Clinton goes too far; finally

[B_jacknapier]

On the plus side, McCain's actually pretty moderate and willing to work across party lines.

 

[tripod]

On the plus side, McCain's actually pretty moderate and willing to work across party lines.

That's totally true and he would be a pretty good president. He is just too militant and hawkish though, he wants to bomb everyone now and discuss the issues later. If he would back off the Bush doctrine and go with his own heart, he would be a GREAT president.

 

[Guy-jin]

On the plus side, McCain's actually pretty moderate and willing to work across party lines.

I doubt I'm the only Moderate Independent who's hoping if McCain does win that we get "old McCain" back. You remember him.

 

[B_jacknapier]

Yeah, I remember him. I wanted so badly for him to beat Bush. It was such a shock when he didn't get the nomination.

 

[2322]

God help us. It will be worse than what I read the Carter administration was.

At least Carter gave us one of the best retired presidents in history. :tongue:

Comparing Hillary's campaign to the likes of Iraq is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? For starters, 4000+ people didn't have to die in order for her to run.

No, only 56 had to die for the Clintons (or so the more radical GOP pundits would have you believe). :biggrin1::wink:

That's my biggest fear. In spite of all the crap about liberal bias in the media, the Republicans with the "liberal media's" help managed to gain control of all three branches of government. And in spite of their spectacular failures in all the branches they are still a very formidable force.

There will always be the other side to look out for. Majorities in congress and the supreme court will always be in flux, just as no party will ever hold the oval office forever. Pendulum swinging and all that. I look at the younger adults these days, even from conservative areas, and I see the same backlash against the establishment that one could have seen in the late 50s. The younger people just aren't as conservative. Most believe gay marriage and race are non-issues and they sure as hell look at Iraq much the way the boomers looked at Vietnam. Look at who that demographic supports and it's very strongly Obama.

What can't be beat are the demographics of population. The boomers will still influence politics in their favor for a very long time to come but perhaps the combined interest of the Gen-X, and more populous Gen-Y, can temper that influence.

Just watch and wait. Time is on the side for a major swing to the Democrats' favor.

That was a bunch of garbage. Hillary Clinton was one of the most influential First Lady's of our time. There was never any doubt that she would run for public office after her vast contributions in the White House as First Lady.

So you're saying we shouldn't have believed Hillary Clinton when she repeatedly denied any interest in running for the senate and the presidency? We should have seen through her lies?

Hillary Clinton ran the hardest run campaign ever in New York and WON. The exploratory committee came back and reported that a majority in the state said that they would never vote for Hillary Clinton. She actively campaigned to chang their minds and proved herself to be the candidate with the skills of leadership and savvy to hold that Senate seat.

Oh what rubbish! The sitting senator was told not to run so she could get the seat and the powers that be in New York handed her the nomination on a plate! New York is one of the most politically corrupt states in the country and it's well-acknowledged that the legislature is effectively a rubber stamp for whatever the infamous, "three men in a smoky room," decide. The NY Dems invited Hillary to run and made sure the GOP put up a neophyte in Rick Lazio because Hillary, when she became president, would bring home more bacon to New York than Lazio ever could. The seat was originally supposed to go to Giuliani but when he got cancer and bowed out, Hillary was given the seat.

Now in your last paragraph that I've put in bold...that describes Barack Obama. Obama is only in his third year as a Senator. That means he has two years in the Senate under his belt. Barely enough time to do anything. His eight years in the Illinois Senate which weren't note worthy, do not qualify him as highly qualified elected official...unless you think your state senator who votes present on a regular basis is qualified to be president.

Actually three years. He was seated in January 2005. It is now May 2008. 2008-2005= 3 years. Compared to Hillary Clinton, he is relatively inexperienced however both are ridiculously inexperienced compared to McCain (or Paul or Huckabee or Richardson or Biden or let's just say everybody else who ran save for Edwards though even he has a few Senate years on Hillary). If, as you argue above, experience is the guiding factor in selecting a candidate, then Clinton was one of the two most politically inexperienced people in the entire race and it would be illogical to support her.

