there's no crying in baseball [Archive]

pocket

01-11-2008, 11:21 AM

Time to come out – I’m for Obama. I think Barack Obama is the best thing to happen to American politics in many many years. He makes me believe that it could really be different. I am also NOT for Hillary. I’m not going to lie to you – one of the biggest reasons I like him is that I don’t want her. I’ll vote for her because I’m a Democrat and she’ll probably do a decent job if elected.

The Iraq War is the single most important issue to me. I will not vote for a pro-war candidate. Period. Hillary Clinton’s war vote is really a big deal for me. It showed extremely poor judgment and it showed selfish calculation. She can tell me that she didn’t know, but I knew. And if I knew then there’s no reason she shouldn’t have known. I knew that Iraq didn’t have WMD and wasn’t involved in 9/11. Go back and check WC if you don’t believe me – I was saying it then. So while I understand how she came to that decision, it is, IMO unforgivable. So I am not going to vote for any candidate who supported the war. On top of that she just showed me quite recently that she still has very poor judgment when she voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to declare the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization. This was clearly intended to create a pretext for war with Iran. She did that because she has cut a lot of deals since she got to Washington. She owes all over town. She didn't show political courage, and she has never positioned herself as an anti-war leader. She even sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has never led an effort to investigate war profiteering and corruption. Because that is the kind of don't-rock-the-boat President she would be.

Presidents are not legislators. They need to lead and that means clear vision, good judgment and the ability to pull people to their cause. If we want to end this war, it has to be someone who doesn’t have a lot of their political power invested in the institutions that support the war and that made it possible. It has to be someone for whom being anti-war is an asset. Obama can talk about the war because he has been opposed to it since 2002. 150,000 Iraqis have died violently since we invaded their country. 4000 American troops have died. We invaded a country that wasn’t that great and turned it into a hellhole. We bred a non-governmental militia with Republican ties. We destroyed our economy, our reputation, and our souls. What we are doing in Iraq is wrong and we need to end it. It is very important to me that I cast my vote only for candidates who I think are able to change the conversation about Iraq.

We can’t afford health care if we don’t get out of Iraq. Every single day we spend $200 million in Iraq. Every day. It is a fantasy to think that we can afford any of the health care plans, education fixes, economic fixes, addressing energy and global warming or anything that changes the future of this country unless we can stop spending $200 million every day in Iraq. We are racking up debt and the economy is showing it. The surge that has been so successful has succeeded in pushing the violence down to the level of 2006. That is great but it still is very violent and it still doesn’t create long-term political solutions for Iraq. This isn’t a game. It needs to be taken more seriously.

I am also concerned that Hillary Clinton won’t actually win a national election. It’s like handing the Republican their playbook back. All they really have to do to win is raise her negatives by 2 or 3 points and it’s over for her. It will also raise their turnout dramatically and erase all the negative momentum from Bush. This is the moment when their coalition is finally falling apart. The moment when the divide between evangelicals and republicans is finally cracking away and who do we run? Frakking Hillary. Pita likes to say that the Democrats are the SF Giants of politics – you can count on them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Clintons were what we needed in the 90’s. They co-opted Republican memes and moved us past the dualist paradigm of the Cold War. But the world just isn’t like that anymore. It’s changed so much in the last 8 years that it’s barely even relevant. I don’t want to go back to the scandal-plagued Clinton White House. I am so over that and never want to see it again. I don’t want to go back to the 90’s. That was then. And I am sick to death of the frakking Boomers and their Vietnam drama. How much longer do we have to reenact the social conflicts of the 1960’s? We desperately need someone who can see the world as it is now.

For a long time now the country has been equally split between the Democrats and the Republicans. This makes any kind of real change extremely difficult because the margins are so thin. The only way to break this is to pick up new voters or to move voters from one side to the other. Obama is picking up support from Western Republicans. My cousin Al, an ex-marine, a staunch libertarian Republican and a Bush-hater is voting for Obama. And Obama is moving young voters who are turning out to vote in Bill Clinton numbers. And last, but certainly not least – Obama is running the rhetorical debate. He is defining the discourse. Everyone in the race is running on his language of change. And that is because he has his finger on the real pulse of the country.

XP from LJ

IrishEyes

01-11-2008, 11:29 AM

Insightful post.

I want someone who'll really do something about the war. I'm leaning towards Obama.

shouldaeloped

01-11-2008, 01:02 PM

I am also concerned that Hillary Clinton won’t actually win a national election. It’s like handing the Republican their playbook back. All they really have to do to win is raise her negatives by 2 or 3 points and it’s over for her. It will also raise their turnout dramatically and erase all the negative momentum from Bush. This is the moment when their coalition is finally falling apart. The moment when the divide between evangelicals and republicans is finally cracking away and who do we run? Frakking Hillary. Pita likes to say that the Democrats are the SF Giants of politics – you can count on them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

ITA on all of this. as democrat as I am, we do have a way of throwing it all away. this should be an easy election for us however it's looking like it might be a good race.

but I have a question for you- as I read your post and agreed with most of what you wrote about Hilary- what is Obama really bringing to the table. is your vote for him really a vote against Hilary? not that that's bad, I think a lot of people feel that way, I might even be one of them, but my concern with Obama is that he doesn't really say anything. he talks alot about change and how badly we need it (which we do) but what does he really offer as options, suggestions or ideas? it concerns me that he is full of a lot of hot air and that is going to come out more as the election gets closer and the spotlight focuses on him exclusively as the Democratic nominee. anyway, I have been following along in all these political discussions and notice there is a lot more anti-Hilary than pro-Obama. anyway, just asking more questions. . .

HeatherFL

01-11-2008, 02:04 PM

pocket Thank you for posting this.

. I am also NOT for Hillary. I’m not going to lie to you – one of the biggest reasons I like him is that I don’t want her.
These are my sentiments too.

I'm also leaning toward Obama.

~H.

ysolde

01-11-2008, 02:12 PM

Hehe. I am currently listening to the Hair soundtrack. My birthday is a few months away, and I have been thinking a lot about the parallels between the late sixties and now (of course, people then thought it was a revolution). It seems to me that if you put Hillary and Barack together, you get Bobby! Ah, what might have been . . .

I have no idea who I am voting for in the general, but I will say this -- Barack is inspiring, and we need inspiration, after years of losing our rights, of having our spirits crushed, our economy devastated. I don't know if Barack is the man to lead us; I don't know if Hillary is the woman to lead us; I don't know if there is anyone in the GOP to lead us, but I am glad we are talking about hope, about dreams, about inspiration.

bookworm

01-11-2008, 03:10 PM

I hear what you're saying, but I don't know that hope & change gets you very much when the rest of a really large institution is still playing by the same old rules and has little incentive to change. And I get that we have to start somewhere, but I'm not sure I want to start with president. Our governor in MA is a Democrat For Hope (and he's off campaigning for Obama), was all inspiring, grass roots, was going to change things...but he hasn't been able to get anything done. Maybe Obama can reach across the aisle. I don't know. I'm still undecided. But really, I need more substance than he has offered so far.

pocket

01-11-2008, 03:37 PM

I agree with Barak Obama on just about every issue. I mostly agree with Hillary and with Edwards too. For the first time I can remember we have a plethora of not just good, but great choices.

I know I am not the only person who feels that something is seriously broken in Washington. When the GWB Administration came to town they moved to consolidate their power in some institutions and to undercut other institutions that represented rival power centers or paradigms. That is exactly what I would expect any new Administration to do. But if it is Clinton, she comes with an existing power structure that I personally don’t think is the best we can do. I think it’s the same Democrats who have cravenly been avoiding the opposition politics that are their responsibility for the last 8 years and going *whine* stop fighting so hard! *whine* Barak Obama will necessitate a reshuffle of power. He reminds me of Schwarzenegger in that way and despite my grumblings about how he took power, as Governator he has been a bipartisan moderate.

Delta

01-11-2008, 09:07 PM

I'll start out by saying I agree with you about his appeal to both sides of the aisle. Barack Obama has something that we haven't seen in a long time in politics, if ever.

His speeches (what I have heard of them) are pretty grand and soaring and people complain about him not having any substance, but if you go to his website you will see that he spells out the issues and his various plans in some detail. So he may not be as wonky as Hillary on the stump but his substance is there if you go look for it. As someone who is inspired by his speeches and in some ways mildly supportive, I get pretty tense reading about his list of government programs, taxes and spending, especially with the strong likelihood of a Democratic Congress.

I'm especially interested in his plan to withdraw most of the troops in Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Things are better there since the surge. Far from where they should be, but things are improving and it's more secure. What if this keeps up or even accelerates and Maliki or someone else can forge a working government by the time he hypothetically takes office in a year? What will Obama do in the face of possible pressure here and in Iraq to keep the troops there longer than he promised during the campaign? Especially if the Iraqis really don't want us to leave and US casualties decrease even more and things are secure. Do we owe it to the Iraqis to stay at that point? It will be interesting to see. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid promised to cut off funding to bring the troops home but when it came down do it the Democrats in Congress knew they'd be blamed for losing the war so they capitulated every time.

And I think it was pretty well accepted among the intelligence crowd - here and abroad - that Iraq had WMDs so I don't think you can hold it against Hillary for not 'knowing' they didn't. I think even Obama said in his book that he believed they had them but it wasn't enough for him to support an invasion. It was a good guess on the part of the people who didn't believe it. A broken watch is right twice a day as the old saying goes. I think the real legitimate debate and doubt then was about Saddam's nuclear capabilities. I personally probably would have supported the invasion even without the WMD argument (which I will concede was a pretty easy to explain political argument as opposed to the general neocon vision of democracy throughout the ME via regime change in Iraq.)

