Just thought I would add some context to one poll G-man. The Sunday shows all played pretty much the same way by focussing on one poll & very little on context. As I noted Hillary spent alot of time in Iowa because she wasn't doing well there just 5 months ago. I remember a pundit back then even questioning why she should even bother spending much time there & just write it down as a loss. Pundits really seem extra lame these days.
I should have said "beginning of the end for their campaigns" in my previous post btw.
[The Obama campaign just announced that Oprah Winfrey will tour with him in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina on December 8th and 9th. Expect a media circus to ensue. Let's see if she can sell candidates as well as she can sell books.
Hey, anyone....remember this exchange from last year:
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Its funny how, as soon as Barack Hussein Obama starts beating Hillary Rodham Clinton in some early polls, negative information about him starts leaking out.
Not that the Clintons would ever slander an opponent or anything.
Originally Posted By: Matter Eater Man
G-man [is] just making up accustions about the Clintons...Media Matters....It was ...conservatives [who] would milk Obama going to a Muslim school when he was 6... you would say that Clinton was behind it. Even if you think she's capable of doing it, it's very obvious that she didn't need to.
Now comes the recent news that Hillary staffers were circulating the story about Obama being a Muslim and even hinting that Obama was a drug dealer.
Hillary, of course, claims to be completely ignorant of what her staff was doing.
Actually, no. If I'm rooting for any democrat, its Richardson.
But I think it's fun to watch the Clinton camp squirm each time they're caught pulling these dirty tricks that you were tried to tell us the Republicans were behind.
Furthermore, why are you so against Obama, MEM? Simple marching orders from Clinton or latent dislike of black men?
Honestly, if Hillary didn't know about the tactics her own campaign was using for so many different smear jobs against Obama, all that says is that she has no control over her own people. Not a good ringing endorsement for her presidential bid. I think it's more likely that she's well aware of it, but that her people are just stupid in how they're doing it.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Honestly, if Hillary didn't know about the tactics her own campaign was using for so many different smear jobs against Obama, all that says is that she has no control over her own people. Not a good ringing endorsement for her presidential bid. I think it's more likely that she's well aware of it, but that her people are just stupid in how they're doing it.
I don't agree. Campaigns like this are huge & chock full of volunteers. No way of preventing one or two volunteers doing something that Hillary would have any way of knowing. Besides, if there was some sort of mandate from Clinton it would get out. Instead what we have here is the campaign doing what it can by firing anyone who spreads the crap that G-man had been posting about Obama for all along.
Honestly, if Hillary didn't know about the tactics her own campaign was using for so many different smear jobs against Obama, all that says is that she has no control over her own people. Not a good ringing endorsement for her presidential bid. I think it's more likely that she's well aware of it, but that her people are just stupid in how they're doing it.
I don't agree. Campaigns like this are huge & chock full of volunteers. No way of preventing one or two volunteers doing something that Hillary would have any way of knowing. Besides, if there was some sort of mandate from Clinton it would get out. Instead what we have here is the campaign doing what it can by firing anyone who spreads the crap that G-man had been posting about Obama for all along.
Maybe one such isolated attack could be an abberation of a few Hillary volunteers. But there does seem to be a consistent pattern to these attacks, from Hillary's "Left-wing attack machine".
That's so much worse than, oh, say, Whitewater, or Filegate, or marching in a gay parade with men in leather thongs, while boycotting a catholic parade for not allowing gays to participate, or basing your political campaign on "triangulation" rather than firm principles...
Sorry but what is wrong with saying Obama wanted to be President all his life & providing sources that back it up WB? Hillary haters like to pretend it was just early school stuff & ignore that the bulk of it was about his adult life. To top it off some of these same people were busy running around proclaiming that Obama is a muslim based on his childhood.
Honestly, if Hillary didn't know about the tactics her own campaign was using for so many different smear jobs against Obama, all that says is that she has no control over her own people. Not a good ringing endorsement for her presidential bid. I think it's more likely that she's well aware of it, but that her people are just stupid in how they're doing it.
