Some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying that sexism has played a key role in her faltering campaign.
But if anything, Clinton showed that the nation is ready to vote for a woman for president. She began as the odds-on Democratic favorite and has come close to winning the primary process.
As presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin told the New York Times, the Clinton campaign’s own mistakes have been decisive - “strategic, tactical things that have nothing to do with her being a woman.”
Sexism didn’t defeat Clinton. Barack Obama did.
185 Comments
Sexism did not sink Clinton. Some crazy idea that political dynasties stink is what sank Clinton.
Her failure to succeed as the democrat nominee is just one more failure in a lifetime of failures.
This failure pretty much is the icing on the cake for Bill’s ludicrous legacy.
Yep, I guess the democrat racist I-won’t-vote-for-a-black-man lost out to the any-body-but-hillary-vote!
Going to be interesting in November!
Hank, with all due respect, history will show that Hillary Clinton did not fail.
It will show that Barack Obama succeeded… provided he continues to integrate more experienced hands into his campaign as he moves into November.
He’s starting to do more of the right things; I’d just feel better if he’d do them a little faster.
I’m also scared that McSame will get a clue on broadcast issues before Obama does; then–yikes–I’d have to support him.
Goodwin is correct - she made some very serious mis-steps in her campaign.
The “I don’t want to be forced to have Health Insurance” vote didn’t help her much Hank.
Hey LLTVET,
Her health care fiasco was one of her greatest failures. It caused the loss of the House in 04.
It also gives an insight into how she would serve as president if she was elected.
You’re probably right about history Mr. Controversy! I think if Obama wins the presidency Hillary will be pretty much forgotten. It will concentrate on Obama’s victory.
She still will have to be a failure for him to be victorious. Nice spin though.
I wouldn’t consider Hillary as a failure. She definitely won’t be forgotten.
If Clinton can move forward and assume a leadership role in the Senate she will not fade away or be forgotten.
Neither sexism nor Obama defeated Clinton. She defeated herself. I was leaning her way until she told those absolute whoppers about her experience. That made me question her staff, her motives and even her basic intelligence.
I wonder who Doris Kearns Goodwin stole that idea from.
hernando
Posted May 20, 2008 at 1:45 pm | Permalink
Neither sexism nor Obama defeated Clinton. She defeated herself. I was leaning her way until she told those absolute whoppers about her experience.
Ah hernando, I see your point! I guess you just have no choice now other than vote for McCain.
We darn sure can’t vote for that black guy.
Hey Ben,
What ever gets you through the night.
“But in the end, when Obama is crowned king of the Democrats, Clinton will throw her arms around him and the music will swell and the crowds will cheer — and everything will be forgotten. And when that happens, Hillary Clinton — who will be only 65 in 2012 and four years after that still will be younger than McCain is now — will be positioned to run for president, not as someone’s wife, but as a gritty fighter who just would not quit.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902235.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
But, for Clinton to succeed, Obama has to fail. She won’t even have to wag her finger and say ‘See, I told you so.’
As it was once said, “follow the money”. If Clinton stays in she gets one more round of campaign fund raising - thus giving her a chance to pay herself back for what she has invested in her campaign with her own resources. I believe I would be tempted to do that if I were in her position.
And the final reason I think she staying in: she can always hope for a miracle that will render Obama un-electable. Some possibilities:
1) a Wright video where he is proposing armed insurection against the U.S.
2) Fox news can produce Obama’s Muslim Card
3) Michelle Obama in a moment of frustrations screams that it is true, she has always hated the United States.
There may be others I can not conceive of…
Nano. It’s a frustration for sure.
Steven,
You forgot the “Obama left the cap off the toothpaste” moment that is bound to happen any day now! I’ve heard rumors… I think our outstanding and trustworthy (eveeel liberal) media is only checking sources and making positive it is true (vetting the story!) before releasing this news.
Personally I think it’s the Clinton/Bush dynasty angle that’s hurting her. Many people who might have voted for her won’t because that puts those 2 families in control for decades. Just MHO….
Hey Linda, in a similar vein, have you heard this one?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/79324
That is bound to be damning when it gets out. How many days will we need to hear about it before we finally are all converted to the truth of how that makes him UNelectable?
Oh look, that has to be the brightest and the shiniest…
Maybe H.Clinton will run for Governor of N.Y.?
No wait, she’s not qualified, she hasn’t paid any high price prostitute for services.
hernando
Posted May 20, 2008 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
Nano. It’s a frustration for sure.
We could always vote for the twit Nader! I hate the idea of voting for McCain. He has such short arms and chubby cheeks.
Nearly all of the sexist remarks about Hillary that I’ve heard have come from men and women who would never vote for a democrat under any circumstances. Since they know the republican chances have been sunk for the next decade or so by their boy Bush, they’ve decided that the lesser evil is the black guy. That must’ve been an interesting dilemma!
Never, but never trust a guy with short arms!
Hilary’s lying, whiskey gulping, riding around with truck drivers, black preacher impersonator, do any and everything to get elected pandering is what made rationale people realize she’s not the one for the most powerful, responsible, and important position in the world. Thank God common sense ruled…I was really getting scared for a moment.
Jed, Obama isn’t black, he’s bi-racial. That makes him as much white as he is black…what better representation could we have?
And between him and Hill, he’s the most intelligent and has the most common sense.
Mary,
You know that and I know that, but according to the racist right, any African blood at all turns a person black. I hate to inform them but like it or not, each and every human being on the planet traces their ancestry from Africa.
I think Jed pretty much nails the reality.
But I would also add something else: early on, Hillary made the crucial strategic mistake of essentially claiming credit for Bill’s successes. This didn’t just undermine her individual identity (being even an active, engaged, first lady–an unpaid, non-staff position–is a tougher sell than 2-term Senator). It also allowed her opponents to tie her to that administration’s less sterling moments.
Oops.
And then there were simply positions she’d taken as U.S. Senator–primarily those relating to foreign policy and military power, which were often uneasily in concert with Bush on Iraq and the phony “war on terror.”
P.S. Mr.C., may I assume you’re aware of the Class A lawsuit? This ain’t over by a longshot!
And if it’s technically feasible to make the dual-use boxes, it was practically a crime not to do so in the first place! Backwards-compability is always an important consideration in other technical areas. Why not this one?
P.P.S. Do you know how to contact Larry Lessig, who’s signed on as Obama’s tech advisor? I think it would be worth it.
I don’t believe the “racist right” is the majority in this country, I have enough faith that most Americans will vote for who they think is the best candidate for the job…not according to the color of that person’s skin. You can call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one!
For the first time, my husband and I will be voting for the same candidate.
Mary,
Given the depth of the grave the current administration has dug for our country, it’s going to take more talent than just Obama (and I think he’s got a lot) to help us climb our way out. With Hillary as veep, we just might make it.
