|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 4:18:38 PM | My reply to SimmahDahnNah;
Actually, and here is a real shocker, Bush didn't dodge his own service. He served 6 years in the Air Force Reserve in Texas. I've seen the official documents from the DOD (Dept. of Defense) on a website that clearly shows President Bush's military records for all the public to see. Just because he didn't go to Vietnam doesn't mean anything, he served in the Air National Guard and frankly that is just as fine as going to war in my book. As long as you do something for your country by serving in the Armed Forces I don't care what it is. You can be a cook in the Navy for all it matters, it's the service that counts.
Unfortunately the news and media and political mongers all make lies about the facts that are readily available for us to see! I do think Bush has more love for his country than Hillary does on any green God blessed day here.
Obama's wife didn't feel proud of this country until her husband started to win against Hillary. Obama doesn't respect our flag, the people who have fought under that flag, (including me) and he doesn't have the right teachings to appreciate our country and our military or our rich background. However young the U.S. maybe compared to other nations we sure have been able to do things that no one else could ever do. If the U.S.A. fell tomorrow for some reason the whole world would stop and not be able to provide for itself. We are the lifeline of this world, believe it or not. Without Bush we would have been attacked more than once after and before 9/11. I wouldn't put my trust in Hillary or Obama to defend our nation against a terrorist attack. Instead they'd be trying to sit down and have cookies and tea with them to see if we can all get along like good little kids do.
P.S. Thanks for the thank you, I appreciate it. I've been out for over 2 years now. I was honorably discharged in May of 2006. Thank the Lord for that too, lol.
SimmahDahnNah stated this to me:
Everyone will find someone to blame here but you have to understand more than just stupid politics to be a president. You gotta have a true love for your people, for your nation, for your military that you'd be commander of. If you can't then we'll be lead into a dark hole and we'll have a harder time getting out next time. Why do you think Bush has spent so much time, effort and money into the military? Bill Clinton f-----d us up, that's why. Enuf said.
I just wonder, asking respectfully as I see you are in the military (and thank you for your service by the way), how you think George Bush loves his country more and is more appropriate to be a commander in chief than most anyone else? He dodged his own service. I think all three of these candidates do love this country and the people in it, and the military, and I think they are all well intentioned and feel they could do a good job for us. Otherwise, I'd have to say they were crazy to do what they're doing. The job ages you, it's constant stress and pressure. Anyway. That's beside the point. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 4:24:49 PM | Easyonverything?
Your trying to condemn Obama based on unsubstantiated reporting, which has been denied by both the Obama campaign and by the Canadian embassy. It isn't even clear what was supposedly said and in what context. Give me a break. This one was worse than the NYT's piece against McCain in terms of prooving wrongdoing. What about Mr Penn, who is chief executive of Burson-Marsteller and his meetings with Carolina Barco, Colombia’s US Ambassador, and his admitted attempt to help to get a US Colombia free-trade agreement through Congress. It was a deal that Mrs Clinton said she opposed. That sounds like the pot really trying way to hard to call the kettle black. Obama cannot and will not be beaten on the issues...which is why these side issues are so important to the Clinton and McCain camp. Obama is running against 2 if not 3 candidates. Clinton, McCain and Nader at times. Her in the red unprepared campaign is a huge sign on how she would make the same excuses for a Presidency that we can't afford to have any excuses for. If your a democrat that will vote for Republican after all we've been through over these last eight years then you deserve what you get and you should probally call yourselves dixiecrats....or better yet like my mechanic says,"dumbocrats"...lol | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 4:47:02 PM | I'd rather have a gentleman who never served than the AWOL coward currently in the White House. Bushboy went AWOL! It turns my stomach that any military person would support it after it shirked its duties while in the Guard. (I refer to Bush as "it" rather than "he" because it doesn't behave like any decent human being would).
McCain served, and I respect his record of service. However, he is not emotionally fit to be president. He is too unstable emotionally, and seems more likely to make a rash decision that could have disastrous consequences. Hillary is losing because she is also overly emotional, and has done some very rash things. Obama, even though he never served, will likely be a good commander-in-chief. I spoke with a World War II veteran today, and he said that Obama is the only one who makes any sense! | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 4:49:58 PM | Fridayboo,
“Your trying to condemn Obama based on unsubstantiated reporting, which has been denied by both the Obama campaign and by the Canadian embassy. It isn't even clear what was supposedly said and in what context. Give me a break.”