Hillary Clinton has relied on hard work and determination in the face of adversity to get where she is. She has earned everything she has. Hillary Clinton has supported her husband and she had done more in service to this Nation than Barack Obama on his best day. To say otherwise is sexist and belittling particularly when Obama has done practically nothing.

Do you really think Hillary would have the political clout to be a senator from New York had she not been first lady? She wasn't elected to first lady. It was given to her by virtue of her marriage. Had she not married Bill Clinton, she'd be a lawyer of some sort.

You express the views that divide this party. Not just for sexist reasons, because I do feel what you said was sexist, but on the general principle of fairness. We used to disagree and but be fair...give credit where credit is do. We don't do that anymore.

I'm not a Democrat so I don't belong to, "this party." What have I said that was sexist? Please, point it out. I'd really like to know. I have no qualms with a female president. I think Thatcher was one of the greatest leaders of the cold war era and, had I lived in the UK, would have voted for her. As a student of history I am very aware that female leaders have proved just as capable at leading everything from tribes to empires, in war and peace, from Hatshepsut (3497 years ago) to Merkel (now). I don't care about race, religion, or sex. What I care about is the right person for the job because my life, and my country, depend upon it.

So if you want to throw around convenient accusations so your candidate can appear unfairly victimized in the cold light of reality, you'd better back it up. I'm sure any person would gladly tell you that you that failure to do so will result in the dismissal of all your arguments as you will be viewed as someone who will resort to lies and distortions to prove your point.

 

[HazelGod]

any person would gladly tell you that you that failure to do so has resulted in the dismissal of all your arguments as you are viewed as someone who resorts to lies and distortions to belabor your point.

Fixed that for ya. :wink:

 

[TinyPrincess]

The vast majority of us did so weeks ago...but that doesn't mean we don't enjoy occasionally indulging in the perverse pleasure of poking stupid animals with sticks...

okey:

LMAO!!!

 

[B_boynextdoorkpt]

The vast majority of us did so weeks ago...but that doesn't mean we don't enjoy occasionally indulging in the perverse pleasure of poking stupid animals with sticks...

okey:

You and people like you are the reason why the die hard Hillary voters will not go for Obama, your cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[TinyPrincess]

Well, who really needs "die hard" Billary voters?

 

[HazelGod]

You and people like you are the reason why the die hard Hillary voters will not go for Obama, your cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Actually, I'm amusing myself eliciting your repeated professions to do just that.

 

[deleted15807]

You and people like you are the reason why the die hard Hillary voters will not go for Obama, your cutting your nose off to spite your face.

And so those who do not will go for McCain? I surely hope the Democrats are smarter than that.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You and people like you are the reason why the die hard Hillary voters will not go for Obama, your cutting your nose off to spite your face.

It's a lost cause. Sadly, they'll never realize that until it's too late.

And so those who do not will go for McCain? I surely hope the Democrats are smarter than that.

Maybe not. But some may not vote at all. I've seen many people with this kind of thought process on this very board from both sides of the argument. That's also a problem since neither person can win with only half of the party behind them.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Personally, based on nothing, I think there is no way Hillary will not close ranks with Obama, decisively.
That's necessary for the good of the party, but no less necessary for the good of Hillary.

 

[Trinity]

So you're saying we shouldn't have believed Hillary Clinton when she repeatedly denied any interest in running for the senate and the presidency? We should have seen through her lies?

No, I actually wasn't addressing that part of your post because I don't think it really matters.

Oh what rubbish! The sitting senator was told not to run so she could get the seat and the powers that be in New York handed her the nomination on a plate! New York is one of the most politically corrupt states in the country and it's well-acknowledged that the legislature is effectively a rubber stamp for whatever the infamous, "three men in a smoky room," decide. The NY Dems invited Hillary to run and made sure the GOP put up a neophyte in Rick Lazio because Hillary, when she became president, would bring home more bacon to New York than Lazio ever could. The seat was originally supposed to go to Giuliani but when he got cancer and bowed out, Hillary was given the seat.