I hate to inform them but like it or not, each and every human being on the planet traces their ancestry from Africa.
Keeping that in mind, on the 2000 census form, I correctly identified myself as an “African-European American.” But, by the shallow basis–literally skin-deep–by which we judge “race,” I’m just another white guy!
Jared Diamond had a fascinating article in Disoover magazine on the genesis of race. Unsuprisingly, it’s simply an evolutionary response of melatonin production (I think) to environmental conditions over time–a very long time. Hence, you will find different races living in the same region over a thousand years.
But check back in a million years or so, or even a few thousand if the conditions demand it–and they will look about the same.
Mary,
The racist right is nowhere near a majority in terms of votes, but they’re damn close to being one in dollars.
I would agree with the part about Race Mary. But if someone’s parents give you a middle name of Hussein, Well then you must have some character flaw. (sarcasm off)
Obama impressed me with some of his ideas over a year ago. But there are too many people today who would consider me an elitist who condescends their “values”
But like you, I hold optimism that the tabloids will finally be shut out and the good ideas will finally be discussed.
“I hate to inform them but like it or not, each and every human being on the planet traces their ancestry from Africa.”
I thought the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the Middle East. Aren’t blacks the deccendants of Ham?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
Rage,
Race is no more than a social construct. Biologically there is no basis at all to assume that skin coloration is anything more than adaptation to levels of ultraviolet radiation at various latitudes.
If there’s anyone to “check back in a million years or so, or even a few thousand if the conditions demand it…” we should consider ourselves very lucky. The odds for survival of the species are very much against us.
Boy are you guys out of date. Mitochondrial Eve was blown out of the water in the 90s. It was found that males can carry recombinant DNA and with mutations carry up to 90 percent recessive MTDNA.
Also, the mathematics of using a molecular clock was proven wrong because most all of the mutation rates were calculated incorrectly.
So much for the common ancestor from Africa theory.
An astonishing YES to your question. All you have to do is listen to John Edwards endorsement of Barack Obama. Count the number of times he said “man,” as in, “the best Man for the job,” the MAN who can lead,” the MAN who can bring change,” “the MAN, MAN, MAN, etc., etc., etc.
Yes, it is shocking that in the most modern, progressive country on the face of the planet, that stupid white men cannot bring themselves to vote for a woman. Hillary or otherwise. Many men are intimidated by smart, intelligent women.
I don’t buy this, “anyone but Hillary” garbage. That’s just a handy little excuse.
I’m sick of these Obama bandwagoners. They’re not asking the tough questions, like who the heck is Barack Obama? He just flew onto the national political scene overnight. I really don’t care what state politics he played in Illinois. I want to know what bills he authored in Congress that have become law? Anybody? What has he done to prove that he can lead? What has he d one to prove that he can bring about change? What “change” does he intend to make and what are his plans to accomplish these changes? He never says. Of his three years in Congress, he’s spent a year and a half campaigning. He hasn’t done anything!
Yes, it’s really nice to hear someone who can speak the English language so well after George W Bush, but really, that doesn’t impress me enough to vote for him.
He has demonstrated over and over that he makes bad decisions. Take Mr. Wright for instance. Who in their right mind sits in a church and listens to their minister for twenty years if they don’t believe in what said minister is preaching? NOBODY!
Yes, people would rather vote for an un-tested, rookie CongressMAN than to vote for a woman. Especially a woman whose name is Clinton. Never mind that she’s tough as nails (this is usually considered a good quality in a man.) Never mind that she has held her head high with all the crap that the republicans have thrown her way for decades. Never mind that she wants to help the elderly, the poor, the black and every one else. Never mind that she reaches across the aisle to work with those whose opinions differ from her own. Ohhhh, that’s soooo terrible!
The fact is, there are double standards. For instance, when she became emotional, oh, she’s a weak woman. I bet she cries when she breaks a nail! If she were to just up and quit the Obama supporters would come out in droves and say, “told you so. She’s weak, she can’t take it.” She most decidedly is in a no win, catch-22 situation.
Geraldine was right. Obama is where he is because he’s a black MAN. That’s not being racist. That’s the truth. After eight years of George W Bush we as a nation have a lot of work to do to dig out of the mess that he has created. We absolutely cannot afford to send a young, naive rookie to do the job. Obama has not proven a thing. Nothing other than black people are voting for him so “one of our own” will be president. Well, I want “one of my own too,” only men still make the rules and rule the lands. It’s sad and shameful. Hillary Clinton would be a great Commander in Chief.
I want a woman president before I die. I am sick of men, black, white, or otherwise ruining this country. All men have done since the beginning of time is seek out others to kill and destroy each other. Enough is enough.
From “Republican Faith Chat:
“It is written in Rev 20:8-Satan shall go out to deceive all the nations which are in the four quarters of the Earth, Gog,and Magog to gather them together to battle: The number of whom is countless and of the sand of the sea or shores of the sea. As descendant of Canaan, Liberal Democrat, Barack Obama Hussein is indeed a liar for that there is no disputing. He has and will continue to with his lies to God’s children that abortion, blatant homosexuality, fornication, and socialism is fun and good. This does not however make him the great liar that God tells us is to be the Anti-Christ. It is Barack Hussein Obama’s curse of coloredness that will prevent him from ever being elected leader of a true Christian nation, one that is founded upon Christian principle by the chosen, fair-skinned people of God.
The nations and countries of Africa, Iraq, and Iran, and all people of dark skin carry the curse of Ham and will be subservient to the people who remain favorable to God. That is why there is so much trouble brewing in these lands; they carry the Canaan curse. The angel Radueriel told me this saying with a loud voice (the emphasis on a loud voice). This message needs to be shouted and proclaimed loudly. In doing so, some that have been deaf, that is their ears have been closed, will begin to hear. “Prophet Davis, go and tell your brothers and sisters that a descendant of Ham will never lead the America.” ”
http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/the-curse-of-ham-why-barack-hussein-oboma-will-never-be-president/
Erica. Convince the Libertarian Party to nominate Christine Smith and I will vote for a woman over any man in a heartbeat. This is a democratic republic, not an “heir”istocracy. Dubya shouldn’t have been president. Just cause Daddy was pres is a good reason for him NOT to be. The same with Kennedy, and the same with Clintons. NO MORE POLITICAL DYNASTIES. PERIOD.
LLTVET,
I don’t think Bush junior should have been president either. But I don’t think Hillary Clinton feels any sort of “entitlement,” that’s just republican bs, don’t buy into it.
We Americans don’t have the luxury of chosing the next president based on any other reason than someone who will fix what “crazy Bush” will be leaving in near shambles.
After viewing it first hand, it’s still dificult to understand that anyone could damage this country as badly as that pathic excuse for a man has done.
And the ugly stereotypes about women and black people are dragged out yet again.
