|
|
|
|
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/24/2008 7:17:57 AM | ^^^ I agree, GO HILLARY! (and take Bill with you!) I am a conservative first, and a Republican second. I do not vote along party lines for the sake of the party, I vote for the sake of the position on the issues. If the Republican candidate is NOT a conservative, then I have to look at the character and integrity of the candidate and ignore party affiliation. This is the same methodolgy I used in 2000 and 2004 when selecting Bush over Gore and Kerry. Bush is by no means a conservative in the implimentation of his policies ... In this election, from my perspective, the only candidate with "Presidential" level integrity is Obama. Should the primaries end with Clinton and McCain as the choices, I have to go with McCain. Should it end with Obama and McCain, I have to go with Obama. A lot of my republican friends disagree with my perspective, but not a single conservative friend does, in fact they've all indicated they intend to vote the same way. To the DNC I have one little bit of advice, if you want a Democratic Administration for the next 4 years, pick Obama, if you want 4 more years of a non-conservative Republican Administration, pick Hillary. She has absolutely no chance of returning to the White House in this election or any future one. Common sense dictates that if her opponents inside the party won't allow her to reach a decisive 50% of the Democratic delegates, she'll finish the general election with an underwhelming final tally of probably no more than 30-35% of the electoral votes overall.
 | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/24/2008 8:22:18 AM | Just look at her comments recently at the State of the Black Union.
"If anyone was offended by anything that was said, whether it was meant or not, whether it was misinterpreted or not, then obviously I regret that," she added. "But I believe our task is to go forward with the agenda that all of us agree upon. That is what I have done my entire life, on behalf of civil rights and women's rights and human rights."
"I believe strongly that there is a shared and common purpose that we all hold very dear, regardless of who you are supporting at this time for the Democratic nominee as president," Clinton continued. "It goes way beyond Barack and me. It goes way beyond politics. And I don't think there is any doubt that I and Bill have been part of that common purpose and that struggle our entire adult lives."
Clinton offered no criticism of her rival candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, in her remarks Saturday, instead stressing the importance of Democratic unity once the party's nominee is chosen.
"I am very respectful and understanding of people voting however they choose," Clinton said during a question-and-answer session at the forum. "You know there is no entitlement here. There is no guarantee. People should make up their minds on whatever basis they think is important.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
That first line seems to make me believe Rummy is now one of her script writers.
They have this sacred trust, and lifelong commitment to civil rights and black people....in her heart - unless one actually runs against them.
Then they will try every trick in the book to make sure a black man can't win. It's total victory - at any cost. I know it's politics, but I do think there are some standards to be upheld.
1. Obama is too liberal. HuffPost's Tom Edsall reports: "Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with 'left-wing' intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination."
Dear God, not "left-wing intellectuals"! Aren't you grateful Hillary warned us in time? The last thing voters in a Democratic primary want is someone with a "liberal voting record." Apparently, Mark Penn is still advising the campaign.
2. Obama is too conservative. In a sleazy direct mail letter sent to New Hampshire voters, Clinton tried to twist Obama's record on abortion, saying he has been "unwilling to take a stand on choice."
Really? Tell that to Planned Parenthood and NARAL, both of which have given Obama 100 percent ratings for his support of abortion rights. I asked NARAL about this mailing. "We are fortunate to have such strong pro-choice candidates like Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, running for president," Elizabeth Shipp, NARAL's political director emailed me. "We are confident that any one of these candidates would protect and defend a woman's right to choose, if elected president." *
3. Obama is soft on crime. Hillary's staffers, trying to play up the "too liberal" meme, pointed out that Obama had spoken out against mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, saying: "Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges."
How dare he! Imagine a Democrat -- an African American Democrat, at that -- expressing dissatisfaction with the injustice of a system that disproportionately impacts young people of color. It's apostasy!
What makes this dunderheaded attack especially despicable is that Hillary has taken the exact same position on mandatory minimums. During this summer's debate at Morgan State University, moderated Tavis Smiley, Hillary had this to say about what needs to be done to mitigate the disproportionate number of African American serving prison time in America: "We have to go after mandatory minimums. You know, mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate, but it has been too widely used. And it is [having] now a discriminatory impact." Unbelievable. The hypocrisy is flabbergasting.
4. Obama lacks depth and specificity. You knew this one was coming. "On a lot of these issues it is hard to know where he stands, and people need to ask that," said Clinton on Friday. And on Good Morning America today, she trotted out a cobweb-covered one-liner from 1984: "As famously was said years ago, 'Where's the beef?'"
