And comment away...
« Ross And Reihan: Saviors | Main | The Daily Bric-A-Brac » Watch Clinton/Obama Here27 Jun 2008 01:15 pm Comments (80)
There is one more thing that proves how unrespectful McCain is to women. He not only called his wife the "C" word (c*nt) but just yesterday he said, "And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago" while telling reporters why he chose someone else other than repub Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons as his state chair. Gibbons was caught in an affair with playboy models while he was married and is now going through a nasty divorce. McCain does not even give lip-service to women's causes! 
I just hope this is the end of the hoops this man has to jump through before he can finally run unimpeded by Clintons against McCain.
They look nice together. But if the Democrats don't carry Unity, NH, come November, there's going to be hell to pay...
Maybe it's just me, but wasn't there just a big push to "reclaim" the C-word. If John McCain can revive the C-word, he'll get (some) feminist votes. But Hillary going back to New Hampshire, after her top advisor Sidney Blumenthal got arrested in Nashua for Aggravated DWI, the eve of that state's primary seems like a bad idea. Sidney got his court date postponed to 7 April. Meanwhile, as luck would have it, the arresting officer mysteriously got sent to Iraq. So, Blumenthal got off with a fine of about seven hundred dollars and a suspended license. With the cop in Iraq, there could be no trial. A light penalty for doing 70mph in a 30pmh zone, while intoxicated. Yes, it would be nice to see a good clean fight between Barack Obama & John McCain. Maybe the DNC can carry NH in November, but they're also going to have to stop driving through town drunk, hollering the C-word: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Marc: Forget the substance of the event. Look at the advance work. If Obama's team comes even remotely close to this level of excellence, McCain might as well just keep taking weekends off to prepare his concession remarks: 1. NO "OBAMA" SIGNS evident. All "Unity" signs. 2. Local groundskeeper for the field (and "lifelong Republican") they were speaking on as the introducer of the Senators. 3. Local Kiwanis Club children's charity getting a shout-out and permission to sell the food and water. 4. Crowd so disciplined they should just ship them to every rally from now on. They did not boo the first mention of McCain's name, made by the groundskeeper, they only booed later as appropriate. They only cheered both Hillary and Obama.
It was nice theater, and it looks like a winning ticket. It will make things even worse for Clinton supporters if she isn't chosen as veep. Look what she has done, falling on her sword. And he sat there staring at the ground with his arms crossed for part of her speech. Behind the scenes, he puts sticks in her eye, and she is doing nothing but being supportive. He ought to pick her, or a lot of us are walking in November.
And his tie coordinated with her suit.... Hillary needs Obama more than Obama needs Hillary, however, whenever the dems go thru their buyers remorse, it will be nice to have Hillary out there campaigning for Obama....I hope he gives her a really big plane! And I think Bill needs Obama more than Obama needs Bill....however Bill could make things awkward if he waits to long to climb on-board. I think he will in time...in the end, I think Bill will be unable to resist Obama and Obama's machine.
It's the least Hillary can do, especially after she nearly busted the party in two. Not that she still doesn't hold that like an axe over Obama's head, she could still go nuclear. The recent polls however, must be music to Obama's ears, as it again and again demonstrates that voters prefer a ticket *without* Clinton on it. She came close, too close for someone who voted for the war, her supports (the partisan ones) would do well to remember that.
John: Blah blah blah. Spare us the "we're walking in November" threat. People who would go against their own political principles/self-interest simply out of spite are just too small a group for anyone to worry about. For the rest of us (Obama supporters and the sensible majority of Hillary supporters - probably about 17,995,000), the more these two work together and support each other, the happier we'll be, whether she's on the ticket or not.
Heather: Damnation! I forgot about the color-cordination. Make that #5 in advance-team prep. John: Actually, methinks Hillary doesn't want Veep anyway. I bet what she really wants his her name on the Health Insurance Reform package.
To anandamide, how do you know my political ans issue preferences to even know if I am voting against my self interest? And are we a small group? An AP poll yesterday had 53% of Clinton supporters saying they will vote for Obama. Of the 47% (which by my definition is not small), about 1/2 of that group was voting for McCain and the other 1/2 of the 47%. This was a great event. Very good imagery. Great speeches. Lots of smiles from both Obama and Clinton. But, seriously, the voters who are most likely to be moved by speeches and imagery were ALREADY supporting Obama. The Clinton Democrats aren't imagery-based. We want action before we give our support.
To TDE, what polls are you referencing about Clinton being a drag on the ticket? I'm genuinely interested as I’ve mostly seen only questions asking about her but not other options. The polls I've seen ask "Do you want Hillary Clinton on the ticket?", which isn't a good survey question (unless we see the cross-tabs). My hunch, though please prove me wrong with evidence as I am not sure, is that Clinton is opposed by core Obama primary voters and core Republicans. The former group will obviously vote for Obama-Clinton even if they don't like Clinton as veep, because their candidate will win the presidency, while the latter group is dwindling as a % of the American electorate and will vote against Obama regardless of who is on the ticket. Now are there polls asking for Obama v. McCain and then asking Obama-Clinton v. McCain-Huckabee (or whoever)? The questions need to be phrased this way to assess turnout effects and vote choice effects among Democrats, independents, and Republicans. The only one I've seen with a question asked like this was a Fox News poll last week. It showed an Obama-Clinton v. McCain-Romney ticket led to a larger margin for Obama than if it were just Obama v. McCain (unfortunately, they didn’t test other McCain VPs against Obama-Clinton). Clinton on the ticket solidified Democrats (a large % of the electorate in 2008) at near 95%, and it solidified Republicans in the opposite (near 85% if I recall). Independents moved slightly more toward Obama with Clinton on the ticket than when it was just Obama v. McCain w/out a running mate listed (this independent result surprised me, to be honest, even though that's the ticket I'd like to see—that’s why I’d like to hear about more polls with cross-tabs and VP matchups with Obama Clinton vs. McCain-NAME).
John, So this is purely about issues/action rather than anything superficial, but you'd switch simply based on whether he picked your candidate or not? Also, here are a sample of a couple of the people who were part of the AP poll you mention. They sound like they are totally basing their vote on "action". I'm sorry if I'm mis-representing your position, but these are the type of people I'm not bending over backwards to win back: "The poll responses also show Obama has more work to do to quell fears among voters like Kirstie Hartle of Rome, N.Y., a registered Democrat who has never supported a Republican presidential candidate. With Clinton out of the race, Hartle said, "I'm Republican all the way now." She said she doesn't like Obama's name and thinks he has a questionable background. She also said she thought Obama was deceitful when he broke from his church after it hurt his campaign, and she doesn't trust him to handle the Iraq war. "It sounds to me like a Middle Eastern type of name and whether or not he's born here in the United States, he doesn't seem like, to me, somebody who is trustworthy," Hartle said in a telephone interview. "You can't trust anybody these days, so who's to say he's not a terrorist and we just don't realize it yet?" When asked an open-ended question about the first words that come to mind about Obama, some former Clinton supporters used words like Muslim or terrorist. Those misconceptions have been fueled by Internet rumors that point out his name is Barack Hussein Obama but otherwise lie about his background. "I refuse to vote for an Arab to be in my White House," said retired salesman Dean Johnson of Lanett, Ala. "That is the only factor. Otherwise, you couldn't break both my legs and make me vote for a Republican."
