Hillary Clinton - the right experience and partisan fire at the right time for our country

by georgep, Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:03:51 AM EST

The race for the nomination of the Democratic party has been one for the ages.  Good, strong candidates have thrown their hat into the ring, and I believe we never had a field this strong.  EVER.  A strong top-tier with John Edwards, who despite personal hardship decided to enter the race and put his stamp on it.  Barack Obama, a gifted speaker, talented politician and good role model for the future, and Hillary Clinton, the tireless worker who to me incorporates the best of all worlds.  She is a populist like John Edwards was in this, his finest campaign.  She excites and inspires many, many people to come out to vote for her, like Obama has done in many ways, many for the very first time in their lives for anyone, or for the first time for Democrats.  She incorproates the best qualities of Dodd, Biden and Richardson, having been there for many years, at the gubernatorial level, the presidential level and the House level.   I believe her to be the right choice for Democrats, and ultimately all Americans, at this time, in this place.   She is ready to lead on day 1, and she won't take her commitment to the "little guy," the poor, the unemployed and underemployed lightly.  

I am a proud supporter of her, and while I am not quite on the level of my wife in her full adoration for Hillary (I am more jaded from all these years of politicians promising to get the blue from the sky, but in the end delivering so little) I have become more and more convinced over this year-long journey that Hillary really means what she says, that she really is going to fight very hard to accomplish what she has put her mind to do.  She will be a very tough nosed negotiator, and with her I am quite sure that she will not give in to demands from the minority Republicans in Congress just to "make good" with the other side, that instead she feels, like many of us, that our time has now arrived, that we can achieve many of our progressive goals with a Democratic Congress and the overwhelming backing of the American people on virtually all of the issues that are important to us.    

I don't want us to squander this golden opportunity to elect the most competent, most "ready" and most "right" on the issues person we could possibly have.  I will bend to the will of the Democratic electorate, but I am confident that most of my Democratic brethren will have reviewed the facts of this race, as I have, and will be voting to nominate Hillary Clinton, starting with an impressive day on Super-Tuesday.   I may end up being wrong about this, but my feelings on this is that we will see a lot of support coming out for her, more so than for the opponent, in a vote of confidence and a willingness to put our collective trust in one candidate.  I can't tell you the delegate count, or how exactly every race will shape up.  But I believe that voters will come out strongly for Hillary across the board.   With that, let the chips fall where they may.  

POLLS

Polls have been all over the place, and certainly they suggest a close race.  But, if you look at the numbers closely, two stories emerge, and they simply don't match up.   Today we have seen a Survey USA release out of California that pegs the race with Hillary well ahead in that state, 53% to 41%, a solid 12% lead.  Another poll, the Mason-Dixon poll has the race as a 9% Clinton lead.  Then there is ARG, which pegs the race as an 8% Hillary lead.  All 3 pretty solid leads that promise a good showing for Hillary.   However, there are 3 other polls that show a completely different picture:   Zogby pegs the race as a 5% Obama lead.  Suffolk U shows a 1% Obama lead, Rasmussen shows a tie as a 1% Clinton lead.  There is no way to consolidate these numbers.  By tomorrow night one set of pollsters will look totally out of whack.  Either Survey USA, Mason Dixon, ARG will have egg on their faces, or Zogby, Rasmussen and Suffolk.  The temptation may be there to simply split the difference, average these six polls out, and call it a day.  But, the disparity is so large, so enormous, that it would do the race a great disservice to do so.  Either the second set of numbers is correct, in which case Obama has a very good chance of showing a small win in CA on Super Tuesday, or the first set of numbers is correct, in which case Hillary Clinton is looking at winning the race with a pretty solid double-digit or close to double-digits margin.   I personally believe that the first set of numbers will come to pass, and we will see a solid Hillary victory in California, but we shall know tomorrow night who is going to wear the dunce cap, Survey USA or Zogby.  

Other polling has been equally all over the place, with one such example being Massachusetts, a state pegged as a very solid win for Hillary by Survey USA (they show a 17% Hillary edge) while Suffolk is actually showing an Obama edge of 2% and Rasmussen a very narrow Clinton edge.  Again, these polls are so far off, that one set of numbers simply has to be completely off base, an absolute crash-landing into laughable pollster lore tomorrow for either Survey USA or, again, Suffolk and Rasmussen.

We shall see how things will turn out, but the large disparity of poll findings has been very interesting, and we will obviously hear the refrain again for at least half the polls taken:   "What went so terribly wrong again?"

TOWN HALL

Those of you who missed it, here is a replay of the town hall that took place tonight.  

http://townhall.hillaryclinton.com/

It went very smooth, given the many satellite locations that had to be combined into one system.  It was great to see so many people across the country excited, and while I agree with Todd below me that the town hall was primarily aimed at women, it did have a lot of substantive talk, a lot of meat.  I was very pleased to hear her make a very strong case for withdrawal as quickly as possible, and once again she reiterated that she hopes to have all troops out of Iraq within a year (minus residuals, of course,) a clear sign that we WILL have strong troop movement out of Iraq right away (of course, Obama is roughly on the same level as for troop withdrawal, although I am not 100% sure if he will move as quickly on troop withdrawal as Hillary.)   My wife, a high school teacher, enjoyed the education related question the most, as it hit home for her.  I am most pleased that Hillary Clinton has made health care her signature issue, as I believe that to be our most urgent and pressing crisis, in need of immediate attention.  That came through loud and clear in the town hall several times as well.

SUPER TUESDAY

Now it is the turn of many of you (almost half of the voting population gets a chance to cast their votes,) so vote your conscience, review the platforms and programs, listen to the candidates, but also read between the lines.  Get a feel for who you think will "bring home the bacon" for us Democrats, who will fight for us to make sure every issue that is dear to us gets a hearing and a vote, without dillution and without being watered down in the name of bi-partisanship, as watered-down is a compromise that most of our programs simply can't afford to undergo, lest they be virtually worthless legislation.

