The REAL reason Clinton "suspended"

D

deleted15807

Guest
It's not about Hillary vs. Obama anymore. It's just not. It's about Obama vs. McCain. Saying "Hillary is better" has no bearing because Hillary lost, conceded, "suspended her campaign".

However, if you want the issues that Hillary Clinton believed in and stood for in her platform, you have no other choice but to vote for Obama in the fall. If Hillary won the primary, I'd honestly be saying the same thing.
I agree. Which is why (if you actually pay attention) most of the threads I've created in the previous weeks were about squashing "Obama vs. Clinton". It seems more people would like to dredge up the dirt. It's just unnecessary now.

As our great jurist Scalia said of the 2000 election said 'Get over it. It's so old now.'


Hillary can try again another time. For now IT'S OVER. The cricus is over. Time to bring the big top down. The audience is home in bed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Your rant was highly inaccurate, but very revealing...just to let you know JustSayNoDeal incorporates a many groups...more than just women...TONS of information for disaffected Democrats and others who do not support Barack Obama.

For example: Stop-Obama

Of Obama, Iraq, Lies, and moral pygmys
Gregory Chang

Obama spends so much time attacking those who voted for the Iraq war, you’d think he voted against it (some are under just such an impression).
He conveniently and deliberately fails to mention that he was never asked to take such a vote. Doing so would undermine his aggressive campaign of ridiculing those Senators who did have to, and cut the current from his antiwar hallo. It would also shred the mantle of moral superiority his antiwar drivel now affords him.
Obama wasn’t among those Senator who had to make the crucial decision to authorize military force in Iraq, and his attacks on such Senators are odious. Cheap posturing with 20/20 hindsight. The media remain silent, when not outright complicit.
Past statements made by senator Obama, reveal that his present attacks on other Clinton and McCain are dishonest, and the result of political necessity. He wants to win the Primary at any cost. Truth does not appear high on Obama’s list of priorities. This casts doubt on his honesty, integrity, and intentions.

Previously Obama had acknowledged that he was not privy to the Senate Intelligence briefings that had shaped Senators’ votes on Iraq. He was conciliatory and speculated that his own decision may have been different.
16 months ago, the New York Times reported that:

In a recent interview, he [Obama] declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time. ”But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,” Mr. Obama said. ”What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”
When a journalist pointed out that such statements raised flags about Obama’s anti-war spin, Obama informed the public that he only did it once, to

avoid putting down John Kerry and John Edwards, two senators who had voted to authorize the war and were about to become their party’s presidential ticket. “The only time when I said I’m not sure what I would do if I were in the Senate was right before the Democratic convention, when we had two nominees that obviously I did not want to be criticizing right before they got up and received the nomination,” [CNN, October 02, 2007]
Obama admitted to having lied, when asked whether his words at the time were honest :
“But you didn’t mean it?”
-So — well, no.
As if one lie wasn’t enough, he emphasized the singular nature of this dissimulation :
Obama told Candy Crowley that was the only time he ever said anything like that.
Could Obama have forgotten that only a year earlier, in reference to Hillary Clinton’s war vote, which he refused to judge, he stated quite emphatically

I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.
How would one run against Hillary Clinton, in that sense?
-Oh, I don’t know.
You never gave it any thought?
-I haven’t.
You sure?
-Positive.
[new yorker, November 6, 2006]
Yah, from “I said it only once,” to “always careful” in the blink of an eye. Don’t worry, the media have long died. Since Iraq, when they couldn’t stop juxtaposing Saddam with Ossama so we could invade Iraq on the pretext of fighting terrorism, who’d expect them to report well on another unknown - Obama? How else could the media make sure he wins the primary, so they can milk him for all he’s worth? By asking him tough questions? Whose gonna read that?​

***​
Seen from the present context of Obama’s election campaign, his past statements raise doubt about the sincerity of his antiwar rhetoric, and the integrity of a man who promises to unify and reconcile while badgering his opponents with unsubstantiated moral authority. Are these the actions of a man worthy of a Presidential nomination, or those of a moral pygmy?

Vinylboy, essentially you were right...Obama did back off his stance against the War and express a lighter view depending on his audience and his political strategy.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Awesome Trinity! Now, you're citing the most far right-leaning periodical in the country to attempt to tear down Obama. Your credibility is now at an all-time low.