To anandamide: I'm not even answering your response in full, it is either illogical or very offensive. If you think 2 racists are representative of 47% of the Clinton supporters saying they are not supporting Clinton than this means either: (1) You haven't thought that they might be extremists who aren't represenative; or (2) ALOT of people in America are racist and won't be voting for Obama. This means your candidate will not win, regardless of what happens between now and November. Given you think most Americans are racist and won't support a black or 'Arab' candidate, why did you vote against your own self-interest? If he was a definite loser against a Republican you would have voted for someone who could beat a Republican for your own self-interest, right?
John -- Almost every poll that's out right now has Obama with a substantial lead that he could in no way shape or form actually have if 47% of primary voters weren't going to vote for him. Some even have huge leads. Hell, Quinnipiac had him up outside the margin of error in Colorado. Moreover, like the other commenter said, regardless of what your policy preferences are, if you think McCain is closer to Hillary than Obama on just about any major issue, then YOU ARE WRONG.
To Rock On. My point was that a large bloc of Clinton supporters are not behind Obama (I didn't say they were voting for McCain necessarily though). 47% in the AP poll, though half of them are undecided/not voting. That is my point. The reason Obama is ahead right now in polls is because of the large % of undecideds. If you ignore the undecideds, then yes, Obama is ahead. But if 20% of those undecideds vote McCain and the other 80% don't vote at all (due to not being motivated because of the poor treatment of Clinton, whatever), then McCain can win. So to suggest that -- as some are on the TV punditocracy -- that former Clinton supporters are on board is just false based on recent polls. 50-60% of them are, based on some polls, but that other 40% (especially turning them out) is important for Obama to win given there are so many undecideds right now. The Clinton supporters with no home are the new swing voters in a Democratic-tilting year. As long as Obama doesn't have them, he'll have to deal with Clinton. If 80-90% of them come over to Obama (which they have not yet), then he won't have to deal with Clinton. I'm one that isn't moving until he chooses her.
John, then I guess you won't be moving at all. Obama isn't going to pick Hillary as VP. So, if you Clinton sit on the sidelines, Clinton will be blamed if Obama loses-and damn her future in the Democratic party. Also, voting against your own self interest is silly and you will not be able to complain for your lot in the next four years.
John, you so-called "Clinton Democrats" who are threatening to vote for McCain are a joke. You have been outflanked by one Barack Hussein Obama. You can't vote for McCain without selling your own soul to the devil. Which apparently, you're happy to do. Please, vote for McCain. No one will ever be able to take you serious again. You're not interested in politics. You're not a "Clinton Democrat." You're a "People Magazine Democrat." All you care about is that you're on Jennifer Aniston's side, and so you hate Angelina and pop off about her on the interwebs all day because you just so hate her! You're a Diva Worshipper, not a Democrat. The only play anyone would care about your vote is on American Idol. Obama is gonna crush without all these whiners.
Again, how does anyone here determine what is my self-interest? Here's my self-interest: This country has been ruined by a man who was immature, young, and didn't know what he was doing. We elected him because he was fun, hip, and someone you wanted to have a beer with. Well, Obama fits this description to a tee. My self-interest is having someone in the White House who knows what s/he is doing. Obama doesn't. McCain probably does more. Clinton certainly does. Obama will do a poor job as president unless someone is there to watch and help. That SNL skit about 3am sums it up. So if you think it is against my self-interest to vote for someone who doesn't know what they are doing, then I guess all of you are smarter than me.
I'd like to add to my previous comments to pre-but some of your likely attacks on me. Clinton was the best prepared candidate, other than maybe Biden, in the race this time to handle the nation's problems. She was there for 8 years in the White House and she worked and watched. She's been a senator for 8 years. Obama mocked her time as first lady as "having teas." People ask why are so many women mad at Obama? Well, my wife keeps telling me it is because he so minimized her role as first lady to make a mockery of the idea that women do anything other than smile and hold coats for world leaders visiting the men. Clinton did not immediately start running for president the day she was elected to the Senate even though that is what the media claimed she would do. She learned in the Senate from the masters like Byrd, and tended to constituent needs in New York. She offered to mentor Obama when he was elected, but of course he stabbed her in the back. Obama barely attends committee meetings because all he does is move up the ladder (holding no hearings on his own foreign policy subcommittee), learning little governing experience and policy along the way. When asked about policy details by his own-screened supporters, Obama does not even know policy details about the places he is visiting. He had never heard of the Hanford nuclear reactor when campaigning near it, though McCain had. If it is about competence and preparation, my self-interest is not Obama. Today at the "Unity" event, Obama had to consult his notecards to remember the name of the governor of the state, John Lynch, and his wife, Dr. Susan Lynch. Clinton didn't need notes to remember their names, and she noted that Dr. Lynch was in fact a Dr. Obama of course did not, referring to her as "his wife" only. How little prepared is this guy for politics and for governing beyond his amazing speaking ability? If anyone watched the early debates, it was clear his knowledge of the world stage was lacking compared to Clinton and many of the other Democratic candidates. Remember the last time we had a presidential candidate who had trouble keeping the details of the world down?
Yes, we are all smarter than you, John. You're a freaking tool. you think a man who doesn't know how to use a computer is ready to lead America in the 21st Century?
To Bloody Hary, that is the attitude that will help win over white working-class Catholic voters, especially those without college degrees. Nice job.