And I believe the actual fantasy is to think we can afford health care or any other entitlement program without doing something about the immigrants coming in across the border. Iraq spending is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend every year in this country on entitlements/welfare and has little to do with what we can or cannot spend on health care. I honestly do not understand why more people do not see the tidal wave that is about to hit us as the boomers start retiring. It's mindblowing, really, how there is no realistic leadership on this issue. People just don't want to hear it and most don't even understand it. SS and Medicare as they stand now are not sustainable and are going to wipe us out just as our kids are coming of age. We need to be looking at cuts or privatizing or some other solution - not expanding these programs. This just out today (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fcc631cc-bfe6-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Ffcc631cc-bfe6-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F&nclick_check=1)says the US is looking at losing its good credit rating because of this problem unless we take action to cut spending on what will be soaring health care costs for the federal government. To be talking about expanding government health care right now is completely irresponsible, not to mention doing it without taking immediate action on the problem of immigration. I'm not necessarily talking about sending anyone back. I'm talking about stopping the flow right now by simply enforcing the borders. I think it is perhaps hard for people who don't live relatively close to the southern border to understand the toll this is taking on our medical infrastructure. Yes, some of them do pay taxes but it's not enough to pay for the toll they are taking on the system. This situation combined with the aging boomers is only going to make costs soar. Everyone claims that we are the only industrialized country without some sort of universal system but the reality is we are also the only industrialized country with such open borders. Not to mention that major cracks are showing in the systems of other countries that people like to cite as good models.

OK, I'm rambling now. Blah. All this to say that I agree with you that Obama has got to be the nominee for the Dems and is also their best chance to win. Heck, I'll vote for Obama before I vote for the fool Huckabee. (Ireally don't like to call names but Huck evokes strong negative feelings from me.) I am keeping an open mind about Obama because even though he's way liberal (moreso than Hillary) his limited record does show him as a coalition builder and for the most part not a partisan bomb-thrower.

nylons73

01-12-2008, 07:10 AM

Pocket - I completely agree with you about Hillary's 'entrenched power structure.' She and Bill have so many pre-staged hench-people, just waiting to run back into power in DC, it's not even funny. Obama has no such obligations/structure. He would truly be able to bring both Republicans and Democrats to his hypothetical cabinet. Hillary - not.a.chance.

I know many Republicans who would projectile vomit at the thought of voting for Hillary Clinton and just as many who would seriously consider voting for Obama if they don't agree with whom the Reps. nominate.

My main concern about Obama surrounds electability. I am specifically worried about:

1. White Lie - like we saw in New Hampshire. "Sure, I'm going to vote for Obama" and then the person gets into the voting booth and.....they just don't do it. Ms Nicola posted a great NYT op-ed about how this likely affected the vote in New Hampshire amongst poor whites.

2. The Bush Sr. effect. - Part of what catapulted Bill Clinton to the presidency in '92 was not only the presence of H. Ross Perot on the ticket, but also the fact that many Republicans, disgruntled with Bush, Sr., stayed home. Will the same happen with loads of Democrats who due to their deep seeded (maybe even unconcious) objection to Obama's race, find other things to do on election day? I can't help but wonder about this.

Don't get me wrong. As someone whom has worked for the Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus on Capital Hill, I would absolutely love for Obama to win. But my skepticism about how far America has really come post-civil rights movement, makes me question his electability.

Niobe

01-12-2008, 09:29 PM

I personally probably would have supported the invasion even without the WMD argument (which I will concede was a pretty easy to explain political argument as opposed to the general neocon vision of democracy throughout the ME via regime change in Iraq.)

Umm, I hope I'm misinterpreting you here. Are you saying you would have supported the Iraq war solely on the vision of democracy throughout the ME via a regime change in Iraq? Seriously? Did you know anything about the political situation in that country, to honestly think that was going to work in the first place? Because frankly, I laughed at that idea even harder then the idea of Iraq having developed WMD (which yeah, I found pretty laughable as well, so I don't have much sympathy for Hillary buying into that lie. I'm with pocket on that one).

My main concern about Obama surrounds electability.

I agree with you on this, but I see the same problems wrt Hillary - people will claim they are ready for a woman leader, but will they actually vote for one? The question of how far equality has come for women is just as relevant as the question of racial equality. I think that's what makes the Democratic primary so interesting and so hard to predict.

Delta

01-13-2008, 09:03 PM

miel

01-14-2008, 03:44 AM

Pocket,

I'm in strong agreement with most of what you said. (I don't think of it as a boomer issue and I wouldn't say HC doesn't see things as they are now. I don't see the issue as trapped in the past but more the practice of pandering and compromise that even younger politicians might do.) I primarily have great problems with HC not just because of her Iraq vote but many of her foreign policy statements and positions. She totally lost me when she criticized Obama as 'naive' for saying he would not use nuclear weapons on a civilian population. She said it was because he was giving away some kind of key strategy bargaining point to a future enemy. WHAT ENEMY? Maybe you are right Pocket. The Cold War is over. Are we planning on threatening some tiny nation's civilians? What is she talking about--obviously you cannot use nukes against terrorists. Also, that's simple ethics to refuse to kill civilians. And I would want to know whether someone I voted for would deliberately kill tens of thousands of unarmed civilians (or more) before I vote for them so her idea that basic policy issues like this should be treated as state secrets is fairly alarming. By that one statement, she showed that she is (a) willing to be secretive in the way that Bush is secretive and (b) a hawk of the most disturbing kind or else does not have a grasp on the basic ethical conduct during war including the Geneva conventions (which I doubt--because she is smart).

I've had a few interesting experiences lately. One surprising thing is how intensely fervently pro-Hilary some middle aged women are. Women who lived through the second wave of the women's movement. I got into a discussion with a woman in Starbucks (totally initiated by her) and I swear I thought she was going to stab me with her knitting needles! She was enraged and claimed that I'd been 'brainwashed' by OB's people. She just got back from canvassing for Hill in Iowa. I'm on a feminist listserve and my Lord the discussion is heated. But it really has split down generational lines. And I find it so interesting that I am finding it so hard not to be thrilled by Obama and repelled by Clinton as a gut thing. And the debates are about gender v. race and they are so bizarre--as if you could decide which was worse--sexism or racism. (I guess I do think racism is harder to overcome but it depends of course. Is this just a younger person's perspective?) There was also a thing by Gloria Steinem accusing younger feminists of not getting how bad sexism is or something. (Sorry no link.)

It's interesting. And the woman who are in favor of Hillary HATE Obama with a passion because they see him as a man who is condescending to Hillary--that he is sexist. They identify with her and so they despise him. But I identify with him in some way, I think. I see her as arrogantly insulting him from some privileged position that she has created for herself. It's very visceral on some level how this is playing out for some people, myself included.

Then, taking a step back I notice that they are not so wrong to be annoyed at his policy positions. They are more fuzzy if you go to his website. Nor is he necessarily super progressive. Nevertheless, he is usually right on foreign policy in my opinion and I trust him more on foreign policy and I guess foreign policy is the issue that I feel so strongly about. E.g., HC is pro Cuban embargo and Obama seems less pro-Embargo but his position on that is not crystal. Bill Clinton made many terrible foreign policy decisions and even though HC and BC are different I do think she shares his hawkishness.

Sorry, I am babbling but I think I have previously been detached from electoral politics--at least on an emotional level. Of course, I was physically ill after 2004 but what I mean is that I never felt as strongly about a candidate as I do about Obama even if I am also fairly sure he would have to let progressives down in the long run given the nature of the beast.

miel

01-14-2008, 03:56 AM

???

Niobe

01-14-2008, 10:00 AM

Niobe - People seem to forget that the idea of regime change and WMD did not begin with Bush. And it is revisionist history to claim that anyone lied about WMD. If that were the case, Bill and Hillary Clinton were in on it too since his administration laid the groundwork for it all when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act, made regime change and promotion of democracy in Iraq official US policy, and flat out rejected the idea that it couldn't happen. He even bombed the country himself for a few days in 1998 over the objections of the UN when Iraq didn't comply with the UN weapons inspectors.

And you will remember that after the invasion other countries were feeling the heat. Khaddafi gave up his nukes, Syria pulled out of Lebanon completely after the Lebanese witnessed the elections in Iraq and protested in the streets, Palestine, Egypt and Saudi Arabia held historic (even if symbolic) elections, etc. But all of the mistakes such as deBaathification, trusting Chalabi, and ignoring the looters who also ended up trashing their already antiquated electrical grid have pretty much nullified all of that progress and given the Islamic extremists the upper hand. It is still possible to turn that around and I don't think we really have much choice at this point in time but to give the Iraqi government a little longer to stabilize in light of the military successes of the surge.

In any case, I posted this in another thread that the promise by Democrats to remove troops may become moot - http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651

Generally, I was never a huge fan of Bill's foreign policies either - he just killed a lot less Americans, and people in general, with them so I wasn't so pissy about it. I don't care who came up with the idea, I'm never going to be a fan of us invading another country and overthrowing it's rulers. Also, anyone with brain (which apparently Cheney had in 1994, but lost sometime afterwards) would have known that taking out Saddam would lead to fighting between the Sunnis and the Shiites. This isn't "hindsight is 20/20", this is a 1000 year old conflict that is still playing out.

And I don't think it's revisionist history to claim anyone lied about WMD - I felt then, as I feel now, that the Bush admin knew fully well that Iraq didn't have WMD. That they purposely misrepresented data, using intelligence they knew was faulty, manipulating it to look like a strong case for war.

Also after the Lebanese witnessed the elections in Iraq and protested in the streets

Not quite. The Lebanese people were protesting the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Niobe

01-14-2008, 10:01 AM

Ugh, I wish I could go back and edit - I have no idea how I ended up with a quote within Delta's quote...

miel

01-17-2008, 08:06 PM

OK, so here's where I have to admit that I am doing that thing of voting for the person and not on the issues!

I can't remember ever being so pro anyone as I am about Obama. Actually, I rarely admire public figures. I never even got that whole admiration thing for public figures--but now I do! And then I sit and think: Hey, Obama doesn't even agree with me about a lot of things. Dang it, what is wrong with me?

I swear it is not a crush. It is the way he approaches issues and also his personal history. The way he thinks and explains things appeals to me because it is often reasoned and intelligent. I admit my head is turned by the fact he went to do community organizing. Just those kinds of things. But I just did this poll:

And it goes Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich and Obama! (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/poll_results.php?race_id=13)

Am I just crazy or a hypocrite? When I read Obama's website I think: BE SPECIFIC! And I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THAT! And I still want Obama to win...

Anyway, consider taking the survey yourself.

pocket

01-18-2008, 10:49 AM

I hate not being able to edit. I hope that changes again sometime soon. It sucks.