Maybe one such isolated attack could be an abberation of a few Hillary volunteers. But there does seem to be a consistent pattern to these attacks, from Hillary's "Left-wing attack machine".
That's so much worse than, oh, say, Whitewater, or Filegate, or marching in a gay parade with men in leather thongs, while boycotting a catholic parade for not allowing gays to participate, or basing your political campaign on "triangulation" rather than firm principles...
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Sorry but what is wrong with saying Obama wanted to be President all his life & providing sources that back it up WB? Hillary haters like to pretend it was just early school stuff & ignore that the bulk of it was about his adult life. To top it off some of these same people were busy running around proclaiming that Obama is a muslim based on his childhood.
If I was unclear, I said that it was petty and desperate of Hillary Clinton's campaign (at the link I provided to Hillary's own Campaign website, where the attack on Obama's childhood remarks to his Kindergarten teacher were posted) to attack comments Obama made as a 5-year-old, and as an adolescent, as a high school student, as a college student, etc. All Obama did was express a desire to be President someday, it's not like Hillary's campaign was exposing Obama as an embezzler, insider trader, betrayer of America, or criminal of some kind.
I'm confused by your remarks criticizing attacks on Obama being muslim, since those (I recall G-man posted the evidence) attacks came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Which she disavowed knowledge and complicity in, of course.
As I said earlier:
Quote:
Obama did nothing morally or criminally wrong in voicing his ambitions at various points in his life. It's not like she's exposing Obama for, oh, say, his involvement in abusing government power to prop up a failing savings and loan to protect his Whitewater land investment. Or rifle through Vince Foster's files at the very time his body was found, and then withold those files from investigators for years. Or have a hand in pulling FBI files on Republicans to try and intimidate/blackmail these Republicans into silence in Filegate. Or march as Senator in a gay parade in San Francisco, with men wearing black leather thongs, and other gays in the parade dressed to mock Catholic priests and nuns. While Hillary simultaneously boycotted a Catholic parade in New York City because the parade would not include homosexual groups in the parade.
Yep, Hillary sure has exposed Obama's deep dark secret. It's a good thing Obama has nothing to expose that she's done wrong...
Hillary's campaign didn't make a big deal about it WB. They just pointed out Obama's contradictory statements.
If you think that's petty & desperate though then what do you think about these?...
Originally Posted By: the G-man
The Politico's Mike Allen argues that Barack Hussein Obama has a penchant to stretch the truth. He offers some examples that are reminiscent of Al "I Invented the Internet" Gore's 2000 exaggerations:
Speaking early this month at a church in Selma, Ala., Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said: "I'm in Washington. I see what's going on. I see those powers and principalities have snuck back in there, that they're writing the energy bills and the drug laws." . . .
But not only did Obama vote for the Senate's big energy bill in 2005, he also put out a press release bragging about its provisions, and his Senate Web site carries a news article about the vote headlined, "Senate energy bill contains goodies for Illinois." . . .
On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported that an extensive search found no basis for an episode Obama recounts [in his 1995 book, "Dreams From My Father"] about a picture he ran across in Life magazine of a "black man who had tried to peel off his skin" in a failed effort to use chemicals to lighten it. Obama writes that "seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush attack." The Tribune reported: "Yet no such Life issue exists, according to historians at the magazine. No such photos, no such article. When asked about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, 'It might have been an Ebony or it might have been . . . who knows what it was?' (At the request of the Tribune, archivists at Ebony searched their catalogue of past articles, none of which matched what Obama recalled.)" . . .
As another example, consider Obama's stirring tale for the Selma audience about how he had been conceived by his parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, because they had been inspired by the fervor following the "Bloody Sunday" voting rights demonstration that was commemorated March 4. "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala.," he said, "because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Ala."
Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march occurred four years later, in 1965. The New York Times reported that when the senator was asked about the discrepancy later that day, he clarified: "I meant the whole civil rights movement."
Obviously, all politicians display a tendency to stretch the truth at times. This in itself is unlikely to derail any Barack Hussein Obama electoral jihad.
However, at this point, a fair amount of the support for Senator Obama seems to come from the perception that he's more honest than the average politician. If that remains his sole, or primary, claim on the nomination stories like this could erode his support perhaps more quickly than with another candidate.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Some reports indicate that Obama was a Muslim up until 1992 and that he only changed his religion only so that he could marry:
The evidence seems to show that both Ann Dunham (Obama's mother) and her husband Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo (his stepfather) were in fact devout Muslims themselves and they raised their son as such.
To further support this, two of Obama's classmates in Indonesia at the time one who is now the CEO of Indonesia's national airline and the other a bank manager in Jakarta remember a very different Obama, a very religious one that was well versed in Islam and liked to recite his prayers.
"[Obama] was previously quite religious in Islam. His birth father, Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim economist from Kenya.'
"All the relatives ... were very devout Muslims"
"He was often in the prayer room wearing a 'sarong', at that time, he was quite religious in Islam but only after marrying Michelle, he changed his religion."
After watching them tag-team on Hillary in the New Hampshire debate last night, and express a shared vision of change for the country, I could see Obama picking Edwards as his Vice President.
It seemed to me Edwards was aligning his political vision with Obama's, and against Hillary's.
But again, we're still 11 months from election day. A lot can still happen, on both the Democratic and Republican sides.
It's amazing to me that there's no clear front runner, for either party. It could still wind up going to just about any of them.
After watching them tag-team on Hillary in the New Hampshire debate last night, and express a shared vision of change for the country, I could see Obama picking Edwards as his Vice President.
It seemed to me Edwards was aligning his political vision with Obama's, and against Hillary's.
But again, we're still 11 months from election day. A lot can still happen, on both the Democratic and Republican sides.
It's amazing to me that there's no clear front runner, for either party. It could still wind up going to just about any of them.
It's still really early in the process. Bill Clinton didn't win anything till GA I believe. I kind of wondered if Edwards had his eye on the VP again myself.
It's amazing to me that there's no clear front runner, for either party.
Actually, what amazes me is the idea that the nomination process could be over in a couple of weeks, with more than nine months to go until the election. I just don't think that's good for the process regardless of which party we're talking about.
This weekend on Bloomberg television, conservative pundit Robert Novak discussed what Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) “Achilles heel” would be if Obama prevails the in Democratic primary over the coming weeks.
Novak said Obama could be threatened by “racist prejudice” in the general election. In making this statement, however, Novak inadvertently made a racist comment of his own, arguing racist prejudice is unlikely against Obama because he is “clean” and “not a stereotype African-American”:
Quote:
Q: What is Obama’s potential Achilles heel?
NOVAK: I think the only potential Achilles heel is in a general election, if there is some racist prejudice. I’m not sure there is. He’s, as poor Joe Biden said, he’s clean. He isn’t a stereotype African-American. And I think he’s a very strong candidate.[/b]
Watch it:
Novak acknowledged borrowing language from “poor” Sen. Joe Biden’s (D-DE) insensitive remarks from last year. Recall, Biden said that Obama is a “clean” and “articulate” African-American. Biden was widely condemned for the comments.
In stereotyping African-Americans as “unclean,” Novak exemplified the type of “racist prejudice” that still exists.
If you have to stop and acknowledge it, then it shows you think it needs to be stated to distinguish Obama apart from the rest of his race. If it'll make you happier, I was also struck by Keith Olbermann quipping the day after Iowa that Obama reminded him of Tiger Woods (WTF???!!)