The desent into madness is a sad sad thing to watch.
 

B_JasonDawgxxx

Admired Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Posts
5,269
Media
0
Likes
943
Points
148
Age
39
Location
Beverly Hills Calif
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ BLAH BLAH OBAMA IS GREAT ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ BLAH BLAH WE HATE HILLARYZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ BLAH BLAH LOVE OBAMA ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ BLAH BLAH OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA LOVE OBAMA OR WE WILL CALL YOU NAMES IN THREADS ZZZZZZZZZ.Jesus let it rest till novemeber.Than start it up again.Geeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!!!
 

HyperHulk

Experimental Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Posts
825
Media
1
Likes
14
Points
163
Location
Sydney, Oz
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I have to admit, I find all this anti-Obama, anti-Hillary stuff by Democrats to be the weirdest, saddest thing I've seen in politics. I've never seen Democrats react to each other as if they were fighting republicans. It's insane. And what's worse is that it means that Rush Limbaugh and his Operation Chaos wins. This couldn't be playing out any better for the republicans and I'm amazed that some Democrats are so myopic and childish that they can't see what's going on. If some Clinton supporters would rather abstain or vote for McCain, Limbaugh and the Republicans win. If some Obama supporters continue to attack and segregate the party from the Clinton supporters, then the Democrats will lose. Is pride more important that winning the election? Have the republicans done anything in the last 8 years to warrant this incessant in-fighting and handing the election over to them?

Do the angry Clinton supporters really want a McCain presidency, which would have the opportunity to stack more conservatives on the supreme court and possibly remove reproductive choice rights? Seriously?

Clinton isn't the enemy. Obama isn't the enemy. Get it together people and keep your eyes on the prize. The republicans don't deserve another minute, let alone 4-8 years. Don't let Rush Limbaugh manipulate you so easily.
 

saabman

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Posts
254
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
163
Location
Connecticut
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I didn't say that it was exclusive to women. However, the men involved in the movement (if you can call it that) are a foot note. This is about not accepting the results of an election at the expense of your former candidate. Hillary should have taken a queue from Gore's campaign and recognized when she was defeated and put the party ahead of her and Bill's legacy.

By whipping up her extremist supporters into a militant frenzy with her self-centered rhetoric, she reminded the real democrats that we've had 8 years of divisive politics - we need to unify. In a crazy way, she unified the democratic party in much the same way that she would've unified the GOP has she won the election.

We came out of the election with a charismatic, electable contender. For that, I thank her.


Geez..."Arrogance On Parade" (Obama Style). You Zombies are pissing more people off than you know. But of course you are all so up eachother's asses that you won't see it until the dust settles on November 5th, and we have President-Elect McCain.:eek:
 

Notaguru2

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Posts
1,519
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
123
Location
Charleston, SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Geez..."Arrogance On Parade" (Obama Style). You Zombies are pissing more people off than you know. But of course you are all so up eachother's asses that you won't see it until the dust settles on November 5th, and we have President-Elect McCain.:eek:

No one is farther up each other's asses than the "Just Say No Deal" group.

But anyway, whats arrogant about the truth? That you don't agree with me doesn't make you... dare I say, an idiot. What is with these lunatic fringe Clinton supporters and their lack of ability to deal with the truth?

Whats arrogant about vigorously supporting a candidate? I realize it pains you that Obama has received more votes and energized the electorate far greater than anyone running for president in the history of this country... but don't get upset with us over it. =) Be part of it. And if you can't be part of it... go to the booth and vote the other way; I'm perfectly okay with that.

I'm not okay with sorry losers casting their vote for someone with such a sharp contrast in ideology simply because their girl didn't win an election. So I will continue to beat that movement down as vigorously as they organize it until its dead. So, if I am pissing you or any of them off.. I am a-okay with that - as I've said, they aren't of my party anymore, so why should I care?

I was perfectly okay putting my support behind Clinton had she won, because I know what is at stake.

3 supreme court justices are going to be appointed by the next prez... and I won't let pumas and their self righteous sense of entitlement jeopardize this very important election. Those justices are as important as the Iraq war in this election.

That catchy, somewhat overused expression seems fitting here; Don't hate the player, hate the game.
 