Miel, I feel the same way! I agree with him about a lot of things, and I actually think he is substantive on issues, but that's not the main reason I am supporting him. Remember last week, that conversation about the relative importance of LBJ vs. MLK in civil rights legislation? It's about leadership. LBJ may have enacted the legislation, but it is the inspiratin that matters. Excellence at bureaucracy is not a rare quality. It's a necessary quality, but not a rare one. Leadership is a rare quality and we all every one of us recognize it when we see it. There are some people who have an ability to really inspire and lead and they are the ones who can change the terms of the conversation.

wine_o_girlie

01-18-2008, 10:55 AM

Am I just crazy or a hypocrite? When I read Obama's website I think: BE SPECIFIC! And I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THAT! And I still want Obama to win...

Get out of my head!

Delta

01-18-2008, 03:58 PM

I'm pulling hard for Obama myself and I don't agree with a thing that he says policy-wise and I probably won't even vote for him.

Delta

01-20-2008, 02:07 PM

I have to say I am feeling a bit melancholy and pessimistic this morning. Never underestimate the Clinton Machine, I suppose.

It seems Obama is going to take it right to Bill Clinton now, though. Good for him.

EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA RIPS INTO BILL CLINTON MONDAY DURING ABC INTERVIEW WITH 'GOOD MORNING AMERICA' HOST ROBIN ROBERTS... SAYS HE FEELS LIKE HE RUNNING AGAINST BOTH CLINTONS... Bill 'has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we're gonnna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate'... DEVELOPING....
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4162996&page=1

miel

01-21-2008, 10:39 PM

Yeah, the Bill thing is a bit tricky I think. It's like he can say anything he wants in the guise of 'defending his wife's honor' which has all kinds of wrinkles. One, HE IS A FORMER PRESIDENT! HELLO? Two, they are trying to have it both ways where she is supposed to be tough and a great politico but then has this bulldog on the sidelines for her. Etc.

I think this was a smart move on the part of Obama's campaign.

Jenyfer9

01-22-2008, 06:45 AM

The fact that it's "The Clintons" against Obama makes it even more evident to me that a vote for Hillary would just be more of the same. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd LIKE to think that I live in a country where I have more choices for a vote for President than one of 2 families! Tell me again HOW Hillary is something new and different?

msnicolea

01-22-2008, 08:58 AM

Delta

01-22-2008, 09:21 AM

I will never understand the love that self-proclaimed feminists have for Bill Clinton with his history of mistreating women in his personal life and his public denials and his destroying of their reputations (or rather, his people's destroying of their reputations.)

And it's not that Bill is just defending her - he's totally trashing Obama and then playing innocent. I guess it is his perogative but in their quest for power he's tarnishing his own standing as a statesman (and it seems a lot of Dems are mad at him for doing this.) I don't think its unfair that he gets viewed under a different lens at all - he has way more pull and access and influence than any other candidate's spouse. That much is apparent in that she clearly needs him to win.

msnicolea

01-22-2008, 09:26 AM

I agree, Delta--my affection for him is total hypocrisy. He has been a lousy husband.

But I don't love him as a man--I like him as a cult of personality.

And I don't think Hillary needs him to win.

cynder

01-22-2008, 09:27 AM

The plural use of "we" by both Hillary and Bill over the last week, especially in last night's debate by Hillary worries me. A lot.

I have no problem with Bill defending, trumpeting or campaigning for his wife. I do have a problem with inaccurate accusations. I am still waiting for that quote she promised, oh I mean, "they" promised.

msnicolea

01-22-2008, 09:28 AM

I want to know what they are talking about, too, re: the mystery quote!

Delta

01-22-2008, 09:48 AM

I just don't understand way any Democrat would want that all that Clinton psychodrama back in the White House. (Cynder, can you tell I'm reading Andrew Sullivan? ;) )

As a Republican I think Obama is much more electable in November than Clinton. So I don't know what the Dems are thinking here. The biggest problem Obama has, I think, are Latino voters. There is a big racial issue going on there that I think was a bit unanticipated by some and illustrated by the Nevada caucus.

msnicolea

01-22-2008, 10:33 AM

Yeah--it's the Clinton psychodrama that's been this country's un-doing--not the failed two term regime of Bush II.

Insightful as always, Delta--and I especially love how you accuse me of using "rhetoric" to make a point. "Psychodrama?" Please!

cynder

01-22-2008, 10:59 AM

I just don't understand way any Democrat would want that all that Clinton psychodrama back in the White House. (Cynder, can you tell I'm reading Andrew Sullivan? ;) )

Hey, I am a raging Dem but I have to say I am completely hooked on him the last few weeks. I just keep reading him and am like "that's what I was thinking!" And yeah, he really does have it in for the Clinton pyschodrama.

Still looking for the quote.... (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-v-clinton.html)

I am completely irrational when it comes to the Clintons so I will be quiet now.:D

phoenics

01-22-2008, 11:51 AM

phoenics

01-22-2008, 12:08 PM

I have to say, Elizabeth Edwards has been every bit as outspoken and even argumentative as Bill re: her husband. I think Bill gets viewed under a different lens because he's the ex-Prez--and that's a bit unfair. He has every right to be out there defending her, trumpeting her, etc. . . as the wives of Obama and Edwards do!

And i have to say, even though I am still leaning towards Obama, the thought of Bill doing the speech if Hillary gets the nom makes me a little giddy. I know he's bad--and I'm very disappointed in him on many levels--but I still dig him. Can't help myself.

re: last night--I have to say, I like Hillary's healthcare plan better--I do think there should be mandated coverage.

I adore Bill Clinton, but even I was really depressed and saddened by his comments on Obama because they aren't fully factual - they are taken out of context. I get it that he wants to defend Hilary, but Obama hasn't attacked her... the whole thing just made me feel really uneasy - because I love Bill and when it was just Hilary (before Obama entered the race) I was really giddy at the thought of hearing all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth as Bill moved BACK into the White House.

That thought still makes me giddy - but I don't want Hilary - I want Obama!

What irritates me even more is how many black leaders (the old school ones) are so pro-Hilary and they honestly make the claim that Obama doesn't know enough about the black experience? I'm just tired of that nonsense. My friends and I joke around that Bill was the first black president, but Hilary is NOT Bill - she's nowhere near like Bill in that respect. Even if she was, the assertion that Obama doesn't understand the black experience is unfair, given all he's done. And I don't think they're doing that because they care about other black people in general (some of them, not all), I think they are doing that because they remember the Clinton days as their 'heyday' and they want that back. But if Obama wins, then HE is the new black leader/world leader and I think they are afraid that no one will want to listen to them - especially after they basically turned their backs on him.

Honestly, I appreciate the work of civil rights activists from back in the day, but we DO need NEW civil rights leaders from THIS generation. This generation has different problems that require different approaches. I definitely think that the old guard civil rights leaders have their place, but I am ANGRY with them for not supporting Obama more.

Sorry - I know this wasnt' the subject of the post really, but it's another reason I support Obama. I love the fact that he inspires and I think that his approach for change could help change so many things. We could be inspired to approach the problems in the black community a different way and actually get somewhere. My family talked about this during Kwanzaa this year - about how getting so wrapped up in what society has done or is still doing to the black community rather than simply accepting that it's unfair and pushing through it anyway and then getting to a place where you can make a change for the better... not just sitting there, doing nothing and complaining. Frustration when you've tried so hard is perfectly reasonable and expected, but even then it won't help to stop moving forward. Of course, you need a president and policies that facilitate your ability to move forward (scholarships, helping to get underrepresented minorities into fields that were closed to them before, etc.. and during Bill's 2 terms, this infrastructure was there - it's not now).

I'm just so hungry for change and even though I believe Bill Clinton ushered in a lot of change for both the black community and the middle class, Hilary isn't his clone!

I'm just ready for something new.

msnicolea

01-22-2008, 12:27 PM

Jenyfer9

01-22-2008, 12:35 PM

I remember a quote from Obama in an interview he gave probably 18 months or so ago... something along the lines of "You can't say that I don't understand what it's like to be black... when I can't hail a cab at night, don't tell me that cab driver who saw me and kept going doesn't think I'm black enough."

'nuf said.

phoenics

01-22-2008, 12:43 PM

phoenics--I agree with your post, esp. re: the questioning of Obama's "blackness"--I find it beyond offensive. I LOVED how he responded to the stupid question re: Bill being the "1st Black president"--very funny--and classy.

Exactly! When my friends and I joke about this - it's NOT serious. I can't believe some folks are acting like that's a serious statement. I just find the 'Obama's not black enough' stuff to be a tool used by some people to get what they want. It's a strawman's argument that detracts from the real issues - hell even the real BLACK issues!

I better stop, I feel a rant coming on... blood pressure's high enough already! :D

msnicolea

01-22-2008, 12:58 PM

I find it particularly upsetting when the comments come from within the AA community--really unfortunate.

On a funny note, I thought it was hilarious when Obama was talking about "the AA man, the woman, and John." John Edwards was feeling the heat over his white maleness last night ;->

Delta

01-22-2008, 01:16 PM

Unfortunately, I can't take credit for the psychodrama rhetoric - it goes to Andrew Sullivan. ;)

But my point still stands - with someone as new and exciting and inspirational like Obama right there in front of them, I have a hard time understanding why Dems would pick the Clintons and their baggage yet again. Especially when he's more electable in the general. But that's just me.

msnicolea

01-22-2008, 01:38 PM

I'm not sure Obama is more electable than Hillary.

cynder

01-22-2008, 01:39 PM

Slightly off topic (poor pocket, we've highjacked this thread!) but how much fun would it be to see a Obama/Edwards ticket. It would be at least more humorous than the dour, no chemistry Kerry/Edwards ticket.

phoenics- ITA

phoenics

01-22-2008, 02:45 PM

I'm not sure Obama is more electable than Hillary.

Me either - not like I thought when he won Iowa. Right now I'm not sure of anything, but I really want Obama to win. It isn't everyday that someone this inspirational comes along.

phoenics

01-22-2008, 02:48 PM

Slightly off topic (poor pocket, we've high jacked this thread!) but how much fun would it would be to see a Obama/Edwards ticket. It would be at least more humorous than the dour, no chemistry Kerry/Edwards ticket.

phoenics- ITA

I'd swoon over an Edwards/Obama ticket. Edwards is so passionate and watching the two of them tag-team on Hilary showed their chemistry (even if I felt a bit sorry for Hilary - well, not sorry - I just identified with her, as I get tag-teamed by guys at work all the time in a goodhearted kind of way).

Delta

01-22-2008, 11:12 PM

I was really giddy at the thought of hearing all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth as Bill moved BACK into the White House.I will make note of that and behave accordingly (not giving you the satisfaction. ;) ) I refuse to succumb to CDS. (Clinton Derangement Syndrome.)