I am? Wow, I guess I shouldn’t cite credible sources like the NY Times then, huh?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
according to the story, there was plenty of denial, right up until the memo surfaced, and then a beleaguered Obama campaign tried to say the talks weren’t of anything important, and that it was that nasty Clinton biotch who stirred it all up anyhow.
“Her in the red unprepared campaign is a huge sign on how she would make the same excuses for a Presidency that we can't afford to have any excuses for”
Her campaign hasn’t raised as much money as Obama (give him his due here, his campaign strategists really got the whole internet/youth thing figured out way early) but everything I’ve read suggests she’s raised way more money than previous democratic presidential candidates. Good thing too, since he’s outspending her 4 to 1 most times.
And yet, she somehow manages to hold her own at the actual primary. I think she’s behind by less than 200 votes, isn’t that pretty near the closest primary race ever and by a wide margin? From what I’ve read previous primary hopefuls have been behind by 600 votes or more, and still insisted on taking it to the convention floor. I guess cuz ‘anything can happen’ – OOOPS! Hey, that must mean I’m part of a dark conspiracy to have Obama assassinated before June! Yikes! You’ve found me out!
“If your a democrat that will vote for Republican after all we've been through over these last eight years then you deserve what you get and you should probally call yourselves dixiecrats....or better yet like my mechanic says,"dumbocrats"...lol”
Haha, that’s pretty funny – dumbocrats! Good one! | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 4:53:29 PM | Is it that time of the month ? I actually like the pastor and the book tells you how Audacity of Hope came about .Whats the matter with him and you today?
Actually, I have the luxury of not having "that time of the month" anymore, if it matters. What throws me completely on the rag is how in both of those references, you can clearly see how they are not in context and serve to frighten the new people. lol I'm sorry, but this is too important to me to be frightening the newbies. And I already told you, I feel like the forum police today, and am saying bright little prayers here.
Amen.
I am? Wow, I guess I shouldn’t cite credible sources like the NY Times then, huh? Just wondering if you knew the NYT endorsed Clinton. I'm just saying...I use them a lot too....but be prepared to defend that.
Still saying prayers. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 4:54:37 PM |
Bikeman, I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and always pay attention to your posts. It would be nice to see the same in return and not to continually see from you and others that we are brainwashed Obamaholics, Obamaniacs, drank the kool aid, hypnotized, mesmerized, or otherwise deluded. Thank you.  I was trying to be a little funny. It's hard to find funny stuff in a Hillary thread!  At least stuff not funny about Hillary! Could she possibly cake on anymore makeup???
There's a difference between somebody who looks intelligently at a candidate's characteristics and then selects the one who is perceived would do the best job in the Oval Office. And then there's someone who can't recognize faults and weaknesses in their chosen candidate. If you are a mindless Obama supporter, he could come out with something outlandish but you'll still think he's the best thing sinced Sliced Bread; that's brainwashed. I still think the election will be won in the middle, not the extreme, mostly because of Rove's polarized strategies in 2000 and 2004 will still play in 2008 (unfortunately). | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 4:59:21 PM | ^^ I agree, but I am saying the total opposite here...I think people who reject Obama for the things that are just part of smear tactics emailed in the hopes that the lemmings will jump off a cliff are deluded in a way too.
And I think you're right about Rove. If he's not in jail, I think he'll be having his chubby hand in the whole process and it turns my stomach. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 5:08:28 PM |
Actually, I have the luxury of not having "that time of the month" anymore, if it matters. What throws me completely on the rag is how in both of those references, you can clearly see how they are not in context and serve to frighten the new people. lol I'm sorry, but this is too important to me to be frightening the newbies. And I already told you, I feel like the forum police today, and am saying bright little prayers here.
Hang on there....this is my opinion that he has speech writers.This is plain English .
His book was written by him and its very ordinary language.No great shakes as people indicate he is a great speaker .The language of Dreams of my Father is very ordinary like a social workers report.And in that same book he indicates where he got the idea from for AUDACITY OF HOPE. Pastor Wright -Its all in context.