Previous commenter, looking down her nose that deigns to mess with her worldview, even in the face of polling data: "Please, vote for McCain. No one will ever be able to take you serious again. You're not interested in politics. You're not a "Clinton Democrat." You're a "People Magazine Democrat." All you care about is that you're on Jennifer Aniston's side, and so you hate Angelina and pop off about her on the interwebs all day because you just so hate her!" You're right. When Scarlett Johannsson struck up that texting relationship with Obama, it almost made me switch my vote when I heard it was a very policy-oriented conversation. And that will.i.am video was so substantive, I really thought about voting for Obama. Finally, a youtube video that has detailed policy proposals to help 'change' America. Yes we can have detailed policy proposals. And then when I heard that Maria Shriver and Caroline Kennedy had been talking with Oprah, and thus they all decided to vote for and endorse Obama, I was again almost persuaded to vote for him as well. Because those endorsements were so substantive, really focusing on policy. When Maria Shriver said 'If Barack Obama was a state, he'd be California," I thought well, maybe he is more policy oriented than I thought. But then I realized that her comment really just didn't make any sense and told me nothing about what he will do in the White House. And the recent issue of US was persuasive. I read about Michelle and Barack Obama's extensive policy discussions there, so I thought I'd vote for the substantive choice. It was almost as detailed about policy as was the Atlantic article by Andrew Sullivan in late 2007. But when Obama referenced Jay-Z, I read the lyrics and realized there was no verse about universal health care. There was something about "Ladies be pimps too" though. Maybe that had something to do with health care? That's when I realized We are not the people We have been waiting for. I decided reducing the gas tax, fighting terrorism, fixing the economy, and (true) universal health care were better ideas than the substantive proposals of Oprah, will.i.am, Scarlett Johannsson, Jay-Z, and Barack Obama. So I didn't and am not voting for Obama. I guess I'm just a dumb "People Magazine Democrat."
Heather said: "And I think Bill needs Obama more than Obama needs Bill...." Heather, this will only be right if Obama gets elected president, as Bill could be eclipsed. But Obama will need Bill then for advice, and they'll work it out then. Who are the other choices for Obama to consult (Carter, the Bushes? Clinton's the best ex (and current) president we've got. But if Obama loses, he'll drift away and Bill won't need him. Bill's got a presidential library and two terms. That will be remembered pretty well if Obama doesn't win.
Hi, I'm checking back into this blog again. Earlier today, I asked for people to produce polls showing that Clinton would be a drag on the Obama ticket (or neutral, or a boost)? Nothing. Do we not have any cross-tabs on this?
John, you are a classic. Amazing how you understand Obama so much better than people like Bill Richardson, Paul Volcker, Robert Reich, Janet Napolitano, Claire McCaskill, Lee Hamilton, Bob Casey, and so on. How foolish they and the scores of deeply serious and experiencd Democrats, policy wonks and politicians, male and female, who endorsed Obama over Clinton were! How incredible that they so lacked your penetrating insight into Obama's true nature that they actually believed that he would be a better president than her. And how admirable it is that even now, when refusal to support Obama could put an anti-choice, pro tax cuts for the rich, anti universal health care, etc, etc., Republican in the White House, how admirable that you are sticking to your guns even when Clinton herself is calling for all Dems to join together behind Obama. Vale!
John, you sound like me if Obama had narrowly lost to Hillary. I don't know if I'd be over it by now. About the parallels you cite between Bush II and Obama -- you've got a point. People simply "liking" them had a lot to do with it. For that reason, I made myself read rather than listen to Obama's speeches -- I'm too old and mean to want Kool Aid. What was always striking was how slight the substantive differences between Hillary and Obama were. They are slighter now than they were before he won, because he is having to do what she would have done -- has done in the past -- which is, move to the center. Even so, he's closer to her position on health care than he was when they were duking it out. I understand you think Obama is too young, that inexperience is what he shares with Bush II, and that that has been devastating. But don't you think the big decisions in the Bush White House have been made by Dick Cheney? He's been around a long, long time, and knows exactly what he's doing. An affable front like Bush, kinda cute and barely past 50, was the perfect tool for corporate geopolitics. Bush's lack of experience was not why he was manipulable, however -- that owed to other, more horrible lacks. I think you need time to come around -- as I would, if the shoe were on the other foot. But don't you think the presidency is more than who's president? The same talent pool will probably serve Obama as well as it would have Clinton. We will have, as we did with Bill Clinton, a Democrat who is after all a bit disappointing to progressives, but who has splendid gifts. If all Obama ever did was stimulate people to exercise their political will, it would be no small thing. But think what we could do with a Democratic president and a Congress that wouldn't thwart him all the time. Please don't set too much store by the personality of whoever is president -- it's not the only thing. And if Hillary can deal with Obama, you can deal with him.
To freethinker99, thank you for pointing out the names of people who do not agree with me and are smarter than me. Ergo, I must be an idiot. Where should I start. Bill Richardson? The guy is all of Bill Clinton's bad habits without any of the good parts. He was one of the most ill-prepared presidential candidates in modern history. Did you see him on Meet the Press. Or in the debates? Did you see when he told the gay debate that being gay was a choice, thinking he was talking about abortion? Robert Reich was fired by Bill Clinton for being a bad Secretary of Labor. I like Janet Napolitano, and respectfully disagree with her. Claire McCaskill is an opportunist. She knew Obama was desperate for a white woman with blond hair to go on TV every day and criticize the only viable woman to run for president. She will likely not win reelection in 2012. Her statewide approval is below 50%. The only reason she won in 2006 is because Obama did a great event with her on the day of the election. He helped her, so she helped him. Her endorsement helped her strategically gain support by the black community in Missouri, who voted for her but was never enthusiastic about her. Bob Casey. See McCaskill, Claire, last sentence. Replace "Missouri" with "Pennsylvania." Lee Hamilton is older than John McCain. From what I have heard from will.i.am, we don't listen to people that old.
Thank you Elatia Harris for your post. It is refreshing to have non-condescension. I appreciate you looking at it from the shoe on the other foot. After Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada (and yes, I know Obama got more NV delegates, but I count a win as getting more votes), I was certain Clinton would HAVE to choose Obama when it looked liked she had stemmed his Iowa victory with these two others. I continued to think this throughout the primary season until I realized Obama was getting the nod. I remember hearing numerous Democratic elders correctly noting how hard it would be for African-American and young voters to come back and support Hillary Clinton. I thought this made sense, and she'd have to choose him--even if African-American and young voters are part of the Democratic base and he wouldn't really help her with independents. But that didn't happen. It's the other way around, and her supporters weren't and aren't being treated with the same respect accorded Obama's. In what Democratic party are low-income people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, African-Americans, women, young people, Latinos, and seniors not considered part of an important coalition to bring together by uniting the 2 top candidates that nearly tied? While there may be talent out there other than Hillary Clinton in the party, there are no other people who have talent AND have a strong base of supporters.
