Say it, say it...interesting

[doeton]

i don't believe they called upon wright, they called upon jesse jackson....

sounds more plausible...i'd be most interested if someone finds a definitive answer on this.

 

[Care4all]

All three were vetted by the group; no one can get there without the stamp of approval, but she is "owned" and handled, and I hate it that of all the women it is not one who got there on her own. We would not even know who she is if he had not gotten to be president. She would have never gotten beyond a backwater Arkansas law firm.

Actually, that is QUITE naive Contessa....First off Bill Clinton would NOT have become the governor of Arkansas if it had NOT BEEN for Hillary...he lost his first run for governor, she took over his second run and called in all of her political friends in the know and she got him elected the second time he ran...

And if Bill Clinton had not become governor, bill clinton would not have become president....

So, it IS Hillary that allowed Bill to even have the opportunity to run for President.

She IS a self made woman and has NOT ridden her husband's coat tails, she MADE her husband's coat tails....no question about it!

do a google on his 2 runs for governor for more in depth coverage!

Care

 

[rayboyusmc]

But I still think Obama's probably an idealistic idiot or an out and out America-hating bastard.

Please put some logic to that statement. I find it very hard to fathom. Not unlike other of your posts, Ali.

Even so, the thing that REALLY bugs me about him is his political views. The whole national health care thing,

Yeah, would'nt it be a shame if ever American could be covered.

bringing the troops home

No, let's keep them there forever like McCain wants.

and I'm sure underfunding the military scare the shit out of me.

Sure? Please once again give some facts to back this up or state is your opinion.

Bush has done so frigging well supporting the troops?

[Is there any question now that 'supporting the troops' is completely inconsistent with supporting the Bush Administration?

In recent weeks, VoteVets.org, the leading political group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, has made the case in powerful TV ads, press conferences, and visits to Capitol Hill, that you cannot support the President's proposed escalation of the war, and support the troops.


Now, in its latest budget proposal, the Bush administration proposes fixing its fiscal mess on the back of veterans. After a slight increase to the budget for veterans care next year, the Administration proposes making cuts in 2009 and 2010, before freezing funding levels. Those cuts would come precisely at the time we're likely to see the US start to end its involvement in the civil war in Iraq. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which is already terribly overburdened, would be facing a tsunami of new veterans, with a diminished ability to deal with them.
/QUOTE]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/cuts-to-veterans-care-b_b_41115.html

 

[Ravi]

Actually, that is QUITE naive Contessa....First off Bill Clinton would NOT have become the governor of Arkansas if it had NOT BEEN for Hillary...he lost his first run for governor, she took over his second run and called in all of her political friends in the know and she got him elected the second time he ran...

And if Bill Clinton had not become governor, bill clinton would not have become president....

So, it IS Hillary that allowed Bill to even have the opportunity to run for President.

She IS a self made woman and has NOT ridden her husband's coat tails, she MADE her husband's coat tails....no question about it!

do a google on his 2 runs for governor for more in depth coverage!

Care

I didn't know that. Not that I ever thought Hillary was riding anyone's coattails...kind of sexist to think so, IMO.

 

[Gunny]

"Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, 'Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for "spiritual counseling?" THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!'"

http://www.counterpunch.org/krassner05062008.html

What does one think of the differences in behavior?

The Rev Wright will continue to be thrown up in his face. Hillary's actually being nice about it compared to what's to come.

Get used to it. At least until November when you Obama supporters help elect McCain.

 

[midcan5]

sounds more plausible...i'd be most interested if someone finds a definitive answer on this.

"So Obama is right that Rev. Wright was invited to the White House during a Clinton crisis. And some could certainly argue that the Rev. Wright being there that day lends credence to Obama’s point that Wright was not some fringe, rogue preacher as he has been portrayed.

It also is true that following the prayer breakfast that day, President Clinton did begin a long-term program of spiritual counseling with a small group of ministers. Wright was not among them."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/apr/25/CLINTONWRIGHT/

 

[Ravi]

"So Obama is right that Rev. Wright was invited to the White House during a Clinton crisis. And some could certainly argue that the Rev. Wright being there that day lends credence to Obama’s point that Wright was not some fringe, rogue preacher as he has been portrayed.

It also is true that following the prayer breakfast that day, President Clinton did begin a long-term program of spiritual counseling with a small group of ministers. Wright was not among them."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/apr/25/CLINTONWRIGHT/

Could you give some concrete examples of Clinton throwing Wright into Obama's face?

Could you also tell me, if he isn't a fringe, rogue preacher--why has Obama distanced himself from him?

 

[Ravi]

Because seriously, I've had it with this shit. I don't recall Hillary saying much of anything about Wright, and after his comment that the Clinton's screwed blacks like Bill screwed Monica she certainly would have been justified if she had.

Please quit pissing people off with this bullshit.

 

[jillian]

Because seriously, I've had it with this shit. I don't recall Hillary saying much of anything about Wright, and after his comment that the Clinton's screwed blacks like Bill screwed Monica she certainly would have been justified if she had.

Please quit pissing people off with this bullshit.

I've got to agree with you on this. This notion that Hillary's the big bad wolf keeping Obama from his rightful ascendency is absurd to me. The votes have been far too close for Hillary to lay down and die just so he can be crowned.

That said, I do think it's time for her to start making peace.... the focus should be on kicking McCain to the curb.

 

[Care4all]

What pisses me off even more is the MEDIA calling for Hillary to quit before Obama has even earned enough votes to win the nomination according to the rules.

They DID NOT call for ANY of the MALE candidates to quit that were running and running wayyyyyyyy behind!

This is a close race and there is no way in hell if Hillary were a male candidate running this close to the leader, they WOULD NOT EVER be calling for a male candidate to quit! NEVER!

