Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
What about Hillary's losing do find so devilishly confusing?
Hillary was "done dirty" by her husband, the Obama campaign, the media, and her party. She wasn't lying about the real dangers and fear she felt in Bosnia, either. She confused 3 landings in one day, 1 at Tusla, and 2 at front line encampments, Camp Alicia and Camp Bedrock. I found online 3 CBS videos of 3 different landings, one (Tusla)in a C-17, and two in helicopters at the 2 camps. Chelsea was with her for the helicopter landings in the front lines. Sinbad and Cheryl Crowe were NOT with her at the front lines. They stayed in the safer areas. I read that Hillary was told not to defend herself further on the issue because it offended our military to have her admit fear when she was being protected by them. That's believable to me.
What more can people demand of a lady? I think party leaders decided early on to do whatever it took to make Barack Obama win and Hillary lose. They did to her and to us, her supporters, what the Republicans and the Supreme Court did to make George W. Bush the president - and apparently what the Illinois Democratic machine did to elect JFK. Barack Obama's supporters were threatening to Blacks who supported Hillary, they cheated in the caucuses, they were vile in their unfair criticisms and insults to her, and they acted as if (and many believed) they were entitled to the presidency.
Moreover, Barack Obama started his political career with criminals and haters. He was guided and mentored by haters - haters of the Jewish state, survivors of the Holocaust and their children who only want to live in peace - if their neighbors would allow it?
How can I trust our party and Barack Obama? I've been a Democrat all my adult life. I'm impressed beyond my ability to express it with Hillary's behavior, and I really wish I could follow her lead on this, but I can't trust Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. I know how often they've thrown people who no longer benefit them under the bus.
HR Clinton will never be a great speaker, but I think, for her, she delivered a great speech last night. Certainly a necessary one. I don't think she'll persuade the diehard PUMAs, who seem hell-bent on keeping a Republican in the White House, but perhaps she peeled off enough fence sitters to ensure that the PUMAs become extinct after this election cycle. HR Clinton showed the necessary leadership, perhaps with a mind toward 2012, having one last go before passing the torch to Chelsea (who I think could probably actually have a better chance than her mother).
Of course Mark Warner disappointed; he's a wannabe. I remember when the NYT did a puff piece on him a couple of years ago, and I found him unimpressive there, despite the national focus he was apparently getting. Mark Warner is a DLC wankbag, and so, yes, he's offering the weak blue tea of the DLC Democrats In Name Only, so, yes, he'll fail to inspire, because their "More Republican than the Republicans" brand of electioneering is breath-taking in its political cynicism. Frankly, I was pissed that he even got to deliver the keynote speech at all, although I was pleased he failed to hit a home run with it, hoping that it'll mean no fast-track for this particular DINO.
So, the PUMAs keep on growling, the DINOs keep on stomping. Let's hope the Democrats start hammering home their points, setting a coherent agenda that even the most dedicated mouthbreather and low-information voter can understand, and kick McCain's ass in the fall.
As an Obama supporter, I stopped reading Salon months ago because of the really sad decline in the level of civility and (therefore)thoughtful discussion here. I could no longer stomach an unwillingness by the Editor to even consider the privilege(s) that Clinton brought to the primaries and the racial difficulties confronting Obama's candidacy...
But I will have to say this: I found Clinton's speech wonderful - and I really hope that Obama follows her lead - as well as Kucinich's (sp)tone.
It is time to be very, very clear (not to be confused with "specific" as in a 10-point plan)about what values differentiate Democratic administrations from the most recent Republican administrations.**** Kucinich's speech was absolutely stunning in its clarity; i.e., Democrats stand for the good of ALL people - while Republicans facilitate the accumulation of wealth for the few.
I think I understand that some of this stuff is generational: Obama, Warner (Rice, too, maybe) and others are tail-end boomers, and did not come up through the movements of the 60s/70s. No matter what C. Rice says, they were child spectators who must (re)construct those times through history books, childhood memories and the stories passed on from their elders. I know: I'm a tail-end boomer.
But taking Clinton's and Kucinich's lead, I suspect Obama will (hopefully)ignore all the constraints of being considered too "angry" for undecided white Independents, and throw caution to the wind and confirm the "urgency of now." I really do believe that most people would respond to that message.
Good job, Hillary (Did I really say that???).
***why "most recent?" I don't know if it is useful in this election when there are so many disaffected Republicans to paint ALL Republicans with a broad stroke.
This was a phenomenal speech that covers all bases, especially when she asked the question if they were for her or the cause. I hope that those PUMA or whomever they are will get this message. America is facing one of the greatest challenges, and this is not the time for contention and division. A nation divided as well as a party shall not stand, and Barack is not the enemy. And are these people so ignorant and foolish to support the real enemy and aid the continuance of one of the most corrupt and despotic administration in America? Hillary was definite on point when she called Bush and McCain the twin city. Just the thought of McCain winning the election sends cold chills down my spine, and I am inclined to agree with an article in the Herald, Uk by Iain MacWhirter when he states, "It seems incredible, but as the Democrats gather in Denver to anoint Barack Obama, America could be on course to re-elect a Republican as their President. Not just any Republican either, but a belligerent 71-year-old who can't remember how many houses he owns and would happily nuke Iran, etc. etc.". The authors continues with his dialogue by stating that America is a strange, strange, country; however, I will take it a step further, electing McCain will make us a foolish country! In addition, I noticed a smug and arrogant look on Bill Clinton's face when she metioned his works. All I can say is the man is so vain he thinks everything is about him. America appreciates the Clinton's political contributions, but Bill should realize that he contributed to some of Hilliary's problems, and the world does not revolve around him. I have always been a Hilliary Clinton supporter, but Bill is going to far. He needs to get over this lost and rally around the party because all of our lives are at stake!
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