Vote your conscience tomorrow, and if you truly do so with all information at hand, all issues laid before you side by side, I believe it should be a vote for Hillary!




Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 160 Comments :: Post a Comment


Clinton Obama (1.50 / 2)

OBAMA = DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT

My Case for Barack Obama

The best reason for the Democratic Party to nominate Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency is that he generates extraordinary turnout at the polls among two demographic groups that have historically under-performed; youth, and African-Americans.  Younger people are voting in the Democratic primaries at three times the level of prior years, and most of their support is going to Obama.  The numbers for black turnout in 2008 far exceed previous years, and I think it is reasonable to expect that the participation rate of both youth and African-American voters will increase even further in the November general election if Obama is our nominee.  The hotly-contested 'swing' states of Ohio and Florida both have significant concentrations of minority voters, and Obama's presence at the top of the ticket will likely put both of them in the Democratic column.

If we take the Democratic base of liberals, enviros, labor unions, and various progressives, and add in a huge youth componenent, plus millions of newly energized black voters, plus the rapidly growing Latino consituency..... Voila!   We have the recipe for a tidal wave that has the potential to make the Democratic Party the dominant political institution in this country for the next century and beyond.   With Obama's ability to drive voter turnout there are also favorable implications for all of our downticket races, from the White House through the Congressional contests, the Governorships, State and County officials, all the way down to local municipal races.  We have seen many close elections in recent years that would have gone our way with stronger turnout.

There is no equivalent scenario on the Republican side; their 'big tent' is already in tatters, and they simply cannot produce the sort of turnout that Obama can.  And whatever her other qualities might be, Hilary Clinton does not attract huge numbers of previously disenfranchised voters into the pool the way Barack Obama does.  The Obama campaign raised a spectacular $32 million in the month of January alone, and he has received powerful endorsements from many of the most visible and respected Democratic politicians, which will lead to further endorsements, and an enhanced ability to raise money down the stretch.  The majority of Obama's donors have given less than $100, which tells us that the Obama movment has populist roots that translate into real votes.

After eight years of Bush and Cheney, the GOP is struggling to raise money and its members are disillusioned.  Many of their sitting Senators and Representatives have chosen not to run again.   The prospects for a Democratic takeover of Congress are encouraging.   This is not the time to do the Republicans a favor by nominating the one candidate (Hilary) who pushes their buttons and who would surely serve as a lightning rod for right wing organization and fundrasing.   We should also be aware that the corporate media have a well-documented love affair with John McCain, and their bias would be a powerful weapon against us should Hilary be the nominee.

If Hilary Clinton were to be elected President and serve two terms,  it would mean that the Bush and Clinton families could boast of an occupant in our White House for thirty-six consecutive years, beginning with Reagan's first term in 1980 and stretching until the year 2016.  The sequence would look like this:   Bush / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton.   Enough, already. We are not a 12th-century monarchy.

The end of the Bush-Cheney era will be a beautiful thing to behold, but I think we ought to aim higher and leap at the opportunity to have a transformative, once-in-a-millenium election that dramatically alters the voting dynamics in this country for the long term, and Obama offers us that chance.   The Republican strategists who are looking at the electoral landscape for the coming decades ought to be shaking in their boots, and we are damn fools if we don't seize the moment and make the most of it.    There is some contrast between our two candidates on the issues, but the principal difference lies in Obama's ability to dramatically expand the base demographic for the Democratic side, thus winning the general election in November and reducing the Republican Party to a quaint irrelevancy for the forseeable future.    


by global yokel on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:09:20 AM EST

Re: Clinton Obama (2.00 / 3)

Hillary has a much higher "never voted for Democrats before" quotient with women coming out in droves for her, plus she has a never before seen Hispanic vote on her side as well as various other constituencies that are coming out for her while breaking previous records (over 55 years of age voters.)   She will have the largest share of true DEMOCRATS (a constituency Obama is seriously lacking support with.)   When Hillary wins the nomination she will start off with a tremendous coalition of Democrats, and with Obama's help (and her own appeal to young voters well established) the youth vote for her in November will truly be historic.  We have always had a huge share of the AA vote, and that will not change this time around, not with Hillary at the top of the ticket and Obama helping get his strongest demographic voting block excited about it.    


by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:19:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Obama (none / 0)


Hillary has a much higher "never voted for Democrats before" quotient with women coming out in droves for her

Cite please?


The truth about McCain
by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:49:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The arrogance reeks. Let's summarize: (none / 0)

  • Obama is solely responsible for the high voter turnout.
  • Electing Hillary de facto means we are a monarchy-- despite the definition of 'electing.'

    Obama is truly gifted at attracting such modest boosters with whom one can empathize...


    • While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
    by bowiegeek on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:23:10 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton Obama (none / 0)

    I don't buy that argument.
    I've heard it in various ways throughout this election but it assumes that turn out is up because of Obama.
    We can't know what would have happened if he decided not to run, but we do know some things. Youth participation has been rising and tending democratic. That Bush managed to energize his base and really bring them out masked that to an extent in 2004 but couldn't in 2006 nor would it have happened this cycle.
    You are arguing that the increase in voting in Obama's demographics are because of Obama. Another argument could be that Obama is doing so well because his demographics are increasing their vote. I happen to think it is more of the latter than the former. I expect that without Obama in the race Edwards and Clinton would have picked up most that vote. I also expect that Edwards leading a children's crusade would have made the this a much more progressive campaign.
    by Judeling on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:39:06 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton Obama (2.00 / 2)

    It used to be standard thinking in the netroots that we deplored candidates who take the Democratic base for granted in favor of playing to the center.

    Now, every day I see an argument for Obama that says exactly this: we should take the Democrats for granted, as all of us will show up anyway, and focus solely on which candidate will bring in more non-Democrats.

    While I'm all in favor of expanding the party, this sort of fuzzy logic inevitably leads to turning control of the party agenda over to non-members of the party.  Why let Democrats determine the Democratic agenda, after all - they'll all vote for the Democrat whether they get what they want or not!