During his speech following his victory in Thursday’s Iowa caucus, Senator Barack Obama sounded confident, inspired and ready to take the momentum into New Hampshire. It was most refreshing to see a strong turn out from younger people in Iowa and a general enthusiasm for and from Democrats. After all we’ve endured during the Bush years, it’s a most welcome sight.
Awesome speech BTW.
..If only Hillary were that moving and inspirational.
Obama is pretty young so even if he doesn't win the Democratic nomination this time, he's got a couple more chances left. Plus it would give him a chance to show voters that he can do more than just inspire with words.
Media critic Tim Rutten weighs in on Obama's speech:
Quote:
A tale of two speeches
By TIM RUTTEN
January 9, 2008
Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney were supposed to leave New Hampshire today as the prohibitive favorites to win their parties' presidential nominations. It didn't happen that way. Romney has now lost twice, and Clinton, who ran third in Iowa, found New Hampshire a lot tougher than anyone could have anticipated. Some substantial part of the explanation for their difficulties might be called a tale of two speeches.
One was the address Barack Obama delivered, and the other was the one Romney should have given -- but didn't.
Obama's, obviously, was the stunning victory speech after Thursday's Iowa caucuses; he's been riding a wave of enthusiasm ever since. Even the sort of seasoned political analysts inclined to cynicism recognized that the junior senator from Illinois had delivered the sort of soul-stirring, landscape-altering address that deserves to be reckoned in a rhetorical lineage that includes, most recently, memorable public speeches by John and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Ronald Reagan.
(Just for the sake of historical perspective, it's worth keeping in mind that eloquence guarantees nothing on election day; William Jennings Bryan's masterful "Cross of Gold" speech will be studied as long as there are American politics. Nevertheless, American voters rejected Bryan's presidential candidacy in three elections.)
There were, in fact, two things about Obama's speech that remain as remarkable as the campaign heads toward Tsunami Tuesday on Feb. 5 as they were in the moment of delivery. The first is that it was, at bottom, a discussion of race in which race never was mentioned. The second is that both red and blue America seem to have heard the same thing -- something worth noting in this bitterly partisan era. Thus, even a reflexively Republican commentator such as Bill Bennett praised the speech for appealing "to the better angels of our nature."
Race is America's perennially unfinished business, but what Obama did in Iowa was to offer a new way of talking about it, and it is that -- more than any policy he yet has advanced -- that marked him as a candidate of change. Race remains the great American problem, but it's a problem whose contours have been dramatically reshaped in recent years. Yes, this still is a society in which young African American men both commit and are victimized by violent crimes in wildly disproportionate numbers and are imprisoned at an alarming rate. It's also a society, however, in which two successive secretaries of State have been black, as have the recent CEOs of the nation's largest communications company -- Time Warner -- and two of its biggest financial services companies, Merrill Lynch and American Express.
America is no longer a country of the dream deferred but of the dream realized in unexpected, but perplexingly uneven, ways. Obama, the 46-year-old product of both Harvard Law and community organizing in the Chicago projects, speaks in a new emotional vocabulary that recognizes both achievement and need. It's a language he has in common with younger voters, who thus far are turning out in huge numbers.
It will be fascinating to see how this message next plays in South Carolina, which has two things neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has -- a substantial African American population and very traditional politics.
Just as surely as Obama's campaign has surged since his Iowa speech, Romney's has suffered since he failed to say what needed to be said in Texas a month ago. From the start, the former Massachusetts governor has had to cope with the problem of religious bigotry. One in four Americans say they're reluctant to vote for a Mormon. That antipathy runs even higher among evangelical Protestants, who make up most of the GOP's social-conservative wing.
In December, Romney attempted to emulate -- in an attenuated fashion -- John F. Kennedy's famous 1960 appearance before a group of Protestant ministers hostile to the notion of a Catholic president. Kennedy hit the issue head on, mentioning his Catholicism 14 times, forthrightly embracing separation of church and state and promising to resist any attempt by the church hierarchy to dictate his conduct as an elected official.