Perfect. Twenty-four years ago, Walter Mondale and the Democratic establishment used that zinger and that line of attack to go after Gary Hart. Mondale ended up being the nominee and carried just one state in the general election. Is that what Hillary thinks we should sign up for again?
5. Obama is a dreamer. That's right, Clinton is actually trying to convince voters that Obama is too positive, too optimistic, too inspirational. In a speech she called him "an untested man who offers false hope," and in Saturday's debate she said, "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."
Oh, yeah, that's the last thing we need, someone who actually seeks to inspire Americans to allow their reach to exceed their grasp. That's the problem with leaders like Lincoln, Kennedy, and Martin Luther King -- they just weren't realistic enough. King shouldn't have said, "I have a dream!," he should have said, "I have a realistic view of what we should settle for! We probably won't be able to pass the Civil Rights Act, but we might be able to pass a bill condemning segregated water fountains. You probably won't be able to sit at the front of the bus, but I might be able to get you to the middle."
This is who Hillary Clinton is, through and through. "I have always tried to strike a balance," she said in 2004. "I think you have to view the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be." That's a long, dispiriting way from Bobby Kennedy's "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"
6. Obama is too big a risk for America. That's right, Clinton is again taking a page from the Bush fearmongering playbook -- insinuating very bad things could happen if we don't elect her. "Look what happened in Great Britain," she said. "Tony Blair leaves, Gordon Brown comes in, the very next day, there are terrorist attacks... So you've got to be prepared on Day One with everything ready to go." It's a sequel to her husband's Roll the Dice -- which, in itself, was a sequel to the entire Bush/Cheney reelection campaign.
So the New Hampshire race is now officially too close to call, Hillary's hypocrisy running neck and neck with her cynicism. Be very afraid, indeed.
p://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/portrait-in-cynicism-hil_b_80289.html
And suffering all the slings and arrows of outrageous attacks by the extreme right and Karl Rove, they then turn around and pull some of the same moves against Obama.
When it backfires on her, and costs her votes, she's contrite about the "misunderstanding".
People should make up their minds on whatever basis they think is important.
It looks like they already have, Hillary.  | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/24/2008 10:09:34 AM | Yes, go Hillary. Far, far, far FAR away.
Did anyone catch her meltdown last night over Obama's healthcare pamphlets? Priceless. I watched it about ten times on Youtube. I couldn't believe she's gotten to the level of ranting and raving.
"ENOUGH WITH THE SPEECHES AND YOUR BIG RALLIES!" she screamed, literally screamed, shaking. I think her meltdown is likely going to cost her and cost her big. You just can't act like that in a campaign. You can't. ESPECIALLY not with an opponent like Obama.
Where are all the non white older female Hillary supporters, people? The only people speaking up for her here are the people that the polls indicate are "supposed to"--but polls don't count for squat, right? So why do all the Hillary supporters I'm seeing fall very neatly into the correct demographics? | |
|
| Dinosaurs vs Neophyte Posted: 2/24/2008 10:24:55 AM | Just for a moment I thought, if we add up the years of policy experiences for the top five policy makers in the current US government. It definitely goes far beyond 100 years , under the leadership of a President with an MBA etc. we have the biggest budget deficit in history, US foreign policy is warped and distorted as ever. Foreign relations, and multilaterism has taken a nose dive and the economy!!!!.. guess we all know. Makes me cynical and doubt the relevance of experience really. Frankly.. I'd go for a neophyte with sound judgement to; -select and work with a team to address key issues and restore the nations credibility to the American people and the world - unite the nation around essential concerns, like immigration, health care etc. - strengthen our foreign relations etc. The Dinosaurs in Politics and Military Uniform, can continue to give advise, that's were they belong. There must be a chance for young fresh brains to lead and they can do so effectively. | |
|
| Dinosaurs vs Neophyte Posted: 2/25/2008 5:07:09 PM | In his column Sunday, Frank Rich said something about her campaign motto should be, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here". Priceless.
 | |
|
| Dinosaurs vs Neophyte Posted: 2/25/2008 6:47:24 PM | To lead a country effectively, shouldn't you be able to lead a campaign effectively?