What scares you about that? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 5:11:20 PM | Not one thing scares me about that. Thanks for clarifying. Your prior post said "Wright had a hand in Audacity of Hope". Makes a big difference I think. But I could just be needing a Pamprin.
| |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 5:24:52 PM | | Yes I knew the NYT endorsed Clinton. But you wouldn't know that from some of the op-ed pieces that have surfaced there lately. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 5:36:15 PM |
Bush didn't dodge his own service. He served 6 years in the Air Force Reserve in Texas. I've seen the official documents from the DOD (Dept. of Defense) on a website that clearly shows President Bush's military records for all the public to see. Just because he didn't go to Vietnam doesn't mean anything, he served in the Air National Guard and frankly that is just as fine as going to war in my book. DrivingGuy, nothing disrespectful here with my comments; thanks for your service, glad you're back home.
The NG situation in the Vietnam era is different than that today. In 1970, rich kids joined the National Guard to best avoid service in Vietnam via a draft. Today there is no draft. And strangely it's the Guard troops who are sent to Iraq moreso than military regulars. To me that's a sign of a Commander in Chief who poorly planned this Iraqi campaign. And ironically, if GWB were in the National Guard today, he'd be in Iraq (if he weren't AWOL at a coke party).
That irony underscores and punctuates the gross incompetence of the current Commander in Chief.
I do think Bush has more love for his country than Hillary does on any green God blessed day here. I really don't sense any less "country love" from any of these three main candidates. Bush's love might be equal but it's not a stretch to say it is misguided. Is that "love of country" responsible for his misinterpretation of the WMD intelligence data? Or was it his incompetence? Or worse yet, is it something else?? What is responsible for this quagmire?
Obama's wife didn't feel proud of this country until her husband started to win against Hillary. Obama doesn't respect our flag, the people who have fought under that flag, (including me) and he doesn't have the right teachings to appreciate our country and our military or our rich background. Michelle Obama no doubt is a loose cannon. She's not running for president, however. I sense no disrespect from Obama as it relates to flag admiration. Nor do I understand what he was "taught" that doesn't allow him to appreciate the country's history, background and military. He's actually rather highly educated.
Why do you think Bush has spent so much time, effort and money into the military? Imagine what could have been done with the money and manpower (and womanpower) invested in National Guard units going to a country to fight a terrorism war that did not exist before their arrival there in March 2003. I see a squandered opportunity to hunt down Bin Laden in Afghanistan/Pakistan. I see a wasted chance to work better on spy infiltration, better special units. If GWB thought President Clinton decimated the number of military regulars, perhaps he should have initiated policies to build back up those numbers BEFORE invading another sovereign area. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 6:09:27 PM | Designingwoman,
You are wrong, Bush didn't go AWOL. Like I stated before, the documents and files from the DOD are made readily available for the public online. You just have to choose between whether or not you wish to keep believing the lies the liberal media spews out or choose to listen and research these documents for yourself so that you'll see the truth. I'm not going to argue with you or anyone else on this forum about who served where or when. This is getting off topic but Hillary and Obama (if one were to be elected) would run this country so far up our own butts that we'll never be safe again or be economically strong in the future. McCain is more of a leader than either one of those trolls attempting to get into the most powerful seat of the any world leader. I would consider seriously leaving the states if either one were elected but McCain makes more sense than the other 2 combined any day of the week. Economics were worse when Bill was in office. Or does everyone forget that? Bush hasn't been perfect but dang, he has made more progress for us (and mistakes like any good President does) than Bill, Hillary or Obama could do together as a trio team.
For you to say that McCain isn't emotionally stable sounds like you know him personally. I think not, you don't and neither do any of us on this forum. McCain went through hell many many years ago but I think you're listening too much to your fellow liberals on the t.v. and on the radio and talk shows. When will Americans learn not to believe 90% of the news and media?? Well it doesn't matter..... I'd rather know that we got a President who'll attack the enemy rather than sit down and eat cookies and drink tea with our enemies to discuss diplomatic ways of resolutions. That'll never get us anywhere! It sounds as if you get (as well as the majority of people on here and elsewhere) your info from other people rather than learn on your own for what is right and what is truly wrong. Facts can't be destroyed and while people think they know it all about Bush they don't.
