BS: Voting for Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:12 AM

David Books, of course, is a die-hard Republican

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:56 AM

"Clinton had sounded like Old Politics, but Obama created a vision of New Politics. And the past several months have revolved around the choice he framed there that night. Some people are enthralled by the New Politics, and we see their vapors every day. Others think it is a mirage and a delusion. There's only one politics, and, tragically, it's the old kind, filled with conflict and bad choices.

Hillary Clinton has fought on with amazing resilience since then, and Tuesday night may well bring another surprise, but she's always been the moon to his suin."


A Defining Moment
         

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 4, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 02:16 AM

I will be happy to vote for Senator Clinton if she gets the nomination. I like what she says and how she zeroes in on issues,

I'm hoping that Senator Obama gets the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 11:55 PM

Here I was gonna offer that kwazy lady a nice cool drink, too; but not of she's gonna be in that kinda mood, no siree, Bob. That's kwazy talk!! ;>0


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 11:34 PM

News Flash!

It's snowing in Texas. On my dafodills. Darn. It's supposed to freeze tonight but I haven't seen predictions of it sticking. Of course this is only one part of Texas, but it is probably the heaviest population area for the state (Dallas/Fort Worth).

I pick up my son at his Dad's house after school every day (he rides the school bus from there.) This 15-year-old is a bit of a wag. Apparently this afternoon he came rushing in to his father with the phone (and a twinkle in his eye) and announced "President Clinton wants to talk to you!"

I have had a half-dozen recorded-message calls today alone. The down-side of someone finally giving a rats ass about a Democratic vote in Texas.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 11:11 PM

I guess I'm in a vindictive sort of mood, but I'd love it if Clinton were to sweep Ohio & Texas to get back in the game--just to piss off the pundits and Obama koolaid drinkers.

Kinda like a slap upside the head.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:34 PM

I guess I should have expounded. I meant, why do we accept it? Frankly, I think the American public has been dumbed down to the point they are not making carefully thought out decisions, but I'm sure there must be other reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:18 PM

Why Riginslinger?

Because the media controls public perception or maybe because true believers still have faith in America the land of the free.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:14 PM

Amos said:

"He made a public speech against the war, when his successful campaign for the Senate could have been badly hurt by doing so."

Are you kidding me?

Apparently you don't know much about Illinois politics in general, or Obama's Senate campaign in 2004 specifically.

He didn't risk squat in 2004 by being against the war. His 'opponent' (if you could call him that) was uber conservative Alan Keyes, who didn't even live in the state at the time he filed to run, and barely campaigned.

Obama won by a landslide, roughly a 75% to 25% landslide.

Badly hurt? The only way anyone could have badly hurt Obama in 2004 was to shoot him.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 08:32 PM

I would really, really, rather no vote for Hillary.

But I will do so against John McCain if the American public exercises its national blindspots to make it turn out that way.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:21 PM

As I've said all along, the acid test for Barack Obama will be showing he has the fortitude to deal with the mud the Repubs will throw, intelligently, while still holding on to his genuine position (the center of the high road). I hope he has the shield power, because I really admire the guts he has shown taking on the presumed shoo-in candidate and coming up from behind on sheer guts, energy and intelligence. "Route all yer power ta the shields, Capn'!!!"



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:14 PM

Viva McCain!

(in Canada)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:13 PM

Bearing in mind historical refernces to Linford Christie's "lunchbox" it could be the other way round....

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:11 PM

It sure is interesting when the Democrats have to choose between 3-4 perfectly decent candidates...while the Republicans are dithering over which one is the lesser of several evils!

It is REALLY sad when the political game seems to require two decent candidates to take shots at each other and try to suggest that their opponent is somehow unworthy.

I say again...if Hillary manages to get the nomination, I'll be glad to vote for her: but since it seems like Obama is on track, I'll be happy to have HIM!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:08 PM

An old American expression, meaning that he will be gutted and left with nothing.

Hmmmn, 'left bereft' sounds more elegant.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:41 PM

Capital hill will eat Obama's lunch, Is that supposed to be good for him or not? I mean, does it mean he will have to go hungry, or thay they will be eating out of his hand?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Fortunato
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:14 PM

I intend to vote democratic. I don't give a damn who runs. The arrogance, avarice and warmongering of the current adminstration, as I perceive it makes no other choice possible for me.

I'd prefer Hillary of the two.