    "Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:39:54 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton Obama (2.00 / 1)

    We also always criticize the DC Dems for caving in to Republicans every time there's a fight.

    Obama has caved in on UHC even before there was a fight.


    by OrangeFur on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:03:46 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton Obama (none / 0)

    So has Clinton.


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:47:20 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton Obama (none / 0)

    cite please?


    by souvarine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:58:04 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton Obama (none / 0)

    If your definition of UHC is a single-payer system, then Clinton has "caved" here, 2:24. If your definition is a system in which everyone has insurance, then watch this whole part of the debate; Clinton never refutes Obama's claim that some people will ignore the mandates in Clinton's plan and end up without insurance. (Everyone acknowledges that mandates decrease the number of the uninsured, but do not decrease the number to zero.) If your definition of UHC is a system in which everyone has access to insurance, then both candidates' plans are for UHC.

    So no matter how you cut it, you can't make a blanket statement that one candidate offers universal healthcare and the other doesn't. I cautiously agree that Clinton's plan would likely lead to fewer people being uninsured. But Obama has always prioritized decreasing costs over increasing coverage.


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:05:10 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton Obama (none / 0)

    This is nitpicking.  Many of the European countries have Universal Health care very similar to the system proposed, with mandates an important aspect of it. Very few fall through the cracks, and mandates are simply part of life.  You appear to be making it sound as if we are talking Millions of people here when we are seeing the number of uninsureds in other countries with such a UHC system extremely low (statistically absolutely insignificant,) which would be much closer to our reality. For all intents and purposes Hillary offers UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE while Obama does not.  


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton Obama (none / 0)

    I define single-payer as public single payer with mandated universal coverage. In our current system everyone has access to insurance and health care, they may not be able to afford the insurance and getting health care may bankrupt them, but it is accessible.

    I define UHC as either single-payer, employer mandate with public programs covering the unemployed (1994 plan), or individual mandated coverage. This is the definition commonly used before the presidential campaign. There is a qualitative difference between a system that encourages compliance and a system that requires compliance which is captured in the term "universal".

    So, by definition, Obama does not propose universal coverage. Clinton's three part plan addresses cost and quality of coverage in the first two parts, and universality in the third. Obama addresses cost and quality, but does not propose universality.


    by souvarine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Obama caving (none / 0)

    Obama also caved on his nuclear spill reporting bill. And on his health care bill at the state level. And his ethics reform lost most of it's teeth in negotiation.


    by del on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton Obama (none / 0)

    "The sequence would look like this:   Bush / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton.   Enough, already. We are not a 12th-century monarchy."

    This sequence would not be so bad if it were not for the underlying politics driving the period. A better characterization since Reagan by presidency would be: Republican / Republican / Republican Lite / Republican / Republican Lite prospectively. Harold Ford said it all last night about the DLC centrist/moderate Democratic view: it is still, steal the Republican's agenda.

    And that is precisely what Hillary will do. To say that Hillary is for the poor is about the greatest bit of nonsense heard about her to date. Clintonism is not about the poor, about our traditional Democratic liberal-socialism. It is about moving away from it.


    Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
    by shergald on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:10:21 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and (none / 0)

    thank you for this, georgep! you put it beautifully.
    by nance on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:15:27 AM EST

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (1.00 / 2)

    If Obama had Integrity, he would step out of the race gracefully, skillfully and eventually he could make an atonement for all those people he okie doked in South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida and all the other states in which he misrepresented his record.

    Obama is a gifted shuck-n-jive liar, swift thief and sitting duck for the Republicans who can see the trees through his rhetoric.

    Thus far, he has called the Color Card, the Joker Card, the Jack of All Trades Card wherein he has taken people for fools who will vote for every Bambi in wolf's clothing. I am tired of his bamboozling.

    The Republicans will not be so nice to him. McCain is a better man. At least his balls are based on some reality. And, Hillary Clinton and anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can see that about him. At least Senator Clinton has a chance to go up against someone who will stand up for what he believes vs. what he is told to tell people from day to day.


    by DISSENTisPatriotic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:17:47 AM EST

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    this is the 3rd or 4th time you have posted about Obama using the phrase "okie doked."  
    What are you trying to assert?  
    And why are you using coded language to do so rather than words that are in the common usage?
    by SKI on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:31:42 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    Okie Doke is the code language Obama used on the South Carolinans to continually degrade Clinton's campaign. The Obama all know that he uses local colloquialisms to persuade his audiences that he is the hip dude. He is not hip: he is hype.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:54:45 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (2.00 / 1)

    And he is hype because...?

    His millions of supporters aren't real because...?

    The Senators who have worked with him and who have endorsed him fall prey to this hype and can't see through it because...?

    Slander is ugly no matter which candidate it is aimed against.  There are valid reasons to support both candidates.  You don't need to resort to vacuous slanders and broad-brush smears to argue for your choice.


    by SKI on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:00:19 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    I don't see that as slender, I see that as Vote4Hillary has a strong opinion.  Frankly, he is full of what I feel is just HYPE.  And the one's you claim to be supporting him in the Senate, educate here please and tell me WHICH one's in the Senate has supported him?? Did he pass any legislation?  Has he been moving and shaking, making America safer, better, more prosperous?  Has he helped the school children out lately, or has he just put on his caring mask before the media so he can have a forum to speak.  

    Every piece of legislation he writes he later re writes, and no mention of this yet in the media...except for the New York Times Front Page this morning!

    Actually what is happening here, is open passionate discussions about this man who claims he can now start making change, finally with what he claims is all this experience he can bring to the Oval Office Table, now is the time for him to get serious with his Change you Can Believe in speech.  Give me a break!  