John, my point is not that Napolitano, Hamilton, Volcker, Reich and so many others picked Obama over Clinton and that therefore you were wrong to have preferred Clinton. That was a tough choice. Many Dems chose one, many chose the other. Fine. But it is a bit hard to accept the idea that the Obama supporters I named were so misguided as to endorse a candidate who is totally unqualified to be president, as you say Obama is. A bit easier to understand this as your problem -- still smarting over your candidate's close loss and unable to see the one who beat her objectively -- rather than a case of so many high-powered koolaid drinkers having taken complete leave of their senses. I'll give you this, though -- it must be very, very difficult for a Clinton supporter to watch her asking Obama to write a personal check to help her settle the 20+ million in debt that she is facing. I can see why you might still be sensitive, when you have to see her behaving like this. It's; okay, Barack, we will support you if you help us deal with our personal financial problems? It's not; universal health care, or another substantive issue, but please help me settle my debts and then I will actively support you? Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
Earth to John: It's over. You lost. Losers don't get to name terms. Losers bow and kiss the ring. There is ZERO chance Obama is picking Hillary Clinton to be his VP. It's a HORRIBLE idea. Even Hillary knows that. Only deadenders like Bill Clinton and this guy John still think that is remotely possible. The holdouts over McCain are pathetic Diva-worshiping sycophants or racist swine who should be voting for the Republicans anyway. The fact that Hillary courted these people in the first place alone disqualifies her to be President.
And no, these are not "hard working Catholics." Catholics are gonna vote for Obama 2-1 over McCain, probably more. Same with Jews. We're talking about racist swine and douchebags like John who can't vote for Obama because that guy beat Hillary, and he's President of the Hillary fanclub and is so upset she lost. Getting rid of both the Bushes and Clintons in one fail swoop is exactly what America needs right now. Good riddance.
John - You seem reasonable. I can't argue with you here. I think you probably need time. My grandparents need time too. They hate Obama's guts. My grandmother is devastated right now. But they'll still probably vote for him (that's my guess, at least). They'll vote for him and hate him. The problem is not you or my grandparents. You are reasonable. The problem is that the Hillary-McCain supporters have a PR issue. Hillary-McCain voters are represented by these nutcases online on various websites. These folks make tons of idiotic claims. Here's a sampling: 1. There was a grand conspiracy to install Obama as the nominee. It starts at the top! 2. There is a lingering scandal (whitie tape, larry sinclair, birth certificate, etc) that will destroy Obama. 3. Obama is linked firmly to terrorists 4. Hillary somehow lost a primary where 58% of the voters were women because of a grand COORDINATED sexist conspiracy by the media to keep women down. etc. These are ridiculous claims, and they are being made by dozens of HRC-McCain sites every day. These are the folks who (thanks to the internet) have microphones. And they make you all look like morons. These people are defiling Hillary Clinton's good name on a daily basis by associating her with this sludge. If you people want the world to take you seriously as a political force that will possibly go to McCain, then you need to get a grip on your insane cadre of internet loonies. Because right now, Obama/myself/others look at your group and they see wild conspiracies on the internet, and they discount you. They look at their poll numbers (all looking great), and they discount you.
Paul, I agree that some Hillary Clinton-McCain types come off loony on their web sites with grand conspiracies. But anyone who reads polls will realize that there are a lot more Clinton folks likely to sit it out or vote McCain than there are internet loonies. I am mad. And I'm mad because I'm told it is in my own self-interest to vote for someone who was about as qualified as George W. Bush was to be president. I'm mad for people who think that democracy is being on a 'team' and voting for your party without thought or seriousness. That's why I can only stomach voting for Obama if he picks someone who I trust to be there to give him advice. Someone like Hillary Clinton who nearly won the nomination as well. If he doesn't pick her and makes some other political calculation of someone who isn't as prepared, I will view it as extremely poor judgement. If he picks Claire McCaskill or someone also lacking experience to handle crises, I will unlikely vote for him. I also really want to see who McCain picks before making a decision because I think I can learn about his judgement through the decision as well. I'm mad at other Democrats who don't realize that both issues and competence matter. On some issues, McCain is better (security/foreign policy). On other issues, Obama is better (health care). On the question of preparedness to deal with unforeseen crises in the White House, McCain is better. I'd feel a lot better if Obama had someone on his side like Hillary Clinton who could actually give him advice on things that do and could arise in the White House. Now, to the others who are so smart as to be able to infer what is my self-interest, if this makes me irrational or voting against my own self-interest, then I guess so be it. But I thought my own self-interest means voting for presidential ticket you most trust and believe to deal with crises that may arise during their presidency.
Again John, you are a total douchebag. What exactly made Hillary Clinton so much more qualified than Obama to handle crises? Because she made a commercial that told you so? Because she played First Lady for Bill and got experience by osmosis? Give. Us. A. Break. No one wants your vote. You are a loser without a soul. Go vote for McCain you sniveling weasel. You're mad? You're momma should be mad that she raised such a douchebag.
To "F** Hag to Douche Bag": First of all, it is very classy of you to post under an offensive pseudonym when offering your opinions. I almost don't even want to respond to you given the immaturity you exhibit with your choice of name and other comments such as "We're talking about racist swine and douchebags like John." But her I go anyway. First, you say "Losers don't get to name terms. Losers bow and kiss the ring." Yes, this is true for John Edwards and Joe Biden and Bill Richardson. They didn't get many votes and received even fewer delegates, even though some of them were are are impressive elected officials. Yet with few delegates, Edwards and Richardson in particular were courted and kissed by Obama well after they lost. Now, Hillary Clinton has enough delegates to cause floor fight at the convention if she wanted to. Need I remind you that at the end of the process, Obama was losing states his own campaign predicted he would win and neither candidate received a pledged delegate majority. While unlikely, superdelegates can switch their vote. But did Hillary Clinton fight it? Did she take it to the convention? Did she battle her likely nominee like Ted Kennedy did? Or Gary Hart? Did it take her months to endorse like Edwards, holding out for a deal? No. In my world, when there are two candidates who nearly tie and the rules process is such that no final decision is made until the convention, the 2 people that tied will be on the ticket together. It is how politics works. It is good and fair and democratic. The Democratic party has prided itself on fairness, and the idea that they wouldn't put Obama-Clinton together as a ticket has made me think about walking. What point is there to be in a party that has worked for the rights of so many that they would ignore one large voting bloc and a symbolic candidate for women (and other Americans too)? What role do women and working class voters have in the party when a candidate basically ties another candidate, yet isn't put on the ballot? If it were reversed, with Hillary limping over the finish line with slightly more delegates, I am certain it would have to be Clinton picking Obama. For the same reasons: How would the party turn its back on African-Americans? It wouldn't and it shouldn't. And it shouldn't turn its back on others in the coalition. But I'll wait and see what happens. If the Democratic party and its presumptive leader (Obama) has decided to tell me that my vote isn't important by picking someone designed to appeal to latte elites, then I'm walking. It is highly rational to leave a party that doesn't want you. While you may call me "swine," let's hope Obama doesn't feel that way. Finally, you claim "90% of Hillary supporters are going to vote for Obama and the other 10% are hypocrite douchebags who'd cut off their heads to spite their faces." You then say "Catholics are gonna vote for Obama 2-1 over McCain, probably more. Same with Jews." You also say "The idea that people even threaten to vote for John McCain is a disgrace. These are the same folks who voted for idiot George Bush twice and that maniac Bill Clinton twice....And no, these are not "hard working Catholics." I never voted for George Bush. I did, proudly vote for Bill Clinton twice. What is your beef with him? He was a good president. Bush was not, and I believe that is because he had no preparation for what he was doing. And do you have any evidence to support your data claims? I was watching Chris Matthews yesterday and saw a poll showing Catholics going 57-43% toward McCain at this point. And if you look at past elections, Catholics tend to swing the elections in many key states. What is Obama offering that McCain isn't that will swing Catholic voters? And finally, do you have evidence that 90% of Hillary supporters are going to vote for Obama? My anecdotal evidence is that I know a few Clinton supporters who will vote for McCain or are at least thinking about it. I also know many more who aren't voting for president at all given the choices. And in the polls I've seen 30-40% of Clinton supporters aren't supporting Obama at this point. Just because you don't agree with us doesn't mean we matter. Obama's win or loss might hinge on him cutting that number from 30-40% not voting Obama down to 10-20%, but there isn't evidence (yet) of what you claim.