Is this what we could expect Hillary? 4 years of experienced bungling ineptitude as our better alternative to an inexperienced well-0iled machine? | |
|
| Dinosaurs vs Neophyte Posted: 2/25/2008 7:02:56 PM | I don't understand how she has a lead in Ohio so I'd like to ask the Ohio people here if they know why. If I started a new thread I'm sure it would be deleted.
 | |
|
| Dinosaurs vs Neophyte Posted: 2/26/2008 8:42:00 PM | LOL this was Hillarious (get it? )
Hillary:
"Well, could I just point out that, in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. You know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw 'Saturday Night Live,' you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow."
I got some news for ya, Hillary... if by some miracle you do get to be President, you're ALWAYS going to be getting the first question... and the media is ALWAYS going to have the last word. Get use to it.
I was hoping Barak would ask for another pillow at some point after that...  | |
|
timj82
| Joined: 11/16/2007 Msg: 59 | |
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/26/2008 9:10:24 PM | I can see Hillary Clinton running as a third party candidate if she loses the Democratic nomination and giving the election to the Republicans and then she can come back in 4 years and try again as a liberal running on the theme of fixing the problems the Republicans created.
One wonders if she'll divorce Bill if she loses the primary. | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/27/2008 5:43:07 AM | This quote from Hillary says it all....and it's the truth....
“Now I could stand up here and say, let’s get everybody together, let’s get unified, everyone! The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing,” she said, to a smattering of giggles. “And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect.” She added: “But I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and make the special interests disappear.”
Oh well. Never mind. Let's all just go back to singing "Kumbaya" and holding hands in unity. There'll be peace on earth, all over, and good will to men. La la la. Now this is something we can all feel really safe with and peaceful over. Our country's going to be in great hands with Obama's brilliant (uh huh, right) maneuvers and absolutely didly in the way of a plan to get there. NOT. | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/27/2008 5:59:17 AM | If Senator Clinton's campaign is depending on wins in Texas and Ohio this late in the game...then her campaign is finished. The Democratic Party can see what everybody else can....she can no longer win the election. And so...I think if she wins in either state..or both.....those wins will be her "swan song" from the campaign.
southernlass...We ALL know that you don't like Obama. You made that obvious w/ your frequent posts. I can suspect why...but that's another story. Can you try to stay on topic,please? | |
|
mj999
| Joined: 10/28/2007 Msg: 62 | |
| Dinosaurs vs Neophyte Posted: 2/27/2008 7:11:38 AM | itechman42: how right you are!
The Clinton campaign mistakenly thought Hillary would be the easy and inevitable winner and thus had NO plan B. Obama on the other hand, has run his campaign on an unwavering message and accordingly has required NO plan B.
Young and inexperienced Obama has shown enough EXPERIENCE to have run a highly effective campaign against an opponent, who consistently loves to reiterate that she has 35+ years of political experience, yet despite all this experience, a famous surname (a huge advantage over the previously little known Obama name), and an ex-president husband, it has been Obama who has been sweeping primary after primary and running the most effective campaign.
Clinton's message simply hasn't resonated and her mockery of Obama will in the end only help Obama. Instead of accepting blame for her failed campaign, all she can do is blame the media and say that she is misunderstood...if after 35 years in the political arena she has been unable to expres herself and make herself understood, how on earth can she possibly think she is presidential material???. Seems to me that it was her job to have her audience understand her, not the job for the media. | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/27/2008 7:19:09 AM | I'm personally ignoring the Hillary supporters at this point. It's kind of sad, really. I actually felt bad during last night's debate, watching her fall apart on stage. I think something that is not thought about enough is why most of her supporters are women. Why is that? And why is it mostly older and middle-aged white women, at that? Why have the female youth gone for Obama? Why are her supporters less educated? Why are his supporters several times more likely to have higher degrees? What makes people respond to either candidate?
southernlass, people can giggle at Clinton's last-ditch attempts at humor, but it isn't funny. Her career's destroyed and she's hurting the party and she knows it. There's little funny about this situation. The only thing left to see is when she concedes and if she'll do it with grace and panache. Her campaign is now serving as nothing but slander-ideas for the McCain campaign and as a divisive force within the party. She KNOWS the convention can't be brokered, KNOWS that the Dems will likely lose if it is, and KNOWS that her presence is distracting and detracting from the main issues at hand. She's not a stupid woman. She's not a particularly kind and caring woman, but the lady's not a moron. She knows she won't win this thing, knows she'll have to lie, cheat and steal her way into the nomination, and even then, she won't beat McCain. But she has too much pride to back down, has staked too much on this one election to concede.
