Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I am a republican Clinton supporter(male 69 years old). I have supported her with contributions and with rallying my fricnds and nieghbors.
I am disturbed by Obama team of good old Country Club boys and the locker room campaign that the have run. If you are unfamiliar with the boys locker room, It is where the boys shower and run around with there johnson's hanging out and boast about their female conquests.
It would seem that Obama has already thrown his followers under the bus along with his church and anything else that would get in his way of the nomination. By promising to change Washington and now it's business as usual with the Washington insiders and elite running his campaign.
I would support Clinton if she would run on a Independent ticket. A new dream ticket say Clinton with Ron Paul as VP.
I do not know if this is possible, but our country needs her solutions to the problems that we are facing.
I am old enough to remember the Clinton years in the White House. They were very good when compared to the current situation.
I loved Reagan, however, I think that he was wrong to start the trend to give the country to the big corporations. Maybe it has just gone further that he expected. (definitely too far).
The blubbering Clintonettes, including the very angry Joan Walsh, should look to South Dakota as to Obama's overall appeal.
I'm a fervent Obama person, and don't have a clue what's going to happen there - other than one of my favorite Senators supports Obama as well.
It's very white, very 'mature', no large Hispanic or African American populations to speak of. It's somewhat neutral ground, that should lean to Hillary if she's right in all her rhetoric.
But more importantly, and very profoundly, it will be the Native Americans that cast the deciding votes.
The entire Clinton family has been campaigning there constantly. And Obama had full opportunities to campaign there.
Tomorrow, Clinton can take her claims of victory and either gold plate them, or throw them in the gutter where the rest of her campaign lies.
Why did you assume I didn't read Larry's blog? I did. I guess I didn't make it clear enough. I even read some of the comments to the post (I really appreciated the lying, drug dealing black homo slur against Obama.)
I especially loved the beginning, though:
"I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about “whitey” describe it as “STUNNING.” I have not seen it but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape. It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!!"
I think its fine if you beleive Larry. I'm just skeptical. I think it's as likely that Republicans are using Larry to start a whisper campaign. The tape could exist. It could be a ploy by the Republicans. I wouldn't put it past them; they are dirty, dirty bastards just like the Democrats. However, I think we should take anything those people say (selling us a war, remember) with a large grain of salt. UNTIL there is proof. And, I think it's the duty of any democrat who wants a democrat in the White House, to do everything possible to get their hands on a copy of the tape and to release it now so that Obama can do damage control. It can't be too hard to find, I don't think.
I don't think sitting on a panel with Louis Farakhan constitutes anything, especially in a city like Chicago. Of course, it might not play that way in other parts of the country. Louis Farakhan has been working a lot in the area of black health, which is why I think he and she would be on a panel together. But since we live in a country that now thinks even sitting in the same room with someone you might disgree with constitutes a breach of orthodoxy so heinous that the offender must be strung up in the public square, I'm sure the Republicans will be able to spin it as Michelle is muslim white hating racist black bitch.
Also, I apologize that I assumed you were a democrat. LT, a word of advice though: never say on Salon that you advocate legalizing prostitution. Glen Greenwald almost got tarred and feathered and run outta the Web community on a rail for saying that. Though being that you are in the millitary, I bet you can handle yourself. (Or is it ex-Navy?)
A question that for me has not been answered is why Hillary has not been penalized for not abiding by what she and other candidates agreed upon prior to the primaries in Michigan and Florida. She and her campaign agreed to not campaign in Florida and Michigan. She obviously broke that pledge. Maybe in the the alternate Universe where she is already President in her 3rd term she "technically didn't campaign" in Michigan, but she definitely did campaign in Florida. I believe the rules committee should penalize the Clinton Campaign for breaking their word.
If the candidates didn't like the rules they could have made it known early on. Not only did the Clinton Campaign not voice any concerns for the nominating process including the caucus process, they agreed to them in writing. In addition they agreed in writing not to campaign in Florida or Michigan. Once it was clear that they would loose the nomination Hillary Clinton and her supporters complained about the rules. The rules that she happened to agree upon. The rules that all of the other candidates followed. Now those rules are unfair and should be changed.
Again and again Hillary's unwillingness to follow rules, interpret the rules and the results of primaries throughout this contest has been amazing. I often wondered where terms such as "A Mulligan" in golf came from. Well that term is believed to derive from David Mulligan who after taking a bad shot would take another without counting it. Simply put, he would make up the rules as he went along. In the future anytime a person goes back on her word due to unfavorable results and demands that rules they have agreed upon be changed or ignored or simply makes rules up as they go along it should be know as taking "A Hillary".
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