    This guy wouldn't know how to bring a change I can believe in even if he admitted that he has been misrepresenting his RECORD to the public!
     


    by DISSENTisPatriotic on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:29:49 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    I accept you apology in advance, the meaning of Okie Doke is thusly meant:

    Believing a lie;falling for a scam;a con-game;untruths;fraud etc.

    i.e.;
    Well we went for the old okie-doke again when we fell for BUSHY`S lies about Iraq`s w.m.d.`s!
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph p?term=OKIE-DOKE

    Obama used Okie Doke to refer to Hillary Clinton calling him on the Facts of His Record. He wanted the South Carolinians to disbelieve Clinton. He wanted to throw them for a loop so that they would think that she was deceiving them. He deceived them with his own trickery. Then he used the term Okie Doke as a code word to keep his constituents to repeat the she was the one who was misleading them. That is how the South was Won.

    Here is an example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh69Zi2rV -U


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:42:25 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    I am amazed no one picked up on this.  


    by Iskandar on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:46:51 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    You know, I have grown sick and tired of Obama posters alleging racism at every frigging turn.  The accusations of "CODED" racism are the worst, as they are smears that are hard to disprove, but because of the implications advanced proof of the existense of racism, coded or otherwise, should really to 100% rest on the shoulders of the accuser.  I kno wnothing about the poster you attack here, but I googled the term "okie-doked" and can't find  references to any racial issues, coded or uncoded.  In fact, what I get when researching the term is an expression akin to "bamboozled" or "conned into," expressions both of which have nothing to do with coded or non-coded racism.   Skin color does not have to factor in at all when some people feel that Obama has tried to portray something to many people he may not really be.  


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:57:27 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    I didn't say ANYTHING about racism.

    I asked a question because I wanted to find out what this poster, who has, in just the last couple of threads,  posted repeated attacks on Obama calling him and his supporters "evil", "frauds" "hucksters", etc., actually meant.  

    Coded leanguage does NOT have to be racist language.  Take a look at GWB and his "dog whistles" to the religious right.


    by SKI on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:03:24 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    Well, generally we have heard the word "coded" used in regards to race quite a bit from the Obama side.  I don't think it was too far-fetched to see that in your post, but if you did not mean it to be in racial terms (how exactly did you mean it then?) I'll apologize.  


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:09:22 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    I meant it in the exact way I expressed it in the post:  why was he repeatedly using non-standard (or, if you prefer, non-common usage) language and what was he trying to say?  


    by SKI on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:19:23 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    No, you called it CODED.  So, the question remains:  CODE for what, if not racism, in your mind?   CODE does not imply non-common at all.   Perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of words, but the term CODE used does commonly imply a racist motive.


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:25:00 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    Code among people I know means a language which has embedded symbolic meaning which is hidden from view. In reality, codes were used for the spies of kings and queens.

    Read the founding documents of our country and you will see that codes were used to pass notes between fighting lines often as in the case of a queen to her general, king to his admiral etc. Code is more about James Bond than Racists.

    Racists are typically belligerent, ignorant and do try hard to be very hidden in their language. On the contrary, they are loud about their views.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:58:03 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    I am not White Either and I am tired of the Race Card. Sen. Rangel of Harlem stated it precise, "It was Obama who called started that". The African Americans in Harlem knew those old games and they tried to communicate that with the southerners. But in the end, they said things like, "Well they are still stuck in race wars."

    Now, I am a follower of Daniel Sheehan, J.D. who gave lectures on his discovery from a C.I.A. headquarters administrator in the eighties who told him that the race wars were manipulated by an elite group of people known as Nazis.

    Yes, we did recruit Nazis from WWII. Yes, racism is a fascism. Yes, there are real neo-nazis. But most people are not neo-nazis. And it is not fair for people like my mother who went to an African American church as one of the few "white christians" to be labeled racist. Really, there are a lot of people who have bent over backwards to prove that they are not racist.

    Voting for Obama is not a good means of doing that one is not racist. The President needs to be accountable and competent.

    He has Okie Doked to the point of no return:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AII2yrwSe MA


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:50:49 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    You missed the part where DISSENTisPatriotic referred to Obama as "a gifted shuck-n-jive liar"--"shuck and jive" certainly does have racial connotations, and there was a controversy over Andrew Cuomo's use of this term in a discussion about the democratic race a few weeks ago. The phrase is sometimes used in a non-racial context nowadays, so just like with that recent golf commentator's joke that golfers wanting to defeat Tiger Woods might have to "lynch him in a back alley", I'm willing to accept the possibility that Cuomo wasn't consciously thinking about/aware of the history of the phrase, but given how it made the news so recently I'm less inclined to give DISSENTisPatriotic the benefit of the doubt, I think it's likely he was being intentionally goading here.


    by jessem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:07:42 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    Well, I accept your explanation, but the Andrew Cuomo example is quite fitting here.  The yells of "coded racism" were rampant, when Cuomo was not intentionally talking in racist terms at all.  It was all made-up bluster by the Obama code police.   I am simply tired of all these accusations of racist motives thrown at good people like Cuomo, Kerrey, Bill Clinton.  One of the most shameful aspects of Obama's candidacy and his cadre of supporters, IMO.  


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:20:45 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    I guess you did not grow up in the San Francisco Bay Area. Else you would realize that it is part of a slang. Maybe you do not realize that 'white boys' joined black gangs a long time ago. Listen to some rap. Gangs and slang are intermingled and not as racially divided as you imagine from the past.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:00:20 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    You sound bitter and pessimistic.

    Sounds more like you are supporting McCain than Clinton. Your sentiment will not sway any voters to vote Democratic, only push them to vote for McCain or stay home. Great job, thanks a lot.


    http://jimmyqnyc.blogspot.com
    by jsedlock on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    I'm not real enthusiastic about either candidate, but I will be voting for Hillary tomorrow.  

    Maybe I'm just too old and uncool, but Obama has not convinced me.  He strikes me as a shallow person.


    Nobody's right if everybody's wrong --Stephen Stills "For What It's Worth"
    by vj on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:23:07 AM EST

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    I am a strong voter for Hillary: I voted already by mail. Of course, I had fear that the mail men would steal it.