She's left with few options, none of which are palatable. She can concede poorly and not endorse Obama (which would be the final nail in her political coffin). She can concede well and endorse Obama (which would leave people with a positive impression of her and not totally kill her career). She can stay in the race until the bloody end and cause a brokered convention (which wouldn't result in her winning and which WOULD make her look like a poor sport, which WOULD piss the party off because it would be ruining the election, and which wouldn't just be a nail in her political coffin, but would be taking a chainsaw to it, Jason Voorhees style).
At any rate, what happened here wasn't the Clintons' fault at all. You can't predict something like Barack Obama. A generation came back to life and people started to care again. Yes, there will always be resistance from older folks when change happens, but ultimately, it'll happen regardless. He's bringing in a new era of politics, a new way of getting things done. The disillusioned "kids" who came to the party because of Barack Obama are going to stay. They're the ones who are the future of this party, just as the McGovernites of yesterday became today's party leaders.
All the pundits try to figure out the elusive "under 25" voting bloc. Every candidate wants them, regardless of how they're mocked by everyone sans Obama (because he's the one who HAS them). The youth vote is possibly the most important. They've got the numbers, but most importantly, they have the time and energy to devote to a candidate that many older folks don't have. They stay up all night writing slogans, not because they're paid to, but because they want to. They don't have much money, but they give what they have. They talk to their friends, make social outings out of rallies and speeches. They stand in snowstorms to catch a glimpse of "their guy" and they are loud, proud, and still unaware of "political moderation".
The candidates who have scored the youth vote are almost always liberal, obviously, but there's more to it than that. As a 23 year old, I can tell you what I feel. When Obama says during a rally, "Help us with donations if you can, just five dollars is enough." I feel like he's talking to me. The thought of giving five bucks to a candidate is laughable, but when you're a young person with little money, sometimes, that five bucks is all you can spare--and Obama makes it sound hugely important, which makes us feel like we've done something wonderful. He tells us that we matter. I saw on the news a clip of him at a rally. Bill O'Reilly was trying to talk to him and he was turned away, shaking the hands and speaking to common voters. I see the picture of him with the crumpled box of Dunkin Donuts for his union supporters, and I hear the horrid stories of Hillary spending thousands of dollars on parties and lavish food, and I think to myself, one of these people is honest and one is a machine. Perhaps when I am old, I will be deceived into voting for a machine, but I really hope not. I suppose, though, that the kids from 1972 felt the same way I do now, and many of them are probably happily voting for Hillary or McCain today.
Hillary will lose Texas but win Ohio, says the prediction. It's not enough. None of it is. She'll either concede right after March 4 or stick it out 'til Pennsylvania. But come on. We should all get together for the good of the future of this country. It's not about being upset that your favorite candidate didn't pass muster. It's about what's best for all of us as a nation. It's about bridging ideological gaps between us, standing together, achieving greatness in our lives regardless of race, gender or creed. McCain is not a bad guy. Hillary is not a bad person. Obama says kind things about them, points out that they have done wonderful things in their careers. But they are not the candidates to fix this wreckage--McCain is from the same ilk of the people who caused many of the problems, and Hillary is unlikeable and divisive. Politically, Hillary's okay and McCain's not as bad as he could be, but there's more to it than that, and that's that neither of them have the ability to begin healing and mending this sad and broken country.
I encourage everyone to come together. I think this country is tired of hating each other. We hate the poor and we hate the rich. We hate the black and the white, the young and the old, the male and the female, the Christian and the Jew, the conservative and the liberal. I say, enough. Enough of all of it. We've got to find a way to come together and compromise. This is a good country. It has always been a good country. Now we've got the chance to make it a great country, and we need every single person in order to do that. | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/27/2008 7:36:35 AM | So, is anybody here from Ohio and could they explain why she would be leading in a state where so many jobs have gone overseas. I don't get it. Unless there's an unusually high number of old white gals living there.
 | |
|
| Senator Clinton, Barack sunk your Battleship! Posted: 2/27/2008 7:40:08 AM | I've been on these forums for a long time, and I have strongly defended Hillary in the past in her NY senate runs and the looming possibility that she may run in the future for President in 08'
I even compared ANY Republican taking her on (especially after what Bush has done to the party) as a rubber dingy attempting to take on a Battleship. However, since I have made those comments years ago Barack Obama has crept up on the scene quietly and deadly like a submarine, effectively torpedoing any chances Hillary has of winning the nomination.
Her only chance at this point is to win decisively on March 4th and that way try to convince the Super Delegates to push her over the top. At this point even that looks like an up hill (no pun intended) battle considering she was ahead before the Texas debates in the polls by 2 points, and is now behind by 4 after the debates finished.