Yeah, sexism played a role in the campaign, as did racism. I don’t think either was dispositive, or neither candidate would have ended up in the “top two.”
Thanks for pointing out Edwards’ unconciously sexist language (though he was indeed talking about “one man”, and plainly chose that phrase to fit with his “One America” theme):
And the reason I am here tonight is because the Democratic voters in America have made their choice, and so have I. There is one man who knows and understands that this is a time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change, that you have to build from the ground up. There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama.
http://centristvoice.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/transcript-of-edwards-endorsement/
Maybe we can learn something from that.
bth,
“I thought the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the Middle East. Aren’t blacks the deccendants of Ham?”
Saw a very interesting show on Geographic a while back that touched on that subject. Using the directions given in the bible, they located the garden of eden referenced there. It very well may lie near the place that early Homo Sapiens crossed out of Africa about 60-7-,000 years ago on their way to everywhere else, and they might have lingered there for a while, giving rise to the myth of the garden. Oral traditions can do that kind of thing and can last a lot longer than you might suspect.
make that 60-70,000 years ago.
I think you may be exagerating a bit Ed. If this country can survive 8 years of Dubya, we don’t have to choose our next president out of fear.
Jed. Don’t encourage Ben. He is trying to get out of going to confession for eating Lobster.
No..it was here big and foul mouth.
Of course, BJ Bill didnt help with hes lies
You’ve GOT to read the comments under Ben’s link!
Gotta admit MrC - those are really something!
Notice how sure they were that Saint Brownback would be the GOP nominee.
YOU GO ERIKA!
And welcome to posting.
If you are new here? Let me help.
Randy Schofield is as in the tank for Obama as they come.
He and SOME of the Obama supporters would LIKE for this to be over.
Hmm…probably before Obama can say something else that is stupid or have another embarrassing associate revealed.
It won’t be over til the convention. And even if Obama is the nominee, the love fest Obama has been given is unforgivable.
Senator Clinton had it right yesterday when she said Obama is the candidate of people who CAN put gas in their cars. She is the candidate and advocate for the not so well off.
I’d never vote for a panderer who wants me sit at the same TABLE with a con or con apologist.
Ben, I saw my mom naked when I was a kid. I turned red, but I didn’t turn black. But I did have to tell my shrink about it.
erika01 asks: What has he done to prove that he can lead?
—————-
Ran a more effective campaign than Senator Hillary Clinton.
I am a female of Senator Clinton’s age. I “stood for” her last February at the Kansas caucus. I no longer support her candidacy and she is the reason.
When she agreed to (in writing) not seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan I trusted that was her word. She then proved to me she isn’t trustworthy.
I’ve had it UP TO HERE with lack of trust. After the current administration someone I can trust was high on my list. I could go on but much prefer criticizing McCain. But if you, erika01, want to continue with your attacks on Obama I promise I can go on and on and on with tit for tat.
Well I guess you have more faith and trust in your enemies than your friends there linda.
I mean this in the most kind way. But try living in the real world.
Ya can’t make nice with the cons. Not and do anything but lose. And they give not a damn about any rules or fighting fair. Your reasons for switching your support are noble.
But they are naive.
We already see from his own supporters how Obama is gonna be. “Yes we can” is gonna turn into “yes you can. I did and if you can’t it is your fault.
It’s been stimulating folks. Gotta Go. Something about some guy seeing his dad naked, so now he is my slave. Not my rules. Ben made it up.
Later Ben, I had to instigate some grief on your part.
“if you, erika01, want to continue with your attacks on Obama I promise I can go on and on and on with tit for tat.”
I just bet you can. That is becoming the hallmark of Obama supporters.
I could have drug Obama through the mud months ago. BEFORE all his problems came out.
I begin to regret not doing so.
erika, BlueJay - I agree with much of what linda said. MI and FL have been a real fiasco - and clinton DID say they should not be seated. I wish there were a way to get around that - in fact I think there is and I have outlined that in the past.
What I am looking for now is the same thing Terry McAuliffe (from Clinton’s campaign) said - does Clinton end up with a plurality of the popular vote? If so then I think she has a case at the convention. If not, then - ACCORDING TO HER OWN CAMPAIGN - she does not.
Obama was not my first choice. However, when I consider “stay the failed course” McBush my choice is clear: the Democratic nominee - whether Clinton OR Obama.
Hey Ben, you do realize that Baptist4brown was a spoof blog? Evidently, someone thought it would be fun to hijack not only the name but the email of the legitimate blog.
Why would want to waste your time reading such garbage is beyond me.
I could write a blog on “Islamic Radicals for Obama” and no one could find who wrote it or who sponsors it.
I could, but I won’t.
Rage,
It’s melanin. Melatonin is what the body naturally produces for sleep. It also comes in pill form, for those who need a bit of help. I’ve used it, and it works well. Much better than addictive sleep aids and great when you need to adjust your sleep schedule.
BlueJay, I won’t criticize Senator Clinton. I won’t now and I won’t if she does or doesn’t secure the nomination of the Democratic Party.
None of this has anything to do with my faith or trust in my friends.
I can make nice. I can make nice until the day is done. I can make nice without ever endangering my opinions or my morals or convictions. I don’t have to give up anything to be nice.
I may be naive. I hope I stay that way if I am.
I live in a better position today than I have in the past. There were years when I worked two and three jobs and took care of four children alone. NO HELP! No help from family, child support, or government. I could tell you stories, but would prefer not to do that either.
The fact that you support Senator Clinton doesn’t make you a lessor or better person, doesn’t make you smarter or dumber, doesn’t make you anything more or less than yourself and a Clinton supporter.
Why do you think I am different than I was before because I support Obama?
If Senator Clinton wins the popular vote…
And if Florida and Michigan are counted fairly, she very well may…
Then every single person who has ever spoken against the results of the 2000 election (Gore won the popular vote. Some people seem to have forgotten that) had better be in favor of her getting the nomination.
Otherwise it is hypocrisy and I will call it.
I didn’t say you were different linda.
But I will say you are naive.
YOUR biggest problem with Senator Clinton is she will count votes to win?
That’s not dirty or underhanded. It’s common sense.
It’s melanin. Melatonin is what the body naturally produces for sleep.
LOL! Thanks, PD! The funny thing is, I’ve actually tried it! Didn’t work.
Oddly relevant, as my tired brain does make mistakes, and I’m tired quite a bit. :). Another mistake that no one caught (or politely failed to pointed out at least): conflating Chris Mooney with Chris Hedges, when they’re two different people.
Aw, well: no one’s perfect.
My biggest problem with Senator Clinton is that she made a commitment and when that became inconvenient she just threw away those words for new ones. I need a POTUS I can trust. I need a POTUS who says and does the same thing. And, of course, I don’t mean one who can’t or won’t change their mind when it makes sense for the good of America. In this case I see changing her mind as being good for her. I have become disappointed on other fronts.
