Moderate Appeal to Democrats: Please Stop this Hillary Nonsense
Pay attention, Democrats: you must abandon this “Hillary Clinton for President” nonsense, and you must do it immediately for your own good. Failure to do so could motivate most of America to turn their back on the official Democratic party, and to stop listening to liberal ideas. Hear me out on this.
We hear so much lately from Republicans about the Great Ronald Reagan. Reagan is ranked by historians to have been an okay president, certainly not great. However, Republicans have been experiencing buyer’s remorse the past few years under George Bush’s follies. I hear Republicans pining for the good old days when Reagan was president, and all Republican presidential candidates are being held up to the “Reagan Standard”.
I am as disappointed to hear Republicans evaluate their candidates against Reagan as I am disappointed to see support for Hillary as president. Ronald Reagan was in his prime in the 80’s. Ronald Reagan in the 90’s would not have been nearly the person he was in the 80’s, and Reagan in the 00’s and beyond would be an embarrassing dinosaur.
I recall that Bill Clinton often evoked ties to John F. Kennedy during his campaign and presidency. How often did we see that five second film where JFK shakes a young Billy’s hand? Bill Clinton obviously propped himself up to an extent by making people believe they were getting another John F. Kennedy. JFK was JFK in the early 60’s. JFK in the 70’s would not have been nearly as spectacular, and would have been an embarrassment in the decades following. It turned out Bill Clinton was Bill Clinton of the 90’s, not another JFK.
I’ve heard it said that George Bush Sr.’s election was due to people liking Reagan, and they thought they were getting more Reagan by electing Bush Sr. Bush Sr. thought people liked him, so he became his own man, his own president. Americans quickly realized they had not gotten more Reagan, and turned away from Bush. Unfortunately, I hear Mitt Romney being described as “Reagan-esque” by many conservatives, and it dismays me that they seem to be voting for their Reagan memories more than Romney’s merits.
I believe Hillary Clinton is running on Bill Clinton’s coattails, and trying to get elected on the promise that if we elect Hillary we will get Bill again. This is deceptive because anyone who has read about the Clintons knows that Hillary wears the pants in their family and Hillary will undoubtedly be Hillary Clinton, not Bill Clinton. She is selling us on the same “two for the price of one” package, but Hillary supporters have to be honest with themselves and admit Bill will be nothing more than a suitcase pimp for Hillary (check wikipedia for that analogy).
Even today, I go to hillaryclinton.com to snag her photo, the only pictures offered in the “Photo” section feature her husband Bill Clinton meeting with people, and Hillary is not in any pictures! Really?! Hillary must have billions of photos featuring her in all sorts of flattering scenes, but instead they choose to exclusively showcase Bill Clinton on Hillary’s presidential website photo section. This communicates even more clearly to me that Hillary is riding on Bill’s coattails.
Hillary’s campaign is a farce because we know she will not be like Bill, despite running with the Bill Clinton play book. We know Hillary by way of numerous described encounters people have had with her. I recommend Dereliction of Duty by retired Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson, who carried the nuclear football for Clinton and witnessed firsthand many power-abusing scenes. Hillary Clinton is clearly not the type of person we want as president.
Just as Reagan would not be the great Reagan today, Bill Clinton would not be the great Bill Clinton today. Hillary will not be Bill Clinton, but she wants us to believe she will. We can guess the type of president Hillary will be from the numerous described encounters of people working with Hillary, and this will not be good for America.
Let me put it this way: supporting Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nominee causes moderate, middle-spectrum Americans to wonder about the wisdom of the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton represents a past mess, and we do not want to revisit that past mess. Supporting Hillary Clinton is as sad as when the Republicans ran old Bob Dole for president. These are all old ideas, why not try to present a fresh candidate, and fresh ideas to America?
As a moderate, I view Hillary as a set of tired old ways, and I view Barack Obama as a symbol of fresh ideas in the Democratic party. (And what do you know, when I visit Obama’s website I can find pictures of Obama, not Bill Clinton.) As a moderate, I view John McCain and Rudy Giuliani as a set of tired old ways, and Mitt Romney as a symbol of fresh ideas in the Republican party. Democrats should not try to match a fresh Republican candidate with a stale Democratic candidate; the Democrats will lose every time.
So here I am appealing to Democrats as a moderate voter: please stop this Hillary Clinton for president nonsense, and pick a candidate who represents a new America, a fresh start for our country. Otherwise the Democrat party risks alienating most Americans and creating a vacuum for a new, dominant, liberal party.
What do you think?
So who are the front-runners nowadays? Hillary vs. Obama for the democrats, and Rudy vs. Mitt for the republicans? Or am I behind in the news?
It’s all over now that Chuck has picked Huckabee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&e
Latest national Gallup poll (as of 11/13):
Dems:
Hillary 48%
Obama 21%
Edwards 12%
GOP:
Giuliani 28%
Thompson 19%
McCain 13%
Romney 12%
Huckabee 10%
As a moderate, I am upset to see such a large Clinton lead, and I feel that Obama, Richardson, and even Edwards represent fresher, more ‘American’ candidates.
On the GOP side, it’s anyone’s game, but from an environmentalist point of view I’d like to see McCain in there.