    In any case, I would like to speak with your wife about educating you on sexism. Just because there is not a baseball, football or soccer ball in the room and the person speaking does not sound like your daddy that does not mean that the Town Hall was Aimed at Women. I noticed men and women asking questions.

    When your wife is able to school you on that issue then we can get more clear about why this campaign is so much more of a mind blower for those of us who have hit the glass ceilings in our fields. I am tired of being the only woman who  is qualified to work with all the men.

    Women just do not want to be spoken about and to as second class citizens. When our intelligence is insulted we may not want to beat you over the head with a baseball bat because that is not an intelligent choice. That cuts off all intelligent communications off. Maybe you have been feeling that the female approach to communication is too soft for you. Well, pinch yourself. Get some pain relief. The world needs people who listen with patience.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:34:27 AM EST

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (2.00 / 1)

    Whatever you want to say is fine by me, however wrong or misguided your approach may be.  

    I enjoyed the town hall immensely, and while I believe it was primarily aimed at Hillary's largest constituency, women (which is why it was placed on the Hallmark channel) it had a lot of substantive talk, which I outlined in my diary.  

    Whatever it is you are rambling on with your post, you are extremely wrong about me and whatever sexism you perceive to see in that one remark.  I think you should be ashamed to be writing a post like that, and I don't care whether you call yourself "vote4hillary" or "govt4hillary" a million times.  Terrible posts are terrible posts, regardless where they come from.   Perhaps someone can school you about a simple thing called manners.  


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:44:03 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    Minorities, immigrants, gays, the poor, and the middle class can't take any more of the Clinton politics-as-usual machine.


    by illlaw1 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:35:00 AM EST

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    um, yet minorities (other than AAs) support her over Obama, gays support her over Obama, the poor and middle class support her over Obama, so what are you even talking about?


    by musicpvm on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:00:35 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    We are all Minorities. There is no majority in America. That is an illusion. The Founding Fathers of our country set out to make sure that the Democratic Republic would work by allowing the Minority groups voice to churn the wheels of democracy.

    The ideal was that there would always be minority groups which were given equal voice so that no majority would over take the entire country. Read the Federal Papers.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:17:14 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    You make it sounds like those facts are well-known, but I'm not aware of them, aside from the Latino vote. Please cite.


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:02:42 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    Here is the Nevada entrance poll. Look at each state's entrance or exit polls, see for yourself. For GLBT the only poll I've seen is from Hunter College, Clinton at 63%. This is before McClurkin, which can only have hurt Obama among GLBT.

    These facts are well known and broadly discussed in the media and across the blogs.


    by souvarine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:50:17 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    That Nevada entrance poll doesn't have any question about race.

    The Hunter College poll was taken in November and is quite stale, considering recent more recent national trendlines.


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:37:23 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    The Nevada entrance poll sure does have questions about race, gender, income level (all pertinent to this particular discussion.)   You just have to flip through the three pages provided.


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    Thanks, sorry, never noticed that those poll results had multiple pages!

    So back to your assertion:


    um, yet minorities (other than AAs) support her over Obama, gays support her over Obama, the poor and middle class support her over Obama, so what are you even talking about?

    So on race, we've got blacks supporting Obama and Latinos supporting Clinton. The poll you cited does speak to any other racial minorities. So how do you get from there to "minorities (other than AAs) support her over Obama?"

    It does appear that poor folks voted strongly for Clinton in most states. But the middle class? I don't see it. Sure, middle income folks in Nevada voted for Clinton, but the middle class voted for Obama in Iowa and South Carolina. In fact, the middle class has been remarkably closely split in every election (except for South Carolina, where it went overwhelmingly for Obama).


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:48:57 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    FYI, that was not my assertion, but another posters'.  I just provided the clarification of the info souvarine posted.  

    I think it is pretty clear where AAs and Hispanics are going, and I don't think it is a stretch to surmise that that will borne out today as well.  We have a lot of polling evidence to suggest that Asian-Americans have also moved to Clinton, although the hard numbers will be provided tonight.  

    Clinton is very strong with the under $50,000 income segment, the lunch-pail Democrats.  They are the bread and butter, and the "salt" of the Democratic party.  They are strongly for Clinton, there is no denying that.  I think it is safe to say that people making between $35,000 and $50,000 a year are a very voluminous part of the middle class.  


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)


    Clinton is very strong with the under $50,000 income segment, the lunch-pail Democrats.  They are the bread and butter, and the "salt" of the Democratic party.  They are strongly for Clinton, there is no denying that.  I think it is safe to say that people making between $35,000 and $50,000 a year are a very voluminous part of the middle class.

    I agree that there seems to be a split around the $50k line. But while households below that line are going for Clinton, that does not mean that the middle class as a whole is too. Consider the fact that median household income in this country is $48k. This means that the middle class is effectively split.

    As a side note, this is consistent with my own personal view that there is no such thing as an American middle class.


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    People vote against their interests all of the time unfortunately. The put on a real nice face but then have draconian positions.

    Are you actually unaware of the legislative history of the first Clinton regime? Sounds like you must be.

    Take a look at AEDPA & IIRIRA. Then take a look at sentencing guidelines and what happened there. Then take a look at HRC's position regarding the removal of due process for immigrants.

    And they say Obama folks are just part of a cult. Jesus. You don't even know what these folks stand for!


    by illlaw1 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    Well look at the Obama campaign icons:  
    A plutocrat: Oprah, quickly becoming aristocrat.  
    Three Aristocrats:  Maria Shriver, Caroline Kennedy, and Ted Kennedy.  
    Looked like a weekend in the Hamptons to me.  