And, you know what? If she is the nominee fairly I WILL VOTE FOR HER! I may even if she gets the nomination unfairly.
I think that makes me more committed to my country than your position. Our country is in bad shape and won’t start improving if we elect four more years of the same.
BlueJay, I used the word “different” to avoid typing all the things you’ve called Obama supporters. I am an Obama supporter so you’ve called me some things worse than “different.” That’s unnecessary!
If you are FOR a candidate be FOR them and tout their great qualities all over the place! It doesn’t make your candidate seem better when all you provide are criticisms of the opponent.
Linda I have nowhere said I would vote for McCain.
And the fact of it is, in Kansas, my vote matters not one bit anyway.
(There’s that electoral math that favors Senator Clinton again)
I don’t trust Obama. He has come by all this too easy. What fronted that?
I could change my mind. But Obama would HAVE to go on the attack against the cons. And I need to here “yes we can” followed by what it is we can do and how we are going to do it. PREFERABBLY at the fiscal and social expense of those who have done so well at the expense of others.
BlueJay - it would be interesting to know just what the numbers would be. Obama was not even ON the ballot in Michigan - how do we count that.
It is my understanding that even with all of that Obama would have the higher vote total - and if you consider the “not-Clinton” votes in Michigan for Obama then he would be ahead - even WITH those two states.
And, as Linda notes, Clinton DID agree that MI and FL should be stripped for their actions. And then she changed position because she needs those votes.
Senator Clinton wants gas prices down and she wants it done at the expense of the oil companies.
That is a great place to start.
Obama opposes that plan.
“bth” postulates –
“I thought the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the Middle East.”
Nah. The MidWest. Independence, Missouri, if you’re Mitt Romney.
I want to do a little test here of Obama supporters. In an effort to understand you better.
I know who is who and the neutrals as well as the true believers.
I’ll even read if the cons stick their nose in.
1) Do you think the media has been fair and thorough as to Obama?
2) Being as Senator Clinton has won more traditionally Democratic voting or blue states, isn’t she the better general election candidate?
2a Name a red state that you think Obama can pick off.
3)IF Senator Clinton WANTS to be VP, shouldn’t she be?
She doesn’t seem “sunk” in Kentucky.
ANOTHER state that has just been called for her.
You’ll fall in line junior, the messiah is all you’ll have. He might lose a few bitter old ladies that see the hildebeast as their last chance to validate a life wasted as feminists by electing one of their kind. . .but you’ll fall in line.
What ever the dems put up you’ll vote for, you’re a good little soldier.
Like I say, this isn’t over.
I’d like you Obama supporters to take a good long look at the post at 6:25.
That’s the sort of SOB that your candidate of choice thinks can be worked with. Let’s take a closer look…
“You’ll fall in line junior.”
”
Here, he is presumptive and insulting.
“the messiah is all you’ll have.”
Presumptive again. But now he’s assaulting Obama
“He might lose a few bitter old ladies that see the hildebeast as their last chance to validate a life wasted as feminists by electing one of their kind.”
Hey Linda and Mary? STILL think Obama is right that these people can be worked with?
“but you’ll fall in line.”
Presumptive and insulting again.
“What ever the dems put up you’ll vote for, you’re a good little soldier.”
More presumtive and insulting. Also of Democrats writ large.
And Obama wants me to compromise and build coalitions with that? Thank you. No.
“BlueJay” astounds us with –
“I could have drug Obama through the mud months ago. BEFORE all his problems came out.
I begin to regret not doing so.”
WHAT?!
You’re not the real “BlueJay.” You’re somebody in a “BlueJay” suit or something.
You’ve done nothing but rag on Obama for at least six months.
And I understand your perspective on the Democratic primaries. We disagree on the issue of who’s the best general election candidate.
We’ve discussed our differences in this forum until I decided you’re simply a Hillary dead-ender and intractable (so far) on your anti-Obamaism. I don’t think your arguments make a lot of sense, but I recognize they’re sincere. So I’ve backed off.
After Senator Clinton’s “dodging bullets in Bosnia” rhetoric, and “I love shooting guns near Scranton” in Pennsylvania, and her “hard-working white people support me” speeches, and President Clinton’s “So what? Jesse Jackson won South Carolina” stuff, I’m utterly amazed your fingers can still type:
“I’d never vote for a panderer….”
I mean (and I think I’ve said this before), WHAT?!
If someone wants to do a bone dig they can find my posts about Senator Clinton over the past six months. I think she’s a remarkable person, a terrific politician, and would likely turn out to be a great President of the United States.
I don’t think she’s the strongest candidate the Democratic Party can field in the general election, however.
We disagree on that. I accept that.
But don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining when you post stuff like, “I regret I didn’t drag Obama through the mud months ago.” I mean, please.
This so-called “unelectable” man keeps winning elections. He keeps inspiring independents (people who, unlike you and me, who aren’t political junkies and hang on every issue). And even if our vote in Kansas is unlikely to make a difference one way or another in the Electoral College, there’s no way I can conceive your personal political agenda is forwarded by your constant attacks against the likely Democratic nominee.
But keep fighting, “BlueJay.” It’s part of what makes the Democratic Party great. (And, if you look at President Clinton’s elections and presidential record, you’ll have to admit it’s due to his “reaching across the aisle” on issues I wasn’t all that comfortable with: welfare “reform,” “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” that speech when he told that audience of Texas millionaires that he disagreed with raising their taxes….
Don’t tell me for a moment that Clintonism somehow won’t “pander.”
The task at hand is to elect a Democratic President of the United States and a veto-proof Democratic Congress.
At some point — tonight, on June 3rd, at the end of the convention, sometime — I hope you’ll realize that.
Otherwise, your anti-Obamaism will turn out as pro-McSame.
“You’ve done nothing but rag on Obama for at least six months.”
That would go back to mid December.
I don’t know when it was Obama called Republicans the party of ideas. I’m fairly sure it was not that soon. That was where I began to part company with Barack.
Bonedig away. I lamented the fighting between the candidates and their supporters. It was YOU Monkeyhawk who called it healthy! I can also find posts where I defended Obama. Though I admit they probably DO go back to last year.
And whatever attacks I have brought here on Obama have been mild MILD compared to what some of the Obama zealots like Capn have done.
Look. I don’t know if “HLP” is living off his “Doctor Wife’s” income or any of that stuff. All I know is he loves his dogs and and raised a severely disturbed son in “Nathan/Nathaniel/whatever.”
No, “BlueJay.”
“HLP’s” not part of the coalition I think Barack Obama can build as the next President of the United States.
Do you really think Hillary could?