Anyone concerned about the environment knows that McCain is actually a better candidate than most of the Democrats, so my plea to you is to switch parties this year and vote in the GOP primaries!!
I believe the polls show Hillary in the lead because most voters aren’t into the politics of the 2008 race yet, & Clinton is an easily recognizable name. Obama has been gaining traction in early primary states like Iowa, which will bring up his name visibility in the polls.
I listen to progressive talk radio, & the instant polls they take every week show that folks who are already into the political season favor Edwards & Obama, with Kucinich getting lots of support from the radical left contigent of the party. Those Democrats who are political junkies, like me, don’t favor Hillary as a first or even second choice.
That being said, don’t count Hillary out just because of her negative numbers. She’s been fielding political attacks from her opponents for 30 years. She knows how to handle the pressure, and with all of the various books that have been written about her & Bill there’s really no “October surprises” left to blow her out of the race. Remember, she had the same kind of negative numbers when she ran for the Senate in New York. She turned that all around & won the seat, even scaring big bad Rudy from even entering the race against her. She is one tough cookie, when it comes to politics.
Yeah, I know what you mean about being scared out of the race. I mean, Rudy had cancer and all and was leading her in the polls when he dropped out and was replaced by Rick Lazio. Come on….Rudy wasn’t scared out of the race by her. He would have sent her to the bottom of the Hudson River in that election. Please be honest in your assertion about why he got out of the race….pull political punches all you want, but tell the truth.
Hahahaha, Mike. Good one. When you’re honest about your assertions regarding Al Gore, maybe I’ll let up on poor Rudy. Political punches swing both ways, huh?
What the H… are you talking about On hillary.com there are many pictures of her - without her husband. And, who else favors health care as she does?
At hillaryclinton.com, I rollover the top menu links until I find “Newsroom > Photos”, the path is hillaryclinton.com/multimedia/photos
The first set of 20 pics show up of Bill in someone’s living room. I see this time that on the right side there are other categories, clicking on each opens a new gallery, and yes NOW I see other pics of Hillary doing her thing.
I wonder how often they update their pics, perhaps it is a coincidence that Bill-only pics load as the default?
Perhaps not.
I’m underwhelmed by all the candidates in both parties so far. I’ll most likely vote democrat, for all the good that will do in Idaho, regardless of the candidate simply because I think after eight years of Shrub that the dems need to be in power and I fear what a few more republican supreme court justices will do. But that won’t make me happy about the vote as I don’t want Hilary, I think Obama is too inexperience, and the rest (barring a huge upheaval) are already out of the race for the most part.
But if a republican wins I really hope its Rudy or McCain as they are the only two on that side who don’t make me ill to think about being president.
What a joke ooh child…..lol on that. So, you feel it fine to lie about Guliani because I am “lying” about Gore? The Guliani issue is cut and dry….Gore’s is not. There are over 19,000 physical science degreed persons that disagree with his 1700 scientists that signed onto the ICC report he was involved in to get the Nobel Prize.
I read the Ron Paul article Joe put up. With all the garbage floating around amongst all these candidates (and their supporters) it sure begins to make Ron Paul look attractive–if nothing else, to stick it to the establishment that is full of apologists, liars, question planters, etc………
I agree, just like the Democrats deserved their loss in ‘94 and just like the Republicans deserved their loss in ‘96, I think all the big-name candidates deserve to lose in ‘08.
I’m willing to go with an unknown president for four years, if only for the shock value to the big mainstream parties, force them to get a little more real with voters. I’m tired of these manufactured candidates who are more marketing campaign than normal Americans.
Mike, that’s not the only false assertion you’ve made about Gore. If it’s gettin’ too hot in the kitchen, you may consider gettin’ out.
Have a Happy Turkey Day!
Check this story out. It speaks alot to why Republicans lost in 2006 and how they could do so again. It also notes Paul is the only candidate actually talking about eliminating programs.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312356,00.html
I think one idea I meant to convey here is that Hillary Clinton represents a poison pill to the majority of Americans.
If Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, you will instantly lose over half the vote because she is a poison pill. It is sad to see Democrats go for what they think is a safe bet, despite Hillary’s obvious drawbacks. This is like if the Republicans nominated Dick Cheney for the next presidential candidate. Neither of these candidates represent a step forward for America.
It would be more encouraging to see Democrats go for the non-safe bet, go for someone who could be a breath of fresh air for America. That’s why I think Obama has the best chance. Sure he is young and inexperienced, but he also does not carry the baggage which Hillary carries.
“OOh child,” I like the folksy bit (”gettin’”), much like Hilary “cleanin’ house” ha ha. What “lies” did Mike tell about Gore??? So far everything he has said about Gore has been correct…..cites, please!
It’s okay Babs. I have resigned myself to the fact that like many others who cite Gore’s short comings and lies to gain political and economic support that we will be called every name in the book and be an evil hate monger that is intent on destroying the planet. It is to be expected. That is all they have got is name calling and junk science that is no where close to being conclusive. They don’t want a debate–they want their views accepted without dissent. Can I use a bumper sticker slogan? “Question Authority”……since when did it become a problem to do that….if they can’t handle that perhaps they are the ones that should get out of the kitchen.