Instead of addressing the issue forthrightly, as Kennedy had, Romney temporized and attempted to placate the religious right by soft-pedaling his own faith -- which he mentioned only once -- and by attacking secular humanism and proclaiming his own belief in Jesus Christ.
It wasn't simply pandering, it was oddly bloodless. How, for example, could a Mormon candidate for the Republican presidential nomination fail to mention that his party's very first national platform was built on two planks -- the abolition of slavery and the elimination of Mormonism, both of which those first Republicans deemed "barbarous?" How could he not take the opportunity to remind his handpicked Republican audience that, as recently as the 1890s, thousands of Mormon men were arrested and imprisoned by the United States Army or that the U.S. Senate refused to seat a lawfully elected member from Utah because he was a Mormon?
Rather than do those things, he attempted to ingratiate himself to that very sector of popular opinion in which anti-Mormon prejudice remains most intact. In the process, he helped legitimize fundamentalist preacher-turned-pol Mike Huckabee's naked appeals to Christian voters in Iowa. It's a pitch Romney -- and America -- are likely to hear a lot more of in South Carolina and beyond, where the evangelical vote is even stronger.
As Romney's and Obama's contrasting experiences demonstrate, silence is seldom golden in politics.
I like Obama, but I'm still voting for Mitchell Hundred.
(Did anyone read Ex Machina #33?)
Voted "Biggest Waste Of Space" On The Bat-Boards For "Multiple Reasons"
Jerry Falwell On Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer: "Those hollywood, homosexual, jewish types making a show about a reindeer who is 'different' and just cant 'hide it'. Everyone knows if he tries hard enough he can convert himself to a normal, black-nosed reindeer."
What the hell did you fools do with my avatar? I'm only asking because I'm keeping it.
Voted "Biggest Waste Of Space" On The Bat-Boards For "Multiple Reasons"
Jerry Falwell On Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer: "Those hollywood, homosexual, jewish types making a show about a reindeer who is 'different' and just cant 'hide it'. Everyone knows if he tries hard enough he can convert himself to a normal, black-nosed reindeer."
It sure appeared as if Karl Rove was back to backing the candidate he‘d love to see beaten. The former adviser to President Bush writing it up there (in a now Murdoch-owned, Murdoch “Street Journal”) in which he explains why Mrs. Clinton won in New Hampshire and otherwise, reiterates Senator Obama, saying that the Illinois Democrat‘s performance at the debate Saturday, quote,
Quote:
“His trash talking was an unattractive carry over from his the days of playing basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.”
And Karl Rove knows his mediocre. Of Senator Obama generally, Mr. Rove is saying, quote,
Quote:
“He‘s often lazy.”
Karl Rove knows his lazy. Out of Mr. Obama‘s speeches, Mr. Rove analyzing, quote,
Quote:
“His rhetoric while eloquent and moving at times, has been too often light as air.”
What is, is he scared of a Barack Obama nomination? Is he scared not to have a Hillary Clinton one? Does he just feel the need to be involved when his time is so clearly passed?
Well, Obama's campaign is clearly a repudiation of that kind of style of politics. And Obama is pretty explicit about it. More than that though, some of Obama‘s aides detected a pretty ugly undertone in Rove there. The trash talking, the basketball, the lazy thing. Is he suggesting that some sort of color aspect to Barack Obama‘s behavior that he‘s getting at? You know, it was uncomfortably close to an edge of being plain racist.
Quote:
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field.. Genesis 3:1
I wouldn't put alot of stock into what Rove is saying now. Earlier he was giving advice to Obama on how to beat Clinton. Like other GOPers, he would naturally prefer a protracted struggle between Obama & Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
I've noticed that Republicans who were attacking Obama have stopped & have been even protective of Obama. My personal feeling is he's the one they would like to go against where they can attack him on being inexperienced & all the other bs that you can find on this thread earlier. If he wins the Democratic nomination they'll start treating him like a Clinton.