Man, this thread makes me miss the primary. So much more entertaining than the general. John, if you can listen to George Bush and Obama talk for more than five minutes and not realize that these are two men with very different minds and principles then there's no convincing you. Obama is deeply intelligent, Bush is a moron. Hillary Clinton has an incredibly masterful grasp of policy - it's one of her strengths - but Obama is no slouch. And it's not as though Obama's going to be sitting in the Oval Office alone, making every decision. He's going to have the best minds in the Democratic party working with him, including people from the Clinton era. The failures of the Bush administration are not because of Bush's lack of experience, but because he was surrounded by very experienced people with very poor policies. An Obama administration will be about experience and a better direction. And the renewal of this country's standing by electing Obama is a very important reason to put him in office.
To Henry: I don't doubt Obama is smart, and he is a great speaker with gifts. Every time I watch him give a speech (not Q&As or speeches), I think I could stomach voting for him. But 30 minutes later, I don't have that feeling any more as his speech didn't communicate much to me. I, however, think that Bush and Obama are quite smart (as are most of the successful and near-successful presidents). Bush has been portrayed as a buffoon, but he is not an idiot. An idiot would have been a caretaker president. Bush is smart and inexperienced. It is a very dangerous combination. And you are right, Obama will be surrounded by people. I've seen little evidence, though, from him that he will be surrounded by anyone from the Clinton administration. He says it was a bad administration, and the few Clintonites working for him are the ineffectual ones that Clinton fired during his presidency (like Robert Reich). If I have to read one more "senior official who worked in the Clinton white house" blind quote criticizing Bill Clinton, I think I am going to find Robert Reich and tell him to be a man and go on the record.
I think "F*g Hag to Douchebag" is actually Andrew Sullivan posting under a pseudonym. It sounds a lot like his reasoned, rational support of Obama early in the primaries: these of course consisted mostly of jeremiads about how Clinton as a woman is taking credit for things women don't do and how Obama is a guiding light to the rest of the world because he lived overseas. And to FG to D, I think one of the biggest mistakes by Obama during the primary that created so many (perhaps incorrect) hard feelings among some women against Obama was that he overplayed the hand about her claiming too much experience. Your statement "Because she played First Lady for Bill and got experience by osmosis?" is what drives many of us crazy. Obama exhibited an occasional explicit sexism ('sweetie', etc.), yet this explict poor behavior was quite rare. But he did have one problem that leaves a greater fear that he may be more implicitly sexist than he lets on -- very bad implicit sexism came out in his repeated attacks against her when he denigrated her experience as first lady. Was being first lady equivalent experience as president? No, of course not. Women know this. Was it meaningless work where Hillary Clinton never had any insights on the workings of the White House? No, not at all. Combining 8 years of first lady and nearly 7 years in the U.S. Senate was an impressive combination in the eyes of many female voters. By denigrating her time in the White House, it came off as him suggesting she's been engaged in a kind of "women's work" tending the house while the boys made the decisions. It also appeared as if he was marginalizing the policy issues (like health care) she worked on during that time as "women's work," not worthy of presidential attention but fine for the first lady to take care of (Isn't that nice? the little lady is having teas and health care task force meetings). While I realize that Obama's health care plan is better than McCain's, I can't get over the sinking feeling that Obama just doesn't care about health care as an issue because he denigrated Hillary Clinton's time in the White House, where she worked extensively on health care, as meaningless. I think health care is an American issue. And even one of Hillary Clinton's biggest gaffes over Bosnia fed into the feeling that Obama just didn't take her seriously. She clearly screwed up and didn't admit it quickly enough. But they kept talking about it, and I was thinking "She admitted the mistake. And she still was in Bosnia. Has Obama ever been to Bosnia? [I don't know]." Had she only been first lady, the charge that her first lady experience wasn't enough to be president would have merit. However, any professional woman married to a professional man knows that the two regularly discuss important decisions in their jobs before they are made. And because she was a U.S. senator, the first lady experience was a great plus on top of her time in the U.S. Senate. The idea that Hillary Clinton had no serious governmental experience was far from true, and it came off as marginalizing. Obama's mockery of her first lady years only made us even madder when he lauded his own experience as a community organizer and state legislator to be president. If you get to count community organizing and being a state legislator (+2 short years as U.S. senator) as a reason you are prepared to be president, then Hillary Clinton certainly gets to count her 8 years as first lady to go along with her 7 years (and 2 elections) to the U.S. Senate. Also, Michelle Obama was being made to be the next Jackie O (perhaps by the media, not the Obama campaign). As a woman in the 21st century, I'd rather have Hillary Clinton as a role model than Jackie O., though I like both Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. All the critiques against her as first lady struck me as a man saying that women proximate to power (even if the are first lady) don't really have the qualifications. It wasn't good, and the result is a lot of hard feelings from some women now that the primary is over.