Since when has pointing out your false claims about Al Gore become name-calling & hate mongering? Don’t blow my reaction out of proportion, Mike. If you continue to throw out the standard Fox News-type smears about Al Gore, don’t expect me not to call you out about it.
For instance:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Now, how about getting back on topic?
I still think that the negatives Hillary is experiencing are to be expected for a front-runner & a Clinton. She’s handled them before. She can handle them again, if no one can best her in the debates coming up.
The Democrats have one thing one their side that the Republicans don’t have yet: a belief that any one of their candidates is better than any of the Republican guys. So many Republicans have at least one guy they absolutely detest above all others. They are fractured & eating their own at this point.
“I took the initiative in creating the internet”
vs.
“I invented the internet”.
Honestly, I truly don’t see a difference. His actual quote, above, is somehow worse because he uses “bigger” language.
Where in this thread did I impugn the honorable Mr. Gore about creating the internet? As for calling each other “out” on the topic that is exactly what your crowd of environmentalists won’t stand for. Any dissent is labeled as uninformed stupidity and dangerous to the planet’s surival. You guys don’t want debate….you want political and economic power at the expense of the rest of us who are just supposed to shut up and go along with global warming alarmists. I am not calling you out on anything. This AIN’T about you sister! It’s about the science that deserves debate and a more clear understanding rather than soundbites about the Internet which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
Many politicians mentioned in this thread–like the good Mrs. Clinton–want to fool us into buying into alarmism so they can take more of our money, our way of life and our freedoms away. Politicians want to take our guns away because some nut job kills 32 at Virginia Tech. They want to confiscate our property to make way for shopping malls in the name of the public interest (i.e. tax revenue).
As for your assertion that, ” The Democrats have one thing one their side that the Republicans don’t have yet: a belief that any one of their candidates is better than any of the Republican guys. So many Republicans have at least one guy they absolutely detest above all others. They are fractured & eating their own at this point.”
That is baloney…both sides are eating their own right now. If you bothered taking the time to talk to a Republican (as opposed to bashing them) you would understand that Republicans also think any of their candidates are better than Hillary. Both sides see it the same way. Your assertion above is nothing more than the same type of liberal blatther devoid of substance to bolster your point and your candidate. Thanks but no thanks on your take here. The simple point here is–why not try for some objectivity and analysis of the entire spectrum out there rather than a narrow minded liberal view? Is that too much to ask…………only time (and the next post will tell).
Mike, the liberties you take in assuming my political stance are too numerous to counter at one time, but that’s a good debate tactic, right? Throw out a bunch of generalities & hope some stick.
You have no idea what Republicans I talk to, yet you assume they believe their candidates are better than Hillary. Aside from the obvious difference between your assertion & mine, you ignore the section of conservatives who absolutely refuse to vote for Giuliani. Then there’s the religious-right Republicans who refuse to vote for Romney ’cause he’s not a real Christian. Then you have the section frightened by the illegal immigrant population who refuse to vote for Huckabee. You also have the WOT propagandists who positively detest McCain & will do anything to discredit his war credentials.
The Democrats have no problem supporting whoever gets the nomination. There’s no internal organized opposition against any of our candidates. I’m not supporting Hillary in the primaries, but I’ll have no qualms in voting for her, should she succeed.
As far as your personal problems with Al Gore, those are many & memorialized in quite a few threads around here. I’m certainly not going to track down every one of your exaggerations, I just pulled the latest as an example. Babs was actually the one who asked for cites, so get on her case for bringing it up.
As far as cites go, care to show where I have ever called you names or wished hatred upon you? Or are you going to ignore that pesky evidence again? Care to show me where I have called you stupid or dangerous? These are claims you’re making, remember. Just like some of your other false claims that I’ve shown you make, are you going to just slide by again with these & hope no one notices?
We all need to relax here. This is nothing new here. We all know that Mike likes to “blow things out of proportion” occasionally to stir up the pot. But the real problem here is with the hard core Democrats like Oooh child. Instead of voting for the best candidate from either party, they’d rather vote for the worst Democrat just so long as their Democrat. Therin lies the problem.
but thats just my opinion. now can’t we just all get along?
And that was my original point with Hillary. I do not think she represents anywhere near the best of what the Democratic party has to offer, and I am dismayed to see her have so much support. Why are dems supporting her so much when she clearly represents such a poison pill? To support Hillary is like those poor folks still stuck on trying to elect Al Gore.
Our country has moved on, it’s a different time now, let’s see something fresh and exciting in your candidate, a breath of fresh air, a new direction. Hillary is none of these things.
Um, “Child”, I was asking YOU for cites to where Mike had told lies or half-truths about Gore. If you aren’t able to provide the same, you probably shouldn’t have made that accusation…….
Excellent Post 007. You are correct, I am a pot stirer–just not a pot smoker! lol
Joe, your observation was also dead on target. Hillary is an establishment candidate for more of the same…just like McCain is. Both parties are screwing us over royally and we need to wake up and throw a nice little revolt at the ballot box to take the country back and throw the bums out that have screwed things up for way too long.