With all due respect, MEM, we no more gave up our right to analyze the performance(s) of the Democrat candidates than you gave up your right to comment on the various Republicans pre-primary.
Further, while I hope you realize that Republicans have a variety of opinions on a variety of subjects (and that the following is not per se representative of any consensus), I would note that at least some conservatives are of the opinion we would much rather run against the strident, angry, ethically challenged Hildebeast Hillary than Obama:
Republicans have spent years gearing up for an epic battle against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential race, but as Barack Obama gains momentum in the Democratic nomination fight, they are scrambling to come up with a new strategy for the general election.
With Republicans bitterly divided and facing a difficult electoral environment, the prospect of another Clinton presidency had been seen as the one development that had the potential to unify the party. In a general election, her high negatives and role in the scandals of the 1990s would be major liability, and in a change election year, Clinton is the Democrat who would make the least convincing argument for change.
But in Obama the Democrats have found a fresh face without Clinton's baggage, who even opponents acknowledge is charismatic and likable. His victory in Iowa has made "change" the buzzword in both parties.
Let's be honest, whoever wins the Democratic primary is still going to go up against a GOP attack machine that isn't going to somehow be nicer to Obama if he wins the nomination. His character will come under fire & be redefined when it's strategically important for the other side to do so. You yourself G-man for example have taken a break with Obama. If you really wanted Hillary to be the Democratic pick you would be posting much differently.
Let's be honest, whoever wins the Democratic primary is still going to go up against a GOP attack machine that isn't going to somehow be nicer to Obama if he wins the nomination. His character will come under fire & be redefined when it's strategically important for the other side to do so. You yourself G-man for example have taken a break with Obama. If you really wanted Hillary to be the Democratic pick you would be posting much differently.
Sure, they're like cornered animals now.
To quote Darth Sideous "All who gain power, fight to retain power". Or something like that.
Let's be honest, whoever wins the Democratic primary is still going to go up against a GOP attack machine that isn't going to somehow be nicer to Obama if he wins the nomination.
I don't concede that engaging in a vigorous debate and examination of the issues qualifies as an "attack machine." However, you are, of course, correct that both parties will give the eventual nominee of the other party a hard time.
Quote:
His character will come under fire & be redefined when it's strategically important for the other side to do so. You yourself G-man for example have taken a break with Obama. If you really wanted Hillary to be the Democratic pick you would be posting much differently.
I hate to break it to you, but I'm not so infused with delusions of self-importance that I think my posts are going to influence the course of an election or even how you Democrats here are going to vote in your primary. I come here and give my opinions. That's all.
Same here when it comes to my opinion G-man. There is no delusion under my part that I have any influence. I think you can't help yourself not to be strategic with your posts though G-man.
I think my willingness to criticize various GOP candidates, even when they are the frontrunner(s), should dispell that.
For example, I've never been shy about reservations I have over McCain and I'm highly critical of Huckabee, even though they both have very good chances of getting the nomination and my criticisms could come back to haunt me.
I think it goes without saying G-man that we all have candidates that we favor more than others. My comment about strategy goes to your long history of going after any Democrat that you see as any type of threat. (Plame, Pelosi, Edwards, Kerry, Gore ect ect) That's not to say you don't see Obama as a threat but right now you & the GOP in general see Hillary as the one worth trying to knock out now IMHO.
BET Founder, Clinton backer “insulted” by Obama’s MLK spin
by Aaron Bruns
Billionaire Clinton backer Bob Johnson, who founded Black Entertainment Television, said he’s “a little bit insulted, if you will, by Senator Obama letting his campaign imply that Hillary Clinton does not revere what Martin Luther King did for African Americans.”
“I think that’s taking it way too far,” he said while campaigning with Clinton in South Carolina. “I think Barack understands clearly what the senator was saying.”