Hillary's experience as First Lady is not qualification to be president. Sorry. The fact that you think it is makes you a douche bag. Hillary practically lost the election because she thought she needed to exaggerate her experience so it would be a plus over Obama. Fact is they have very similar levels of experience, and it was her hubris that killed her when she pretended she was getting shot at by snipers in Bosnia. That was a lie by the way. Not a mistake. A lie. A lie she felt she had to make because her First Lady experience didn't mean squat. It only means something to People Magazine Democrats who vote on celebrity. Diva-worshipping douche bags. Bill Clinton is a rapist scumbag who embarrassed the country and dropped bombs on Bosnia because he wanted to change the subject from Monica giving him blowjobs. Hillary is a swine who called Monica and Gennifer Flowers stalkers when in fact her husband was fucking them. Can't handle the truth? Pathetic. John, you don't get fucking squat for coming in second place in presidential primaries. You don't get shit! Do you even know anything about the history of primaries? Don't you realize that Hillary is Jerry Brown to Obama's Bill Clinton. Don't you realize that Hillary is a LOSER. L-O-S-E-R. The spoils go to the winners. The losers have to suck it up and clap for him. Did you see Hillary's clapping and kissing Obama's ass in Unity the other day? Nice look for her. All that's left is for her to kiss Obama's ass for the next eight years. Pucker up, douche bag. By the way, Women who think First Lady is big experience are fucking idiots. These people probably think because their husband runs a bank that they should be giving out loans. Give us a break. Hillary could have run an honest campaign and not exaggerated her experience, but she's got no soul, so she does what's politically expedient. She lies. Sniper fire! Ah ha ha! Don't piss in the wind, douche bags!
F** Hag to Douche Bag: You failed to answer any of my questions and you instead talked about how Hillary Clinton was a bad first lady. You are the irrational one based on the content of your post. And Hillary Clinton is Jerry Brown? That's funny. Hillary Clinton has leverage, if she wanted to use it, because she has a ton of pledged delegates. Jerry Brown had few delegates in 1992, and thus no leverage. But again, can you respond to my questions please? Again, I asked you: you claim "90% of Hillary supporters are going to vote for Obama and the other 10% are hypocrite douchebags who'd cut off their heads to spite their faces." You then say "Catholics are gonna vote for Obama 2-1 over McCain, probably more. Same with Jews." Do you have any evidence or data to support your claims?
Obama never mocked Hillary's First Lady Experience. That's just slander. Obama mocked Hillary pretending she was Annie Oakley. And rightfully so. Because Hillary was pandering like the most awful of pols on that issue. As for Snipergate, that, like all the Clinton scandals, was brought on by them lying and their arrogance. Any blowback was well deserved. In the end, Hillary lost because A LOT OF PEOPLE REALLY HATE HER...BECAUSE SHE AND HER HUSBAND ARE LYING, CHEATING, SCUMBAGS. But none of this matters really - it's over, Hillaryfans! Obama is going to be the next president of the united states, and Hillary is going to keep getting cuckolded by Bill for the next 15 years. Have fun with that. As for Hillary voters threatening to vote for McCain...you might as well, being on the losing side of elections seems to be a good look for ya'll.
FH to DG: I think you are confusing me with John: "By the way, Women who think First Lady is big experience are fucking idiots. These people probably think because their husband runs a bank that they should be giving out loans." Was she U.S. senator for 7 years? Is this enough experience to be president in your mind?
Sorry, douche bag, but Hillary has no levarage. Obama has more than enough delegates to win, so he doesn't need Hillary's delegates. And anyway, they have already abandoned her in mass and endorsed Obama, so your argument is garbage. Only the the little dick holdouts are left, and those douche bags don't mean squat in the big picture. As for Hillary being a bad first lady - try fucking up Healthcare so bad that it hasn't been able to be fixed for 15 years. Yes, it was her fault. Yes, she was too secretive and too arrogant. And yes, it was the health care failure on her part that led to the Republicans taking over congress in 1994. That's a fact, douche bag. Not to say Hillary isn't a great proponent of health care. We all know she is and thank her for that. But clearly she was not the person to "get it done" - she had her chance and failed. We need someone who can bring people together, not divide them. Besides healthcare, she didn't do much else worthwhile as first lady except standing up to the Chinese on Women's Rights, which was a great moment. But SCHIP - she did nothing to make that happen, she was a bandwagoner and again was lying and taking credit for something that Ted Kennedy, not her, did. But whatever, you'll believe anything. As for Catholics and Jews voting for Obama at 2-1 margins, go find your own stats douche bag. Obama's gonna win Catholics, Jews, Latinos, Women by a huge margin. And you are gonna vote for him, too. You just know you will. Because if you vote for McCain you are hypocrite scum, and even this Fag Hag doesn't think you'd ever sink that low. Even people who think you're a douche bag believe you have more soul than you give yourself credit for. Voting for John McCain over security? Are you one of those douche bags who was in favor of the Iraq War? If so, McCain is your man. And if so, you are a bigger douche bag than I originally suspected.
John, you can google the information. We are not responsible for your political education. You are responsible for yourself. Also, Hillary wasnt a bad first lady. But just as being a surgeon's wife doesn't qualify you to conduct a surgery nor does being First Lady qualifies you for being president. Hillary is a policy wonk but has no leadership ability. How she ran her campaign is evidence of that. And Hillary is the true Bush Lite canididate. She valued loyality in staff (Patti Solis Doyle, Penn, Wolfson, Grunwald and Williams). Her campaign was a test of her ability to manage an organization and she failed miserably. I'm sorry to see that you worship the cult of Hillary and not the actuality of the person. I'm am so glad that the McBeth Evita persona didn't win.
Sorry to confuse you and Yes, Pseudonym, I think Hillary's experience as Senator is ample qualification to be president. More than Abe Lincoln had. No one ever said different. It was the Hillary crowd who felt the need to amp up what her First Lady experience meant so she could create an "experience gap" between herself and Obama, a gap that is purely fictional. Trying to create this gap is what led to Hillary concocting the lies of snipergate. It's pretty simple. Look, Hillary lost the election when she and Bill decided they weren't going to win South Carolina and thought they would be better off alienating the black vote in order to get the racist "Clinton...er...Reagan Democrat" vote. They thought this was a winning strategy. And yes, it helped her take Ohio and Pennsylvania. But it killed her everywhere else. They lost because of hubris, and because they sold their souls for political expediency. That is who the Clintons are. Serves them right that it also helped them lose. Whatever. The Clintons are now History, as are the Bushes. We're all about the future - goes by the name of Obama. Like your wounds, Pseudonym. We know you didn't vote for Hillary just because of her celebrity - it was because of policy and leadership. Well, Obama and Hillary share 95% of policy ideas between them. And the man is a born leader. Good times ahead. Join in. Gonna be fun.