Bikeman;
The war on terror existed before Bush came into office. I have watched several documentaries as well as news stories on CNN and Fox that talk about the war on terror that existed before Bush came into play. Osama Bin Laden bombed several places of importance to the United States back in the 1990's or did we forget that part? Also, Islamic terrorist's have been kicking it way before now. They were very strong (Al-Queda) back in the 1980's leading into the 1990's. Back in the 70's when Russia was beaten back by the Muslims in Afghanistan (with our own weapons that we supplied) our future troubles were in the making there. We sort of just left that place and didn't mind too much attention for awhile. In the 90's things started to really pick up and with Osama's quest to destroy America, he had a hand in bombing an American embassy. | |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 6:25:07 PM |
Bikeman, I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and always pay attention to your posts.
Amen. Bike is one of the several that make me think about things from different perspectives and it's a great thing for me personally to get these opportunities to do so.
There are huge percentages of supporters of all three candidates that don't even know why or believe things that aren't there while ignoring things that are. For as close as the Democratic nomination has been, I would say there is an equal number of "Hillarybots" as there are "Obamamaniacs". Why anyone believes that continuing the past 8 years of failed policies and pissing on the Constitution would be good for anyone escapes me totally... and I like McCain.
But with Simmah as an example for Obama and Bike as an example for the Hillary side without intention of excluding anybody, there are those for Obama and Hillary alike that have delved into the qualities of each deciding rationally why each appeals to them. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 6:29:19 PM |
according to the story, there was plenty of denial, right up until the memo surfaced, and then a beleaguered Obama campaign tried to say the talks weren’t of anything important, and that it was that nasty Clinton biotch who stirred it all up anyhow.
I'd suggest reading some Canadian reporting on that NAFTA " story".
And please take note in the report McCain & Hillary using the EXACT same words to attack Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxZP24dX_nY
This story is not true. In fact the opposite is what is true. And there have been reports to this effect since March 5th, as best as I've been able to track the reporting.
But just in case you haven't seen the proof that it was the Clinton campaign - NOT the Obama campaign - that said "Don't worry about what we're saying in Ohio" to the Canadian government, while it was the Canadian government that mis-stated the comments made by the Obama representative (which the Canadian government has now publicly admitted it did), you can watch Keith Olberman on this issue below.
So, my questions for ABC News and George Stephanopoulos is...
Where are your reporters getting their information? Last weekend's newspapers?
And -- if you have heard that it was the Clinton (not Obama) campaign that was lying to the voters of Ohio -- then why aren't you reported that story?
As recently as today, Hillary Clinton is still referring to Obama having told the people of Ohio one thing while he told the Canadians something else. I am waiting for some major news organization to stop her from scoring political points with a still uninformed voting public.
For those wanting original reporting from Canada, here is the CBC report on the Obama side of the story, which proves that the Canadian government mis-stated what his adviser told them. It's about 4:30 long... a tribute to how thorough the reporting can be on the CBC's news show.
And here is the CBC news report on the Clinton side of the story, which proves that it was the Clinton campaign that said "Don't worry" to the Canadian government. And who in the Canadian government said they had heard from the Clinton campaign? Ian Brodie, the Chief of Staff to the Canadian Prime Minister. Like I say folks, I am just the messenger of the true facts here.
NAFTAgate' began with remark from Harper's chief of staff
ALEXANDER PANETTA
The Canadian Press
March 5, 2008 at 8:53 PM EST
OTTAWA -- If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.
A candid comment to journalists from CTV News by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most senior political staffer during the hurly-burly of a budget lock-up provided the initial spark in what the American media are now calling NAFTAgate.
Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being "blatantly unfair" to Senator Barack Obama.
What is now a swirling Canada-U.S. controversy began on Feb. 26, when the usually circumspect Mr. Brodie was milling among droves of Canadian media on budget day in the stately old building that once housed Ottawa's train station.
Reporters were locked up there all day, examining the federal budget until they were allowed to leave once it was tabled in the House of Commons at 4 p.m.