As for electability - I think that if the Clintons win by trashing Obama the way they have, whom so many regard as the future of the party whether Clinton II wins or not, they are going to tear the party apart. It's already happening in the AA community and among progressives. At least from what I read in their online communities. (I spy.) I'm seeing people getting really PO'ed at the Clintons and vowing to sit it out in Novemeber or vote for McCain or Bloomberg rather than Hillary. So, if she can't even maintain her base for the General how is she going to win against McCain? Now, I think against Romney she'd have a much better chance, and it seems to be coming down to McCain and Romney at this point.

As for Obama being electable, if he can get this conservative's attention (as well as many others I know) then there is no telling what appeal he has to moderates and even first time voters.

miel

01-23-2008, 01:18 AM

I'm with you Phoenics! I'd love an Obama-Edwards ticket.

I also agree with what you say about the questions about community and race. I suspect there is probably a generational split there, just like there is a generational split between women over Obama v. Clinton. I wonder if younger people are just more comfortable with the complexity Obama brings to things. He blurs boundaries and this I personally think this is a good thing but I could see how some people might not be comfortable with it. Ultimately though, I think the gains he makes are going to be gains for everyone. It's not like it doesn't 'count' at all just because he doesn't share the full history and heritage of African Americans. I think it still makes a difference even if there's so much more to be done.

The whole way the race gender thing is playing out is interesting to me. It's kind of upsetting--the veiled sexism and racism getting tossed around. But on the other hand, it's showing that attitudes are way more complicated and interesting than people thought. Men are voting for Hillary. I've even heard some men say that they want Hillary to win because they think it is time for a woman to be president! Obama has totally galvanized young people of all stripes. I think a lot of assumptions are going to have to be put to rest about who can do what in politics and that's got to be a good thing. I just hope if a white male wins it's not going to re-affirm all those dumb ideas because I think those ideas have already been disproved by the current success of these candidates. But people always want a take-away message from every campaign. I just hope the take-away message if the Republicans win won't be sometime totally idiotic like: Let's make sure all our candidates are white men because only white men will win.

I'm kind of talking about my family though-- brother worked for Obama's campaign and my mother and my in-laws and myself and my husband are all for Obama. Right from the get go it was total convergence and none of us completely agree about politics. I just went to visit my in-laws and they had a giant Obama sign on their door. My dad totally loved Bill so he's more on the fence.

Of course, I'm scared to jinx the whole thing--like if I want a candidate to win, that candidate is doomed.

Jenyfer9

01-23-2008, 07:44 AM

Another thing that I'd like clarified... while Hillary is bringing to light some of Obama's missteps, doesn't she have quite a few as well? I'm afraid that I don't know the whole story behind why she refuses to release her/Bill's memoirs... is there something there?

msnicolea

01-23-2008, 10:24 AM

Well, there are MANY skeletons in the Clintons' closets, no doubt about that. Take the personal stuff out of it, and there are issues re: their involvement with Wal-Mart, their affiliation with questionable saving sand loans operations, and on and on. No, they haven't lived squeaky clean lives by any means!

miel

01-23-2008, 02:03 PM

Argh. I can't deal with the arguments that are going down now. Just dirty politics. That thing about Obama saying he approved of the Republican policies. It wasted so much time that could have been better spent discussing real issues. The slumlord claim. It's all the exact thing that people did to the Clintons. I'm not going to feel they got treated unjustly anymore! Yes, they may have skeletons but they were also railroaded big time on things that were nothing. It used to sicken me because it made me realize to what extent some people don't care about or trust the democratic process. But I'm going to put the Clintons in that camp now if they keep it up. I never disliked Hillary. I respected her. I don't like her approach to things, particularly her neoliberalism in foreign policy. This campaign has made me lose some respect for her--if she was only responding to negative attacks that would be one thing but since she is so on the attack I really don't think all of this is necessary to win.

This is such a drag. There's going to be a point where it is either go negative or lose for the Obama campaign, I'm afraid.

Delta

01-23-2008, 02:22 PM

The Clintons are totally double teaming him now - saying they are giving up SC but Bill's there all week, forcing Obama to stay there and not campaign elsewhere and then when he wins write it off by saying they gave it up anyway. (Although, I'll say that the polls have Obama so far ahead there now he may be able to afford to leave the state for a day or two.)

The Clintons have been cultivating political relationships for 20 years, all over the country at even the local level. Super Tuesday is going to reflect that. Especially in Cali. Too many people owe them. Their machine is just so big. Obama has a lot to overcome. I think he still can, but he's going to have to not fall into their traps anymore.

Also, breaking news:
CHARLESTON, SC - After spending two months accompanying his wife, Hillary, on the campaign trail, former president Bill Clinton announced Monday that he is joining the 2008 presidential race, saying he "could no longer resist the urge."

"My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president," said Clinton, introducing his wife at a "Hillary '08" rally. "For seven agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be president again. I have to."http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bill_clinton_screw_it_im_running

The entire thing is pretty funny.

pocket

01-23-2008, 05:48 PM

I’ve always forgiven Clinton for his flaws because I thought he was a good president. But it’s really gross to me that he needs to get this involved. This is the great feminist choice? This woman who is completely dependent on her husband for her political power? Yuck.

I am sad about how Obama is doing in the supertuesday states. But if he can’t win in CA that’s an organizational problem and he doesn’t deserve to win at all. It’s not the last time he’ll run. I just find him so inspirational. After all, Delta, would you ever think that you and I would support the same candidate? I know you won’t vote for him unless the Reps run someone awful, but I know you would think pretty hard about it. If Delta and Pocket would both vote for Obama, that means he might actually be able to make some sort of a brand new coalition. And wouldn’t that be amazing.

Delta

01-23-2008, 07:53 PM

Kingstree, S.C. -- Speaking to a crowd at the Williamsburg County Recreation Center, Bill Clinton just now offered an olive branch:

“If [Barack Obama] wins this nomination, I’m going to do what I can to help him become president.”

The promise comes after a week of bitter exchanges between the former president and the Obama campaign. "After all the mean things they said about me, I can’t believe I’m saying this," Clinton said.
Speechless.

http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/01/23/bills-peace-offering.aspx

After all, Delta, would you ever think that you and I would support the same candidate? I know you won’t vote for him unless the Reps run someone awful, but I know you would think pretty hard about it. If Delta and Pocket would both vote for Obama, that means he might actually be able to make some sort of a brand new coalition. And wouldn’t that be amazing.Yes, it really would.

Is anyone else finding this evolving dynamic between the Clintons and Obama absolutely fascinating? I really just cannot turn away it's so compelling and there are so many elements to it. This race has been even more incredible than I thought it would be. I feel like I'm bursting with so much to say about it, but I don't know where to start.

ysolde

01-24-2008, 09:38 AM

I wish both sides would lay off who they representd as attorneys. IIRC, they were both litigators. I did tobacco defense work for years, because my firms did it. As an associate, it was good litigation experience. But I am not my clients.

That's like saying someone who is a public defender is a rapist and murderer. C'mon, people!

wine_o_girlie

01-24-2008, 12:31 PM

I’ve always forgiven Clinton for his flaws because I thought he was a good president. But it’s really gross to me that he needs to get this involved. This is the great feminist choice? This woman who is completely dependent on her husband for her political power? Yuck.

I swoon for Bill Clinton. SWOON. He has a cult-like status for me.

However, I am so pissed at him right now for this very reason. Stay the f-out of this buddy. I am so genuinely disappointed in both Hillary and Bill for the crap they are pulling and their negativity has pushed me over the edge into a vote for Obama. I cannot believe it has come to this. I am so disappointed.

phoenics

01-24-2008, 04:18 PM

I swoon for Bill Clinton. SWOON. He has a cult-like status for me.

However, I am so pissed at him right now for this very reason. Stay the f-out of this buddy. I am so genuinely disappointed in both Hillary and Bill for the crap they are pulling and their negativity has pushed me over the edge into a vote for Obama. I cannot believe it has come to this. I am so disappointed.

I feel the same way. Clinton took a major hit from me on his treatment of Obama. He turned me FULLY into Obama's camp to be honest, even though I was leaning there...

I just want to see a clean campaign - not this MESS!

miel

01-24-2008, 05:45 PM

I wish both sides would lay off who they representd as attorneys.

I know. Any lawyer knows that is absurd. Like: You defended CRIMINALS! DUH. That is your job when you are a lawyer.

I guess one thing I heard someone mention today is how Hillary always talks about her 35 years of experience fighting for change. It was pointed out that she a chunk of those 35 years as a corporate lawyer. So it is a little bit relevant to know that her job was not in the public sphere for a significant part of her life. She was not working in poverty law or public policy or even as a government lawyer. She has been a private citizen maybe doing some good pro bono stuff and it's not like her whole life has been dedicated to the masses. Her much trumpeted experience is experience as first lady and experience as a lawyer in the private sector. I don't even know much about what Obama did as a lawyer. But whatever.

I do think if Obama can't win, he can't win but I do think that if it is due to machine politics and dirty politics I'm going to be a little po'd. I won't blame that on his campaign necessarily because there are some pretty dirty tricks historically that have hit candidates hard and I don't necessarily blame their campaigns if they weren't able to completely counter. I guess Kerry should have countered that Swiftboat thing somewhat better but that was so disgusting. The McCain thing that Bush did? That was so low down. I don't hold my candidates to the standard that they have to be sleazy or totally capable of defeating any sleazy trick. I think the media can be accountable as well--especially if they report lies as if they are true. That really gets me! The whole Al Gore saying he invented the internet thing. When lazy reporters don't do their research...

ysolde

01-24-2008, 06:16 PM

The Swiftboaters have been at it again. Saying McCain didn't get it so bad as a POW. ETA: This time, even Joe Scarborough called BS, so they shut it. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Swift_boat_vets_attack_John_McCains_0116.html

phoenics

01-24-2008, 06:26 PM

I'm sick of the swiftboating. Sick of it.

And Obama was a civil rights attorney - so I think his fighting trumps Hilary's easily, but then again, right now I am really mad at her and Bill, so myeaah.

msnicolea

01-25-2008, 09:24 AM

Disgusting. I'm no fan of McCain's politically, but he is a true war hero.