Johnson argued that when Clinton said it took action by President Lyndon Johnson to realize the dream of Martin Luther King, she was merely saying that moral change has to be written into law. “That is the way the legislative process works in this nation. And that takes political leadership,” he said.
Johnson said the controversy in the black community wouldn’t hurt Sen Clinton in South Carolina, and suggested it might actually hurt her chief rival. “Nobody believes either Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton would say anything that would denigrate either Barack Obama or Martin Luther King. And to me, what may happen is a backlash may occur when people see that Barack Obama is allowing his PR people to let out the notion that Hillary Clinton did not respect everything that Dr. Martin Luther King or any other person who faced the problems and the threats of being a part of the civil rights movement faced. “
“And to me, Barack knows better than that. And why he would let his people let that come out just shows to me either he’s not in control of what they’re saying, or he’s allowing them to say it knowing he’s wrong.”
You can't be the "politics of hope" & then play with divisive issues like race IMHO. FOX
My personal feeling is [Barack Hussein Obama]'s the one they would like to go against where they can attack him on being inexperienced & all the other bs that you can find on this thread earlier. If he wins the Democratic nomination they'll start treating him like a Clinton.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
...at least some conservatives are of the opinion we would much rather run against the strident, angry, ethically challenged Hildebeast Hillary than Obama
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
If you really wanted Hillary to be the Democratic pick you would be posting much differently.
You might want to clue in Bill Maher, MEM. He thinks we want to run against Hillary:
Bill Maher, on the Friday night season debut of his HBO show, suggested that because Republicans prefer to run against Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama they engineered her victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary.
Maher opened the panel discussion by observing how he found it “odd” that polls showed Obama ahead in New Hampshire, yet Clinton won, and “it does bother me that a private company runs the polling machines and that only they certainly seem to know what went on...Who profits from the Hillary victory? They don't want to run against Obama. Your party does not want to run against him. They want to run against Hillary Clinton and now they have a race with her in it."
Let us know which conspiracy theory you guys decide to run with, okay?
There was a really funny moment when Hillary Clinton was interviewed Sunday morning on Meet the Press, where Hillary was criticizing Obama's lack of experience, and played clips of Obama (recently) and Bill Clinton (debating in 1992). And after, Tim Russert said: "Obama sounds just like Bill Clinton in 1992!"
Meaning that Like Obama against Hillary, Clinton in 1992 said he was experienced enough, and had a more comprehensive vision for changing the nation.
Something I've seen on Bill Moyers Journal, McLaughlin Group and several other panel shows, is the notion among liberals that having a black guy run for president represents the most progressive stance that Bill and Hillary have always stood for, and whether it's a contradiction of their liberal progressive vision to stand in the way of a viable black candidate for president. And whether at some point, they'll ethically have to step aside.
There was a really funny moment when Hillary Clinton was interviewed Sunday morning on Meet the Press, where Hillary was criticizing Obama's lack of experience, and played clips of Obama (recently) and Bill Clinton (debating in 1992). And after, Tim Russert said: "Obama sounds just like Bill Clinton in 1992!"
Meaning that Like Obama against Hillary, Clinton in 1992 said he was experienced enough, and had a more comprehensive vision for changing the nation.
Something I've seen on Bill Moyers Journal, McLaughlin Group and several other panel shows, is the notion among liberals that having a black guy run for president represents the most progressive stance that Bill and Hillary have always stood for, and whether it's a contradiction of their liberal progressive vision to stand in the way of a viable black candidate for president. And whether at some point, they'll ethically have to step aside.
Didn't Clinton actually at least complete his govenorship? Obama is so ambitious that he can't even wait to finish his first term as a Senator.
I think it's a silly notion that anyone should feel they need to step aside to let someone else win. This is for the most important job in the world & Obama isn't going to get a free pass from the Clintons. He sure as hell isn't going to get one from the GOP either when/if it comes time.
Besides having a woman president would also be progressive. I couldn't even make a judgement as to which would be more, could you?