I think Capital hill will eat Obama's lunch, but it's not like I get a actual choice. Obama's smart but I don't think he's got the guts, and I know Hillary does.

cheers,
chance

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:27 PM

Q:

He made a public speech against the war, when his successful campaign for the Senate could have been badly hurt by doing so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:46 PM

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:15 PM

Q - All politicians and most business managers, bureacrats, etc. are masters of mis-direction. 'Truth' is no longer an American value and double-speak is the tool of the status quo. They indulge in deception and we accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 05:53 PM

I would find it difficult to vote for Obama if he becomes the candidate.
He talks about how he didn't vote for the war in Iraq. Obviously he couldn't since the U. S. invaded abmost two years before he got to the Senate. He is as much a master of mis-direction as Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:36 PM

Somebody has it wrong at the international web site.

Nader is running indie.

Unless of course they draft him again in July at the Green party convention. Stranger things have happened, but I really don't know that he can win over the Greens who are still pissed at him from not running on their ticket in 2004. That was a nasty mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:33 PM

I didn't think Nader was running as a Green either, but when I googled the international web-site, his name was on the docket along with McKinney, and Kat Swift, and one or two others.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:56 PM

Nader isn't running Green this time.

McKinney is the only Green candidate w/any chance of getting the nom at their convention this summer, because of her semi-national org. But she needs money. I sent her & the Greens money in the last month, because I figure they may yet have a shot at pulling 5% in a few states if she is on their ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:46 PM

I'd vote for Hillary in a minute. And if the nomination outcome is still in doubt when Indiana finally gets around to primary time, I will.

With me, Bill is not a drawback to Hillary. If he were eligible, I'd vote for him, despite his lack of sexual judgment, which merely follows in the great tradition of many past US presidents.

But, in case Obama gets the nomination, I'm quite content to vote for him.

Anything to get the Republicans (even including McCain, who is the best they have to offer right now) out of the White House.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:42 PM

I don't know what to do. I just checked their list of candidates, and I see Ralph Nader is on their ballot. I thought he was running as an independant. There are others besides McKinney. She seems a little too self important to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:32 PM

So, are leaning towards Cynthia McKinney then, Riginslinger? I just sent her $25 for her campaign.

I might vote for her too.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:27 PM

It is when you keep referring to me in your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM

Gigi:

It isn't always about you, ya know...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Alice
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM

The younger Democratic voters who seem to be very energized in this campaign, don't really remember much about Clinton. My son is 20, and he was a child when Clinton was president. They are relating to the moment, as the president they really know about is George Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:03 PM

"In march, 2006, Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut against Ned Lamont."


                     He did? That's the first mention of that I've seen. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I think I'll just vote Green.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:52 PM

So Amos, if you don't like my Coke v Pepsi comments, why not address what Frank just said instead?

Some reason for focusing on my claims of Obama/Clinton comparisons instead of his?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:27 PM

Interesting editorial from "New York Amsterdam News," (Harlem, "Part of the Black Press USA Network").

God's will be done
Wilbert A. Tatum, Publisher Emeritus and Chairman of the Board
2/1/2008

"Some days God is good to us. Sometimes he is even better. For instance, today, when God is good, he drops two men- one good and one flawed- out of the race who were on their way to becoming President of the United States. One was John Edwards, who could have made it, and the other was Rudolph Giuliani, who should never have been considered in the first place.
"John Edwards seemed to have been considered by many when he stopped in his tracks on his way to the Presidency and instead dropped out, leaving us with two candidates without an endorsement for either one.
"Under ordinary circumstances, that would be easy to settle. We would just toss a coin, designating one of each of these candidates for each side of the coin and deciding on the person whose coin side wound up in first place. Since we never had any good luck anyway, it leaves us in a dilemma because here God recommends no one as well. One could say with all candor, "Thank you, good buddy, for leaving us high and dry again."
"Although God may have believed that he left us high and dry, he did not. He left another begotten son about whom he was having problems and allowed us to choose one without the other because he respected his recommendations so much. God, in his most playful and delightful way, said in effect, for us to "choose for yourself, good buddy," and we did.
"Because God knew us and how fair we would be, God selected the one he thought would be less favorable to us, for in that way we would not be choosing God's favorite necessarily but that we would be choosing the person who is the better one for the job.
"Since we choose to follow God's lead, hallelujah, hallelujah, God's will be done. We have chosen. Sail on, Hillary."

http://www.amsterdamnews.org/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=85746&sID=16

The "New York Amsterdam News" is one of New York's largest and most influential black-owned business enterprises; first issued in 1909.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM

I do not think Clinton's popularity (I mean Bill) is as wide and deep as it once was.

It remains to be seen who is "electable" between McCain and Obama. A lot of people are weary of the rich white cynic role played by the last four Prez's. Obama offers something different -- not a Coke versus Pepsi difference, either. That is just bitterness talking.