Notaguru2

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Posts
1,519
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
123
Location
Charleston, SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If some Obama supporters continue to attack and segregate the party from the Clinton supporters, then the Democrats will lose. Is pride more important that winning the election?

You're on point, but I would argue that Obama supporters aren't the ones attacking. We've been trying to get the Clinton supporters onboard with us and many of them have come to the light and will continue to do so. In fact, Obama now has a double digit lead over McCain among women voters. This is growing everyday now.

I'm combating a different issue, Hulk. But perhaps it shouldn't be an issue. My assumption is that base Dems are not unlike base GOP in that Dems vote for Dems regardless of who it is because its about our ideology.

I guess what I need to recognize is that these Democratic deserters are not our base. If they aren't our base, then who are they? Collectively, they don't have much political capital to spend... so maybe I am too overbearing on this.

Thanks for the enlightenment.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
You're on point, but I would argue that Obama supporters aren't the ones attacking. We've been trying to get the Clinton supporters onboard with us and many of them have come to the light and will continue to do so.

And by calling them the following, I can see that you're REALLY doing a great job on convincing them: :rolleyes:

1. Misinformed
2. Feminists
3. Lesbians
4. Self described, militants
5. Entitled
6. Sore Losers
7. Out of the mainstream

One second, some of you are trumpeting the "Ding Dong, the witch is dead" rhetoric, and the next you all want to appear to be sensitive, understanding and caring. It doesn't work both ways. Many Obama supporters are indeed still attacking Clinton even up to this day. If that's not the case, then what in the hell is thread even open for? We all know the REAL REASON Clinton suspended her campaign, and it wasn't based on finances. There was still a way for her to win the nomination even if it wasn't by the traditional way of winning the delegates and even if it wasn't a great chance on winning. But now that we have a clear winner, she did the proper deed by backing Obama. We don't need links to yet another opinionated, news editorial from a news website to state otherwise.

Before the Democratic party even had a nominee many stated they would vote McCain if Hillary won the nomination, which is pretty much the same argument you're trying to rub in the face of the party deserters you're making fun of now. But let's not ignore all of the political otaku in this case. Some Obama supporters clearly state they would vote for McCain if Obama took Clinton as a VP! If we're going to look at people who may have questionable voting habits, why not look at the ENTIRE spectrum of voters and not, as you put it, at some pissed off lesbians who don't matter?

I guess what I need to recognize is that these Democratic deserters are not our base. If they aren't our base, then who are they? Collectively, they don't have much political capital to spend... so maybe I am too overbearing on this.

Well, they were part of our base and they have reasons for feeling not welcome in the party anymore. And last time I checked, it doesn't cost anyone a cent to place a vote in November for Obama or McCain. That's what we all should be focused on and not some dead horse about Clinton's campaign or how absent-minded you think some of her supporters are.

I'll stand on the same side as saabman & HyperHulk on this issue. Drop the attitude because that continued smugness will mess it up for EVERYONE in November.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
People should know who they are voting for and who they are actually telling others they better vote for...We are not extremists...Half of the Voters in Democratic Party did not support Obama. We are millions of Disaffected Voters.



Obama fake Senator in Illinois
  • Obama was light on his antiwar rhetoric and the vote to authorize when politics came into play
  • Obama and his naivete on sitting down unconditionally with enemies had to rewrite history in an attempt to support his unwise plans but succeeded in only contradicting himself
  • Obama did little as a State Senator and has less to show for himself in the U.S. Senate
  • Obama, The DNC and Howard Dean...
The stuff about Obama, Howard Dean and The DNC is just scary!


Obama moves DNC operations to Chicago

In a major shakeup at the Democratic National Committee -- and a departure from tradition -- large parts of the committee's operations are relocating to Chicago to be fully integrated with the Obama campaign.
The DNC's political department, housed in Washington, D.C., will be dramatically rebuilt, with staffers offered a choice of moving to Chicago, joining state operations, or staying in Washington, DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said.
But the power will clearly be shifting to a centralized Chicago hub.
The DNC's key role in coordinating political operations with state parties is expected to largely be taken over and overseen by Obama's senior staff in Chicago, state party officials said.
"This is part of the implementation of the plans Paul [Tewes] discussed last week with the state party chairs," Finney said. "As part of the efforts to fully integrate DNC operations with the Obama campaign here in Washington, in Chicago and in the states, political, field and constituency operations are moving to Chicago to work in the Obama headquarters. The goal is to consolidate these efforts into one operation and effectively drive one national strategy."
People familiar with the plan said that state party staffers paid for under Howard Dean's 50 State Program would be shifted to working for the presidential campaign, at least in targeted battleground states.
The move reflects Obama's desire to maintain an unusually streamlined campaign, as well as his swift and complete takeover of a Democratic Party that isn't always known for its unity. The move may also save the campaign money, as the Obama campaign can use DNC salaries and staff to pay for elements of its organizing campaign and avoid some of the duplication that has often dogged presidential efforts.