Since the budget contained little in the way of headline-grabbing surprises, some were left with enough free time to gather around a large-screen TV to watch the latest hockey news on NHL trade deadline day.
Mr. Brodie wandered over to speak to Finance Department officials and chatted amiably with journalists -- who appreciated this rare moment of direct access to the top official in Mr. Harper's notoriously tight-lipped government.
The former university professor found himself in a room with CTV employees where he was quickly surrounded by a gaggle of reporters while other journalists were within earshot of other colleagues.
At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.
Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.
Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.
"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.
"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."
Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.
They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate -- either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.
CTV News President Robert Hurst said he would not discuss his journalists' sources.
But others said the content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp.
He went to air on Feb. 27 with a report that the Democratic front-runner had given advance notice to Canadian diplomats that he was about to engage in some anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but not to take it too seriously.
The report wound up on YouTube and caused an uproar in the U.S. race -- influencing the final days of the critical Ohio primary, with every indication it will also play a role in the upcoming Pennsylvania vote.
Mr. Obama has been pilloried by his opponents and faced the most aggressive questioning of his heretofore smooth-sailing campaign.
Clinton used the story to cast him as a double-talking hypocrite -- winking and nudging at Canadians while making contrary promises to American voters.
Republican nominee John McCain -- who proudly dubs himself a straight-talker -- has also seized on the incident to paint the Democratic front-runner as anything but.
When Mr. Obama's campaign and the Canadian government denied the allegation, a leaked document was obtained by The Associated Press written by a Canadian diplomat. It chronicled a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee and diplomats at Canada's Chicago consulate.
The Obama aide has challenged the wording of the memo and says it characterized the conversation unfairly. A government official said that memo was initially e-mailed to over 120 government employees.
Mr. Harper has rebuffed opposition requests to call in the RCMP and also investigate the source of the original tip that led to the CTV report that triggered the diplomatic tempest. But a team of internal security agents has begun an investigation that will see dozens of bureaucrats and political staff questioned about their knowledge of the leak.
"This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable. In fact, it may well be illegal," Mr. Harper told the House of Commons.
"It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the government of Canada -- and the way the leak was executed was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign.
"Based on what (investigators) find, and based on legal advice, we will take any action that is necessary to get to the bottom of this matter."
NDP Leader Jack Layton is asking Mr. Harper to call on the Mounties to find out how the leaks occurred, and whether the Security of Information Act or any other privacy legislation was breached.
"There can be no doubt about it: the leak from within the Canadian government has had an impact now on the American elections," Mr. Layton said Wednesday.
"That is about the worst thing a country could do to another country -- to have an effect on their democratic process. . . If Mr. Harper isn't willing to call in the RCMP that confirms our suspicion that this was intentional."
Mr. Layton said Canadians would never accept Americans interfering in our elections, and we shouldn't tamper with theirs.
He said the incident is far more serious than another one last year in which the government called in the RCMP.
A temporary employee at Environment Canada was arrested in his office and marched out in handcuffs for allegedly leaking details of a government climate-change plan to the media.
Mr. Layton said that's small potatoes compared with inflicting political damage on one of the three contenders to lead the world's biggest superpower, and Canada's neighbour and largest trading partner.
"He's unwilling to treat it with the level of serious attention that he did when there was a junior bureaucrat at environment. . . He called in the RCMP on that one."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/
abc-news-continues-to-get_b_90499.html
You can see the relevant videos on that last website.
Now ask yourself WHY many Americans still think Obama was being deceptive - and why this type of a number was played on him by the American media - who still can't get it right ? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 6:29:31 PM | I think we all know that 9/11 didn't just magically congeal out of nowhere and that these groups have been around for a long time. They are ironically using those same weapons you spoke of against us now, are they not?
Don't discount the theories of these people so quickly, Driver Guy. We all have opinions, and most of us here are pretty educated in all of this, in fact the monumental arguing necessitates the need for more research on all our parts to prove our own points. lol
But please keep in mind that just because someone wants to try something different and work toward a peaceful solution that it does not mean they do not love this country. In fact, the people that founded it would agree. Wasted lives are just that. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 6:36:07 PM |
I think Hillary as an INDIVIDUAL is MARGINALLY better. I think she as a president would make less mistakes than Obama would. But she making mistakes aplenty in this campaign. That is certain. Big ones too. Individually I think Hillary is better, but Obama by far has assembled a better campaign team. They generate tons of campaign revenue. I'm not sure this will necessarily amount to a successful presidency. I perceive him to be further left. That isn't appealing to me.