Which is why, right now I am leaning toward Obama — of course, that is subject to change. He hasn’t really had enough time in politics to get too corrupted. I’m trying to learn more about Ron Paul. As much as I hate to admit it, he was almost a complete unknown to me until just a short while ago. I can’t bring myself to support Romney, I’m afraid he would have too many outside influences. McCain appears to me to be too old and too tired to stand up under the challenge. Come to think of it, I’ve got something against everyone that is running. Maybe a “wild card” will appear on the horizon in the near future. Do you suppose that was Paul?
Recent poll shows Hillary would lose to all Republican candidates.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071126191523.oorozvs5&show_article=1
Democrats, please do not support Hillary anymore.
It is amazing that with such high negatives in place already that the Democrats are still willing to nominate her. This reminds me of times when the lunatic left took over the Democratic Party (before Bill Clinton’s more moderate followers took it back). We had the likes of George McGovern, Tom Eagleton, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, and even our good buddy John Kerry. What a bunch of losers! haha
Just goes to show that the movers and shakers who probably don’t know the cost of a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk are darn determined to push her on the American People no matter what. This bodes well for Republicans and not just the presidency, but in the 23 Senate seats they have to defend next year.
It looks like this Hillary for president nonsense may finally be near the end, with Hillary coming in 3rd place in the Iowa Caucuses yesterday.
http://www.kidk.com/news/13026572.html
I was disappointed to see Huckabee win so big, I’ve heard a lot of negative things about him lately, I think Mitt Romney is the strongest and best candidate among Republicans but he did not do so well.
I’ll take Huckabee over Romney any day. And how about Obama winning on the Democratic side? I bet Hillary woke up this morning in a foul mood. Poor Bill! lol
Romney needs the win in NH. He’s a smart, well-spoken guy. He just needs to lose the polished look and get more “folksy” like Huckabee. Huckabee has no substance. He’s a “feel-good” candidate without much backbone. Someone you would like to live next door to, but not have as the President of our country. I don’t care how much Medved tries to spin it, Huckabee’s comments about the Morman religion were exactly what he wanted to say. As a Baptist minister he probably knows more about Morman doctrine than Mormans do themselves!
Here we go with the religous talk. I would love to respond, but why bother when I know my comments will only be edited by “big brother”. don’t wanna loose any visitors to the site by having an intelligent conversation about said topic and how it relates to the presidential candidates.
(love the censorship on this site!)
I was thinking we should discuss ways to possibly reintroduce religious discussions at IFz, but I’ve got a full plate now so in a few months we will do that (which will be nearly a year since we banned it, so it seems appropriate to bring up the topic and try reintroducing the subject).
I hope these candidates can be discussed without going into too much religion. How about setting some boundaries? Let’s not get into which candidate has the right religion, or which candidate will take orders from their religion, or if a candidate is right or wrong to believe in a particular religion.
Go ahead and talk about a candidate who bashes another candidate’s religion, because that reveals the candidate’s character. I’ll try to only edit the comments that venture into the former, and leave alone the latter.
Sound fair for now?
The Iowa caucus’ were dominated by far left and right wingers. It won’t mean much down the road as more independents and moderates weigh in later in the year. Obama and Huckabee will be eaten up. I expect that Hillary and Romney will get the nod from middle of the road voters that will sway the nomination process beyond the early fringe of each party.
I think it’s pretty difficult to have a discussion board these days without the issue of religion being a topic for two reasons: some of the presidential candidates are so prominently regligious and religious rights dominate the headlines.
It has been my experience that when a person can’t back his debate with reason and intelligence he tends to fall back on name calling and then it no longer becomes a discussion or debate.
ditto to Mike; the race is far from over; I was pleased to see Obama do as well as he did, however;
Joe, I think you have the right idea re: religious discussions….as far as the allegations of “censorship,” isn’t their a separate “religious discussion” website available? I have seen links to it here….
Babs….the problem is, you can’t talk about the presidental candidates without including religion. We all know there’s a seperate religious site. There are just too many issues right now involving the presidential candidates that should include discussions of religion.
Hopefully Joe will bring back talks of religion. Nobody bothers to visit that other site, just so they can talk religious talk.
Joe, can you give us an idea of the monthly numbers regarding visitors/posters at that other site?
Guest_007: I don’t track anything at that other site so I don’t know the visitor numbers. Judging by the few comments there I imagine it to be low.
I cannot find it now, but I read an article analyzing the vote counts in New Hampshire, and they discovered that Hillary won the precincts using Diebold voting machines by nearly the exact percentage (to the third decimal place) as Obama won over Hillary in the precincts using hand ballots.
So if Obama beat Hillary say 53.123% to 43.123% in hand counted precincts, Hillary was found to have beaten Obama by 43.123% to 53.123% in machine precincts. So the allegation is that Hillary did not win that primary, that the Diebold machines are either malfunctioning or (conspiracy alert) Diebold executives want Hillary to win cuz they are Republicans and … I don’t follow that part out, but I thought the numbers flip was interesting.
Here is another lovely reason to oppose Clinton…..mandatory payroll deductions to pay for Universal Health Care! How much more will they take from us?