Hillary does not have what you might call "youth", and never really did. It is a broad term encompassing more than just cheerfulness. It comes with believing one is creating one's own future and wanting it to be something of pride and delight. And other qualities.

ANyway, it is going to be an interesting fight, because McCain has already demonstrated his capacity for sliming to win, as has Hilary. And, according to Hill's crew, Barack's campaign has also.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:17 PM

I didn't vote for her. But there's not too much difference between them. They will both keep troops in Iraq. They both are financed by corporate money. They are both in bed with the insurance companies.

Hillary voted for the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment. In march, 2006, Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut against Ned Lamont.

Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2004, Obama said: "There's not much difference between
my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference in my mind, is who's
in a position to execute."

He voted to confirm Condi Rice. He voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

He will add 100,000 combat troops to the military. (Anyone concerned about a draft?)

He flaked out on the Credit Card Bill.

Do you think we can depend on Hillary or Obama to continue the status quo in
politics today?

Yes we can.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:10 PM

Except the money isn't following McCain. Which only makes me wonder more what Big Money Boys are up to this election, as they 'readjust' to post-Bush/Cheney, Inc.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

"Clinton is the much stronger candidate in a general election... Why that argument has been shunted aside by the MSM is a great mystery though, isn't it?"


                      Not really, they're part of the corporate hierachy who want to see a Republican in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 01:19 PM

You have encompassed my thoughts about why Republicans want to run against Obama in the fall exactly, dianavan. And my thoughts about how easy it is to snooker the voting public with the Coke v Pepsi false choices.

Obama won't even commit to pulling out of Iraq, at this point. How is that different from McCain/Clinton, except by infintessimally small degrees?

How can that give anyone hope?

One thing Jamieson mentioned last night on Moyers has stuck w/me all day today. She talked about how soft support is for him in the sense that those who are voting for him now aren't true believers, and have many doubts about him, and a very large number of likely voters in the primaries (including Texas and Ohio) are still undecided. Many people who are voting for Obama are going for him at the last minute, as Zogby pointed out recently too.

Zogby also has pointed out that while Obama doesn't suffer what they call 'racial leaking' among the primary voters (this is the phenomenon where whites say they will vote for a black candidate to pollsters, but then switch to a white candidate in the general election) this year, which is actually unprecedented, they say it is far too early to tell if that will hold with general election voters.

Democratic party primary voters are, to no one's surprise, a tad more progressive than general election voters, so don't feel as uncomfortable voting for an African American candidate as they once did (for instance, for Jesse Jackson in 1988, when he had a real shot at the nomination).

In the general election, it is conventional wisdom (until the MSM went all Obamarama on us) that Clinton is the much stronger candidate in a general election, because of the sheer popularity of her husband among US general election voters. Why that argument has been shunted aside by the MSM is a great mystery though, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 01:03 PM

"HIllary is in my opinion more electible because 50% of the country (there abouts) is women. Women are going to be moved by her candidacy no matter what party they belong to." - Voice of Truth

That is not true. Its conjecture and opinion but it is not true.

There are plenty of women who are deeply suspicious of other women. Its a long established pattern and women have a long way to go before those old patterns are erased. If, however, the entire population of the U.S. were highly educated, the story might be different. Sad to say, the uneducated and demoralized American public will vote for hope every time.

Which makes me wonder...

Could it be that the Republicans have thrown their weight behind Obama in an effort to allow McCain to run against Obama? McCain doesn't have a chance against Hillary but, chances are, he will be able to defeat Obama.

Just another scary thought...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 09:20 AM

Oh good, the resident Obamamaniac has a new fear mongering ploy to pummel us into voting his way--Nader baiting. Talk about yer trolls.

Last night I was watching Moyers, and he had on that woman from Annenberg who looks like Trent Lott (sorry, I can't remember her name right now). She has been on the show a lot lately, and brings an interesting perspective to the table.

So, the thing she said Clinton was doing wrong was not creating a biography for herself the way McCain (proud soldier, humbled by the torture chamber, transformed into a feisty, lifelong public servant) and Obama (ironically, a nearly identical biography to Bill Clinton--raised by single mom, education lifted up our boat, opportunity to go for the lawyer big bucks, but chose public service instead).

Jamieson--that's her name--said Clinton is being far too secretive about her biography, and needs to prove her worth that way--Midwestern girl, blah blah--as well as focus it on strength (commander in chief) and female caring. She said she has done some of that in her advertising--the 'good listener' ads were mentioned. But she said she has really hurt herself by not providing the voters with an alternative bio/persona that counters the persona projected on her by her political enemies and critical pundits, which is practically everyone in MSM.