Jesus Christ himself could return to earth during the Democratic National Convention and declare Heaven on Earth and “HLP” and “Nathaniel” would post stuff on this forum guaranteed to plunge them into the the lake of fire and brimstone. I know that. All of us Obama supporters know that.
Your argument that Obama’s approach to government isn’t gonna win over the likes of “MaxGrobnik,” “HLP,” “ksgrm,” and “Regular, et al” is absurd. They’d vote for Hitler himself if ‘Dolf would happen to be the Republic Party candidate.
Your “sit at the TABLE” crap is classic straw man fallacy and deserves to be rejected on its surface. (And, frankly, it echoes the latest Shrub/McShrub “appeasement” crap that sprouted up over the last week.)
So I guess it comes down to this question to you “BlueJay.”
Would you, “BlueJay,” rather have a President Obama or a President McCain?”
A quick look shows Obama called the Republicans a party of ideas without the qualifier “bad” on or about Jan. 15.
This was the beginning of my departure from Obama. It think it was the Kansas caucus sealed the deal for me. I said at the time and say again that it was disorganized and corrupted and totally favored Obama.
erika01, its not just “stupid white men”, my mother out of the clear blue sky said “I don’t think I would want a woman President”. I asked her why and she said she did not know it just did not seem smart.
Maybe the years she has been attending a fundamentalist church and she is of a generation where women had certain roles.
As to anyone but Hillary, that one is pretty true and has been an element for sometimes ever before Obama caught on. The sediment is pretty strong in the GOP, that is why the extreme right is so supportive of Hillary. They know if she is the candidate that many of the moderate Republicans and independents will not vote for her and more then likely for Mc Cain.
It is not time for that question yet monkeyhawk.
1) Do you think the media has been fair and thorough as to Obama?
Yes I do. I truly think there is nothing out there for them to find. The trivial that has been brought up has gone on for days and days. I think the person who has been given a pass is McCain.
2) Being as Senator Clinton has won more traditionally Democratic voting or blue states, isn’t she the better general election candidate?
No. I think most Democrats will realize the race is against McCain and a continuation of bush. I think the party will unite behind the nominee. He has sparked something new (in my lifetime) and brought out voters in higher numbers too (democrats have outnumbered republicans 2 to 1 in all states!). Look at both voter turnout and fundraising and compare that to Republicans! The differences between Obama and McCain in a general election will be great. I’m not counting on a single Republican crossing over! They simply won’t; no matter how often they tell you they don’t march lockstep with party lines, they lie – they will vote McCain. Luckily, there are more Democrats than Republicans!
2a Name a red state that you think Obama can pick off.
Missouri (purple), Colorado (purple), Maine, Maryland, Vermont, Idaho, Iowa, Virginia, Alaska, New Hampshire
3)IF Senator Clinton WANTS to be VP, shouldn’t she be?
I don’t know. I don’t think she would help the ticket. I would need some separation and time to see how that might play out. Right now, NO. Maybe with some time I would feel differently.
I’d like you Obama supporters to take a good long look at the post at 6:25.
That’s the sort of SOB that your candidate of choice thinks can be worked with. Let’s take a closer look…
“You’ll fall in line junior.”
—————-
Nope! No way! That kind of person can’t be worked with. The ones who are reasonable will want what is best for America. We’ll just leave the most partisan in their own little misery. They must be very miserable so wouldn’t know what hope and peace are anyway.
I’ll even read if the cons stick their nose in.
1) Do you think the media has been fair and thorough as to Obama?
This one is at times yes and at times no. Before he became the front runner, the media treated him as just another DNC Candidate. Once he pulled away he drew the attention of the media and they kept the Wright thing running even after the public was losing interest. Remember my pointing out the day after Hillary V. O’Reilly how I think it was MSMBC that played it off as it was Hillary would not let it die.
Not fair to Hillary BTW, but they are picking and choosing on Obama not to help him but so far everything they can point to has been either made up or plainly much to do about nothing. like the “finally proud “ comment.
2) Being as Senator Clinton has won more traditionally Democratic voting or blue states, isn’t she the better general election candidate?
This is conflicting as the National polls show Obama more elect able nationally.
But that aside, most of her wins were in the beginning of the campaign. She was one of the better known and she is after all a Political animal and knows how to play the voters.
2a Name a red state that you think Obama can pick off.
Kansas
3)IF Senator Clinton WANTS to be VP, shouldn’t she be?
NO, she would be counter productive to Obama’s administration.
“BlueJay” responds to my –
Would you, “BlueJay,” rather have a President Obama or a President McCain?”
…with…
“It is not time for that question yet monkeyhawk.”
I think I know why you avoid that question, “BlueJay,” but I’d rather not assume.
I know why you don’t prefer Obama. I’ve just not heard all that much about why you are for Senator Clinton. I’ve posted many times about my admiration for Hillary. You, not so much.
I’ve been in Democratic intramural battles before. I know how the game is played.
But at this stage of the game, I’m astounded by dealing with someone who’s so anti-candidate-one without stating in depth the basis support for candidate-two. It boggles my mind.
I’ve heard a lot of of Senator Clinton’s supporters go into the minutia of hers and Obama’s policy differences. But I’ve never heard why you, “BlueJay,” are for Senator Clinton.
If I’d asked, Would you, “BlueJay,” rather have a President Hillary or a President McCain?“, I suspect you might not respond with: “It is not time for that question yet monkeyhawk.”
But I really don’t know why you think like that.
When (and if) Hillary steals the nomination from Barack by having Bill twist the arms of pledged and super delegates, I would encourage Obama supporters to follow J R’s lead - that is, do not vote for Hillary in the general.
J R has stated empathically that Hillary does NOT need Obama supporters to win the general. He has stated that he doesn’t WANT the support of Obama supporters.
Hillary Clinton is going to steal the nomination by deceit and race baiting and having Bill twist arms to get their way - they have no shame.
So, follow the lead of J R - he says that he will never vote for Barack Obama under any circumstances, so turn about is fair play.
Let’s see Hillary win the general without the support of Obama supporters.
WS?
I don’t like you anymore than you do me.
But you don’t get to lie about me.
It was me and farmgrrl tried to talk you off the ledge not so long ago. And it was YOU who said that Obama and his new supporters could win without Clinton supporters. Before I even hinted in the other direction. It was also you who called for Obama to go third party. And one does not “steal” anything by using the process for what it was designed for.
Monkeyhawk? She’s a fighter and the right hates her. That’s all I need. I won’t answer your question and call it out of time because it is leading. And I will NOT jump into that stampede. SOMBODY has to be the voice of the other nominee.