Her newly applied Nasty tone is in my opinion formed once she realized that someone who wasn’t even on her radar has come from behind and passed her supposed inevitability. And the Nastier she gets the more she looses. At this point her only hope is to be VP in an Obama administration but she’s even blowing that opportunity.
It’s Unfortunate because I like her, but the old Battleship is sinking by the stern with the bow in the air, blowing hot air out the port holes as she goes under. (Like a WWII video on the History Channel)
Barack "The Submarine" Obama in 08' Get used to it people, cause its gonna happen!
:peace:
**EDIT** littleaudrey, I caught your post after I made mine and had to edit this to commend you on a well written contribution!! Amen Amen! :yay: | |
|
| Dinosaurs vs Neophyte Posted: 2/27/2008 11:13:39 AM | Hillary definitely isn't as "Teflon" as her husband was. I believe she made two major miscalculations in her campaign. The first being that she and Bill were still popular among the people as they were in the early years of their administration. The fact was that the U.S. was distancing themselves from them at the end where even in a time of prosperity enough Independent voters moved toward the Republican or Nader tickets to make that a close race coming down to the final fiasco in Florida. (IMHO the election was not lost for Gore in Florida but rather lost when he couldn't carry his home state of Tennessee).
The reasons for that first miscalculation is evidenced in her second... that the arrogant tactics of the Clinton Spin Factory of the 90s no longer played the way it once did. Back then it was "change" from the status quo that the people thought they saw, today it is defined AS the status quo. Bill and Hillary were the fresh new faces on the block, now they're the old people in the neighborhood screaming at the kids to stay off their lawn.
Obama arrived saying he wanted to bring people together. He has effectively garnered support from Independents, Moderates, and even some Conservatives in spite of his Liberal stances. A pretty good indication of his ability to possibly bring some semblance of unity to the table. In this time where the people want to see government trying to work together, Clinton has divided her own party let alone possibly drawing a thicker border between the parties in Congress. | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/27/2008 2:34:44 PM | I'm inclined to a more benign explanation of why they call Senator Clinton Hillary. There already is a well known politician who goes by the name of Clinton. Bill Clinton, our former President. It would be confusing to refer to her simply as Clinton, in the manner that we refer to the others as Obama and McCain.
For the moment, forget whether or not you support her or someone else. It's this simple. OK? | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/27/2008 3:26:30 PM | With Hillary I'm reminded of a story I once read about the wives of some American military personnel who were gathered together by the commander when they transferred to his military base.
He welcomed them, and introduced himself. He then asked them to sort themselves by rank, as they sat down in their chairs.
Once everyone was seated, he stood in front and reminded them of one very important thing about military life there.
Rank only applied to the person holding it, not to their spouse.
Hillary's lived a political life, essentially in the shadows. She's seen what goes on, but until recently she was never voted into a position of power by the people. Her exposure to politics has been due to her marriage, and not anything else. That's certainly given her an insider's view, and some involvement, but it's certainly not "experience" in the real sense of the word.
Leadership is something one either has or does not have as a quality, although it can be improved upon.
If she truly believed that this was a time for change and a time for unity of all Americans, she would have started her path with the first step of declaring that her campaign would be based on avoiding the problems that she and her husband had faced together in modern politics.
She could have committed herself to running a clean campaign, and refusing to take part in attack type politics. She could have stressed that the Democratic party, at this time, needed to present a united front - much like America has to be brought together today.
Now had she done that properly, she would have potentially lined herself up for a major role in American political life for years. She would have set the tone, and then fought a good fight.
A win with a party brought together would perhaps have gotten her elected as President.
A loss against a stronger candidate (coming out of the blue) would have still kept her as perhaps VP , or better yet House Majority Leader (a far stronger position to wield power) . In fact, for someone with her skills (and history of being used as a political pariah by the extreme right) the latter would have probably been the place where she could have assumed a far greater control to implement the things that need to be done.
She failed to see any of that potential, or any possibility that she would not be a shoe in for the nomination at all. I really do think that she thought that Bill's popularity would simply carry over to her like taking his coat and putting it on.
The sad part is that I think she's a bright woman, and one certainly (in the right position) capable of being a strong political asset to the country.
In the end, she forgot that she wasn't Bill Clinton - and was just married to him.
Thanks to her hubris, she just blew the best chance she'll ever get to assume the responsibility of doing what she's spent her entire life working towards , and exposed the real reasons why she lacks the most essential qualities of a true leader in the process.