I thought that was very true. I still won't vote for any of them (McCain, Obama, or Clinton), precisely because I can't bring myself to pull the lever for any of their saber rattling 'policy driven' rants. Obama's propaganda is the most effective in MSM terms, and has brought out both foot soldiers and money from small donors in record breaking numbers--over a million web donors of less than $100 is what I heard last night). But it is going to be nigh on impossible to hold Obama accountable to such a nebulous constituency as the people who whip out credit cards and donate online, as their preferred form of political activism. We have no idea what that sort of 'activism' that will turn out to be in the long haul. And it seems more like online shopping for candidates, than any real activism.

Yes, I know--they will text connect you to the web meetups, blah blah blah and it isn't retail politics of the past anymore.

But what is this monster exactly--that vacuums up people's money, gets them into online forums and a small handful of them to retail politics sorts of 3D meetups organized w/text messaging? How solid is this block of voters, whoever they are?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 10:10 PM

Well, VOT--(perhaps you'd like to change that to MVA or OTV--just a few suggestions)-- of course, as you know, you can always help assure that outcome by voting for Nader. Which, somehow, I suspect is exactly what you will do. Then would follow 4 years of your whining about how, mirabile dictu, the election didn't turn out right.

Fortunately there are likely to be enough Democrats, independents, and moderate to liberal Republicans--especially those against the Iraq war--who will not follow you over the cliff, and therefore your Cassandra howlings will not be realized.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 07:03 PM

I would tend to agree with Sage.

I do see more nastiness on this site from people who support Obama (like 'sleazy' namecalling for instance) than I actually hear from anything Hillary, or even Obama says. It's a debate. They're not going to sit down and talk Martha Stewart's tips on steaming asparagus.

However, I still think Obama has NO chance of winning the general election. I have had more than one post deleted for my opinions but that's it. Hillary has a chance. Obama supporters cannot bear to face the truth, but time will prove me out. I'm not saying it's anything I'm HAPPY about, just that Obama is a strongly flawed candidate. Unless there is a turnaround by next Tuesday,which seems unlikely but not impossible, we will have four more years of Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:36 PM

Unless McCain hires Karl Rove, we probably won't see anything like the Bush campaign again. Hopefully!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:33 PM

That, for me, is Hillary. Her whole campaign at present seems focused on Obama. It's not about what SHE will do or why SHE is the best choice.

That's just plain nonsense. The trick is to listen to Hillary, not the pundits who don't like Hillary. There has been a lot more substance in Hillary's discussions of issues, and on a whole they (Hillary and Barack) have done a remarkable job of keeping the attacks to a minimum. I haven't seen any of the nastiness like the republicans around the various Bush folks can conjure up.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:15 PM

Wesley - I was thinking she would do better after Obama and McCain started cutting each other up, but after reading your posts, I think you and Jeri are right. She'd do better if she went after McCain and just kind of ignored Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Wesley S
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:03 PM

Jeri - I agree. I think Hillary will start gaining some ground if she stops running against Obama and starts running against McCain. But I doubt that she will.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:48 PM

too young,

Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he was sworn in. Kennedy was 43. Bill Clinton was 46.

If Obama gets elected he will be 47.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:16 PM

Of course, when someone's sleazy enough to rag on spelling errors, they may not be worth listening to...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:13 PM

Who's 'Gig'? Methinks you've got this poster confused with someone else.

I don't have any problems with someone saying they're the 'Voice of Truth'. We all think we speak truth, and we want others to believe we are even when we're not. It's like using 'My Opinion' as a handle.

As to vitriol, I'm starting to believe that only people who thrive in it keep coming back to the political threads. It's nearly impossible to have a respectful debate, and it IS impossible to have a discussion without debate. Some people don't feel important unless they have enemies.

That, for me, is Hillary. Her whole campaign at present seems focused on Obama. It's not about what SHE will do or why SHE is the best choice. It's about what Obama will or won't do and why he isn't the best choice. This isn't very 'presidential' and it looks too much like she's sliding downhill and hanging on by teeth and fingernails.

As long as her campaign is about Obama, she's going to keep losing ground. I think vitriol is what people use when they lack anything of substance. It's what happens in campaigns and it's what happens in Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Voice of Truth
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:03 PM

Or one may think it is 'pretentius' to think you know what is best for our 'coutrnry' because you prefer Obama's untested promises over some other, more electable, candidates. (ones who can spell perhaps?)

There is one thing I do heartily agree with you about A, btw,and that is trying to find a candidate and administration that can spend money on the majority of PEOPLE of this country, instead of just the super rich and corporate interests. But a candidate who cannot get elected is not the one who can implement these reforms.