Sonya, I did google the information on support across demographics, but found no data or evidence of polls showing 90% of Clinton supporters now behind Obama and I have seen no polls of Catholics supporting Obama 2-to-1. Thus, I was either wrong because I didn't find the poll or F** Hag to Douche Bag is lying. Given the tone of his/her posts, I think I'm correct on the data and s/he is not. And why do Obama supporters attack Hillary Clinton's time as first lady? Who cares? 7 years as a U.S. senator is good enough for me. You said "But just as being a surgeon's wife doesn't qualify you to conduct a surgery nor does being First Lady qualifies you for being president." Is being a U.S. senator for 7 years enough of a qualification to be president? I'd guess yes.
To Cheese. You wrote "Obama never mocked Hillary's First Lady Experience. That's just slander." Well, unfortunately he did - and much of it has some nasty sexist tones. And he mocked it before any of the nasty race stuff flared up in South Carolina. There are a lot of raw feelings from some women because Obama marginalized Hillary Clinton in very implicitly sexist ways. As I mentioned above, I think one of the biggest mistakes by Obama during the primary that created so many (perhaps incorrect) hard feelings among some women against Obama was that he overplayed the hand about her claiming too much experience. Obama exhibited an occasional explicit sexism, but what was worse was the implicit sexism - this very bad implicit sexism came out in his repeated attacks against her when he denigrated her experience as first lady. Was being first lady equivalent experience as president? I have said already, of course not. Women know this. But was it meaningless work where Hillary Clinton never had any insights on the workings of the White House? No, it was not meaningless. She did have an office in the West Wing after all, and autobiographies of others serving in the administration regularly noted her role in policy (sometimes positively and sometimes negatively). But Obama chose pushed hard against Clinton, claiming she had little experience. By attacking her as first lady, he downplayed her U.S. Senate experience while at the same time mocking her accomplishments as first lady (the joint experience of both was actually quite impressive). Perhaps the worst comment was when he didn't just question her experience to be president, but he implied she had no qualifications to get elected to the Senate (even though a number of senators have been elected with much less life and political experience, such as Ted Kennedy in his initial election). We were told by Obama her experience didn't count. Being a wife is fine, but being a wife doesn't mean you have policy views or do work. Here's what he said, and I think it was marginalizing and misognynistic: Obama, on Nightline, 11/26/07: “I don't think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States Senator by virtue of me talking to her.” There are many other examples. Here are just a few comments from Obama and his staff mocking Hillary Clinton's time as first lady and suggesting she wasn't ready to be president (note I'm posting some mostly from 2007, before Hillary Clinton went negative; he attacked her in 2008 on this as well, but by that point attacks were flying all over): -Obama, 12/28/07: “It’s that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassador’s house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa.” [Obama suggesting his time visiting relatives in Africa was more experience than Clinton's time as first lady having "teas"] Madeline Albright, a Clinton surrogate responded: “Senator Clinton has been in refugee camps, clinics, orphanages, and villages all around the world, including places where tea is not the usual drink.” Obama’s response to Clinton and Albright: “Those folks must really be on edge.” -Obama, 11/2007, in response to Hillary Clinton claiming she has more economic experience (and she made no mention of her time as first lady in her initial comment): "My understanding was that she wasn’t Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration." -From San Francisco Chronicle, 1/18/2008: "Illinois Sen. Barack Obama launched a direct broadside Thursday at New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that she is the experienced Democratic candidate who is 'ready to lead' - saying that her experience is 'presumed through osmosis, as a consequence of having been first lady.'" [this is the same sexist Obama talking point parroted by a commenter here] -Obama spokesman, Tom Daschle, on Meet the Press, 3/9/08: “I worked with her; I know what a good first lady she was….I don’t think anyone can look at her experience as first lady and say, for some reason, that qualifies her to run for president of the United States.” Need I go on? The record suggests Obama used numerous implicit messages that were misognynistic during the early days of the campaign. The first lady question was raised as much by Obama to question her experience, marginalizing her role in the White House and marginalizing her 7 years in the U.S. Senate.
Well, regardless of all the hard feelings on both sides, I thought the event yesterday looked great. Obama and Clinton are on board with one another, that is what matters.
John, Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary. Fact. Obama has sponsored more legislation and important legislation in his short time as Senator than Clinton has fact. Hillary was the one who stressed the importance of her first lady experience in the 35 years of experience line. She is the one who claimed important roles in the Irish Peace Accords, the Macedonia ceasefire and S-chip. Reporters found all those claims to be untrue plus she didn't even have national security clearance to be privy to the information nor did she ever sit in on a cabinet meeting. Hillary is a great policy wonk but not a leader. And if you bought that scrappy girl from Scranton line- (gun shooting, whiskey downing persona) then I have a bridge to sell you. Hillary is not the feminist icon, she hitched her star to Bill, sumerged her career aspirations and tried to ride his coat tails back to the white house. She let him publically humilated her over and over again for what? And as far as which first lady is more important to history- Jackie Kennedy coined Camelot, Hillary coined the vast right conspiracy. Jackie like Hillary suffered with an adulterous husband, but after gaining economic security from Onasisis, she forged a publishing career for herself, raised two amazing children who didn't suffer from the Kennedy's excessiveness trait (except for risk taking- which is probably part of their DNA) and created a flourshing life for herself. Jackie lived and die on her own terms. Hillary now has the chance to make it on her own with out relying on the excessive and destructive hubris of Bill. But is she woman enough to do it, is the question. I think her ability to get over her lost so quickly indicate that she probably can but Bill is already threatening to derail her plans just like he did in the primary. Ps. the polls I looked at say Obama has gained 86% of the Jewish vote, 69% of the Latino vote, 59% of the women vote, and is trailing by 14% in the Catholic vote.
John, Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary. Fact. Obama has sponsored more legislation and important legislation in his short time as Senator than Clinton has fact. Hillary was the one who stressed the importance of her first lady experience in the 35 years of experience line. She is the one who claimed important roles in the Irish Peace Accords, the Macedonia ceasefire and S-chip. Reporters found all those claims to be untrue plus she didn't even have national security clearance to be privy to the information nor did she ever sit in on a cabinet meeting. Hillary is a great policy wonk but not a leader. And if you bought that scrappy girl from Scranton line- (gun shooting, whiskey downing persona) then I have a bridge to sell you. Hillary is not the feminist icon, she hitched her star to Bill, sumerged her career aspirations and tried to ride his coat tails back to the white house. She let him publically humilated her over and over again for what? And as far as which first lady is more important to history- Jackie Kennedy coined Camelot, Hillary coined the vast right conspiracy. Jackie like Hillary suffered with an adulterous husband, but after gaining economic security from Onasisis, she forged a publishing career for herself, raised two amazing children who didn't suffer from the Kennedy's excessiveness trait (except for risk taking- which is probably part of their DNA) and created a flourshing life for herself. Jackie lived and died on her own terms. Hillary now has the chance to make it on her own with out relying on the excessive and destructive hubris of Bill. But is she woman enough to do it, is the question. I think her ability to get over her lost so quickly indicate that she probably can but Bill is already threatening to derail her plans just like he did in the primary. Ps. the polls I looked at say Obama has gained 86% of the Jewish vote, 69% of the Latino vote, 59% of the women vote, and is trailing by 14% in the Catholic vote.