    I find his notion that Ted Kennedy is the man to reach the Latino community insulting.  The Latino has its own leadership.  


    by Iskandar on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Great Diary (none / 0)

    Very well-written and does great justice to Hillary.  Going into Super Tuesday, may the best woman win ;-)


    I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
    by Norwegian Chef on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:41:53 AM EST

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    This actually has been one of the weakest groups of Democrats that our party has ever fielded, at least in terms of experience.  2000 was a pretty bad year with only two candidates but they both had plenty of experience.  Our top three candidates have had very little of the kind of experience that traditional nominees have had with less than 15 years between the three from the time they started running.  However, their campaigns are the strongest we have probably ever seen.  All three top tier candidates had incredibly strong fundraising in both dollars and in number of contributors.  In a normal election year Edwards numbers would be flabbergasting.  However, Clinton and Obama have done the unimaginable and then Obama did it again with his January take.  I hope that our nominee will be the kind of President who fully takes the opportunity that the Republicans have presented us.

    In the future, I think that what these top candidates (and Ron Paul) have done will ensure that instead of limiting our choices for President their campaigns will inspire more candidates to take the plunge.  The idea that a candidate can raise the money to compete from hundreds of thousands of people instead of having to rely on a few thousand big donors and fundraisers may encourage some of the candidates who don't want to take money from lobbyists and PACs.  Instead of deciding they can't compete they may decide they can actually win.


    by msstaley on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:41:58 AM EST

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (2.00 / 1)

    Look back at the last 50 years of elections.  Count how many times the "experienced" (non-incumbent) candidate actually won the presidency.  

    Message and leadership matter, not years of service.


    by SKI on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:55:28 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    I think that Hillary's campaign along with McCain will change the face of experience. The fact of the matter is that we have the internet, television and radio. We are beyond the dark ages and we have cell phones to call each other and talk about issues. We can be in more than place by calling friends who listening and watching other events. We are shifting our democracy toward real communication. We have entered the New Millennium, hopefully heading toward the future not the past.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:58:30 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    I'm not disagreeing with you, but could you please explain how these technological changes have anything to do with the experience of the candidates?


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:05:30 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    That's not my point however as for message and leadership these things too are lacking (Remember the New Deal, Fair Deal, New Frontier, Great Society?).  What is not lacking is the ability to motivate voters and the money to do it.  Republicans would like Democrats to believe that Humphrey and McGovern lost because they were too liberal.  The reality is that Republicans outspent Democrats by tens of millions of dollars.  That won't happen this time and probably won't occur ever again unless we have some real duds in the future.


    by msstaley on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    Illlaw1-who do you think forms the constituency that put Bill into office and will probably put Hillary inas well-it's all of those groups you have mentioned as the Clintons have always supported them.
    Who has Obama done anything for other than the black constituency?
    by JP from HB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:43:30 AM EST

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    The problem with Obama is not his experience per se. It is his deceitfulness. He has proven that he is willing to mislead his campaign with false statements about his own record. That is an Obamination. Of course, Hillary Clinton's camp had to call him on that.

    Meanwhile at the ranch, all those souls who believed in his rhetoric filled them with hope of real change are really not aware that they were following their emotional attachments to their hopes. Obama has allowed people to be vulnerable so that he can win their votes. Those kinds of politics are heading out the window with the good 'ole boys club.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:02:40 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    And, given that Hillary has had similar problems with respect to deceitfulness over her own record  (see, e.g., her distortion of the Levin Amendment in the last debate), why should this issue disqualify only Obama?


    by SKI on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:05:48 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    Distortion of the Levin Amendment?  Come on.


    "Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:08:09 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    You don't think she did?  You really think the Levin Amendment would have  turned sovereignty over to the United Nations Security Council?

    Perhaps you also think her 2002 vote on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force wasn't actually a vote to authorize military force?


    by SKI on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:10:48 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    All I know is that Russ Feingold took the exact same position when he voted against the Levin Amendment.  Agree or disagree as you choose, but don't call it deceitful.


    "Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:33:13 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    Senator Clinton is the only Candidate running who arrived at the WTC and welcomed Rescue Workers. She is the only that I have found that worked hard for families of 9/11. And, if you were given that ration of false C.I.A. information and fear tactics set up by the Bush Administration, knowing that there were real terrorists at least in Afghanistan and Pakistan and possibly areas in and around Iraq, that if there were any dangers such as any w.m.d materials which could be smuggled--bought and sold across borders, you think that you would allow our inspectors to go in there with no security and back up?

    I might be against war yet I did turn down a National Security Clearance for Satellite Weapons Targeting in 1997 and the terrorists were being monitored under President Clinton.  I knew then that we were in danger. Read the 9/11 Commission Report 2004.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:25:05 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)


    ess. He has proven that he is willing to mislead his campaign with false statements about his own record.

    Such as...?

    Vote4Hillary, if you're going to make these kinds of bold statements, you ought to back them up.


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:07:40 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    People vote against their interests all of the time. For a political site people here are woefully ignorant of the legislation that Clinton signed.

    Do some research on AEDPA, IIRIRA, sentencing guidelines, and HRC's desire to remove due process from immigrants and you'll understand what I'm talking about.


    by illlaw1 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:56:42 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    the balkanization of the liberal blogosphere (none / 0)

    What will happen when this is all over?


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:53:51 AM EST

    Re: the balkanization of the liberal blogosphere (none / 0)

    Once what Markos is calling the Obama Reality Distortion Field fades DailyKos will rejoin the reality based community. If Obama wins it will take a little while longer to fade.


    by souvarine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:12:03 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: the balkanization of the liberal blogosphere (none / 0)

    So everyone at dKos is wrong and everyone at MyDD is right? Sounds like a schism.

    I personally disdain what has happened at both sites. There aren't many places left in the progressive blogosphere where you can have a reasonably informed, civil, and balanced debate about anything.

    Sure, everyone will make up after the convention, kissy kissy. But what will happen to MyDD? It used to be a place where you could go to have an informed discussion about strategy rather than ideology. I fear that those days are gone forever.


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:03:36 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: the balkanization of the liberal blogosphere (none / 0)

    There are more Clinton supporters here, but not nearly in proportion to her support among Democratic voters. I don't know of a place in the liberal blogosphere where you can have a more balanced debate than here at MyDD, few other community sites have enough Clinton supporters to be heard.