That's all fair, Bike. I can respect that. 
I, too, perceive him as being farther left, if advocating a paradigm shift in the way our politicians conduct business in Washington, and ameliorating some of the influence that big corporation has on our national policies, is what you mean by "further left." If so, then that IS appealing to me. If, however, you meant something different, I'm not necessarily certain I would agree.
When evaluating a national choice, I generally support the candidate I feel is more "experienced" and would make a better Commander In Chief. Obama loses to both McCain and Hillary in these respects.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you in that I, too, support the candidate I believe would make a better CIC, I have yet to see, read, or hear -- from anyone OTHER than Hillary Clinton -- what exactly IS this additional, relevant, "experience" to which she continually lays claim. From the very beginning, she has said "I have significantly more experience," but she never has articulated what that experience is. Sure, she suggested that while she was First Lady, she was involved in all sorts of foreign policy matters. "OK," I thought; "that qualifies as relevant experience."
But then, curiously enough, she fought tooth and nail to block release of the White House records on her itinerary during her husband's administration. When that official itinerary was ultimately released, however, it showed pretty convincingly that she did NOTHING along the lines of advancing foreign policy. She was not meeting with or holding discussions with foreign dignitaries! Quite to the contrary, she did no more than standard "First Lady" stuff! I felt like she had tried to pull a fast one over on me.
During one of the debates, she started talking about her "35 years" of experience and what she spoke of when pressed for detail was working as a volunteer on a politician's campaign when she was a young girl fresh out of school. Her term as Arkansas' First Lady was similarly spent in non-governmental affairs. So now I'm getting the sense that she might be a bit of a snake oil salesperson (although I like your metaphor of a "pharmaceutical sales rep veneer" more  ). Enter Bosniagate. I listen to her tell a tale -- and she even interrupted herself briefly to cut to a gentleman sharing the stage with her and say "-- and you'll remember this ..." (as if he was with her during the forthcoming ordeal) -- about arriving under sniper fire and running for the car at the airport! I watched her tell that story twice! Comedian Sinbad was with her on the trip and he said their arrival was nothing like that at all! What did Hillary and Bill do? Dismissed him as a "comedian," reasserting that it all happened just as she said it did.
Then the video surfaced.
There she is, sauntering out the back of the aircraft -- with Sinbad -- smiling and waving (with her child in tow) to much fanfare, flowers, and pomp and circumstance.
Confronted with the video, she then claims that she was "tired," that she speaks "millions of words every day," and that it is possible that she "misspoke." Now I'm like "Oh COME ON, Hillary!!! "
In short, while I can respect the argument that experience of some sort might come in handy, I don't believe that experience is dispositive of the question of "who is the 'better' candidate?" More importantly, however, I am still waiting for someone to actually BACK UP Hillary's claims to this "experience" with some clear delineation of what it is and where it was gained. Anything less, I now hold as suspect -- ESPECIALLY in light of the many instances of her truth-challenged claims and the fact that the entire thrust of her campaign has been "she is better because of her experience."
Today I'd lean to McCain. But the election is in November. If he starts pandering too far to the religious right ...
DO know that the Republican Machine will compel McCain to maintain the status quo. He has already shifted from the positions where he historically diverged slightly from Bush to get back in the party line.  <--- (I get the wink from MG. I included it because I've missed him today.) | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 6:41:24 PM | So is this all a fabrication then?
It's now clear that a Canadian news report that started this flap wasn't accurate. No evidence has surfaced to show that any Obama "staffer" telephoned the Canadian ambassador in Washington, and all concerned deny that any such conversation took place. But it is equally clear that Obama's senior economic adviser did visit Canada's consulate in Chicago on Feb. 8, and that NAFTA was one of the several topics discussed.