Writerdog I don’t know what it is in you that is broken and puts you to the right of the cons. I don’t like to think of you as dishonest. But unless you explain better, I have to assume your advocacy of Obama is because you think he can be worked. Not worked with. Being a libertarian you are against any and all entitlements and government in general. Why I don’t know. But you being for Obama is, at least as I understand your politics, all the more reason for me to be against her. And if you think Obama can win Kansas, I have to question well…to be honest your sanity. I have to wonder if you are hopeful as I am despairing that Obama would try to out Reagan Reagan.
No WS please do not! With Hillary there will not be a dines worth of difference occur from the way it is today. The price of gas will still be too high, we will still be in Iraq with no end in sight and the Partisan fighting will be as it is this moment. And there would only be a slim chance that we will have attacked Iran.
She is a Neoconservatives after all, but Mc Cain is even worst, sadly he has turned to the dark side.
“It was also you who called for Obama to go third party.”
No, I said that I would support a third party bid by Obama if Hillary stole the nomination.
“Before I even hinted in the other direction.”
No, you have stated emphatically that would vote for the Green Party candidate rather than vote for Obama.
I am only suggesting, rather insisting, that Obama supporters follow your lead.
“I have to question well…to be honest your sanity.”
And sincerely phuck you, J R.
1) Do you think the media has been fair and thorough as to Obama?
I think the media has gone after BOTH Clinton and Obama. Note how long they dragged out the Wright affair.
2) Being as Senator Clinton has won more traditionally Democratic voting or blue states, isn’t she the better general election candidate?
Not necessarily. If I am simply handi-capping based on states I would tend to ‘assume’ the traditional Dem states will stay Dem.
2a Name a red state that you think Obama can pick off.
Hard to say. I wonder about the South with its large black population - depending on turnout. I have a feeling that the states will not follow ‘form’ - in either direction.
3)IF Senator Clinton WANTS to be VP, shouldn’t she be?
No - and not for any negative reason toward Clinton. Just as Edwards was too similar to Kerry I think clinton is too similar to Obama. I would look for someone with military or foreign policy background - perhaps Webb of VA or Richardson. I’d LOVE to see Clinton (or Obama if this is reversed) yake a leadership role in the Senate.
BTW - if Clinton pulls it out I do not think Obama should be running mate - for the same reason.
As for “working with the enemy” I go with Monkyhawk above - the Repulicans Obama will work with are those like the Republican woman I mentioned some time back who Paul Rossell dismissed as an “idiot”. Remember, even with 56 or so Senators we need at least a few Republicans to break filibuster.
I haven’t seen all the results tonight yet - remember Oregon will also be coming in. I still want to see the total popular vote before making a judgement.
Go play with James WS.
THAT’S your role here.
I’m sorry other posters. I should not pop off at WS like that.
But just when does
“, you have stated emphatically that would vote for the Green Party candidate rather than vote for Obama.” (And that was a consideration. NOT a final decision.)
But how does that equal
“J R has stated empathically that Hillary does NOT need Obama supporters to win the general. He has stated that he doesn’t WANT the support of Obama supporters.”
I am always very careful. I always say SOME Obama supporters. Or some of Obama’s more zealous supporters.
But with his wild conspiracy theories, WS would more qualify as a kook Obama supporter.
“THAT’S your role here.”
Dear J R,
It’s a funny thing that you and McCluer have in common - both of you could be buried in a cigar box if the undertaker were to give you an enema before burial.
Sincerely,
A Real Democrat.
Ben you have been very objective and fair. Stay that way.
I am comfortable with leaving it to the super delegates. That is their job.
http://www.kansas.com/news/story/409580.html
“This is one of the closest races for a party’s nomination in modern history,” Clinton told supporters celebrating her victory. “We’re winning the popular vote,” she said, despite figures from competitive contests that show otherwise. “I’m more determined than ever to see that every vote is cast and every ballot is counted.”
Even so, she commended Obama and said whatever their differences, “we do see eye to eye when it comes to uniting our party and electing a Democratic president this fall.”
BlueJay,
I’ve stayed out of the Democratic primary discussions, because internicine warfare has been the last thing any of us should want to see. I also stayed out because, although in the end I caucused for Barack Obama, this was after caucusing for John Edwards for an hour or so (mrcontroversy can vouch for me, and I for him). Given that my preferred candidate did not prevail, I have said, repeatedly, that I would be fine with whichever Democrat wins the nomination–and I would. Removing Republicans from the White House is our overriding duty.
But I can no longer countenance your making one-sided arguments that Barack Obama will appease Republicans while Hillary Clinton will not. On this count, Hillary Clinton is as bad as Barack Obama, and if this is your reason for voting against him, it should equally be your reason for voting against her.
Here was how you put it upthread:
“I’d never vote for a panderer who wants me sit at the same TABLE with a con or con apologist.”
If this is the case, you shouldn’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton, either. The case for painting her as a “con” or “con apologist” is at least as strong as the case for painting Obama as one. Allow me to explain.
EXHIBIT A: HILLARY CLINTON’S ASSOCIATION WITH THE FAMILY–PASTOR DOUG COE’S SECRETIVE, FASCISTIC, RELIGIOUS / POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
What is Hillary Clinton doing hanging out with an organization that boasts Todd Tiahrt and Sam Brownback among its members?
“You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that “through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the “Fellowship,” aka The Family. But it won’t be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet’s shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.
Sean Hannity has called Obama’s church a “cult,” but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton’s “Family,” which is organized into “cells” – their term – and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, writer Jeff Sharlet joined the Family’s home for young men, foreswearing sex, drugs, and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn’t undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn’t completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners – alone.
The Family’s most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes – knitting together international networks of rightwing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian…
At the heart of the Family’s American branch is a collection of powerful rightwing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum. They get to use the Family’s spacious estate on the Potomac, the Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by the Family’s young women’s group. And, at the Family’s frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already-powerful.
Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family’s “most elite cell,” the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia’s notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family’s publicity-averse leader, that he is “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”
ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/2008/03/hillarys-nasty.html
These people are the creepiest of the creepy, the ‘conniest’ of the ‘con’–and Hillary Clinton has willingly associated with them since 1993.
EXHIBIT B: BILL CLINTON MAKING NICE WITH RICHARD MELLON SCAIFE. Scaife, you will recall, was chief bankroller of the Arkansas Project, and the central player in the “vast Right-Wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton rightly denounced in the 1990’s.
Mark Hosenball
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 4:21 PM ET Nov 10, 2007
“Bill Clinton is never at a loss for company. When he’s not globe-trotting or charming audiences for as much as $400,000 a speech, he’s often schmoozing visitors in his suite of offices in Harlem. Last July, the former president sat down with a billionaire impressed with the William J. Clinton Foundation’s campaign against AIDS in Africa. The two men chatted amiably over lunch for more than two hours, and the visitor pledged to write Clinton’s foundation a generous check. But there was something unusual, if not plain weird, about the meeting. NEWSWEEK has learned that the billionaire so eager to endear himself to the former president was Richard Mellon Scaife—once the Clintons’ archenemy and best-known as the man behind a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton said was out to destroy them.
