Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Re: "The only thing he's criticized her for is her Walmart board seat and her congressional record. That's pretty above board..."
Are you kidding? He acts like he's above the fray and a victim of "dirty politics" even though his surrogates have made quite a few negative comments about Hillary:
1) Sent out a flyer calling her the Senator from Punjab
2) After she won NH brought race into it by blaming her win on the Bradley Effect
3) After she cried, Jesse Jackson Jr., a member of Obama's campaign, said that she never cried for Katrina victims, implying she doesn't care about black people.
4) Twisted comments about LBJ siging the Civil Rights Bill into a racist statement. Same for "roll the dice" and "fairy tale."
5) Ran a negative Spanish language ad in Nevada calling Hillary "shameless" and saying that she doesn't care about "our people."
6) Won't take full responsibility for his Reagan comments and acts like Hillary is twisting his words and victimizing him whenever she brings up his record.
I have not heard a single Obama supporter refute Obama's warning that a lot of his supporters might not support Senator Clinton in the general election.
I am sure that some people, that really like HRC, or that hate Black people might have very negative feelings about BO. But the bottom line is that a huge part of the population want nothing to do with the Clinton's. So given that they are both centrist legislatures that have successful careers. But neither has much executive experience and they will likely make very similar decisions.
Explain why running HRC is worth risk? They are both fine candidates. BO attracts young people and independents who normally don't vote. By now there is no way they could share a ticket. So given an either or choice... Weigh the risks.
If you had to bet $10K on who could win would you put your money on HRC?
45% of the population won't vote for Clinton. Just seems like the wrong place to start. If she cared about the country she wouldn't have run. She is running for the ego of it. She knows she is divisive and a polarizing figure. We just don't need her.
I wish Clinton supports would stop attacking Barrak on such personal grounds. If you don't like him fine but that is not a reason not to vote for him. He has a long history of successfully getting liberal legislation passed through working both sides of the isle. This sounds like a good thing. Hillary has the same record. I think it is just totally rude the things HRC and her supporters are implying. I mean it is certainly their right but there is no substance to it.
It's important to remember that campaigning is very different from governing. Campaigning for elections, in this country, is quite the media circus. From the debates, to the talking heads on TV, to the numerous articles like the ones on Salon and in every publication, they goad the candidates about the most ridiculous things. And the candidates get pulled in. They end up looking pretty distorted. Howard Dean said it well when he described it as theater. And he ought to know. The media did everything they could to make him look crazy. And they succeeded. Even when he lost the Iowa caucuses, he was 20 points ahead in NH until they played that "scream" 900 times on T.V.
Governing is something else. I think that any of the Dem candidates would work hard to get the country back on track and would make a positive difference. I already voted for Obama absentee. I would love an Obama/Edwards ticket. But I'd vote for Hillary if she were the nominee, although I do not believe she'd win.
I think at this time it's important for us to be pragmatic, because there is too much suffering going on in this country and the rest of the world to get too caught up in the emotional drama that our news media thrives on.
Obama began his entire campaign by perpetuating republican talking points:
1. Obama began dividing Democrats initially by calling Hillary 'Divisive' and himself a 'Uniter'. She had "baggage" and everybody has an uncle who would never vote for her in a million years. She's considered "the establishment" while he is "change".
2. He conflates Hillary to be not much different than Bush, as if her as president means that she will just continue many of Bush's policies, governing abilities and manner of style.
3. In the meantime his stance on Iraq has been called "a fairytale" and voting for him is a "rolling of the dice". Sometimes one of Clinton's surrogates make veiled comments about his past drug use.
Now we know that Hillary will be far, far, far left of Bush and will represent fundamental change just in terms of philosophical and ideological principles alone. Yet Obama allowed these charges to go forward as a message that he wanted to convey.
I can't think of a bigger smear than what Obama has leveled on Hillary from the commencement of his campaign: that she is like Bush, and he is not. And in the meantime, he has allowed many of the negative characteristics of Hillary persistently pushed by the republicans, to stand clear and present that she is "not likeable enough", leading to his condescending remark to Hillary about being, "likeable enough".
I believe any three of these candidates will bring transformational change to the white house. Hell, look who we are kicking out!! But instead, people like fetboy pursue these anti-Hillary characterizations and will put faith in their accuracy as if any major message by the republican party has any credibility.
Jesus, Dems. Look at who started the whisper campaign. Can you believe it's true after everything they've sold us?
Once you realize that you're handily dividing the Democratic party by perpetuating republican talking points and demonizing Hillary so much, perhaps then you can see that Obama is far from being a saint in this race.
Fact is: Hillary Clinton is one of the most popular politicians in the United States. Her "high negatives" are really not much higher than the rest of the Democratic candidates. They're only four points higher than Obama's, for example.
This is the time with the "Purists" come out of the woodwork, tell us they're Democrats, and then self-righteously proclaim that no one in the Democratic field is "pure" enough--except for their choice, which is Hart, or Bradley, (or Nader), and now Obama.
Then, when they lose, they proclaim a pox on the Democratic Party (which they never thought much of anyway), and sit out the election, giving us first Richard Nixon, then George W. Bush.
Like these folks are political geniuses.
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
