equal.
but this certainly is the case with clinton - she is at least as intelligent, and probably more knowledgeable than her democratic opponent and her possible republican opponent - john mccain.
and, politician though she may be, she is certainly more principled than john mccain will ever be.
clinton, after all, was only accused by her right-wing political opponents of being involved in a bank scam.
john mccain was centrally involved-
and censored by the senate -
for his direct political involvement in one of the most harmful banking scandals in american history.
have you heard any mention of lincoln federal savings an loan lately?
me neither.
but it is bad, bad luck for john mcc
that banks are having a hard time now.
but you would not know that from reading or watching the media these days - all we hear about are hillary's "negative".
john mccain - bank scam scoundrel running for president during a "banking problems" time?
forget hillary's negatives!!
Posted by orionATL at February 15, 2008 08:15 PMEriposte, thank you so much for this post. You make me proud to be a Democrat.
Posted by nance at February 16, 2008 02:17 PMOf all the arguments against a Clinton candidacy, the most tedious, the most dishonest, is her vote to allow Bush to invade Iraq. These people feel bad about their hatred of Hillary, and need a good hustle to sell themselves and the people around them. There's nothing wrong with the objection to Hillary's vote. The problem is, that Hillary's not on trial for her vote, she's a candidate running for the presidency "along with" other candidates. Unless we're willing to put them all on trial, for "all" their defense and war related votes, we have nothing with which to argue. To take "that vote" of Hillary's, out of context, and pretend that we can make a judgment that it puts the candidate in a "unique positon" is nothing but a cheap lie.
Posted by john polifronio at February 16, 2008 07:34 PMAnyone on this DB who is for Clinton has to tell me how they are getting around that one. Her excuses for this and other triangulating votes "FOR THE WRONG WAR(S)" are obviously OK with some...NOT ME..!!!
Hillary's vote for the Iraq war resolution. Our country had just been devastatingly
attacked. Such was the patriotism that a Democratic Senator who left most of his body parts in the fields of Vietnam
was knocked out of the senate for not being patriotic enough! 29 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Many
of them, like Kerry, were finally persuaded that the vote will be used primarily for getting Saddam Hussein to come
clean. They might not have trusted Bush but he was going to war anyway. Only, we might have given Republicans a 60 vote
senate. Friends, Hillary Haters, Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Backseat Drivers, what would have happened then?
Meanwhile, on a hilltop, far away from the battlefield, there was a Senator in the safe confines of a very blue state.
His state not devastated like New York. Sears Tower still towering. He made a fine anti-war speech. Simultaneously, he
was lustily voting Present in his state legislature instead of taking a stand on radioactive issues to avoid providing
propaganda material to the Republicans. Political expediency, it's called. Clinton haters are very intimate with this
phrase. If Obama had to be politically expedient in the Bluest of Blue states, what, you must think, he would have done
in the jingoistic pressure cooker of the 2002/03 senate? When we did not know where and when again we might be hit again
. One anti-war commentary given from the distant, safe, liberal confines of IL should not a president make!
Predictably, once Obama was in Senate, his voting was identical to democrats like Clinton. He raised no hell, showed no
leadership. Why should he? You see, voting against war funding is a somewhat unpopular thing. You can't do that and hope
to become President. And you can't just say Present, you know. You have to vote.
I feel the press, pundits and the left blogosphere has prematurely declared Obama, the new black poodle, who go a bow on his head, the "best in show". I personally feel HRC still has the strength left in her to fight a fight, be the bull dog she is. But we need to step back and think and not get so wound up with what the press and the polls tell us and be swept away by it. Comments on many of the lefy blogs I have read in general agree she is the better and stronger candidate with more experience. Then VOTE for her. Obama would be a great VP and be better prepared for it 8 years from now. Lets not repeat mistakes. I got so tired of these polls I started my own on my blog. Please come visit and Rock the vote for Hillary!
Peace!
Posted by Opinionated at February 18, 2008 02:15 PMPlease read the war of words of Obama vs Clinton on http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/new-rasmussen-r.html
Posted by Opinionated at February 18, 2008 07:14 PMif hil is nominee, it will end the dems bid for the White House.
if hil is the nominee, who will be the first in the dem party to start screaming, "THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN!!!!'
hil's first senate acceptance speech included.
"the first thing I do when I reach the senate floor, is FIX THIS SYSTEM!"
It is 7 years later and she is the first to manipulate FLORIDA VOTES for her benefit.
I am an Obamacan.
Posted by Verna for Obama at February 25, 2008 11:27 AM