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4235448
Have you heard this overblown faux-puritan nonsense over an MSNBC commentator saying Hillary Clinton was “pimping out” Chelsea? Hillary got in a huff and is saying she won’t do the MSNBC debate, so MSNBC lost their journalistic spine and suspended the guy while apologizing.
The term “pimping out” has become a common cultural phrase meaning putting to work in a cheap fashion, I don’t think anyone believes it was about forcing Chelsea into prostitution.
The description was accurate. Every politician “pimps” their family out to stump for them on the campaign trail. Some people call it marketing and some people call it pimping.
Hillary getting bent out of shape over that comment illustrates Hillary’s misplaced sense of outrage and priorities.
obama is a race hustler like al sharpton and jesse jackson who started his career as a lawyer for public housing within the ghetto of chicago’s southside. that fact that idaho voted for obama proves how disconneted idaho is from the rampant crime and degeneracy that plagues the inner cities of the eastern united states.
white men voted for obama because they have college degrees and still can’t get a job but that is caused by affirmative action and obama wants more of it.
the hatred towards white women like hillary is going to backfire and either cause mccain to win who isn’t a war “hero” simnply because he spent time in a vietamese prison camp who will bankrupt our country because his kind are sick with delusions that islamofacism is a problem for america when the fact is affirmative action and unmitigated immigration from latin america is causing college grads to remain unemployed.
if obama wins we will become bankrupt by increased affirmative action and billions spent for slave reparations which almost NO americans had anything to do with. you will pay billions for slave reparations even if your ancestors fought to free slaves.
hillary is the only reasonable solution for america. obama with all his upbeat motivational speaking belongs on some wrestling show not in the white house. obama is a silly media fraud who gets positive media coverage without even paying for it. there is a media bias for obama and against hillary so this is proof blacks benefit from affirmative action but white women don’t.
That is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time. You are one of those folks who always have an excuse for your own failures, don’t you? Blame other races when you cannot get a job or live the life you want? Sound like the same tune you’ve played all your life?
“that fact that idaho voted for obama proves how disconneted idaho is from the rampant crime and degeneracy that plagues the inner cities of the eastern united states.”
Idaho voting for Obama over Hillary (here in rabid Anti-Clinton land) somehow proves we don’t understand eastern U.S. inner cities have rampant crime and degeneracy?
“white men voted for obama because they have college degrees and still can’t get a job but that is caused by affirmative action and obama wants more of it.”
First, that does not make logical sense. Second, you ever hear of the term “over-generalization”? It pretty much means you are slapping your ridiculously infantile one line answer onto something you disagree with to explain why things didn’t go the way you wanted. It also fits into your larger pattern of making excuses in your life instead of making changes.
I just searched and reviewed all your other comments at IFz, and every single one of them is filled with the same racially hostile and incendiary comments. If you want to continue chatting here I ask you to stop the racial baiting, it is against our community discussion rules.
you comment is proof that obama is a sacred cow who can’t be criticized because of his race yet people like you are always criticising other races by calling them “islamofacists” which means you hate middle eastern people who aren’t subservient to the wall street diamond dealers.
obama will costs america BILLIONS in slave reparations and you don’t want anyone to talk about this because you don’t support free speech yet you claim some “terrorist” hates our freedoms. i don’t see any “terrorist” in the middle east trying to prevent the truth about obama being spoken about.
Oh brother, that does not even deserve a response. Do you have a job? Do you have a girlfriend? Have you ever visited a foreign country? I think you need to expand your worldly experiences a little bit. But again I have to warn you any more of these racist comments and I will delete them and ban you.
I still think dguy is one of the Westboro Baptist types that has incendiary language for any topic just to tick people off. Can you say devils advocate to the extreme?
Has anyone heard the Obama campaign mention slavery or affirmative action once? Back your claims up, sir. The truth is that the Clinton machine is more left of center than Obama when it comes to federal aid for the poor and minorities. Hahaha, I bet Obama hasn’t “kicked it with the homies” in his life - but he is the most intelligent candidate out there, which should count for something in my opinion.
Another thing with Hillary, what’s with this stupid “superdelegates” scam that the Democratic party cooked up? As I understand it so far, they have a few well-connected party hacks who get to change their votes and ignore the voting results of their district?
Doesn’t this seem like a rigged system? The person with the most party connections (Hillary) could rig a win out from under the popularly-selected candidate (Obama)?
Since 2000 Democrats have hollered about George Bush stealing the election, then they try this trick?
The Democrats did not “cook-up” the super delegate scam. The same tactic was used in the Bush/Gore election. I think the Republicans used it first. But whoever used it first, I don’t like it, but I don’t know what to do about it either. Katie Couric ran a newsbrief on it the other night.
if the public can’t criticize obama now lest they be silenced as a “racist” you can only imagine how bad it will be if he is president.
i see obama as a typical hustler who like that reporter fraud at the NY Times(jason whatever-his-name-was) will be supported and helped by so many people at all costs to make him succeed at a job he isn’t qualified to do only to make some huge mistake.
unlike battle-tested hillary who has been criticized for at least 15 years, obama will sweat or melt if he is under pressure once people decide not to treat him with kids gloves anymore and demand he function effectively to benefit more than just his friends who will emerge to be seen if he gets elected.
idaho won’t vote for him anyway since it is a red state so don’t get your hopes up because these republicans are going to turn the heat up on him and he is going to melt like plastic and all his motivational speaker antics won’t help him and those tactics will be relegated back to into the realm of worldwide wrestling shows which is where they belong and probably came from.
all the media is for obama so it’s no surprise that writers for this site, which is affiliated with a tv station, are too.