Scaife was no run-of-the-mill Clinton hater. In the 1990s, the heir to the Mellon banking fortune contributed millions to efforts to dig up dirt on President Clinton. He backed the Clinton-bashing American Spectator magazine, whose muckrakers produced lurid stories about Clinton’s alleged financial improprieties and trysts. Scaife also financed a probe called the Arkansas Project that tried, among other things, to show that Clinton, while Arkansas governor, protected drug runners…
Bill Clinton now finds himself the unlikeliest of Scaife heroes. Last month Ruddy posted a softball interview with Clinton on the Newsmax site (sample question: “What is the best thing about being an ex-president?”). A worshipful cover story followed in the current edition of the magazine. Clinton, it gushed, is “a political and cultural powerhouse” who is “part Merlin and part Midas—a politician with a magical touch.”
What is going on here? Scaife declined to comment, but Ruddy tells NEWSWEEK he and Scaife believe Clinton’s life since leaving office has been “very laudable,” and that he is doing “very important work representing the country when the U.S. is widely resented in the world.” He said they never suggested Clinton was involved in Foster’s death, and insisted they were not among those hyping alleged Clinton sex scandals, though he acknowledged their work may have encouraged others.
Whatever the reasons for Scaife’s change of heart, it’s not hard to figure out why the Clintons would embrace a former nemesis. As they prepared for Hillary’s presidential run, the Clintons made quiet attempts to disarm, or at least neutralize, some of their most vocal opponents. Last year Hillary accepted an offer from Rupert Murdoch (who always hedges his bets) to host a fund-raiser for her Senate campaign. The New York Times reported that the Clinton camp has also made efforts to open a line of communication to blogger Matt Drudge, who has served as a conduit for anti-Clinton GOP leaks.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/69545/output/print
EXHIBIT C RUPERT MURDOCH HOSTING A FUNDRAISER FOR HILLARY CLINTON
“Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml
If there is one man that, if invited, CF2K would NOT meet with, it would be Dick Cheney. After that, Karl Rove. And after THAT, given the damage he has done to this country with his media empire, Rupert Murdoch. Hillary Clinton, apparently, did not agree with CF2K. But this doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for her, should she receive the nomination.
I don’t expect you, BlueJay, to surrender your convictions that, among other things, Hillary Clinton will make a better President, or that Barack Obama is too inexperienced. Nor should you. But in light of the evidence I have presented, I will ask you to rethink the claim you have made, repeatedly, that Obama is in the business of (to use a word that Bush and McCain have applied in a foreign policy ) APPEASING Republicans. I believe that an equally strong case can be made to show that Hillary Clinton is as well.
If this is a reason for voting against Barack Obama, it equally is a reason to vote against Hillary Clinton. And if the same reason can be introduced against both, it is a wash, and you would be better off making your argument on other grounds.
Actually JR I am not against all entitlements I do believe there is a real need for a welfare system. Just the one we have is more a trap to those on it then a hand up. I do believe in less government intrusion in private lives. And a smaller trim government who has a well thought out spending of every dine.
You asked up thread about working with the likes of Hank, actually Hank is a realist and would listen to reason. But do not think that Obama could work with every Con, but then if I was in Obama’s place I could not either…. I at least try to be logical. You may have heard Obama mention a name “Tom Corbin” R from Okla. Corbin is a good Republican though I would differ on his stance on abortion. But then as long as people are being reasonable you can work with them. Republicans like Corbin, Hagel and Dana from Calf are the kind of republicans he would work with.
Obama is at least sounding right thinking, which is more likely to happen total national health care or total health care for all children? His answer to the price of gas is not standing solely on slamming big oil. He would get some of the money needed from big oil to get the ball rolling along with cuts in Government programs that are no long working or were pipe dreams to begin with. On that he could work with one of the best at seeing government waste that being Tom Corbin.
I do seem to have more Libertarian leaning then not, but I see the reality that Government has duties that a true Libertarian would not. Like recently I was thinking about all those mobile homes that were bought for the displaced from Katrina that are now setting empty in a lot somewhere in Arkansas. There have been people living for years in nothing better then a chicken shack in W.V. and Kentucky. The Mobile homes have been bought and paid for, so why not allot them to those in the poorest parts of this country?
That kind of government intrusion is defendable, that is the kind of actions that a moral, rich and democratic country should do. That’s not a hand out it is a hand up!
I have been biting my tongue about this JR, because I do not think you are blind. But I have yet to see Obama having nice talk with the Neocons nut jobs like O’Reilly, Hannity and Rush. You accuse him of wanting to get in bed with them. Hillary seems to want to share morning coffee in bed with them!
I post again - for BlueJay, WSC, CF2K, and other - Hillary clinton’s words:
Even so, she commended Obama and said whatever their differences, “we do see eye to eye when it comes to uniting our party and electing a Democratic president this fall.”
Ask yourselves this question: Do you want a guy who sings “Bomb Iran” while his spiritual advisor calls for Armageddon?
“Hillary clinton’s words”
Hillary Clinton lost me as a potential supporter when she went back on her written word that the delegates and the vote from Michigan and Florida would not count.
Until then, I would have supported her no matter what - but that finished it for me.
If you cannot be trusted to honor your written pledge, than what CAN you be trusted with?
All of the excuses since then from the Clinton supporters is just bullshit - she made a pledge and now she wants to go back on it.
What else will she want to “go back on?”
BlueJay
Posted May 20, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“What ever the dems put up you’ll vote for, you’re a good little soldier.”
More presumtive and insulting. Also of Democrats writ large.
J R,you’re being had. HLP is playing you like a fiddle.
I just can not help thinking that Hillary Clinton would be Obama’s Dick Cheney if she was V.P.
On the Republican side of the Kentucky primary today? McCain got 72.48% of the vote and he is the only remaining candidate. WOW! And the number of Republican votes cast in Kentucky was less than 200,000 spread among SEVEN candidates. Yep, those Republicans are motivated and excited
(giggle)
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/KY-R.phtml
“You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that “through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the “Fellowship,” aka The Family. But it won’t be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet’s shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.
——————
I find it quite telling that CF2K would assume that posting a claim that Mrs. Clinton attends high level Bible studies and prayer circles would be received by Democrats as a negative thing.
CF2K, pretend I am a Democrat. So, she attends Bible studies. Why should I care?
outlander,
Because they’re run by a cult of DC-insider Right-Wingers whose version of Christianity cozies up to fascists–that’s why. Your typically dishonest framing of Democrats as “anti-prayer” conveniently ignores the totalitarian, cult-like aspects of The Family.