Obama moves quickly to reshape DNC

"But the move to Chicago also inspired some concern among Democrats who would prefer the party play a larger, independent function, and not merely serve the nominee." Read the full story
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
The stuff about Obama, Howard Dean and The DNC is just scary!

From ABC News
DNC Chief Attempts to Take Back Seat to Obama

ABC News' David Chalian Reports: Now that his party has a nominee, don't look to the chairman of the Democratic National Committee to call the shots on how Democrats proceed through the rest of this election cycle. Gov. Howard Dean spoke with reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor this morning in Washington, DC and repeatedly answered questions with caveats such as "that won't be my call" or "the nominee comes in and runs the DNC."

While playing that deferential role to the Obama campaign, Dr. Dean parroted Sen. Obama's remarks delivered to reporters yesterday when asked about the controversy swirling around Sen. Obama's decision to ask former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson to head up his vice presidential search committee.

"Jim Johnson doesn't work for the campaign. He doesn't get paid," Dean said. "He is a volunteer," he added.

The Obama campaign's effort to draw a distinction between "work" and "volunteer" has clearly not yet quelled critics who question Sen. Obama's judgment in tapping Johnson to take the lead on what will likely be the single highest profile executive decision Sen. Obama makes throughout the course of the campaign. Jim Johnson has come under fire for acquiring favorable mortgage rates as a friend of the CEO of Countrywide Financial Corporation, the mortgage lender at the center of the subprime mortgage storm.

Chairman Dean also offered up a preview of what we may expect to hear from Democrats should Sen. Obama choose to opt out of the public campaign finance system as many party insiders expect him to do. "It is wrong and unfair to criticize Sen. Obama should he do this...Sen. Obama has not taken one dime from lobbyists' money -- not one dime. When the Republican National Committee does what we did two days ago and decide they're not going to take a dime of lobbyist money then we can be lectured by Republicans about campaign finance reform. Otherwise I think it is great to have people who are giving small donations -- 3 million Americans who supported the presidential candidates is exactly what we need in this country," said Dean.

When pressed by a reporter on Sen. Obama's pledge to remain in the public finance system should the Republican nominee agree to do the same, Dr. Dean reversed course and said he wouldn't comment until Sen. Obama had made his intentions clear.

REPORTER: "Why shouldn't he honor that pledge?"

DEAN: "I don't know what he's going to do. I'm not going to comment on this until I do."

REPORTER: "Do you not think he should honor the pledge?"

DEAN: "I don't know what he's going to do and I'm not going to comment on it."

REPORTER: "Would it be wrong for him to break the pledge?"

DEAN: "I can say it a third time. I'll be happy to do it.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Obama, MoveOn, Hildebrand TEWES Consulting, DNC