“Has anyone heard the Obama campaign mention slavery or affirmative action once…”
the obama campaign handlers aren’t going to mention this because they want to win but wait until he makes it and then we are going to see lots of talk about affirmative action & mass reparations $$$ from obama.
the clintons support affirmative action based on need which is what low income idahoans need so just because obama is “fresh” doesn’t mean he has any fresh ideas and is instead another run of the mill 1960s-styled motivational speaker relic who will only help his friends once he gets into office. what has he ever proposed that will benefit idaho? obama is to progressive liberals what bush was to religious conservative–people imagine he has something for them but once in office he will do nothing for them.
CNN is actually pro-Hillary. It’s their polls that are claiming superdelegates will vote for Hillary. Many of these superdelegates have come out publicly saying they will not cast their vote against the popular vote. Which means, if Obama wins the popular vote, these superdelegates who pledged Clinton back in November will indeed change as well. Then why, pray tell, does CNN continue to assign these delegates to Hillary? It’s misleading, and a blatant attempt to trick lesser informed voters.
all the media is for obama so it’s no surprise that writers for this site, which is affiliated with a tv station, are too.
Oh brother. Please let me know what TV station this site is affiliated with?
And by the way, every politician gets their friends jobs, no matter what party. You must be politically naive if you think Hillary will be the first exception.
I agree, most of the comments of ‘dguy’ have been very over generalized, antagonistic, and harshly devil’s advocate. Like schorz on the online version of the PR, it seems, does someone pay this person to be so deliberately foul that everyone reacts in protest?
I was a Hillary supporter forever, and was angy that Obama didn’t get in line with her…but having seen her campaign tactics, and having seen Obama be just a wee bit more civil than she has been, I’ve switched my allegiance to Obama in this last month.
I was at the caucus, voted for Obama. Time will tell, but right now the race (for me) is his to lose.
Gee, it’s Cheese Head Time. I guess I lost touch and didn’t realize that Wisconsin was the next round in the matchup between Hillary & Obama. Tonight, I’ve been reading that Hillary is supposed running some real negative ads against Obama there in Cheese Head Country.
I’m quite surprised to hear that. So far, I’ve only visited maybe a half dozen news feeds–but, so far, they all seem to be saying the same thing–Hillary’s playing the negative card there in Wisconsin.
I’d like to flashback to March 1968. That’s when I had my first real “body politic” experience. I signed up on campus to go campaign for Eugene McCarthy in the Wisconsin primary that year. I was sent to Kaukauna–you know, where they make the cheese spread. The community gave us a floor to sleep on in some old decrepit downtown building. Some big Bubba came in and said, “You can eat all you want, as long as it’s Kaukauna Cheese!” I eat so much of that cheese that week, it took me years to ever want to even sniff the stuff again.
So they turned me loose in some neighborhood. I was the proverbial snot nose kid–sum dum ass from sum college town. I’d go knock on doors and try to convince people to vote for Eugene. Trouble was that every third door I’d hear this shout from the inside, “COME ON IN!” And I’d open the door and it was a fricking BAR! And these neighborhood alkies would be hittin’ me up and saying, “You gotta have a beer.” I didn’t realize about one-third of the houses in that city held official liquor licenses! Well, after a couple of days of this, I succumbed and I just started knocking on doors and listening for the “COME ON IN” shout and I’d go in and start pounding beers with the best of them. By gawd, we’d be back-slappin’ and doing high fives and pretty soon every where I went people would be smiling their red-faced alkie smiles and pumping a fist with “VOTE GENE!”
And by gawd, we won that danged town 85-15! I learned a lot about populist politics way back when almost 40 years ago. I learned people vote people–they don’t give a dang about radio, TV and newspapers. They vote their conscience and their heart–ESPECIALLY in Wisconsin. Those Cheese Heads ain’t no fools–they are sum smart cookies! If you drank as much beer as they do, you’d be real smart, too!
So, I reckon that, if true, Hillary’s running of negative ads is going to backfire there in Wisconsin. If it’s true what she is doing, it shows she is in total disconnect mode. That line of bull ain’t gonna sell in Cheese Head Country. Those people are WAY too smart for that s**t. They all “been there, done that” and they ain’t no fools.
I can hardly wait to see the Tuesday results. There’s only two outcomes: it will confirm what I think I know or it will make me look like an idiot. Sum choice, huh?
Cheers, Monte.
Hey, Groovey Tuesday! Another Tuesday, another primary. Well, as noted above, I had an opinion. I am gratified to see these 9 p.m. results via Voice of America’s website:
“Early results showed Obama leading his rival - New York Senator Hillary Clinton - by more than 10 percentage points.”
Those voters in Cheese Head Country ain’t no dumb s**ts. Negative campaigning didn’t sell–it never really has sold well there.