Not really. Sen. Clinton didn't win by a landslide and had her work cut out for her to win the race when she wasn't a New York native and as you pointed out, she was dogged and accused of "carpetbagging" throughout the race. Sen. Clinton also did not initially have the support of women in the state. As for your conclusion that her seatwas given to her so she could bring "bacon" to NY when she became president. Anybody who watched the debates and race, know it wasn't a shoe-in race despite who you say "orchestrated" it or who was deemed to be a presumptive nominee at the outset. You seem to be confused, Moynihan retired.

The race began in November 1998 when four-term incumbent New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced his retirement. ​

Clinton won the election in November 2000 with 55 percent of the vote to Lazio's 43 percent. -Wik​

Actually three years. He was seated in January 2005. It is now May 2008. 2008-2005= 3 years. Compared to Hillary Clinton, he is relatively inexperienced however both are ridiculously inexperienced compared to McCain (or Paul or Huckabee or Richardson or Biden or let's just say everybody else who ran save for Edwards though even he has a few Senate years on Hillary). If, as you argue above, experience is the guiding factor in selecting a candidate, then Clinton was one of the two most politically inexperienced people in the entire race and it would be illogical to support her.

Correction, with 3 years under his belt as a U.S. Obama does not have the experience or qualifications of Hillary Clinton. You made mention that Hillary hasn't completed 2 terms, then you must believe Obama is highly unqualified because he hasn't completed one term. Hillary isn't politically inexperienced. Holding elected office is not the only way in which to gain political experience. Hillary Clinton is one of two candidates in this race who have a good deal of valuable political experience.

Do you really think Hillary would have the political clout to be a senator from New York had she not been first lady? She wasn't elected to first lady. It was given to her by virtue of her marriage. Had she not married Bill Clinton, she'd be a lawyer of some sort.

Yes. Hillary Clinton served as a lawyer for a number of years. She was an Editor of the Yale Law Review. Hillary made the cover of Time magazine when she was 18 years old, foretelling that she would be a mover and shaker. Hillary Clinton ran a voting registration drive, and ran President Carter's Presidential campaign in Indiana. Hillary Clinton is a U.S. Senator based on her own merits. As First Lady she could have chosen to sit and do nothing like Laura Bush, but she chose to take an active role and serve the Nation. Based on her own merits and what she contributed, Sen. Clinton earned her seat in the Senate. If she had not been First Lady perhaps she would have ran for state senate...but she had other things to do like run an Executive Office in the Executive Office Building on Capitol Hill and gain first hand experience on crisis resolution, Executive Decisions and Foreign and Domestic Policy. She was busy with that or I'm sure she would have run for the State Senate.

I'm not a Democrat so I don't belong to, "this party."

Nobody said you were. However, your views demonstrate the fraction in the Democractic Party. In this case, some Independents are voting Dem and even some Republicans. The fraction is between the two candidates regardless of how you as a voter identify...but make no mistake the two candidates are Democrats in the Democratic Party and therefore define the fracture between the two groups voting for them.

What have I said that was sexist? Please, point it out. I'd really like to know.

Practically everything.

So if you want to throw around convenient accusations so your candidate can appear unfairly victimized in the cold light of reality, you'd better back it up. I'm sure any person would gladly tell you that you that failure to do so will result in the dismissal of all your arguments as you will be viewed as someone who will resort to lies and distortions to prove your point.

That is a bunch of bunk. You demonstrating sexism in no way victimizes Hillary Clinton. She is a strong candidate by her qualifications and merits. Your invalidation of her merits and qualifications is sexist and saying so does not weaken her or my arguments. Sorry, but I disagreed your post and I have every right to say so.

 

[2322]

You and people like you are the reason why the die hard Hillary voters will not go for Obama, your cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I can pretty much guarantee you that once Clinton has what she wants from the convention, she'll throw all her delegates to Obama and urge her constituents to vote for him.

That means Trinity, and those like her, will do one of two things:

Vote for Obama because Hillary, being the smartest woman in the world, knows best and if she tells her supporters to vote for Obama they will do it.
​

or
​

They will write-in votes for Hillary because she's the smartest woman in the world and sadly the convention was rigged by sexist, media-biased, Hillary-haters from within the party.
​

The only ones who will defect to McCain are the racists (or so the subtext of the Democratic post-convention campaign strategy will try to imply).