In Hillary's defense, I think she has a lot of cred re: social services and advocacy: she worked for the Children's Defense Fund, for goodness sake. But yeah--enough already about who was the more "important" lawyer!

kd 9.21.02

01-25-2008, 01:03 PM

Decent article on Barack's wife...
TIME: Michelle Obama Finds Her Voice Too (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1706706,00.html?cnn=yes)

Damn, I'd like to see her as the First Lady.

~~~~~~~~~~

I'm a registered Independent so many of you will probably disagree with me on many issues. And I'm not set on voting for a Democrat this time around... unless it's Obama. I feel he will be able to cross party lines and really ignite change. At least that's what I hope.

Re: Hil... I have very high hopes for the first female president. And she doesn't fit the bill (for me). I know this shouldn't play a part in my decision but I would like her a hell of a lot more had she left Bill a few years back. I get the feeling that she stayed in the marriage so that she could one day run for president (I know there's no proof of this... just my two cents) and that doesn't sit well with me. When we do get a strong woman in the White House, I'd like to know that she got there on her own merit.

Jenyfer9

01-25-2008, 01:59 PM

kd 9.21.02

01-25-2008, 02:19 PM

I've liked her since I first saw her on Oprah (before Barack was officially running, when his book had just come out) and she was talking about their lives... he was trying to tell her about something he did at work (sometimes hard to think about that) and she said something along the lines of "That's great, but we have ants. Pick up some ant spray on your way home." So NORMAL!

I loved that too!

thedoorchick

01-25-2008, 02:43 PM

I get the feeling that she stayed in the marriage so that she could one day run for president (I know there's no proof of this... just my two cents) and that doesn't sit well with me. When we do get a strong woman in the White House, I'd like to know that she got there on her own merit.

Yep.

phoenics

01-25-2008, 02:50 PM

That's a GREAT article about Michelle Obama (not that I'm biased or anything ;) ). I've liked her since I first saw her on Oprah (before Barack was officially running, when his book had just come out) and she was talking about their lives... he was trying to tell her about something he did at work (sometimes hard to think about that) and she said something along the lines of "That's great, but we have ants. Pick up some ant spray on your way home." So NORMAL!

Michelle Rocks. Seriously.

I just love her to death. I also love the fact that she's very independent, but she knowingly made sacrifices for her husband's campaign - just showing that you can still be a kick-ass woman even while making sacrifices to that independence.

sewhappy

01-26-2008, 05:32 PM

That's a GREAT article about Michelle Obama (not that I'm biased or anything ;) ). I've liked her since I first saw her on Oprah (before Barack was officially running, when his book had just come out) and she was talking about their lives... he was trying to tell her about something he did at work (sometimes hard to think about that) and she said something along the lines of "That's great, but we have ants. Pick up some ant spray on your way home." So NORMAL!

This might be off topic, but what do you mean about "sometimes hard to think about that"? Just curious.

Jenyfer9

01-26-2008, 06:01 PM

I think that it's just a totally different concept of "work" when you work in the Senate... you're making decisions on a daily basis that impact all Americans, not just work where you go sit in a cubicle or office all day... it's all very public, very open (ie, you could watch your dh on c-span). Kinda like if you were the first lady... "How was your day at work, dear?" Just sounds funny, that's all I meant by it.

sewhappy

01-26-2008, 06:04 PM

Oh - ah - thanks! :) (Didn't think you meant anything bad by it.)

bug

01-26-2008, 08:46 PM

Anybody see Obama's speech tonight after beating HC by more than a 2:1 ratio in SC? It was awesome!

Since it is becoming more apparent that John Edwards is likely not going to be the nominee, I'll be supporting Obama (I wish he was a woman though, it's hard for me not to vote for HC because a woman in the Oval Office is long overdue--of course so is an African American).

Anyway--his speech tonight was fantastic; I must try to read the endorsement tomorrow in the NY Times by Caroline Kennedy saying he could be a president similar to JFK.:)

JustVita

01-27-2008, 04:01 AM

I just finished reading this thread and wanted to post a few thoughts.

First, I loved Bill Clinton, faults and all. He certainly was no moral compass, but as President, he did it for me. I would have said in the past as a general statement that I'm a fan of the Clinton's, but in reality, I was just a fan of Bill and Hillary by association.

I am rooting for Obama (Go South Carolina!!!), however I'd certainly throw Hillary my vote if Obama doesn't make it.

That said, I live in CA, and I'm really getting annoyed with her campaign ads. I'm sure the same is playing in many other areas of the country. I'm sorry, but I don't by the "35 years experience" thing. Yes, she was a former first lady of Arkansas and the nation, but come on! Yes due to this she's had a great deal of political affiliation, insight, etc., but she speaks to this "35 years experience" as if she were on the front lines of policy making, meeting and affecting policy with foreign dignitaries, etc. Yes, you may have accompanied your husband as first lady, met many a dignitary, and even had the ear of the President and he yours, but it's just not the same. And the whole thing is just disingenuous! It really pisses me off every time I see the damn commercial. Certainly, I'm more annoyed because I support Obama, but even if there were only her, I'd think "why invite trouble', 'why make other's call you to task for what is a huge stretch of the truth". Like I said, I'll happily vote for her is she's the Democratic candidate, but until such time, I guess I'll just be annoyed. On top of that, I'm really not liking the politics as usual, i.e. dirty, I'm seeing from their side. Bill is really disappointing me and I hate that because I've always loved him. I think the only thing that's keeping the mudslinging somewhat at bay is that Obama isn't entirely throwing back and it makes them look like idiots to keep trying to throw mud and Obama seemingly rising above it all. He's taken a few shots, but they were warranted in my opinion.

Also, I have such high hopes for Obama and so do so many in this country who support him or find themselves tempted (I'm talking Republicans/Conservatives here). What worries me about this is that if he were to be elected, so much pressure would rest on his soldiers. I mean, there are always expectations for any President, but given the politics as usual history, not many of us are surprised when they do none of what they promised. With Obama, I almost feel like people think he will miraculously change so much and overnight and we all know it doesn't work that way. What I can say is that for the first time since I've been old enough to vote and even prior to that, when I first started to pay attention to politics as a teen, I feel he is someone we can trust to try and do the right thing without succumbing to the pressures of political game-playing. No President can affect change alone (we know that), but I think he will attempt to do what's right (subjective, I know) to achieve what he hopes and has promised to try and do.

Anyway, that's my gibberish for they day. I have so many thoughts regarding this and getting them down cohesively and succinctly is a bear. :)

Jenyfer9

01-27-2008, 06:44 AM

Well, I'm in Illinois, and I personally haven't seen ANY political ads. I *think* it's because HC isn't paying any attention to us because it's pretty much a given that Obama will win here.

The Chicago Tribune recently endorsed Obama, but their reasoning isn't just because he's our Senator... it's a good, insightful article about his history here in Illinois: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0127edit1jan27,0,847324.story

Jenyfer9

01-27-2008, 06:46 AM

OH! And did anyone else hear last night (I think I heard it on CNN) that Obama got more votes last night than McCain and Huckabee combined? Awesome. Speaks VOLUMES.

Niobe

01-27-2008, 09:39 AM

Well, I'm in Illinois, and I personally haven't seen ANY political ads. I *think* it's because HC isn't paying any attention to us because it's pretty much a given that Obama will win here.

Which also speaks volumes to me - isn't Illinois technically Hillary's home state? Not that she ever seems to claim it.

Delta

01-27-2008, 10:00 AM

His speech last night was incredible in so many ways - his style, his giving it to the Clintons in a deft yet pointed way, his making it a clear choice between the present and the past and his unity message.

If you haven't seen it you can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ&feature=user

Niobe

01-27-2008, 10:11 AM

Delta - Did you drink Kool-Aid recently? You're starting to sound like a genuine convert over here. ;)

But I agree, of course. He is amazing.

kd 9.21.02

01-27-2008, 10:24 AM

Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama in today's NY Times!

Caroline Kennedy: A President Like My Father (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

cynder

01-27-2008, 11:18 AM

I feel like today is Christmas morning.

All I know that as a non Caucasian, I am glad I can point to someone and tell my children "yes it is possible for anyone to run for president of the United States of America and do it with honor and respect."

Oh, and thanks Hillary for reneging your promise and just stating this morning that you are going to FL for the primaries even though you and the other Dem candidates swore that you wouldn't. And thanks Bill for continuing to trash your legacy by discounting the Obama victory by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's victories in the 80's.

msnicolea

01-27-2008, 12:01 PM

I am beyond disappointed in Bill Clinton right now.

As for Obama--I get more hopeful by the day!!!!!!!!!!

Jenyfer9

01-27-2008, 02:46 PM

Yes, HC was born and raised in Illinois. Why she chose to run for Senate from NY I think many people around here don't understand... not that I'm complaining about my current Senator ;)

miel

01-27-2008, 09:17 PM

With Obama, I almost feel like people think he will miraculously change so much and overnight and we all know it doesn't work that way.

I worry about this a bit. Especially because racism won't just end when he becomes president. I do worry that his political opponents might find some subtle way to use race against him and undermine his effectiveness. This in no way tempers my support for Obama because I strongly believe that he will be able to be politically effective in any event but I think of the kind of schoolyard scheming that goes on and the way politics almost comes down to how you can label someone these days. They tag these labels onto people who are actually very decent people. Maybe Obama can be a teflon president though. You never know. He has gravitas. This might counter that kind of thing.

phoenics

01-28-2008, 12:14 PM

OH! And did anyone else hear last night (I think I heard it on CNN) that Obama got more votes last night than McCain and Huckabee combined? Awesome. Speaks VOLUMES.

I went and added up the numbers myself because I wanted to see those numbers. It was like that in NH too - McCain won the repub nom, but both Hilary and Obama separately had more votes than McCain - twice as many... 4 times if you added Hilary and Obama's votes.

That does speak volumes.

And I so agree with what one poster said about trusting Obama to not fall prey to the usual political shenanigans and trusting him to find the best solution possible under the circumstances.

This man is so inspirational. I'm listening to his SC speech right now.

When you have folks from the UK and Germany and other countries posting on youtube to send Obama over to them if we don't elect him - you KNOW the man is inspirational. But sorry Europe - Obama is OURS!!

kd 9.21.02

01-28-2008, 12:29 PM

Does anyone else think Edwards might stay in the race to be the "spoiler" for Clinton? And then run as Obama's VP?

cynder

01-28-2008, 12:38 PM

I think Edwards is in it to get as many electorate votes and then throw them at either Clinton or Obama to jockey for a cabinet position. I don't think Edwards wants to run for VP again. I say he's leaning towards Obama though he did have a secret powow with Clinton recently.

At this point, it is a major race electorate vote tallies.

kd 9.21.02

01-28-2008, 01:02 PM