At least I didn’t wind up looking like the Village Idiot! (Although I’m sure I have resembled the VI in various other posts here on various other topics.)
Cheers, Monte
It was really amazing to see how the coverage shaped up last night. McCain came out and made a 15-20 minute speech that was fully broadcase. Huckabee didn’t get covered. Clinton started her remarks and it was dull….the Fox News Channel went to a split screen with Obama while Clinton still spoke….still dull….guess what, they switched over to Obama for 45 minutes of uninterrupted air time and cut Clinton out completely.
I have to admit it was a nice speech. There are so many things that sounded great in his speech. However, if you take a calculator to his remarks it adds up to over 850 billion in costs. The second thing is that his programs make us more dependent on the government rather than less dependent. Obama reminds me of FDR–big government spending. He also didn’t advocate for nuclear energy last night either. He mentioned biofuels, ethanol, wind power, geothermal….all the fuzzy green technologies, but nothing on nuclear. That doesn’t help this area very much. One tank of ethanol takes as much corn as normally one person eats in a year….I wonder why food prices are shooting up? hmmm…..
People had not only better stop the Hillary Nonsense….they had better start understanding the Obama Nonsense and the laws of unintended consequences when politicians get the government deeper into our lives, our wallets, and our moral choices. Some will say criticizing Obama means one is racist…..I say that failing to criticize this ‘rock star’ is failing to recognize how dangerous he really is. He is a crafty man….he is saying all the right things to all groups of people. Does anyone have a pang in their gut that this guy sounds too good to be true? Remember that old adage, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
I’d vote for Obama over Hillary any day. He’s a smart man and i think he’d get things done in office.
I certainly can believe that Fox cut out Hillary. There’s no more controlling way to show you’re not really interested in fair and balanced coverage than to keep someone off the air, and leave their voice unheard.
45 minutes of Obama? I’d vote for him, I think, but I don’t know that I’d want to hear a 45 minute speech vs McCain’s 15-20 minutes (and Huckabee got nothing? That was odd).
And I agree about ethanol. What a waste of food products, for little gain (except for the corn farmers). Almost no green impact there at all.
I was always anti-nuclear, mostly because I don’t think the waste products storage issue has been resolved. But I’m starting to bend a little because I’d like to see more bang for my buck (no pun intended).
I don’t see a whole lot of difference in any of the politicians, they’re becoming less distinct from each other as time goes by.
It wasn’t just Fox that cut her out….CNN did the same thing too. Heck, if I was the producer and had to listen to her shrill voice and dull speech, I would have cut to Obama too.
That’s interesting, my brother says that fact alone (shrill voice, etc) will be the reason a lot of men won’t vote for her. They don’t want to listen to her voice the next 4-8 years in office. It’s worse than a nagging wife and mother-in-law combined. Social issues and politics aside, do the men here see any merit in that? He left me wondering….
yeah, but now I’m kinda disgusted with Obama after the spin put on his wife’s “finally proud of my country” remark…..makes John McCain look somewhat appealing…
Is it just me, or is there no real “candidate” emrerging from either party?? I mean, I know the primary process is picking Obama and McCain but as far as someone emerging as a good, strong candidate, I just don’t see it…..
This WAS a real candidate….his name was Ron Paul.
Except, babs, that’s not what Michelle Obama said. It’s really disgusting when the audio is edited by the news source to make her sound like she’s saying something she didn’t say. And folks like you don’t check the facts before forming an opinion about her. Or is it that you’d already made up your mind, & this bit of misinformation just backs up your feelings?
Why don’t you enlighten us to as how and what the news did to make her say something she didn’t actually say? Enquiring minds wanna know!
I saw the news clip and she said something like “for the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country.” I don’t have a link to a video clip but that’s pretty close to her exact words.
Barack Obama later offered the explanation that she referred to the politics of the country rather than the country itself.
Seems pretty cut n dry to me, but we all know how some people and more often than not the media like to blow things out of proportion for the sake of a sensationalized news story.
Why do you think the National Enquirer is still in business? Because the idiots of our country still buy this crap. And those same idiots are the ones who eat up the sensationlism from the drive by media every evening.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/20/michelle-obama-clarifies-proud-remark/
Now, here’s what she said: “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.”
If you listened to the various sound bites of this quote, several of them had the “really” edited out. And as babs misremembers, “really” becomes “finally”, which changes the context of the quote. And of course, you must take into account what she was referring to, which was for the first time in her adult life (as well as my own, since we’re in the same age range) people are engaging in politics in a hopeful, rather than cynical, manner.
We both became adults after the original Watergate scandal. Most of the people I know were either proudly non-political or only voting against a candidate, not for one. There seems to be a new generation coming up who are actually excited by politics & the opportunity the Obamas are presenting this country. That’s what Michelle Obama meant, & what she was referring to.
and her follow-up explanation
Oh, brother do you hear the latest nonsense coming from camp Hillary?
She has fewer states and delegates and popular votes than Obama, less money raised (correct me if I’m wrong), she had to loan $5 million to her own campaign, some of her top aides are working without pay, she has spent the entire primary beating him down for being too inexperienced, and now that Hillary is almost completely down and out she says she would consider Obama for vice-president?