It turns out, that Tom Matzzie, the pro-Obama blogger on Huffington Post, is also the director of MoveOn’s Washington Division, while being on loan at the Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) for which he lobbies in the capital.
MoveOn co-founded AAEI with Hildebrand Tewes Consulting (HTC) as an attempt to create a liberal coalition against the Iraq war.
much of the anti-war group’s leadership hails from a consulting firm called Hildebrand Tewes [rolling stones]
Since most of AAEI’s leadership hails from HTC and MoveOn, AAEI is best described as a co-project of the two outfits.
Curiously, Obama’s Deputy Campaign manager, is non-other than HTC co-founder, Steve Hildebrand. He has an extra paid staff member on Obama’s team, helping him with his work. Paul Tewes, the second HTC co-founder, is looking to become the head of the Obama controlled Democratic party. As Fox put it,
Barack Obama is quietly planning to take over the Democratic National Committee and assemble a multistate team for the general election, the latest sign that he is putting rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and the nomination fight behind him. Top Obama organizer Paul Tewes is in discussions to run the party, several Democratic officials said Tuesday. [fox]
Fox calls Tewes one of the-
leading architects of Obama’s success in the marathon Democratic primary race. [fox]
Importantly, Tewes was Obama’s state director for the Iowa primary. Along with Steve Hildebrand, Tewes also played an important role in Obama’s Minnesota campaign, since both he and Steve are natives of the state, and have considerable ties to its Democratic Political Machine. So far, the Obama camp has spent more than $50,000 on HTC’s services (not counting Obama camp employee salaries)
While two other HTC staff command prominent positions on Obama’s team, Nathan Peterson was the chair of Obama South Dakota run, and Anne Filipic was his State Director for Utah, HTC work with MoveOn goes back many years. Of course MoveOn has contributed more than a million dollars to the Obama campaign, while raising countless millions more through its donor networks, but HTC claims that it only
runs the communication and research arms of the powerful anti-war coalition AAEI [HTC]
The reality reveals a far deeper relationship. HTC and MoveOn does not end with simple formalities in AAEI’s structure, nor the $50,000MoveOn paid HTC for media consulting in the 2008 Primary on behalf of Obama.
As one of its 22 issues focused interest groups, HTC co-organized “Americans United for Change,” to fight Bush’s proposed Social Security Plan back in 2005 with MoveOn. Today, Americans United for Change is listed among AAEI’s core members. while shelling out $263,000 to AAEI, and funneling countless other moneys into AAEI via Americans United for Change, Vote Vets, USAction and nearly all of the other “coalition members” which serve like countless masks for both MoveOn’s and HTC’s control of the organization. All of them, without exception, are lobbyists. All are more or less finance by MoveOn in a coalition controlled by HTC.
Why do I discuss this connection between the Obama camp and MoveOn? Obviously because organizations such as HTC and MoveOn and AAEI are single issue lobbyist groups. As Obama moves significant parts of the DNC to Chicago, Tewes is poised to head the new Party. Like Jeff pointed out in his preceding article, MoveOn is not mainstream, and represents the radical aspect of Obama’s foreign policy. It is poised to take over the Democratic Party.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,176
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
all I can say is My Oh My Trinity......I won't call you an extremist......people can read your posts and make that decision themselves.....I do enjoy your creative use of colored text. Because if you post in colored texts it must meanthat what is said is very important for everyone to read and absolutely,unequivocally true....
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
all I can say is My Oh My Trinity......I won't call you an extremist......people can read your posts and make that decision themselves.....I do enjoy your creative use of colored text. Because if you post in colored texts it must meanthat what is said is very important for everyone to read and absolutely,unequivocally true....

Sorry if the colored text was too much for you...I put the articles in three different colors because first I had them in one post...but it was too long. There was no other reason for the colors.

The information I posted is true. The information is either not often reported on Obama or reported and neglected to be discussed. The information is cited. If you know something to be unfactual please point it out.

People should know who they are voting for...and who they are telling other voters they better vote for.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,176
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I read all three posts and found absolutely nothing "scary"......except for your penchant to use FOX news as source of the truth......Help me out...is PUMA an acronym???(also interesting.......most of the Domain Names listed at justsaynodeal.com are all registered to the same entity)
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
I read all three posts and found absolutely nothing "scary"......except for your penchant to use FOX news as source of the truth......Help me out...is PUMA an acronym???(also interesting.......most of the Domain Names listed at justsaynodeal.com are all registered to the same entity)

I completely disagree with you. I think this quote says it all:
"But the move to Chicago also inspired some concern among Democrats who would prefer the party play a larger, independent function, and not merely serve the nominee."

Howard Dean deferring to Obama is just pathetic...as the presumptive Nominee Obama hasn't won the Presidency. And the fact that Obama, Tewes and MoveOn.org will be running the Democratic Party in Chicago is extremely scary.

The articles are from ABCnews, Politico and some cite FOX...each of the issues cited by FOX are backed up by the ABCnews article and Politico.

Click on the websites and read. Finding the PUMA acronym is not too difficult. I find it interesting when the Obama campaign and supporters attack the people with unfavorable information on Obama rather than attempting to address the information.