NY TIMES: Sen. Kennedy Chooses Obama, Spurning Plea by Clintons (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/politics/28kennedy.html?th&emc=th)

Delta

01-28-2008, 01:17 PM

Delta - Did you drink Kool-Aid recently? You're starting to sound like a genuine convert over here. He's by far the most appealing candidate if you ignore those pesky things called issues. :p But seriously, he is affecting people on both sides of the aisle. That is for sure. The fact that I'm not in lurve with any of the Republicans at this point frees up some space for me to admire other candidates, if that makes any sense. Of course, we are still in the primaries and while I am thoroughly enjoying seeing him take it to the Clintons I may feel differently once he starts attacking (if he does? how is he going to handle it?) my own conservative beliefs. If McCain is our nominee, however, I could see myself (at this point in time, at least) strongly considering Obama because in my mind, McCain is not a true conservative (and it's not that I don't like him, but I won't feel that I'm betraying conservatism not to vote for him) and I'm not beholden enough to the party to vote for its candidate just because. So why not see what Obama can do? But again, we still have 10 months to go. We don't even have the nominees yet.

Like others have said here too, I do fear a little bit that his young supporters especially may be disillusioned if Obama can't implement this "change" as quickly or broadly as they seem to think. Maybe I'm just cynical in my old age, though. I'm not discounting his appeal or potential at all, just trying to be a little more realistic.

ETA: I also think that this Kennedy stuff - while huge - is undercutting Obama's message of being about the future, not the past. The JFK comparisons aren't jiving with that. The Republicans aren't going to have another Reagan and there won't be another JFK. Let's see what we can do with what we have, KWIM?

kd 9.21.02

01-28-2008, 02:00 PM

I also think that this Kennedy stuff - while huge - is undercutting Obama's message of being about the future, not the past. The JFK comparisons aren't jiving with that. The Republicans aren't going to have another Reagan and there won't be another JFK. Let's see what we can do with what we have, KWIM?

Yes, I definitely hear what you're saying. But the Kennedy family still has weight with many Americans and it's no small thing that Sen. Kennedy rebuffed the Clintons' request for support. I also think many associate the Kennedy name with words like youth, future, potential, promise, etc. I think it means HOPE for many. (At least that's why I like Obama... He gives me reason to hope.)

I thought this TIME blog post was interesting....

Six Reasons Why the Kennedy Endorsement is a Big Deal (http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-five-reasons-why-the-kennedy-endorsement-is-a-big-deal/)

While endorsements don’t usually matter much, Edward Kennedy’s does because:

1. He has a huge following with Hispanics, a big deal in California and other Super Tuesday states, and one of Obama’s weaknesses.

2. The symbolic Kennedy family thing — the ultimate message of change, viability, Democratic legitimacy, and youthful excitement.

3. The national press will be obsessed with the story for days and days to come, with no downside for Obama; the local press coverage when Kennedy travels for Obama will be ginormous.

4. It sends a message to other senators and superdelegates that it is OK to be for Obama — they don’t have to be afraid of the Clintons.

5. He has a huge following among working-class, traditional Democrats, one of Obama’s weaknesses.

6. He has a huge following among union households, another of Obama’s weaknesses.

Delta

01-28-2008, 02:33 PM

Oh, I definitely agree that the Kennedy endorsements are huge - I can't think of another one as big except maybe Gore but even he doesn't bring the institutional support of Ted Kennedy. My point was more to the imagery - Saturday night Obama made it a point that his candidacy was about the future and so all of this recalling of JFK and Camelot (perhaps that's mainly by the media though) doesn't really play into that, so they should be careful about referencing the past in that way. That said, it is a HUGE coup! I can't imagine what's going on in the Clinton campaign right now.

kd 9.21.02

01-28-2008, 04:34 PM

Agreed 100%, Delta. I think referencing "Camelot" is swimming in dangerous waters. As a Kennedy fanatic I've read dozens of books on the family and Jack & Jackie's marriage... It's certainly not all rosy.

miel

01-28-2008, 05:28 PM

It's certainly not all rosy.

Yeah, but they had some kind of glamour or magic that went beyond politics. Of course, they would not now because every pecadillo would have been reported. Jackie would have been attacked for spending too much on clothes and Jack would have been caught messing around with the ladies. In one sense, you wish the mass media hadn't turned into the National Enquirer but on the other, I hate the idea of something being 'hands off.' Transparency is better. Of course, we have the worst of both worlds in some ways because all people care about are the pecadillos and the actual serious news (that, in the Bush adminstration is 10,000X more shocking than any affair--like the Downing Street Memo) gets hushed up...because of public disinterest? Who knows why? It sure is weird how turned around things have gotten.

phoenics

01-28-2008, 05:37 PM

I am beyond disappointed in Bill Clinton right now.

As for Obama--I get more hopeful by the day!!!!!!!!!!

I am really disappointed in Bill Clinton right now - I feel just betrayed by his comments. They sound ignorant and completely out of touch with how they would be perceived.

Comparing Obama's victories in any way to Jesse Jackson's is just ridiculous and pithy on his part. It's like he's working HARD to keep Obama contained in this little box that previously he could easily fit Jesse and other black leaders that kowtow to him in.

But Obama can't be kept in that little box. He's another generation and he doesn't long for the Clinton heydays like the other civil rights leaders (who backed Hilary) do. He's got his own and Clinton knows that, that's why he's making such stupid comments.

And those comments are backfiring.

I really want to write Bill Clinton and express my supreme disappointment in him for his comments - I feel like he just messed up his own legacy in my (black) community with his recent comments.

Delta

01-28-2008, 06:48 PM

Conservative Libertarian Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/dick-morris-ins.html) on Obama (most of his blog is dedicated to The Clintons v. Obama these days):

It's the community organizer in him. Only now the community he is organizing is an entire country. I do think this is an important aspect to Obama's liberalism that provides a bridge to conservatism. He is not a traditional top-down big government liberal. He's a pragmatist who believes in finding ways to empower people to run their own lives. No, he's no libertarian. But his view of government's role has absorbed some of the right-wing critiques of the 1970s and 1980s. Hence the lack of mandates in his healthcare proposal and his refusal to engage in racial victimology. This nuance is worth exploring. Unlike Hillary, he doesn't believe he is going to save anyone. He thinks he has a chance to help some people save themselves.What do we think of this? Is Andrew Sullivan just projecting his own desires on Obama or does this ring true?

Jenyfer9

01-28-2008, 07:39 PM

Unlike Hillary, he doesn't believe he is going to save anyone. He thinks he has a chance to help some people save themselves. Isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be like? If we wanted someone to save us, we could all look to the king for help.

miel

01-28-2008, 08:13 PM

Hmmm. Interesting question. Andrew Sullivan has a major problem. I guess you could say his God has failed. He's been forced into disagreeing with just about everything the conservatives have done but he wants to stay conservative. I know that conservatives are not necessarily at all anti-Gay. Their forefather Barry Goldwater came out in favor of fair treatment of gay people right before he died--and this was years ago. However, the party has hitched its wagon to that horse, in my opinion. They know there is an anti-gay vote there for the taking. So basically Andrew Sullivan doesn't have a candidate but he's unwilling to turn liberal--or admit that it is really the liberals who were right about gay people and foreign policy. He's made up this fake version of conservativism that he believes in but the fact it doesn't exist anywhere kind of leaves him stuck looking wistfully at liberals. Of course, most liberals are too scared to really support gay rights too so it's not like gay people can really win full out.

I consider Sullivan to be a pretty delusional guy. I think he was confused by the fact that a lot of conservatives don't necessarily hate gay people but then they court that segment of the population because it's politically expedient to do so. If you ever read his blog and you saw when it finally dawned on him what was going on it was just so interesting to see how he twisted and turned and twisted until he finally admitted the truth to himself that he couldn't support Bush and Co. politically. Also, the torture thing was a big deal to him, to his credit. I was kind of amazed how long it took for him to suddenly get the picture--how could he ever have thought things would turn out otherwise?

To me the top-down government liberal is a shibboleth. It doesn't exist anymore. The Clintons are NOT big government liberals in the sense of the New Deal--which is the real sense. They are centrist pro-business moderates. That racial victimology thing is also super bogus. Sorry, but if the problem was that black people were complaining that was certainly for a GOOD REASON. I really doubt if Obama denies that anything reasonable said about the history of racial oppression was true. But admittedly, there is a style of rhetoric that's very polarizing and he does avoid that rhetoric. The problem of racism is not 'victimology.' People WERE victims of racism and still are. But there are definitely ways of talking about racism that can make people of despair of a solution and I think Obama is pragmatic if he avoids talking about them in those ways. That is what's needed right now. We're stuck and need to move forward.

But one thing that is great about Obama is that he does pull away from the black and white (not in the racial sense) way of putting everything. He is looking for a new way of talking about things and thinking about them. I think he's looking for ethical solutions and since I think liberals and conservatives can both care about having a decent ethical society then I think he could definitely speak to both sides. There is a lot of polarization and oversimplification that just isn't useful. When Hillary was all on his case about what he said about Reagan I thought that was just intellectual honesty to say that people responded to what Reagan did and maybe there was a reason (Not: That Reagan was correct but that they had new ideas). Obama tries to think about things in a new ways and is extremely moderate when it comes to a whole bunch of things so in that sense I can see that conservatives of the more Sullivan type might prefer him to the kind of conservative that panders to the religious right even when they don't personally care about those issues. Those are exactly the things that disappoint me in Obama--he's not nearly radical enough for me! :)

Delta

01-28-2008, 08:46 PM

LOL. What kind of radical are you looking for, Miel?

I do think Sullivan is all over the place but his blog is where I go for the Hillary-Obama summary of the day (because I share his sentiments.)

cynder

01-28-2008, 09:05 PM

Miel, thank you for your post. Very well written and you used one of my favorite words : shibboleth.

Like Delta, I read Sullivan for a recap of the Clinton-Obama summary of the day because it is very thorough. I think over the last few months (heck, last few years) he's struggled with his conservative stance and knows he's inconsistent.

I consider Sullivan to be a pretty delusional guy. I think he was confused by the fact that a lot of conservatives don't necessarily hate gay people but then they court that segment of the population because it's politically expedient to do so. If you ever read his blog and you saw when it finally dawned on him what was going on it was just so interesting to see how he twisted and turned and twisted until he finally admitted the truth to himself that he couldn't support Bush and Co. politically. Also, the torture thing was a big deal to him, to his credit. I was kind of amazed how long it took for him to suddenly get the picture--how could he ever have thought things would turn out otherwise?