That’s a good one!! ROFLMAO!
Ah, the vice presidential position is great for a less experienced individual who needs some political experience to be considered for the top spot. But this suggestion was odd.
With her seemingly losing the nomination, this smacks of desperation or maybe a ploy to extend the olive branch so that he will consider HER in return.
. . . .yet after all the racist spewing by Obama, I kinda like Hilary a little better; maybe as the lesser of two evils? I don’t think Obama was condoning the “Reverend” Wright’s nonsense about 9/11 but I was horrified to hear Obama’s business about “typical white people” crossing the street when they saw black people coming, as well as his assertion that we (white people) are all still somehow to blame for things that happened 160 years ago (well before anyone in my family was even in this country).
Imagine, for a moment, if Hilary had used the term “typical black person”. Yowza.
Come on, all you old timers out there, remember with me:
We didn’t know about the president’s peccadillos because the press kept it to themselves, and allowed him his privacy.
We didn’t know if someone’s second cousin sixty times removed was a card carrying member of the KKK or the Aryan Nations or the Black Panthers.
We didn’t know if someone used recreational drugs in their youth (as I did, and some of you did, also).
We didn’t expect our candidates to be perfect automatons, they were as human as the rest of us were.
In these days of our over-videotaped lives, with the world wide web quickly ensnaring all of us little flies in its sticky grasp, it seems like we know far too much and place far too much importance on those minutiae.
It’s over exposure, and the picture we develop from it is no better than the negative (pun intended).
Kind of makes me wonder why anyone would want to run for office anymore. No one is perfect, that is a given. It is interesting to see these points focused on by some and ignored by others. The way I see it, the more information out there the better. It makes for a more informed choice. Inevitably, we end up voting for the lesser of two evils! lol
babs, please back up your claim of “his assertion that we (white people) are all still somehow to blame for things that happened 160 years ago.” Based on your past track record, I don’t take your word as gold when it comes to remembering the words of other people.
I actually understood his comment about typical white people (of their generation), referring to his grandmother. I also have relatives from Kansas from that generation, and that’s exactly how they feel. In fact, my relatives were a lot more vocal than she, when it comes to “typical black people.” Of course, they were never referred to as black people; there were other, more derogatory terms used in our household.
If your relatives who were raised during the ’20s & ’30s don’t instinctively react in a similar manner, then I’d say they weren’t Americans but from another part of the world. Either that, or they are people of color who suffered the effects of Jim Crow in this country.
I’m from the south and probably one of only three persons in my extended family who isn’t extremely prejudiced against people of color (any color, any hint of color).
Actually, my parents were equal opportunity haters, they railed against people from other religions, other nationalities, other sexual preferences, other lifestyles, other income brackets (we were poor). I was raised by white people who would have raised a mighty ruckus over the pastor’s words, because they would never have identified with the oppressors, and would have thought him “uppity”.
But I saw what the minority people went through there in the South. And even though I agree with Obama that our country has come a long way, I agree with his pastor that the seeds of that dark time are still flourishing.
What did Obama (or someone) say recently? We are better than this. But that doesn’t mean the hurts aren’t still out there, that the old sins aren’t still being perpetrated.
We just don’t see them much here in SE Idaho.
I was always taught that two wrongs don’t make a right….white racism and black racism and victimhood building don’t engender coming together and being judged on the content of our character vs. skin color.
I don’t see how spewing forth poor me, I have been victimized and so have my descendants as being very effective in building support for equal treatment under the law. All this engenders, IMO, is more divisiveness and defensiveness. Many black power brokers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson campaigned hard against Clarence Thomas when he was picked for the Supreme Court. Thomas pulled himself up by the boot straps, worked hard, stayed in school, and did not fall into the victimhood we see now. Sharpton and Jackson felt very threatened by the likes of Thomas because he wasn’t about playing the victim or blaming “white society” for problems he experienced. Thomas was about using opportunity as a means to overcome discrimination.
Asking for reparations, blaming the US Government for the AIDS virus and drug use by blacks is about as patently ridiculous as whites who blame blacks for decadance and moral decline and other societal problems. All this finger pointing and race baiting is destructive to the country. The politicians want this race baiting to continue because it divides us and creates polar camps. Politicians get to keep their respective power base(s) and nothing gets done. They all claim to want to bring us together but it is all lip service.
Many people were enamored with Obama until this flap came up because alot of people thought he wasn’t a politician. The entire Rev. Wright mess brought it home that Obama really is just another politician who got into bed with a race baiter who was interested in keeping his power base at the church. Obama kept his association with Wright for 20 years as a means to get elected and maintain influence within one of many distinct power bases in Chicago, Illinois. While he may not have agreed with everything said by Wright, the fact is that these types of associations are double edged swords–they can get you elected in certain races, but they can also damage your chances in a wider race of more importance. Obama will feel the effects of this association in the fall campaign. The chickens have indeed come home to roost (again) and it is more of the same old racial politics that politicians have used for decades to divide this country. I would like to think that people would rise above this….but they seem to get sucked into taking sides in a racial war of words that detracts from what Martin Luther King Jr. was attempting to do in bringing whites and