Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 950 Editor's Choice: 102
Clinton supporters on this site consistently refuse to answer questions I raise -- e.g. If Obama is to be judged by the words of someone close to him in his life, is Clinton to be judged by Walmart's actions, or Bill Clinton's or Web Hubbell's actions/words? What did Wright say that is factually wrong; did God approve institutional racism in this country or our nuking of hundreds of thousands of women and children in Japan or our overthrow of countless democracies? Does anyone question that rich white people have called the shots in this nation or that Hillary Clinton didn't grow up black?
There are no good answer to these questions. This is such a non-issue. No one else has had such pressure to distance himself/herself from people close to them who aren't perfect -- especially when the critics can't even point out what Wright has said that was factually wrong (except maybe AIDS was a conspiracy) -- they just don't like his tone. It is amazing and shameful that Clinton Democrats are castigating their own party's candidate with standards that they won't even apply to Bush or McCain.
But the real question now, after the others have gone unanswered, is: Is this the best you've got? Is the only bad thing you can come up with regarding Obama is that he attended a church with a pastor who served his nation and served thousands of people spiritually, but had the bad taste of speaking out too strongly on issues that all Democrats know are serious? That is weak fucking tea my friends.
It is amazing how Clinton posters here refuse to address questions posed to them. I'll quit doing it because it's a waste of time. Funny that they talk about blind allegiance in the Obama camp.
But I will poke fun at one non-answer to a question posed by an Obama supporter. When asked what Wright said that was hateful, a Clinton devotee responded:
I know that I for one, do not want to repeat all or any of the unbelievably extreme, divisive, and paranoid things Reverend Wright has said. Have you not seen any of the clips? Does it all fall on conveniently predisposed deaf ears for you?
I can answer for the guy: Wright is hateful because he is associated with Obama, who is kicking my candidate's ass in this election.
The point is that Clinton is offering this stuff up as proof that she is in a league with McCain that Obama doesn't come close to. Remember the "threshold" statement? What is clear about this Bosnia PR trip is that whatever its value, when you judge the three in foreign policy/war experience, she is in Obama's league. In an arbitrary scale, you have Obama at a level 2, Clinton at a level 3 (maybe) and McCain up in the 20's.
That's why it is politically suicidal for her to make the debate about "threshold" experience regarding war and foreign experience. What a dumb move. It may have worked on .5 percent of the electorate, for about a week, and yet it has sealed her fate in the general if she manages to win the nomination.
What great judgment. Did her experience teach her these kinds of political moves?
The point is that she is not much more experienced that Obama -- a linchpin of her campaign. What, do people's memory last only 5 minutes around here?
About hypocrisy:
Isn't it hypocritical to say you're in a league with McCain and have nothing to show for it but a PR trip to Bosnia?
Isn't it hypocritical to make Obama responsible for everything his preacher may have said but not hold Clinton responsible for everything Walmart has done (she was on their board -- a little more direct than being part of a parish)? Or for that matter, if Obama is responsible for everything his pastor said, then is not Clinton responsible for everything her HUSBAND ever did or said? She could have divorced him.
The charge of hypocrisy is ironic.
Who cares what your gender is -- it's the content of your contributions (and Milton Friedman is "an award winning scholar").
So how about a real answer, if you're so scholarly: cite the exact words from Wright's speeches that are hateful.
FYI - Clinton was campaigning on her foreign policy superiority.
I don't recall Obama campaigning on his tutelage under Rev. Wright, so I assume you are opposed to that coverage too, right?
Your post questioned comparisons between Clinton's experience and Laura Bush's. Clinton is CAMPAIGNING on the idea that her experience more closely matches McCain's than Obama's -- that's a matter of considerable public record. In that context, she looks positively delusional.
Another great non-answer from a Clinton supporter. While I clearly stated that Clinton was running on the idea that she had vastly more foreign policy experience than Obama (she and McCain are bosom buddies in their ability to "cross the threshold"), and while I clearly made no claims about Obama having experience, you write that Obama doesn't have experience.
Here is a direct question: Do you believe that Clinton's foreign policy experience is so much greater than Obama's that she and McCain fall closer together in that measure than she and Obama?
Please tell me what, if anything, those Wikipedia passages demonstrate?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