    MyDD continues to be a place to discuss strategy, for instance it was the first place where people began discussing that the campaign became a delegate contest. Few people here fell for the notion that the campaign was over before New Hampshire.


    by souvarine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:22:42 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: the balkanization of the liberal blogosphere (none / 0)

    I haven't been to dKos in ages, so I can't compare. But one need only look at the last 20 or so front page diaries here to see that MyDD has pretty much become a solid Clinton camp. Most of the Obama and neutral folks have excused themselves. The only resistance you see against Clinton comes from the few remaining stragglers who are sticking it out.

    If you want something fairly balanced, go to Open Left. In particular, I think this post really demonstrates their commitment to balance and against the nastiness that you see here these days.


    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:28:22 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: the balkanization of the liberal blogosphere (none / 0)

    The two front pagers are evenly split Clinton/Obama. Jerome is no fan of either, but spends a lot of time beating back Obama triumphalism. Clinton supporters have been pretty reserved, not many expected her to win NH and NV.


    by souvarine on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:59:09 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    VIVA Demlady4life-your type of passion will put Hillary in the White House!!!!


    by JP from HB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:04:31 AM EST

    Re: What Do you call Latino New Voters? (none / 0)

    Clinton has brought new voters: I am ONE.

    I stopped voting after Reagan/Bush entered me into the Gulf War. I stopped watching television and news. I never saw President Clinton during his campaign and people used to tell me that it was unbelievable that I did not care about it.

    The first time I saw President Clinton was on the front of newspapers downtown. I could not help but see it. Everyone was talking about Monika and Bill. I still ignored all that.

    After the second term for Bush, I wrote Hillary Clinton a letter and asked her to please run for President and I would vote for her. I am not a movie star but I voted because Hillary Clinton has a brain and knows how to use it.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:08:39 AM EST

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (2.00 / 2)

    You lost me at "Hillary is a populist".
    She is the most corporate/lobbyist funded candidate in the race (including the repubs) and is running the ultimate uber-establishment consultant driven campaign.  Look no further than Mark Penn and Terry Macullife.
    Hillary IS a very good, tough politician and if she is the nominee, I will support and defend her. But today, I will vote for Obama and feel great about it.  
    Cheers and good luck out there!
    by Cohee on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:14:06 AM EST

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (2.00 / 1)

    Unless you want to make-believe (as Obama has) that the corporate media darling and darling of the Democratic establishment is truly an outsider, your post is a bit on the wrong side of things.  Sorry, but Obama has not embraced populism the way Hillary has.  That is a simple fact.  I think he is a likeable guy, but he is over-coached and hyper-careful not to step on any Republican toes.   Vote for whoever you feel like, that is what a true democracy is all about.  Just don't do it under the illusion that Obama is a great defender of us Democrats, our values and ideals, or that he is not an establishment candidate.    

    And, sorry, but Axelrod, Plouffe and Gibbs aren't exactly purity consultants, far from it. Talk about "establishment," look no further than that trio.  


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:21:02 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    I never claimed Obama is an outsider, and I have a healthy amount of skepticism that either one of them will be a true progressive.  But I believe Obama is more liberal than Hillary and has the best chance of a mandate. And, probably soon, we'll see what John Edwards thinks...

    Oh - I'll take Axelrod, et al over Penn, Macullife and Carville any day, but that is insider baseball.  


    by Cohee on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:35:47 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (2.00 / 1)

    The fact that Edwards did not immediately endorse, and has not done so thereafter, does not give you pause?  

    I think Obama is more centrist than Hillary on many of the important issues of the day.  We could go through the top 10 important issues (to Democrats and progressives) and we would find that overall Hillary is closer to the progressive position on 7 or 8 of them with her tilt.  Obama wants to appeal strongly to Republicans and Independents, and he does so by watering-down important progressive values.  It is one way to perhaps win, but it is not really the progressive way.  Of course, the "foggy" way Obama frames almost every issue, Liberals, Independents and Republicans are free to interpret the talk anyway they wish, which is another major critique of Obama.  If that is possible, then Obama's positions are simply not clearly outlined, are open to interpretation because they are so unambigious and "careful."  

    I have regarded Krugman with the utmost respect for many years, and he believes strongly that Obama is poison for us Democrats.  Some food for thought as you go to the voting booth believing that Obama is the most liberal, and would govern as the most "liberal" (despite his own rhetoric to the contrary.)  


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:46:06 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    His rhetoric is meant to inspire and certainly you can't argue that it works. But his voting record is better than Hillary's.  I don't have time to stick around and give supporting links but there are plenty who agree all over the blogoshpere (and certainly many on MyDD who disagree).
    And I think Edwards wanted to stay out of super tuesday and let the chips fall, but IF he endorses, it will be Obama. No way he comes out for Hillary. Just my take from listening to Trippi.
    by Cohee on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:28:23 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    Well, since you are not sticking around tonight, I won't get into the evidence of Obama's voting record from progressive tracking sites that contradict your opinion.  It has been discussed here in the past, but there seem to be many new names popping up daily.  Perhaps we can have that discussion sometime tomorrow.  


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:43:44 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    The fact that Wealthy Attorney Son of a Coal Miner did not endorse anyone causes no pause for me. My partner calls him Mr. Velcro because he sticks to everyone. When Obama was attacking Clinton from the beginning, he dug in along with him. In Nevada, he finally chimed in about the Spanish Ads aimed at Clinton. Why? I am sure that he has some integrity but he also is a politician who realizes that he was not going to win between the two. So, who would he choose? He is going to wait it out and see who is the winner.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:30:25 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (2.00 / 2)

    I think you confuse "populism" with "partisanship."


    by grg on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:19:32 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (none / 0)

    You obviously did not take the time to look and listen.  You may not BELIEVE that her populism is real, which is legitimate (I am not buying Obama's "hope" personna at all,) but to claim that she has not been the populist in this 2-way race is ignoring the truth.    