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Your invalidation of her merits and qualifications is sexist and saying so does not weaken her or my arguments. Sorry, but I disagreed your post and I have every right to say so.

I know this was addressed to Jason, but I have to ask why his criticism of Clinton has to be sexist?
Is everyone who criticizes Obama racist?
Everyone who criticizes Barney Frank a homophobe?

 

[2322]

No, I actually wasn't addressing that part of your post because I don't think it really matters.

Dismiss what you can't defend!

Not really. Sen. Clinton didn't win by a landslide and had her work cut out for her to win the race when she wasn't a New York native and as you pointed out, she was dogged and accused of "carpetbagging" throughout the race. Sen. Clinton also did not initially have the support of women in the state. As for your conclusion that her seatwas given to her so she could bring "bacon" to NY when she became president. Anybody who watched the debates and race, know it wasn't a shoe-in race despite who you say "orchestrated" it or who was deemed to be a presumptive nominee at the outset. You seem to be confused, Moynihan retired.

The race began in November 1998 when four-term incumbent New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced his retirement. ​

Clinton won the election in November 2000 with 55 percent of the vote to Lazio's 43 percent. -Wik​

​

Perhaps I shouldn't blame you for not understanding this as you likely don't live in New York and appear to be politically naive. Still, all of this was decided by the powers that be long before she took any oath of office.

Correction, with 3 years under his belt as a U.S. Obama does not have the experience or qualifications of Hillary Clinton. You made mention that Hillary hasn't completed 2 terms, then you must believe Obama is highly unqualified because he hasn't completed one term. Hillary isn't politically inexperienced. Holding elected office is not the only way in which to gain political experience. Hillary Clinton is one of two candidates in this race who have a good deal of valuable political experience.

No I don't because that wasn't my argument, it was yours. In any event, comparing Hillary to Obama in no way negates the fact that the two of them are comparatively inexperienced in light of all other contenders.

Yes. Hillary Clinton served as a lawyer for a number of years. She was an Editor of the Yale Law Review. Hillary made the cover of Time magazine when she was 18 years old, foretelling that she would be a mover and shaker. Hillary Clinton ran a voting registration drive, and ran President Carter's Presidential campaign in Indiana. Hillary Clinton is a U.S. Senator based on her own merits. As First Lady she could have chosen to sit and do nothing like Laura Bush, but she chose to take an active role and serve the Nation. Based on her own merits and what she contributed, Sen. Clinton earned her seat in the Senate. If she had not been First Lady perhaps she would have ran for state senate...but she had other things to do like run an Executive Office in the Executive Office Building on Capitol Hill and gain first hand experience on crisis resolution, Executive Decisions and Foreign and Domestic Policy. She was busy with that or I'm sure she would have run for the State Senate.

First hand experience? What was she doing there? Nobody elected her, nor was she appointed, to resolve any crises or formulate domestic or foreign policies. She took no oath of office, was accountable to no one, was not a federal employee. If she was doing what you say she was doing then she was doing so with no authority and her actions, as well as those of Bill Clinton who it must be assumed permitted these things, are a betrayal of public trust. If other first ladies sit on their asses, as you say, then it's because that's they weren't elected to do anything. They have no constitutional nor legal role within the federal government what-so-ever and to hand policy powers over to someone with no official position is irresponsible and alarming (as travelgate proved).

Nobody said you were. However, your views demonstrate the fraction in the Democractic Party. In this case, some Independents are voting Dem and even some Republicans. The fraction is between the two candidates regardless of how you as a voter identify...but make no mistake the two candidates are Democrats in the Democratic Party and therefore define the fracture between the two groups voting for them.

I believe it was implied but I'll let it slide.

Practically everything.

That is a bunch of bunk. You demonstrating sexism in no way victimizes Hillary Clinton. She is a strong candidate by her qualifications and merits. Your invalidation of her merits and qualifications is sexist and saying so does not weaken her or my arguments. Sorry, but I disagreed your post and I have every right to say so.

You repeat a claim once again without backing your argument. Have I once said that she is not qualified because she is a woman? Have I once stated that her faults (or attributes) are due to her sex? Have I argued any point against her based upon the fact she is a woman?

