Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
AncientAssyrian
Published Letters: 769 Editor's Choice: 54
One of the talking heads said this last night, and I think it sums it up perfectly:
Hillary has to make competence exciting and interesting.
This is why she wants more debates. Because she wants to, as she did in the LA debate, go on and on about this reform, and that "day one activity" and the another arcane aspect of her health care plan, because, fundamentally, she thinks that is exciting. She thinks that is what will win over voters -- her competence. She thinks that if she talks about it long enough and loud enough, it will somehow become exciting and interesting.
It's NEVER going to be exciting or interesting.
Obama and his team know that. America knows that.
She's painted herself into a corner, and Obama and his campaign staff have quite brilliantly taken over a number of positions. She can't oppose them -- because it's self-destructive...
Barack is eloquent, inspiring, and gives great speeches. -----> It's really absurd to try to argue against that, as is evident by this ridiculous ad looking for more debates and not speeches. Hillary's against eloquent inspiring speeches? (Because she can't make them?)
Barack is the candidate who espouses change. ----> How do you argue against that? "Hillary doesn't want change?"
Barack believes in hope. ----> So if you want Hillary, the message is "don't believe in hope?"
Barack says "Yes we can! ----> So if you're a Hillary fan, then your motto is "No we can't?"
Barack opposed the war at the onset ----> And, for the thousandth time in case anyone doesn't remember, Hillary voted to allow George Bush to go to war.
Truly, she's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.
How do you possibly argue wonky bureaucracy skills against inspiration, eloquence and passion?
How do you make wonky bureaucracy competence exciting?
Exactly -- you don't.
Especially when the inspiration, eloquence and passion is backed up with legislative experience, intelligence, good judgment (esp. as compared to her bad war decision, and her failure to vote on FISA), and stellar political and campaign skills?
And even more so when the legislative experience, inspiration, eloquence, passion, intelligence, good judgment, and political and campaign skills do NOT come with the baggage of the Clinton reputation?
It's going to take some time to get there, but Hillary will not win the nomination.
Barack Obama is the next president of the United States.
in that episode when they try out for a talent contest?
Groovy, man!
Sure sounds like you are, especially given that you seem to think it will favor Hillary.
But yet again -- another passive-aggressive Joan Walsh blog post that tries to ding Obama -- but in a way that can be denied.
WHY DON'T YOU JUST ENDORSE HILLARY ALREADY, JOAN????
Seriously, I don't get it. You must have your reasons, either above-board, or self-serving, for trying to play it both ways -- they must be a reason why you clearly support Hillary, but try to pretend you're impartial.
How about a Joan Walsh blog post about "Why I Won't Endorse A Democratic Candidate (Overtly)"
Not.W.E.S wrote: It's going to happen in Texas again maybe. A boatload of votes going to Obama all around the country from people who will be voting for the republican in the general."
Absurd.
Superdelegates don't have psychic powers, there is no way for them to know.
I know more Republicans around the country, including a number in Texas, who are voting for Obama as their choice (and often, the first time voting Democractic) -- and not as a spoiler. My lifelong Republican father and his girlfriend both switched parties to vote in the primary for Obama...
As for spoiler votes, if those people choose, in a democracy, to use their vote in that way, then that is their choice. A stupid one perhaps, thinking they are being strategic, but it's their vote, their choice, and a vote is a vote.
Given that the issue is up in the air, any Texans or others who from here on in think that they want to vote Dem as a spoiler should realize that their vote can and will count, and may be considered by superdelegates as a deciding factor.
It is not for superdelegates to second-guess who really meant their vote, and who didn't.
Can be used to redefine the superdelegate as follows. If neither candidate has 2,025 at the convention, one side of the party, feeling itself divinely and inevitably deserving of a inexplicable right to return to the throne for more years of chaos and divisiveness, and having cravenly and self-servingly voted to send America to war in Iraq, will then strongarm, backroom politic, race-bait, and otherwise gerrymander said superdelegates so as to ensure that the triangulating bureaucrat is the nominee rather than the greatest politician of our generation, and thereby ensuring that an elderly dinosaur warmonger is our next president, possibly aided by a vice president who believes man actually walked with dinosaurs.
Try being right instead of wrong, toots.
is Clinton Koolaid.
Hillary has no chance of winning a general election. And the Democratic party poobahs know it.
So no matter how many machinations the Clintons pull, and no matter how many blog posts Joan writes, and no matter how many times Not.W.E.S. keeps repeating the same old thing, it's not going to happen.
If Clinton gets the nomination, legitimately, or by ripping off America's Democrats, she's going to go down in flames.
And the ONLY good thing about that is it will put, once and for all, an end to the Clinton political dynasty. And Barack can, in four years, come back and start to clean up from the continued disaster that will be President McCain.
And I say this as someone who will, not happily, but necessarily, vote for her without question in November if she is the nominee.
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"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
