Letters to the Editor
-
stuff
Clinton (or McCain) have Obama on video admitting to going AWOL on his only national security job.
Yeah, because holding Senate sub-committee hearings in the last year of the Bush reign is such an effective way to bring about change.
As for the Canada/NAFTA "story," talkingpointsmemo.com has it covered, direct from the horse's mouth.
The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.
-
Is The Obama NAFTA Thing Really A Issue?
Obama said he would pull out of the agreement if certain concession couldn't be reached -- arguably something that would never happen, though theortically we would do it if Canada did refuse to meet us half way on anything.
The press blew this up and made it seems like we will pull out of NAFTA instantly as soon as he takes office.
He sent feelers out to Canada basically saying, dude, ignore the Press. It ain't like that, yo.
Now he's being called a liar?
I think it showed prudence that he reconginzed the possible dange of press hyperbole and took meassures to reassure our trading partners to the North that, no, Tim Russert isn't going to be holding any Cabinet level positions in the future and not to take what he says too seriously.
-
Calling fact checker....
The message in Hillary's ad about Obama's chairmanship of the subcommittee has been debunked by Obama supporters as false: although he does chair the committee the ad identifies, supervision of matters specifically regarding the war in Afghanistan have been taken away from it and referred to another committee which he does not chair. Or so I have read in numerous places since her attack first surfaced within the last ten days. The post is incomplete without mention of this argument which, if true (and the sources behind it struck me as reliable), show her ad to be another cheesy, duplicitous, half truth phony allegation that is exactly more of what this country does not need.
-
an interesting choice
I think these ads give a pretty clear choice:
-- With Clinton you get 4-8 years of business as usual - only this time run by a person that has a soul (unlike BushCheney), and at least a reasonable amount of competence (assuming you can look past how grossly she's mismanaged her campaign thusfar). Looking backward to correct the wrongs done to us since Bush took office. Little risk, probably little reward.
-- With Obama, 4-8 years of a different direction in Washington. A blend of idealism and pragmatism, and a willingness to work together. Looking forward to a better future. Bigger risk, much bigger reward.
Frankly, after 12 or so years of the Republicans setting the tone, I'm ready to take a chance, and will be at the Texas Caucus tomorrow advocating for hope.
Oh, and to SobeOne: Seriously Alex, aren't you going to comment about the NAFTA-Canada scandal?
Ummm.... he did. You might want to learn how to use the internet and scroll down a couple articles in the War Room. It's right there, albeit without the torches and pitchforks that I'm sure you were hoping to see.
For a candidate with alllllllll the experience, all the wisdom and a feast of ideas, Senator Clinton's campaign is sure focused on beating up Senator Obama for the slimmest of missteps. I dunno about y'all, but I find that rather informative.
-
Texas is ready for Obama in '08!
Hillary, all we've got to say to you is been there done that and don't wanna do it again.
-
@chris49068
1. Making sure that your people are part of the vote count is not cheating, it's standard operating procedure to keep cheating from happening. If Obama doesn't have a similar procedure in place, then he should.
2. Nobody runs for President because they are humble people who hate power. Both Clinton and Obama have more than their share of ego. Actually, to be fair, Obama seems to have a bit more ego, since he is essentially saying that people should elect him based on his personality even though he has far less experience than his opponent. Clinton is at least making the argument that she has more experience and qualifications.
3. Millions of people have voted for Hillary Clinton. Millions. That's a pretty strong jury vote. That said, this isn't American Idol or Survivor or any other popularity contest. It's a bunch of people choosing our president. If you don't like Clinton, don't vote for her, but please don't suggest that she is just running to feed her ego. She's running for the same reason Obama is running - to serve the people who support her.
4. Clinton is not a "girl". Imagine what would happen if I went around calling Obama a "boy". Well... calling Clinton a "girl" is just as bad. She's a "woman".
-
Jeb, Take it Directly to Hillary Clinton
She claimed "I'm your girl"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD1EkCKP164
and used it in fundraising
http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-fund-raises-im-your-girl
She even has a button
http://www.hillarystore.com/store/HC0216.html
-
@saintzak
Yeah, I agree with you too. Texas has been trending Obama for awhile now and I'm thinking his early vote efforts were better than hers.
So Texas will be close but he'll win. RI will be Hillary's, VT will go to Obama. How big Hillary wins in Ohio is important and what tomorrow will be about.
If (I believe she will) she wins Ohio she has the "core democrat" type vote for her. She can take that to Penn. Additionally, it bolsters her argument that she's winning in general democratic states. Doesn't matter if that is important, she'll make it so.
The problem with Obama is that the longer this goes on, the more she can come back and retool her campaign. Being in the Daily show, SNL, etc...this is actually a big deal. She looked really good on SNL. Obama is basically on defense of his momentum, which for most purposes has stalled some. The Obama movement might have peaked a little too soon. He really needs to knock her out on Tuesday and I don't think that's going to happen.
The problem though is that she won't get the delegate lead. She knows this. She'll have to basically take the nomination from him. If she does this via MI/FL and supers, then the ONLY way she can go to the general election is to pick Obama as VP. If not, she'll lose to McCain hands down.
I think she needs to look at the future of the party and not her own personal ambitions. If she doesn't take TX and OH, she's got to step aside.