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Hillary Clinton - the right experience and par (1.00 / 2)

    what!?  How can you say you will support and defend her (Hillary, MY NEXT PRESIDENT), but feel great about voting for obama tomorrow!???
      Do you have any idea how hypocritical you sound??  WOW.
      The point is that HILLARY made it VERY TRANSPARENT that she will work with everybody/anyone to get the TOUGH Job D.O.N.E.!  The Job she has been advocating for 35 years and especially since last year as she began her race!

     Yes! She would stick her neck out for all of you, you and all of us!!

    One of the main difference here is: obama, who is taking money from the slum lord REzko and has been for years! And takes good ol' money left and right from exelon, union labor leaders (he does nothing for these union guys and they are publicly fed up with him!)- check the burried news that will resurface to burry obama at the end of the day!

    Barack is  LYING out right about doing only five hours for rezko back in the haaay day ( he got paid 50k for that "5" hr job, did you know that??) and his family has long traditional friendship with REZKO, did you know that?? did you know that he, Barack does not care about the poor people, did you knwo that his OWN mother died of cancer b/c (an this is or used to be somewhere on his website) could not afford the right medical attention, while Barack lives in his 1.25 million dollar home which he bought from REZKO at a 200 K discount!  Did you know that! Did you know that REZKO later pumped Barack with incredible amount of money as Baracks white mother laid dying in the hospital!  Did you know that? Where is your sense of conscience....Oh I forgot for a second you're a hypocrite, being Hillary's supporter and all....what a crap!!  

    Did you know:
    He short changes the bills he writes, and gets kick backs from the sponsors who he publicly claims to be fighting against in the public media eye!  GET THE FACTS b.c this guy wont give them to you! Obama's campaign chair is a pharmaceutical lobbyist registered! Did You know that?!


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:18:44 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Clinton because we need to win in November (none / 0)

    For me it comes down to who can win in the fall.

    Clinton knows what is coming from the Republican/Media slime machine. Obama has not been tested in an opposition media environment.

    We need to win this fall. Too much is at stake.


    by MediaFreeze on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:14:49 AM EST

    Re: Clinton because we need to win in November (2.00 / 1)

    I'll suggest that all available evidence indicates that Obama would be the stronger nominee - current polling on head to head match-ups, lower negatives, better ability to inspire, better messaging/theme for a general election, etc.

    If the best positive you can come up with for Hillary is that she has already been slimed, I don't see that as real compelling.  


    by SKI on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:26:05 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: (none / 0)

    Amongst polled voters intent in voting in Democratic primaries we have seen an astoundingly high negative rating for Obama, and an astoundingly low favorable rating.  I am referring to a lot of polling evidence we have discussed over the months, and nothing appears to have changed.  The data we have available from just this past week has shown that Obama's pos./neg. are simply not all that.  Favorables in the 60s somewhere,  unfavorables in the 30s, not a good position to be in with your own base.  

    Because of his relative weakness with the base I regard Obama as the weaker candidate.    


    by georgep on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:39:17 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton because we need to win in November (1.00 / 1)

    Actually the evidence is reality points to Hillary Clinton. In his infamous rally questioned by a constiuent, "How are we going to beat the b...h?" He said, "Excellent question!"

    On a television interview over the weekend, Clinton and McCain ran into each from what I read but cannot find it again on the net, and agreed to run a fair campaign against each other.

    In fact, the Republicans are so scared of Sen. Clinton that over the Thanksgiving Holidays, they said prayers such as "God, we pray that you make the Democrats dumb enough to nominate Obama so we can drum him like a turkey." I read that from Rep. blogs that week.

    All the extra media attention that Obama has received free of charge has been the work of the Republicans in media who want all of us Democrats to believe their fairy tales. They want us to bestow confidence on Obama and lose faith in Clinton. Meanwhile, they want us to lose the Presidential Bid because they are afraid that she could win it.


    by Vote4Hillary on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:35:37 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton because we need to win in November (none / 0)


    In fact, the Republicans are so scared of Sen. Clinton that over the Thanksgiving Holidays, they said prayers such as "God, we pray that you make the Democrats dumb enough to nominate Obama so we can drum him like a turkey." I read that from Rep. blogs that week.

    I've heard the opposite numerous times. Link please?
    The truth about McCain
    by nstrauss on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:17:39 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton because we need to win in November (none / 0)

    Obama is polling well against GOP candidates now but he has yet to be slimed by the GOP snd the media.  For the most part he's getting a free pass.

    I wouldn't be all that confident it's a slam dunk in November for him after he's been Swiftboated.  


    Sexism is real.
    by grassrootsorganizer on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:12:24 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton because we need to win in November (none / 0)

    He's been swiftboated. Just by the Clinton's.


    by illlaw1 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:07:01 AM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Re: Clinton because we need to win in November (none / 0)

    oh darlin.  That wasn't swiftboating.  You're mistaking a bee sting for a chain saw.


    Sexism is real.
    by grassrootsorganizer on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:30:07 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    our country (none / 0)

    Take a look at the endorsements that came out of the Senate.  Most all of them went to Obama.  Those Senators have to work  intimately with Clinton and Obama on a daily basis on legislative issues, and they have expressed a preference for Obama.  That says a whole lot to me.

    Another thing worth pondering--   Hilary Clinton began this race with enormous structural advantages.  She was First Lady for two terms, she had accumulated a huge warchest, her husband is an ex-President and the most visible and popular Democrat in the party, and the media had basically crowned her as our nominee a year ago.
    Obama had to overcome all of that, and now he has pulled even and the wind is at his back.  If she can't win a convincing victory with the tremendous headstart that she enjoyed, then she is not our strongest nominee to take on the Republicans.

    And let's recall what happened the last couple of times our party nominated similar boring centrists (Gore, Kerry):   We lost to an incompetent dimwit, and we've been paying the price for the last eight years.   We cannot afford to run another candidate who does not inspire large numbers of previously disenfranchised voters to participate.


    by global yokel on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:21:03 AM EST