Exactly what was said is not so clear, however. The memo says Obama's anti-NAFTA stance was described as just "political maneuvering," but the adviser says he said no such thing. The campaign says the adviser wasn't authorized to convey any message from the candidate anyway. No audio recording or verbatim transcript of the disputed conversation is available, and there’s no reason to expect that any exists. So the best we can do is to provide readers with the essential details as they have unfolded over the past several days, with links to original sources when available. On this one, you’ll have to be the judge.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about_nafta-gate.html | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 7:45:01 PM | No. It wasn't a fabrication. An Obama rep spoke to someone in Canada, as did a Clinton rep. What was attributed to the Obama rep was rejected by that rep as a misrepresentation of what he said. Later word came out that indicated that the Clinton rep met with Canadian officials first and may have said something substantially similar to what was attributed to the Obama rep, and may have been involved in a misrepresentation of the Obama camp statement. Now the guy identified as the source of the leak of the disavowed Obama camp statement is stepping down.
The Times has endorsed Hillary but few, beyond executive management, seem to be very thrilled about it, including the editorial board, the bloggers, or the commenting readers. Examples include:
May 23, 2008, 6:30 pm
Say What? Hillary Clinton Does it Again
By The Editorial Board
We have no idea what, exactly, Hillary Clinton was thinking when she referred to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in explaining her decision to keep on campaigning when it looks like there is virtually no hope of her winning the Democratic nomination.
(We’ve supported her decision to do so. This is a democracy, after all.)
But she could, at least, have apologized.
Instead, she issued one of those tedious non-apology apologies in which it sounds like the person who is being offended is somehow at fault: “I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”
more at
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/say-what-hillary-clinton-does-it-again/
AND
May 21, 2008, 9:50 am
Feminist Hero or ‘Just a Politician’?
By Chris Suellentrop
Two articles on the nation’s op-ed pages today try to explain to Hillary Clinton’s supporters why losing a presidential campaign is insufficient evidence that the candidate in question has suffered from a misogynistic backlash.
“Yes, there have been sexist episodes and comments. Yes, it’s infuriatingly more acceptable to make cracks about gender than about race,” writes Ruth Marcus in her column for The Washington Post. “But the notion that Clinton was the victim of unrelenting, vicious hatred because she is a woman — is it safe to call this reaction overwrought? Clinton managed to win more votes than any primary candidate in either party ever had before. It’s hard to square that result with the notion that her candidacy exposed a deep vein of misogyny.”
more at:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/feminist-hero-or-just-a-politician/ | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 7:46:19 PM |
Bikeman; The war on terror existed before Bush came into office. Which adminstration has come closer to eliminating Bin Laden? Clinton or Bush? The public wasn't aware of everything Clinton was doing. Maybe we're not aware of what Bush is doing? Many days I'm not even sure Bush knows what Bush is doing.
The terrorism war should be fought not overtly but clandestinely anyway. And what's going on Iraq isn't a war on terrorism; I'm not sure what I'd call it; it certainly didn't start as a war against "terrorism".
I would say there is an equal number of "Hillarybots" as there are "Obamamaniacs". I've been waiting for the right context to use "Obamabot". I came up with a new one too: "Obama-bees". They're socialite elitists who feel like they can relate to Obama eclectic upbringing. heehee | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 8:10:47 PM | Just to recap for those who tuned in late, here are the main reasons we've come up with as to Why Hillary is losing this nomination process:
1. Bad strategy/tactics. Hillary ran a very poor campaign which was tailored to end at Super Tuesday. She originally hired a campaign manager who said at the outset that she wouldn't be able to serve through Election Day. Extremely stupid choice. Hillary's emphasis on her "experience" doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and she knows it. The line that she gained "experience" in her husband's administration lacks credibility. Also, from a tactical standpoint, her campaign doesn't handle mistakes well (such as the Bosnia air-strike lie).
2. Unlikeability/Lack of charisma. Most people don't identify with Hillary, and they don't like her. The effort to appeal to working-class families is a joke. Hillary is not from working-class stock, and she doesn't really understand 9-to-5'ers. Her intermittent successes with the working class have only come when Obama has incurred major gaffes. The working-class folks do not easily and naturally gravitate toward Hillary. The elites don't like her either. Hillary's good qualities are that she's aggressive and confident, and she's married to a master politician. Those are good assets, but they won't be anywhere near enough.