That pretty much sums up how I view him too.

I really want to write Bill Clinton and express my supreme disappointment in him for his comments - I feel like he just messed up his own legacy in my (black) community with his recent comments.
phoenics The thing with Bill though is that he is a man who pretty much got away with doing some pretty salacious things in the White House and was still able to rebound and build a so called honorable legacy after he left house. At the end of the day no matter what his transgressions are, he "gets" away with smelling like a rose. He counts, depends, savors that. It's too early to tell if that will be the case with this behavior in such heightened election this year but I bet you he's thinking he's teflon because it's worked in the past.

ThreeYell

01-29-2008, 06:46 AM

Bravo, miel! Your analysis of Sully is perfect!

nylons73

01-29-2008, 06:54 AM

phoenics The thing with Bill though is that he is a man who pretty much got away with doing some pretty salacious things in the White House and was still able to rebound and build a so called honorable legacy after he left house. At the end of the day no matter what his transgressions are, he "gets" away with smelling like a rose. He counts, depends, savors that. It's too early to tell if that will be the case with this behavior in such heightened election this year but I bet you he's thinking he's teflon because it's worked in the past.

I think the Ted Kennedy endorsement (heck the entire Kennedy family endorsement) HAD to have rocked Bill to the core. He and Teddy fought many fights together, as has Teddy and Hillary. To have someone as iconic and powerful (the "Lion of the Senate") to come out for Barak, has got to sting. Inside sources have been telling the media that it was Bill's nasty comments and attacks on Obama that convinced the Kennedys that they had to come out publically and do something. Way to go Bill! I hope you have handed the election to the O-Train! :)

kd 9.21.02

01-29-2008, 08:57 AM

Are you all sick of me posting about the Kennedy endorsements? Oh well... Here's a post from Sen. Kennedy on Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-edward-m-kennedy-/barack-obama_b_83668.html)...

Posted Jan. 28, 2008 4:51 p.m. EST
Earlier today I endorsed Barack Obama for president, and I couldn't be more excited for the Democratic Party, the nation -- and the world.

Barack inspires me -- it's that simple. In the words of President Kennedy:

"The world is changing. The old ways will not do... It is time for a new generation of leadership."

In Barack, I see that next generation of American leadership: a figure who can transcend the divisions in this country that my family and I have fought so hard to tear down.

We were all moved four years ago as Barack told us a profound truth: We are not red states and blue states, but one United States. Since then, he has matched that rhetoric with action, traveling the country to inspire record turnouts of men and women of all ages, races, parties and faiths. Barack has forged consensus in the Senate on contentious issues such as immigration and pushed through necessary reforms like the most far-reaching ethics reform in its history.

But I'm not only supporting Barack because of what he has done. What counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision, the strength of our beliefs, and that rare quality of mind and spirit that can call forth the best in our country and our people.

That's why I'm most excited about the promise of President Obama:

As president, Barack Obama will break the Washington gridlock to finally make health care what it should be in America.

He will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion and bridge the divisions of race, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation that plague our country.

He will end a war in Iraq that he has always stood against, that has cost us the lives of thousands of our sons and daughters, and that America never should have fought.

He will close the door on the old economics that has written off the poor and left the middle class poorer and less secure.

He will make the United States the great leader and not the great roadblock in the fateful fight against global warming.

When Barack Obama raises his hand on Inauguration Day a new generation of American leadership will take charge and restore the hope, peace and prosperity the country so desperately needs.

Looking out from the stage today, I realized just how powerful his campaign has become. It's a movement for change -- and one that I'm proud to be a part of.

phoenics

01-29-2008, 11:16 AM

Conservative Libertarian Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/dick-morris-ins.html) on Obama (most of his blog is dedicated to The Clintons v. Obama these days):

What do we think of this? Is Andrew Sullivan just projecting his own desires on Obama or does this ring true?

I think it rings true - that's why he is so inspirational. He makes you want to stand up to save yourself... that's my hope anyway.

phoenics

01-29-2008, 11:23 AM

I think the Ted Kennedy endorsement (heck the entire Kennedy family endorsement) HAD to have rocked Bill to the core. He and Teddy fought many fights together, as has Teddy and Hillary. To have someone as iconic and powerful (the "Lion of the Senate") to come out for Barak, has got to sting. Inside sources have been telling the media that it was Bill's nasty comments and attacks on Obama that convinced the Kennedys that they had to come out publically and do something. Way to go Bill! I hope you have handed the election to the O-Train! :)

After hearing about the Kennedy endorsement for Obama, I thought that Bill's comments had a lot to do with that. I think that Ted probably got irritated at all of the comments that Obama was peddling false hope and the like, because I'm sure that's what people said about JFK. I'm sure he just didn't like how the Clinton campaign was working so hard to kill hope. And the controversial and negative attacks by Bill just sealed the deal and Ted decided that he couldn't/wouldn't remain neutral anymore.

As far as Bill being 'teflon', he may be, but I saw him on the news today campaigning in NJ and he seemed defanged and almost weary - as though he just figured out that he messed up royally. When he started talking about the issues, it was as though he realized that he should have been doing that all along and he seemed deflated.

I'm not sure I will ever look at him the same way again, but I'm glad he's been taken off of attack dog status - at least for now.

I hate having my hope stomped on.

phoenics

01-29-2008, 11:27 AM

Miel - that was one super-duper post. So insightful. I agree with everything you said, especially about Obama. The thing that makes him so powerful to me is that he acknowledges the racial injustices but then he inspires people to change their stars regardless of the factors oppressing them and he makes me believe that he will be doing his part to make sure that our efforts to change our stars won't be like seeds falling on concrete, unable to take root and grow.

THAT is the power of Obama. He knows that bad things have happened and that they still happen, but instead of making you feel like you have to rely solely on others to pull you up, he inspires you to pull yourself up while KNOWING that he will be pushing for others to be there to help you when you stumble.

villanelle75

01-29-2008, 12:08 PM

Was it like this when Kennedy was running? Did people look at him and feel inspired and think he was a different kind of politician?

I admit that I am very worried that I am being duped by Obama. I feel that I may be foolishly buying in to a marketing campaign. I desperately want that not to be true. I want the things I believe to be real, and I want to be able to believe them without so much cynicism, but after the last 8 years (heck, the last 16 years), it's difficult to divorce myself of the skepticism that comes to mind whenever politics come up.

It scares me to believe because it means I can be disappointed.

cynder

01-29-2008, 12:27 PM

villanelle75 I understand the need to believe without cynicism and the disappointment of the last 8 years. But I think a little cynicism or apprehension is healthy no matter how good it looks. You bring up a good point about Kennedy in the 60s and I am curious too about what the vibe was like. I think Kennedy had a lot more religious skepticism to fight back then.

I thought this was an amusing anecdote from Bill Richardson today.
I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'

phoenics

01-29-2008, 02:30 PM

That is amusing and refreshing that he'd admit that he wasn't listening... and funny in how he was panicking and then Obama helped him out.

bug

01-29-2008, 04:12 PM

Ha! I can't stop laughing at the Bill Richardson quote! I love that Bill Richardson is so honest. He was DH's candidate. I'm for an Obama Richardson ticket. Good of Obama to help him out!

miel

01-29-2008, 07:53 PM

It scares me to believe because it means I can be disappointed.

I'm kind of expecting to be disappointed in a way because there is a huge opposition to change and there are just some things it will be impossible to do. Also, I know Obama does not agree with me on lots of issues. I guess the way I'm trying to look at it is that what I really hope is for someone with some basic ethics to be in a leadership position. Also someone who can make those ethical beliefs affect policy. I just find the last few years frightening in terms of where the country is going--with torture and loss of civil rights and so on. Maybe my expectations will be raised past the point of just hoping for the Bill of Rights and international law and someone who would only start a war under the most dire circumstances but right now that sounds pretty good!

But yeah, I know what you mean.

Sometimes I think when Hillary cried a little and said "some of us just aren't ready" (obviously talking about Obama) it is that she knows how down and dirty politics is. I think that is what they mean, even if they don't even realize it consciously. That is the Clinton line on Obama: Not ready yet. They mean: Someone who can basically go in and fight a little dirty if that's what it takes. But I think by doing that the Clintons (and Kerry) kind of sold out some and maybe they lost some of their moral compass and people feel that. They are still decent people though but it's not clear they have a moral bottom line anymore. Basically, the ability to fight dirty is not that much use if in the end you've sold out everything you believe in.

I think the reason the Hillary people are somewhat hysterical when it comes to Obama is because they believe it is her time. You should hear what some of these pro-Hillary women say. One I heard on the radio today was furious at the 'male establishment' for telling her to vote for another man. They just feel betrayed because they thought they had that historical precedent thing all sewn up.

I think people were excited about Kennedy when he was running. I hate to say it but Kennedy really rests on his mantle of unfulfilled promise. I just don't see him as someone who fundamentally changed the country. I think Roosevelt did. But he's not inspiring to the baby boom generation. Roosevelt doesn't have the Q-factor. When things get bad, what you need is a Roosevelt. He was an inspiring leader at the time also.

jnettie

01-29-2008, 08:48 PM

I think the reason the Hillary people are somewhat hysterical when it comes to Obama is because they believe it is her time. You should hear what some of these pro-Hillary women say. One I heard on the radio today was furious at the 'male establishment' for telling her to vote for another man. They just feel betrayed because they thought they had that historical precedent thing all sewn up.

I'd like to speak to this, because I kinda feel this way. But I also am a huge fan of Hillary.

I think, culturally, women are always asked to step aside and let someone else go ahead. I feel like that's part of what's happening now - that this is an important election that a Democrat needs to take the White House, so it needs to be someone who can win. And, once again, the woman is made out to be the person who cannot win.

Second, I really feel like most of the Hillary criticism is an attack on her womanhood. I think this thread, and a few others on this site, have been some of the few that actually discussed policy and her ability to lead. I was 14 when Bill ran for president, and I remember very clearly a lot of what the media was saying about Hillary then...and most of it was an attack on her womanhood. She had to have that stupid cookie baking contest with Barbara Bush, and she had to change her name to Clinton, because everyone criticized her for keeping her maiden name even though that was a personal decision and completely common for women in her generation.

