Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
As defiant as Hillary seemed last night, she was 100% right. Why does Obama represent change? Because he claims to? Because he doesn't have a lot of experience? Because he's African-American? The press is leaping on this idea that people are embracing change by choosing Obama, but all I have seen him do is talk about how he represents change, how the people "want a part in their government," or "want to know the government is listening." What does he stand for? Hillary answers questions in a straightforward, presidential way. She's the best candidate. And I'm disappointed that this country is still too sexist to see her potential.
I agree with you about Charlie Gibson, and did you catch it when he thought that two new york school teachers (or college professors) might make over $200,000 per year? Talk about a press corp that it out of touch with the ordinary world. That was a sad moment in journalism.
Please read my post below about Obama before you jump on the Clinton bandwagon. Clinton stood on her record, yet she didn't specify which record...the record for welfare reform? She can't affect change only by being a woman nor by bragging about her resume. Where does she show that she used her leadership skills to accomplish something with bipartisan support in Washington? I'm sure that there are examples, but I'm I can think of one out of hand. She seems more like an establishment candidate who is having a hard time connecting to ordinary voters, and I don't say this for reasons of sexism, any more than those attacking Obama necessarily do it out of racism.
ABC bounces Kucinich from the debate, and you fail to take note of this. Very disappointing.
(the Kucinich campaign filed a complaint with the FCC, by the way. This also strikes me as newsworthy, although I suppose the information may not have been available to Mr. Shapiro when the article went up. But NO mention of Kucinich's absence whatsoever?)
Deloresflower:
I have researched Obama's voting record. A voting record is more informative than any speech. And as I said, he's missed quite a few votes in the Senate, but he found the time to vote to renew the Patriot Act and to fund the war.
And when Hillary brought this up in the debate last night, he ignored it. Why wouldn't he explain his position? And she also said that the chairman of his New Hampshire campaign was a lobbyist for the drug companies. Again, he didn't explain that.
I don't like his lack of experience, or his lack of specificity.
Hillary knows how the White House works, and she will be able to repair the damage Dubya has done. Obama won't have the first idea of how to fix anything. It will take years for him to learn how washington works, and we don't have time.
I'm voting for Hillary.
I posted obama's voting record as part of my response to you, if you read down that far, so I've been looking at it too. I'm wondering why you are posting as anonymous on this board if you're proud of your candidate?
Also, why do you post Clinton's criticism of Obama without looking at my criticism of clinton? Which part of her record that she is standing on is she proud of? Only the part in which Bill was President? What has been her work in the Senate that she is proud of?
I mentioned the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 as a measure Obama co-sponsored, and something that I think he built bipartisan support for and accomplished. Not bad for a junior Senator, and in a similar way he took on Special Interests, as Edwards pointed out in the debate, by his contributions toward an ethic's committee ban on Lobbyists purchasing politicians' lunches. Both Edwards and Obama were pointing out how corrupt this system is.
So as for the Patriot Act, he did not sign the old version of the bill but he signed a new version in which he worked for the best compromises he could on the bill. Here is his statement about it.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/
Clinton was making a typical poltician's jab at Obama, because he could make a similar jab at her for "compromising." He did not, as she alleged, flip-flop, as much as he worked toward bipartisan support for something he wasn't/isn't completely happy with. Maybe the reason that Obama was shaking his head in the debate instead of answering her was that Clinton supported the Patriot Act herself, twice
http://www.factcheck.org/article416.html
both in it's original form, AND in it's new form. This is why you saw Edwards and Obama both wondering why Clinton had to mention the word change thirty five times and still people weren't really believing it. Running on her record is not enough...her record is broad and includes failures as well as successes. I ask again, where are Clinton's successes that convince us that she's the best leader?
She's taking her party's nomination for granted, and I think a lot of voters are frustrated and want her to be more specific not only about what she's going to do, but how she's going to lead. That's what a President does on Day One in the white house.
If you thought that Obama or Edwards told you anything, then I think it is time to have your hearing checked.
The only person who actually stated facts at the New Hampshire debate last night was Hillary Clinton.
The most important question you should answer about Barack Obama is; would you hire an entry level employee to run your company? I know you would answer NO to this, so; why would you hire an Entry Level Senator to run the United States of America?
I think the voter’s of America are again following the media bandwagon and jumping for the candidate who can talk the talk, but may not be able to walk the walk. The Americans who voted for George W. Bush made a very critical error in their judgment and all of us, who did not endorse him, are living these mistakes every day. If you remember, George W. Bush was also a favorite son of the media.
The most important objective of selecting a nominee is to know what they have accomplished in their lifetime. I too can offer Hope, but what does Hope really mean? We need a President, who on day one knows what needs to be done. I do not need to be told that we HOPE everything works out.
As far as John Edwards he is the type of person who speaks negative of Big Corporations in order to get the fly off his back, but John Edwards is Big Corporation! John Edwards was in the Senate for six years and the only thing he was proud of was co-writing the Patients Bill of Rights. During the NH Debate, he made off as if this bill was approved and that Americans benefited by the bill. Well, this was an untruth by John Edwards, since the bill was never passed. Why didn’t John Edwards fight for the bill? It may have helped the child he brings up in every debate. This child died because John Edwards did not fight for the bill that he stated he was so proud of.
Americans really need to sit back, turn off the television and make their selection based on the experience of the candidate and what the candidates have accomplished in their lifetime. They should not be impressed because someone has a deep voice and can read a speech written by someone else.
Let’s get serious America. Hillary Clinton has a proven record for helping the people of America.
This nomination should not be about making HISTORY based on the color of your skin or your gender.
Let’s make History by being the country that is not financially dependent on other countries. Let’s make history by being the country that has the best affordable health plans for all citizens. Let’s make history by being the country that is not afraid to communicate with other countries in order to keep peace.
We will never accomplish anything if we do not nominate the candidate who has the experience.
Hillary Clinton has accomplished so much in her 35 years in public life and has proven to me that she is the best candidate for the President of the United States of America.
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 survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