No; not once and I challenge you to prove it.

Learn what sexism is before you start throwing the term around.

 

[Trinity]

Dismiss what you can't defend!

I'm not dismissing anything. I wasn't addressing that part of your post period.

Perhaps I shouldn't blame you for not understanding this as you likely don't live in New York and appear to be politically naive. Still, all of this was decided by the powers that be long before she took any oath of office.

LoL. Sen. Clinton's seat was not given to her as you stated. I made clear points on that. I am far from politically naive and I'm very familiar with this race.

No I don't because that wasn't my argument, it was yours. In any event, comparing Hillary to Obama in no way negates the fact that the two of them are comparatively inexperienced in light of all other contenders.

Your post belittled the experience and qualifications of Hillary Clinton by talking about the length she held her U.S. Senate seat and her other experience including as First Lady. I addressed your points and pointed out if your criteria is length of Senate tenure and political experience then Barack Obama is sorely lacking as a candidate. I further explained that political experience includes more than holding "elected office." Sorry, but you are wrong. Hillary Clinton is highly experienced and qualified. Based on your own criteria Barack Obama can not say the same.

First hand experience? What was she doing there? Nobody elected her, nor was she appointed, to resolve any crises or formulate domestic or foreign policies. She took no oath of office, was accountable to no one, was not a federal employee. If she was doing what you say she was doing then she was doing so with no authority and her actions, as well as those of Bill Clinton who it must be assumed permitted these things, are a betrayal of public trust. If other first ladies sit on their asses, as you say, then it's because that's they weren't elected to do anything. They have no constitutional nor legal role within the federal government what-so-ever and to hand policy powers over to someone with no official position is irresponsible and alarming (as travelgate proved).

Well, let me give one little example. well, two. Obama jumped up and down for months demanding Hillary Clinton release the First Lady Papers. When she finally did, Obama hunted through all 1000's of pages of instances of attendance at policy formulation meetings and participation in Domestic and Foreign Policy by Hillary Clinton and the Executive Office of the First Lady. This is where the main NAFTA battle occurred. The First Lady attended key meetings on NAFTA. Hillary Clinton voiced opposition to some of the plans within NAFTA and favored concentration on HealthCare. That brings me to number two. Hillary Clinton headed the President's HealthCare Initiative...major Domestic Policy. Now, some would count this endevour as a failure, but we learn more from our failures and that challenge enabled Sen. Clinton to formulate her highly supported Universal Healthcare Plan.

You repeat a claim once again without backing your argument. Have I once said that she is not qualified because she is a woman? Have I once stated that her faults (or attributes) are due to her sex? Have I argued any point against her based upon the fact she is a woman? No; not once and I challenge you to prove it. Learn what sexism is before you start throwing the term around.

I know what sexism is and so do you. And your post was full of it. I know you are intelligent enough to figure it out for yourself.

 

[tripod]

Yeah, I remember him. I wanted so badly for him to beat Bush. It was such a shock when he didn't get the nomination.

We would have been sooooo much better off with McCain runnin' the country for the last seven years. Bush stole that nomination from him by waging scorch and burn tactics, McCain should have shoved his foot all of the way up Bush's ass for that.

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

I doubt I'm the only Moderate Independent who's hoping if McCain does win that we get "old McCain" back. You remember him.

yes, I want that old McCain back as well - that McCain lost, b/c he wasn't "conservative enough." Times changes and more of us want a moderate. The problem is McCain is not alienating that conservative, economic voting block. McCain claims he wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent (part of the economic policy that got us in this mess) and echoed that retarded idea about a gas tax repeal that wouldn't go anywhere - we would drive more - it would increase the demand for fuel and companies would raise the price on supply/demand and we'd have a deficit in the highway transportation fund. The man admits he's not an economist. So I'm no inclined to believe the true moderate would return. Or if his just being a moderate would be enough when our economic forecast is so bleak and the value of our dollar so low. If the old McCain did return, I don't know if I would vote for him, maybe, provided his wife isn't in the white house - maliciously destroying anyone that disagrees with her spouse's policies. She's done it before.