3. Negative campaigning. Hillary has been perceived as arrogant and condescending toward her chief opponent, and has been reluctant to reign in subordinates who made controversial statements. You always have to appear to respect your opponent, and Hillary doesn't convey that.
4. Bill Clinton's baggage. The Bill Clinton Administration was riddled with a lot of scandals, many of which involved Hillary directly. No one wants a repeat of that in another Clinton Administration. Given how polarizing and divisive Hillary is perceived to be, it's hard to see any other scenario than more scandals and internal chaos.
5. Attitude of entitlement/Birthright. Both Hillary and many of her followers project the attitude that she somehow "deserves" the presidency, rather than it being incumbent upon Hillary to win over sufficient voters. Her stated reliance on superdelegates to render a result is ridiculous. No other presidential candidate in recent memory has had that degree of fatalistic thinking in regard to a position. The irony is that it is now looking like even the super-delegates will probably hand the nomination to Obama.
6. Dishonesty/Lack of credibility. This is the most disturbing reason that Hillary is losing. She's perceived as being dishonest, and it has happened often enough to be a character trait. Whitewater. Vince Foster. Travelgate. Bosnia. Belfast. Sir Edmund Hillary. Hillary Clinton is seen as a pathological liar.
***********************************************************************************
In addition to those reasons, Vyper (quoting Karen Tumulty) added a few more good ones:
7. She misjudged the mood.
That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability — and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. "Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change," says Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton's "initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands." But other miscalculations made it worse:
8. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately:
9. She underestimated the caucus states.
While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters — women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs — were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they — bewilderingly — seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become."
By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it — in part because:
10. She relied on old money.
For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up.
Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million — plus the fortune they had acquired since he left the White House — first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake:
11. She never counted on a long haul.
Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn't have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state's primary, then more than 10 weeks away, "could end up being very important in the nomination fight." At the time, the idea seemed laughable.
**********************************************************************************
The contributions of the Hillary supporters on the thread are tremendous. They are to be appreciated. BUT......there haven't been any strong refutations of any of these points. Frankly, Hillary made many more strategic and tactical errors than a candidate for President should make. These are HUGE mistakes---a mistake in any one of the above criteria could kill a national campaign. To make almost a dozen major, long-term errors means that Hillary should never have been a candidate for President in the first place. Hillary's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, once said (before Hillary made her drink the Kool-Aid), that even starting this campaign was a "kooky" idea. Hillary may be a good lawyer and/or a good legislator, but she has no business running for President. This is one miracle that Slick Willie couldn't pull out of his bag of tricks. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 8:15:00 PM |
This is one miracle that Slick Willie couldn't pull out of his bag of tricks.
But, to his credit, he came DAMN close!
So what's next, Spitfire? "How will McCain defeat Obama?"  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 8:19:58 PM |
And what's going on Iraq isn't a war on terrorism; I'm not sure what I'd call it; it certainly didn't start as a war against "terrorism".
What's going on in Iraq is a looting of the U.S. Treasury! Cheney is stealing all the cash; laundering it through Halliburton, KBR, and a select few insiders through no-bid contracts; trying hard to get away with spending as little on troops and their resources as possible; and gaining the complicity of the Saudis and big petroleum MNCs so that everyone at those levels can profit from the divided booty!  | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 8:26:59 PM | | I think at some point in perhaps the distant future, researchers and writers and non partisan pundits will review the campaigns of Clinton, Obama and McCain, and how they each reported, portrayed, quoted, and distorted, and conclude that no one could withstand the scrutiny that has been levelled at Clinton. At that point in time, the possibility of a female leader of anything will have a real chance. But not this year, and not this country. Hopefully in my lifetime. One thing I am certain of, when she loses the nomination, that will NOT be the end of it. Not by any stretch. The backlash from this will be painful for a lot of people. But I don't see how it could possibly be avoided, given what has transpired. | |
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 8:31:40 PM | ^^^^^^^
you said it way better than I could have
all I can add is...AMEN | |
|
|
| Page 67 of 98
|
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 |
|
Home
login 