With respect to the fascist connection, here’s a bit I omitted, for reasons of brevity, from the story above:
“In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper’s in 2003:
During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa’s postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century’s most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.”
http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/2008/03/hillarys-nasty.html
The majority of Democrats, outlander, see fascists as dirty people who don’t belong at the political table. The Family, by contrast, shares their convictions, builds close ties to them, and operates as part of the same religious/political network.
Right-Wing fascism and fundamentalist Christianity are common bedfellows. Not that one could fail to detect the connection from the posts one sees on the WeBlog.
Honestly, Outlander, did you really believe, after 3 years, that CF would slam a religious group for having Bible studies?
Oh right: You’re just full of shit (as usual). Carry on!
Since you are so fond of handing out psychological evaluations, I have one for you CF.
Paranoid.
The majority of Democrats, outlander, see fascists as dirty people who don’t belong at the political table. The Family, by contrast, shares their convictions, builds close ties to them, and operates as part of the same religious/political network.
No, only those seeking eternity with a cold hard stone and their name forgotten forever.
#
Rage
Posted May 20, 2008 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
Honestly, Outlander, did you really believe, after 3 years, that CF would slam a religious group for having Bible studies?
Oh right: You’re just full of shit (as usual). Carry on!
———————
When I want your opinion Rage, I’ll come to Tuscon and beat it out of you.
For those of you who take everything literally, I’m probably kidding.
“When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family’s “most elite cell,” the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast,”
The weekly Senate prayer breakfast?!
OK OK. How do we know that Obama isn’t a “Family” member? Or maybe a member of another “Family”, hmmm?
Since this alleged Bible based conspiracy bridges both parties, why should we Democrats stay with our party? Should we vote for John McCain if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination? After all, he cusses like an old military guy. Surely he isn’t in the “Family” too.
“And sincerely phuck you, J R.”
I may have missed something.
Has ANY Clinton supporter dismissed an Obama supporter this way?
In Kansas, NONE of our votes matters anyway.
But since we are playing like they do.
CF? You’re a professional. It does not matter who wins. You are covered. Me? Not so much. Senator Clinton at LEAST says things I want to hear.
Maybe Capn will be along to dis my intelligence.
Writerdog for whatEVER reason, you are more con than the cons. You’ve shown me nothing to prove that your wanting Obama is not directed thusly.
Ben? Senator Clinton OPENLY and LONG ago called for a united party. She has as you yourself post reconfirmed that she wants that win or lose.
Obama and his supporters. (well some of them anyway) not so much.
Nano Hank is incapable of “playing” me. He is one dimensional and a perfect example of why it is a mistake to think the right can be worked with on equal terms.
For those of you who take everything literally, I’m probably kidding.
“Probably”? Yikes!
Well, you’re paying for your own plane ticket. But, as with GMC, if you make the trip, I’ll buy you a beer!
outlander,
And just like clockwork, that Authoritarian Personality disorder kicks in: confronted with facts that leave you with cognitive dissonance, the chance to call me a name–paranoid–innoculates you against them.
These people and their associations are well-known and well-documented. But in order to avoid confronting disturbing facts, outlander engages in a bit of smarmy ad hominem. Exemplary, outlander, those mental gymnastics.
But do forgive me if, in the future, I’m less than receptive to your insistence on particular factual claims, given your insistence on having the right to refuse facts that happen to be inconvenient to you.
Hillary had the name-recognition and polled strongly before Iowa.
Trouble was, acting like you are predestined queen and you just “deserve it” turned a lot of people off.
I was never very keen on The Clintons’ because anyone who really cared about the Democratic Party would not have carried on an affair in his White House office while special prosecutors were breathing down his neck.
Bill only stopped lying about the affair when the prosecution produced Monica’s blue dress that would conclusively prove he was lying.
To someone who put Party first, he could have stepped down, made Al Gore president, and make himself look like a victim of RepubliCON meanness.
But, no, he saved himself and helped put Worst. President. Ever. into the Oval Office.
Just go back and look at video on Jan 20, 2000, the way Slick Willie schmoozed and back-slapped GW’s entourage after the CONs stole the election in Florida.
Talk about pandering to the CONs! That’s the Clinton family from day one . . .
CF, LOL!
Outlander probably belongs to a cult that is organized into cells and calls itself something like “The Family.”
He’s sees that as normal worship.
That would explain a lot, wouldn’t it?!
Correction–Jan. 20, 2001
Senator Clinton CRUSHES Obama in Kentucky!
That 250,000 vote win will figure in the popular vote.
“Trouble was, acting like you are predestined queen and you just “deserve it” turned a lot of people off.”
Yeah? So does a candidate who calls Republicans the party of ideas, wants to work with them, and blames people for their own problems.
Smarmy dismissive supporters of the same candidate don’t win the right friends either.
cognitive dissonance
There’s CF2K bringing out that Freshman psychology word again. I suppose he thinks we’re impressed.
Perhaps the Muppet Poster has got a furball?
“So does a candidate who calls Republicans the party of ideas, wants to work with them, and blames people for their own problems.”
Obama didn’t mean what you are trying to make his words seem to mean.
But you seem to have your mind made up, so I’m not going to bicker back and forth about it . . .
Hey look a con!
Find a way to work with him Obama supporters.
What DOES Obama mean Capn?
When does “yes we can!” get explained as “here is how”?
Hope and change? Hope for what? Change to what?
I heard Obama just awhile ago brag about the Republicans who will vote for him.
I don’t WANT a candidate who can get Republican votes. They have their own candidate.
Hey look a con!
Find a way to work with him Obama supporters.
Hey, Jay! Here a few snippets from a newspaper article (possibly not slightly altered or incomplete). Check it out!:
In a conservative era, if grand victory is impossible for a Democrat, and it almost always is, he settles for smaller steps to be built on later.
It has made him the bargainer of choice for Republicans seeking a willing partner on legislation.
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the conservative Republican, issued a statement of best wishes on Tuesday—and appended a list of legislation they had successfully co-sponsored.
Along the way, he has irritated Democrats for his willingness to compromise.
He reached across party lines to compromise with the new administration, ignoring complaints from Democrats who said he had given up too much for the sake of a deal.
What do you think? Conclusive proof that the man is a psuedo-liberal sellout who wants to work with Republicans, at the expense of his own party?
Barack Obama won a majority of pledged (elected) delegates tonight after the blow-out in Oregon.
So . . . the only way that Clinton can “win” is to overthrow the will of a majority of the democratic voters.
Let that sink in . . . Let the consequences of what would happen to the Democratic Party if Obama won the delegates but Hillary got the nomination sink in.
Suicide.
Nothing short of political suicide.
Maureen Dowd, the NY Times female version of James McCluer, making up conversations that might have occurred between Obama and Clinton. She does a better job making up stuff than James, I should point out. She has a future in fiction, I would think.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Rage–
Who’s the “he” that you’re referring to?
Obama?