Pseudonym, I think you're forgetting that he was running against her in a primary campaign. Of course he was going to try to diminish her experience. It was her main rallying cry against him. You're also forgetting Hillary saying "Hardworking white Americans," and mocking his idea of hope, "The skies will open, light will come down..." Ugly things were said on both sides, it was a competition.
Sonya, your 'facts' are talking points, and some are actually incorrect. I don't have time to continue blogging, but please don't misrepresent Clinton's legislative accomplishments now that the primary is over. You stated: "Obama has sponsored more legislation and important legislation in his short time as Senator than Clinton has fact." This is a false smear that was sent around by email. It is false. It counts all bills sponsored and co-sponsored by Obama, but does not include all of Clinton's bills. See here: http://www.factcheck.org/ Let's just say I'm not anywhere near convinced to come over to your comment by your persuasive techniques, since they amount to lying about the candidate I preferred who isn't even running anymore.
Uh, John - you're not actually "blogging." You are a commenter on someone else's blog. Get it? Probably not. Although it does prove that you are a true loser. L-O-S-E-R With a big fucking L. Huge. Loser of the Year John What a douche.
John, Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary. Fact. Obama has sponsored more legislation and important legislation in his short time as Senator than Clinton has fact. Hillary was the one who stressed the importance of her first lady experience in the 35 years of experience line. She is the one who claimed important roles in the Irish Peace Accords, the Macedonia ceasefire and S-chip. Reporters found all those claims to be untrue plus she didn't even have national security clearance to be privy to the information nor did she ever sit in on a cabinet meeting. Hillary is a great policy wonk but not a leader. And if you bought that scrappy girl from Scranton line- (gun shooting, whiskey downing persona) then I have a bridge to sell you. Hillary is not the feminist icon, she hitched her star to Bill, sumerged her career aspirations and tried to ride his coat tails back to the white house. She let him publically humilated her over and over again for what? And as far as which first lady is more important to history- Jackie Kennedy coined Camelot, Hillary coined the vast right conspiracy. Jackie like Hillary suffered with an adulterous husband, but after gaining economic security from Onasisis, she forged a publishing career for herself, raised two amazing children who didn't suffer from the Kennedy's excessiveness trait (except for risk taking- which is probably part of their DNA) and created a flourshing life for herself. Jackie lived and died on her own terms. Hillary now has the chance to make it on her own with out relying on the excessive and destructive hubris of Bill. But is she woman enough to do it, is the question. I think her ability to get over her lost so quickly indicate that she probably can but Bill is already threatening to derail her plans just like he did in the primary. Ps. the polls I looked at say Obama has gained 86% of the Jewish vote, 69% of the Latino vote, 59% of the women vote, and is trailing by 14% in the Catholic vote.
Sonya, even if you post it twice, you are still wrong. Why are you, since the primary has ended, posting false information about Hillary Clinton? Do you have Clinton Derangement Syndrome? It is over. You falsely stated: "Obama has sponsored more legislation and important legislation in his short time as Senator than Clinton has fact." This is a false smear that was sent around by email. It is just plain wrong and you are knowingly repeating falsehoods about Hillary Clinton, even though she has dropped out and endorsed your candidate. The false email that you cite counts all bills sponsored and co-sponsored by Obama, but does not include all of Clinton's bills. See here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html Here's just part of the rebuttal to your smear: "A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates? We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular: * It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not. * It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less. * It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true. Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge" Now, do you still intend to post lies? These comments from you and others are really troubling. I start my comments by saying I am not sure if I can support Obama without Hillary also on the ticket because I don't think he has enough experience. Instead of telling me that he has experience and giving me details to convince me he is more prepared to be president than McCain (I am not currently convinced that he is), here's what Obama supporters do instead: First, you tell me how I'm an idiot and stupid. Then, you say that Hillary Clinton really didn't have any experience. Finally, you create lies embellishing Obama's experience. I'm less convinced to support Obama now than I was yesterday when I started posting on this blog.
John, instead of name calling, I will assume you have the ability to reason. Obama has offered up 1800 pieces of legislation since becoming a senator. Here is a partial listing, if you want more please check out factcheck.barackobama.com: *The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of *The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and *The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed *The 2007 Government Ethics Bill (became law) *The Protection Against Excessive Executive Since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. As to Hillary, she used her Senate time to learn the ropes, be seen as a team player and buff up her bi-partisan bonfides. Here are her legislative accomplishment: *Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site *Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing *Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor *Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall *Name courthouse after James L. Watson *Name post office after John A. O'Shea *Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple *Support the goals and ideals of National Purple *Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton *Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange *Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's *Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American *Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda *Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the *Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Only five of Clinton's bills are substantive: *Extend period of unemployment assistance to *Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 *Assist landmine victims in other countries *Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable *Designate part of the National Forest System in Just like their differences in personality, Obama has a broad vision for change and Hillary being the policy wonk she is has focused on very cermonial and/or targeted ideas.
Sonya, did you read what I posted? First, I am trying to decide who to vote for between Barack Obama and John McCain, based primarily on their preparedness for office. Second, the stuff you posted in response to me is the email that has been shown to be a lie--that list of bills Obama allegedly sponsored is filled with errors, and the claim that Hillary Clinton had only five substantive legislative accomplishments in her 7 years in the Senate is also wrong. Why do you continue to smear her? You are just copying and pasting factually wrong information about Hillary Clinton, who is no longer in the race. Why do you post lies about Clinton's record, cherry-picking her bills? Are you working for the NY Republican party or something? Here are just a few errors in your post: (1) you claim that Obama sponsored the 2007 ethics bill that became law. He neither sponsored nor co-sponsored the bill that became law. He did support it and a provision of the bill was in a different bill that he co-sponsored that did not become law. But he is not the key mover behind that ethics reform law. (2) you claim he sponsored or cosponsored the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. The 2006 version of this bill included 6 co- |
This is going disappoint all the conservatives who wanted Hillary to win the nomination and started claiming to media that they voted for Hillary in primary but are now going to vote for McCain. Liars!!
No real feminist is going to vote for McCain simply because Hillary did not get the nomination. They are either dumb or do not care about real issues. It is very very simple: Obama is pro-choice while McCain is anti-choice. Obama is for equal-pay-for-women while McCain is against it. Obama is for health care for all while McCain is against it. The list goes on and on.
Posted by Sandy | June 27, 2008 1:22 PM