Every political Goliath should realize that they are a stone's throw away from losing it all - against the right David.
I assume her head will wind up in Washington, and her armor in Obama's tent.  | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/27/2008 3:36:40 PM | Good post MG. I stand corrected... great post MG.
I also until very recently considered her to be someone capable to serve in the Oval Office. In light of the past few weeks, I am far less convinced at that. She's unraveling and not in the face of crisis domestically nor abroad. I can't see her ready to lead at Day 1 when she's crashing and burning at leading long before said Day 1. | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/27/2008 3:45:11 PM | I really don't understand all this BS about Hillary's "experience". She has more experience than Obama at being First Lady, but the exact same as being President. She has more experience as a US Senator, but less experience as a Legislator. Granted there are certain protocal items required by her status of First Lady that would be of benefit to her if elected President, but to classify that "experience" as a qualification for the job is highly misleading, and I can't for the life of me figure out why no one in the media has called her on it... He ran for public office based on HIS name, she ran based on her husbands. If you'll recall, when Bill was running for the Presidency, she officially dropped Rodham from her name. After he was elected, she took it back. When she ran for the Senate, she removed it, then took it back after elected. Now she's dropped it again, for the time being anyway....
 | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/27/2008 7:23:05 PM |
I encourage everyone to come together. I think this country is tired of hating each other. We hate the poor and we hate the rich. We hate the black and the white, the young and the old, the male and the female, the Christian and the Jew, the conservative and the liberal. I say, enough. Enough of all of it. We've got to find a way to come together and compromise. This is a good country. It has always been a good country. Now we've got the chance to make it a great country, and we need every single person in order to do that.
Amen. Great post. | |
|
timj82
| Joined: 11/16/2007 Msg: 72 | |
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/27/2008 8:24:03 PM | | would Hillary accept being vice president under Barak Obama? Ha. She'd spend all her time conniving how to bump off Barak so she could take the reins of power. | |
|
mj999
| Joined: 10/28/2007 Msg: 73 | |
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/28/2008 6:58:39 AM | | No, I don't believe she would accept the #2 spot as she's played second fiddle for too long. I also don't believe Obama would ever make her such offer as three (Bill) would be a definite crowd. | |
|
| Senator Clinton Posted: 2/28/2008 11:27:45 AM | Puh-Leeze! HRC can't even campaign or engage in debate with dignity, grace and honesty. I shudder to think of how she would behave if her name plate was actually ON the desk in the Oval Office this time around. I would have more respect for her had she kicked Bill's cheatin, lyin a** to the curb. Not that I'm concerned about other peoples' sex lives... more power to them... but he couldn't have disrespected his spouse more if he had pissed on her while forcing her to kneel naked in the WH Rose Garden. Some people say we can rest assured she had the class to not air dirty laundry in public but gave him h*** in private. BULLSH**! Show me a feminist who would allow herself to be perceived as putting up with that kind of behavior from her husband and I'll show you a lesbian in a power marriage. Compare the legislation she and BO have sponsored/written. Hmmm... Do I want a POTUS who champions and signs bills to make X date official so-n-such day vs. one who cares about legislation with substance? The most recent Kumbuya moment came to you courtesy of HRC and was as fake as her tough veneer. She wouldn't last 10 minutes in the world of the average American, and wouldn't know or understand the issues concerning struggling Americans if they bit her on her big ol' belligerent butt. Consider how she attacked BO the following morning for something she surely knew about long before then and which was a bunch of crap anyway. She has touted NAFTA as a jewel in the crown of her husband's accomplishments in office for which she demands to be credited. She and BO both have acknowledged NAFTA is necessary but woefully in need of "change." It is unproductive to argue over who dislikes it more in its present state. I know or have met several women who insists I should feel guilty for not supporting HRC while intimating she has done so much for women. Uhm... she didn't secure any of my rights for me. I haven't witnessed her doing anything for women, especially lower income women... unless they count her husband's administration limiting welfare benefits to less years that it takes to earn a bachelor degree while not balancing it with legislation for the collection of child support arrearages. Or maybe they mean forcing those living in poverty to purchase medical insurance instead of groceries. And if she doesn't want to be challenged on words like "mandatory" then perhaps she should learn what it means... or maybe she wants to debate what the definition of is is... again. Have mercy! And so many of us thought GWB was the American with the poorest command of grammar and vocabulary.  | |
|
|
|