Yes, there are some things I don't agree with her on, but all in all I really like her, I admire her, and I really really believe that it's time that a woman should be president. I have to be honest enough to admit that's a driving force for my choice. I'm not totally blind to it - I wouldn't ever vote for Laura Bush for anything, or even Tipper Gore - but she's been a good Senator for me in my state, and a bad Democrat is better than any Republican. She has my vote on Super Tuesday.

Adaya

01-29-2008, 08:50 PM

Delta

01-29-2008, 09:19 PM

As a woman I have to say that I don't think it really counts much when you have to get there on your husband's coattails. Of course, at this point she may actually do it in spite of her husband.

nylons73

01-29-2008, 10:44 PM

I'd like to speak to this, because I kinda feel this way. But I also am a huge fan of Hillary.

I think, culturally, women are always asked to step aside and let someone else go ahead. I feel like that's part of what's happening now - that this is an important election that a Democrat needs to take the White House, so it needs to be someone who can win. And, once again, the woman is made out to be the person who cannot win.

Yes, there are some things I don't agree with her on, but all in all I really like her, I admire her, and I really really believe that it's time that a woman should be president. I have to be honest enough to admit that's a driving force for my choice. I'm not totally blind to it - I wouldn't ever vote for Laura Bush for anything, or even Tipper Gore - but she's been a good Senator for me in my state, and a bad Democrat is better than any Republican. She has my vote on Super Tuesday.

A couple of points to think about.

1.Hillary cannot win. She is hated by Republicans and many independents. Heck, I even know democrats who cannot stand the sight of her. If she is the nominee, all the Republicans will have to say is "Vote Against Hillary" and the turn out will be monumental. Mark my words. She's just about the most polarizing force in the entire country. She'll never get enough electoral college votes to win. The Republicans can't WAIT to run against her.

2. She's about the worst kind of woman in that (as Delta pointed out) she's not picking up endorsements and friends on her OWN merit. The actual endorsements she could have won on her own (meaning from those who are not beholden to her husband) she has lost to Obama. The endorsements Hillary has are from people who are beholden to Bill because he was very good to them when he was president and he has campaigned for them and raised money for them. She does not have a number of Civil Rights Veterans from MLK's inner circle because they believe in her and they think she should be president. She has them because Bill called in favors - pure and simple. Everyone in the Dem. loop knows this and knows that Bill made it clear. Support Hillary or I'll never raise another dollar for you. Kennedy is one of the few old-timers that doesn't need Bill Clinton at all, and therefore he was free to make up his own mind.

After the Lewinsky scandal Hillary stayed with Bill maybe because she loves him. More likely? Hillary stayed with him because she knew she had no shot in he!! of winning the Dem. nomination for President without him. Name one endorsement she has and I'll tell you how much that particular person is indebted to Bill. It's disgusting.

No one is asking Hillary to step aside because she is a woman. They are trying hard to defeat her because she is unelectable and, beyond those whom are beholden to Bill, she has very little support in the party as a whole.

ETA: Furthermore, her behavior today has been completely disgusting. She flew down to Florida to have a 'victory party' to celebrate her 'win.' How in the he!! can you declare 'victory' in a state that not one Democrat campaigned in or visited. She had no competition and won on name recognition alone with the early voters. If the voting was based on TODAY - Obama actually garnered the most votes in Florida. No delegates will be awarded out of FL, yet Hillary came in, had a 'Victory Celebration' and vowed to try to get the delegates to count. Sneaky, underhanded, contrary to the wishes of the Democratic party, and ridiculous.

Niobe

01-29-2008, 10:58 PM

Of course, at this point she may actually do it in spite of her husband.
Am I the only one who doesn't wonder, just a little, if Bill isn't acting like this to purposely sabotage her campaign? Maybe he's secretly a huge Obama fan and is trying to help him out...
ITA. Check out what the NY chapter of NOW had to say about Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama. [/URL]
That is the crap that makes young women not identify themselves as "feminists". Just as Hillary should not lose votes solely because she is a woman, nor should she win them.

miel

01-30-2008, 12:56 AM

I remember when my little brother and sister went to take your daughters to work day and I did too and all the little girls were sitting around talking about Hillary. I can't remember what they said but the gist of it was that she was smarter than he was! Isn't that funny? They got mad that he was president. They already thought SHE should be president. When we talked about sexism all these preteen and teen girls were already talking about Hillary. (And I remember my brother saying: I'm not macho! He was five. But he'd been beaten over the head by feminism since birth so he was used to it.)

I agree with jnettie that a lot of Hillary supporters are right in that she is damn smart and competent and a very unique and impressive person in her own right. This of course is part of the reason she drew such hostility right off the bat. The funny thing is that I was more pro-Hillary until the campaign and certain things she said about foreign policy really got me angry. She seemed so determined to talk about 'strength' that she dismissed the idea that diplomacy is critical. That's what we already have now! That's what got us into some of these messes. She was sounding like George Bush Lite. The thing is that I don't even think she believes that, not entirely. So that made me even more suspicious of her. Like I said, I just don't think the Clintons have the right moral bottom line. They are steeped in the art of political compromise. When push comes to shove, you need that person who is going to stand up for what is right when politically it is not expedient to do so. The democrats need to push the line forward but they always go to the safety point. And I think Hillary supporters would say that she can't do this in the campaign because then she would be eaten alive for being weak. But I think that shows a lack of imagination and also a lack of respect for the electorate. She needs to think of a way to say harder truths so they can be convincing. Like: Sometimes you have to talk to your enemies. Diplomatic relations are not the same as endorsing someone's evil deeds. They serve an important political purpose. OK, that might not work but you know what I mean? Obama has said unpopular things. It's going to get harder for him in the general campaign. It's easier to say certain things when you are flying slightly under the radar. So he might cave at times as well but he caves to the neoliberals less readily. E.g., I can't see him condoning torture but Hillary I'm not so sure about.

jnettie

01-30-2008, 06:31 AM

nylons, I've been following the campaign and this thread, so believe me, I understand your point and Delta's, I'm just seeing it in a different light. I totally get what you're saying that she's unelectable - but I don't see any of your reasons as entirely her fault. Up until January (when I was in a place with no tv, radio, or internet) I watched 90% of the debates, and IMO everyone spent most of their energy picking her to pieces. She couldn't win no matter what she said or how she said it.

I do think there were some huge developments in January that I totally missed, so I'm still piecing things together. But I still really like Hillary and I will still vote for her in the Primary.

And if you want to talk about candidates that can't win...I really LOVED Kucinich. ;) And while he was still in the running I really considered voting for him, too.

BUT, I have had to take the last week to really really think about my choice in Hillary and why I want to vote for her. I almost changed to Obama. I do know that she kicked ass in the NY Senate race both times and everyone said she couldn't do it. (Now, her opponents were super weak, but who's counting ;) )

Anna Low

01-30-2008, 06:56 AM

I have never waivered in my support for Hillary. I think she is fantastic. Although I will vote for the democratic nominee regardless of who it is, it will be with a heavy heart if it is someone else. Obama is ok - he doesn't inspire me and still hasn't clearly articulated what exactly he would do to bring about all of this so-called "change". He is a dem, which is great, but at the end of the day, he is still another guy.

nylons73

01-30-2008, 07:18 AM

I have never waivered in my support for Hillary. I think she is fantastic.

I am curious why you think that flying into a state to declare 'victory' in a primary that no one campaigned in is not totally disgusting and underhanded. I'm not trying to snark you, I'm truly curious at how you can call her 'fantastic' when she continues to do one underhanded thing after another. What, exactly, is fantastic about her? (and I mean that as a serious question.)

IrishEyes

01-30-2008, 07:27 AM

I am curious why you think that flying into a state to declare 'victory' in a primary that no one campaigned in is not totally disgusting and underhanded.

I don't think she held a rally to be disgusting and underhanded. I think they felt she had to grasp on to this 'victory' to try to get some momentum going her way. I think whoever had 'won' Florida in the Dem party, whether Obama, Edwards or Clinton, would have done something to celebrate and bring attention to their victory in Florida.

cynder

01-30-2008, 07:38 AM

I think there are people here way more articulate than myself but here goes. It is high time that a woman be president. I think Hillary is competent, intelligent, hard working, knowledgable, strong woman. She has held her own in the debates under some pretty nasty attacks. The problem is that I don't think Hillary is the person to do it especially when you have an alternatives like Obama or even Edwards. Why? When you look at it their policies,they are pretty comparable (to some overall degree - I know there are differences). But lordy, their approaches are so different. Hillary use bitter partisan tactics like nobody's business. While this has been the trick d'jour of Washington for many years, I call BS on her when she says she is all about change and a new voice. If anything, the antics of the last month have shown that she the she is playing the same game that she vowed not to do. She couldn't even keep her signed promises to stay out of Michigan and Florida primaries. The Democratic party does not need this and the fact that several hard core Clintonians have crossed over to Obama land are not actions done lightly. I have seen very little of her words and actions even before this election that prove she can be a person of new vision and bi-partisanship. Her revisionist history on her stance on the Iraq is enough to cross my eyes.

Oh and then there is Bill. I think Hillary did an excellent job of creating her own power base and identity as a NY senator by herself to a large degree. She seemed to stand on her own two feet and as much as I dislike her, I admired her for that. The Bill and Hill show of the last few weeks prove that she has gained nothing from that experience. My vote will not be up for grabs for the Bill/Hillary Clinton presidency. Those who think that that Bill would not do that once Hillary is in the Oval Office severely underestimate the man and the marriage.

I know this has been said before by others but for me it is not about voting for a man, woman, black, white, gay or straight. It is voting for the best person.

I think whoever had 'won' Florida in the Dem party, whether Obama, Edwards or Clinton, would have done something to celebrate and bring attention to their victory in Florida.
Sure, celebrating is one thing. But did it have to be in Florida. Did she have to go there days before the primary after they all vowed they wouldn't. She gave a speech after South Carolina in Tennessee. I agree that it is not necessarily disgusting or underhanded but and that she had to make a tactical move but it's not showing me that she can she can follow through on what she says.