If obama were trailing slightly as Hillary is, would the media be telling him he should quit?

NO WAY JOSE!

This is SEXISM at its worst imho!

care

 

[ReillyT]

What pisses me off even more is the MEDIA calling for Hillary to quit before Obama has even earned enough votes to win the nomination according to the rules.

They DID NOT call for ANY of the MALE candidates to quit that were running and running wayyyyyyyy behind!

This is a close race and there is no way in hell if Hillary were a male candidate running this close to the leader, they WOULD NOT EVER be calling for a male candidate to quit! NEVER!

If obama were trailing slightly as Hillary is, would the media be telling him he should quit?

NO WAY JOSE!

This is SEXISM at its worst imho!

care

I don't think it has anything to do with her being a woman. It has to do with the fact that she is behind with no plausible means of catching up. She may be close, but close won't be good enough, and many democrats would prefer to start looking towards the general election. I think it would be the same were it BO in this position.

 

[jillian]

I don't think it has anything to do with her being a woman. It has to do with the fact that she is behind with no plausible means of catching up. She may be close, but close won't be good enough, and many democrats would prefer to start looking towards the general election. I think it would be the same were it BO in this position.

I think if it were two men running, or two black candidates running, or two women running, there wouldn't be the same consternation. The problem as I see it is that the superdelegates don't want to decide the nomination (rightfully, I believe). And they certainly don't want to decide the nomination between a white woman and a black man. That has too many implications and can be too damaging to the party. But publicly disparaging Hillary Clinton's never been any way to deal with her. They need to sit down with her, do some horsetrading and come out holding hands, IMO.

 

[ReillyT]

I think if it were two men running, or two black candidates running, or two women running, there wouldn't be the same consternation. The problem as I see it is that the superdelegates don't want to decide the nomination (rightfully, I believe). And they certainly don't want to decide the nomination between a white woman and a black man. That has too many implications and can be too damaging to the party. But publicly disparaging Hillary Clinton's never been any way to deal with her. They need to sit down with her, do some horsetrading and come out holding hands, IMO.

I agree with you that superdelegates don't want to decide the nomination, which is why they will use one of two metrics: pledged delegates or popular vote. Clinton cannot win either of these metrics without Florida and Michigan, which won't be counted. I agree that the fact that a minority is on the top of the ticket reinforces the tendency to rely on the traditional metrics, but it would be the same if Clinton (as a woman) were on top. I agree that there is no need to disparage her and someone needs to cut her a deal to get out on favorable terms.

 

[Ravi]

I don't have a problem with Hillary being criticized by Obama supporters. I'm just sick of this garbage that Midcan keeps posting because it isn't true.

 

[jillian]

I don't have a problem with Hillary being criticized by Obama supporters. I'm just sick of this garbage that Midcan keeps posting because it isn't true.

That kind of thing is why I distrust cults of personality. People lose perspective.

 

[Glori.B]

I didn't know that. Not that I ever thought Hillary was riding anyone's coattails...kind of sexist to think so, IMO.

oh, yeah! long ago she had been considered the brains behind bill!

http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html

 

[Care4all]

I don't think it has anything to do with her being a woman. It has to do with the fact that she is behind with no plausible means of catching up. She may be close, but close won't be good enough, and many democrats would prefer to start looking towards the general election. I think it would be the same were it BO in this position.

I agree with Jillian.... if this were two males or two females, the media insisting it is over when the superdelegates themselves have not insisted that it is over.

They could have called this game ages ago.

And no, it is not completely in the bag for Obama, he needs superdelegates to come to the 2025 that is needed to win the nomination, PERIOD.

So if he needs the superdelegates, than WHY can't SHE need the super delegates to win?

The RULES DO NOT say that the superdelegates must go with the delegates...

FOR A REASON.

to change the rules, is ALSO changing the RULES MIDSTREAM....but that's okay if it is someone else changing the rules..... I digress...

jd

 

[ReillyT]

I agree with Jillian.... if this were two males or two females, the media insisting it is over when the superdelegates themselves have not insisted that it is over.

They could have called this game ages ago.

And no, it is not completely in the bag for Obama, he needs superdelegates to come to the 2025 that is needed to win the nomination, PERIOD.

So if he needs the superdelegates, than WHY can't SHE need the super delegates to win?

The RULES DO NOT say that the superdelegates must go with the delegates...

FOR A REASON.

to change the rules, is ALSO changing the RULES MIDSTREAM....but that's okay if it is someone else changing the rules..... I digress...

jd

That is all true, but ignores the practicality of the current situation. Either Clinton or Obama could be considered minorities (in the political sphere) in this case, the superdelegates are not going to overturn the decisions of the primaries to take the nomination away from either a woman or an African-American. Since Obama has won both of the two available metrics (popular vote and pledged delegates), the superdelegates will give him the nomination short of some incredible scandal (which seems unlikely) - and he needs far fewer of them then she does anyway. As a practical matter, it is over. That is why people would be happy is she gracefully exited off stage.

If it were two white men, or two black men, or two women, you might be right (although I still have my doubts). But with these two candidates, as a practical matter, it is over. I don't think it is sexism. I think the same would be true if Clinton were ahead by a same amount at this point.

 

[Ravi]

That is all true, but ignores the practicality of the current situation. Either Clinton or Obama could be considered minorities (in the political sphere) in this case, the superdelegates are not going to overturn the decisions of the primaries to take the nomination away from either a woman or an African-American. Since Obama has won both of the two available metrics (popular vote and pledged delegates), the superdelegates will give him the nomination short of some incredible scandal (which seems unlikely) - and he needs far fewer of them then she does anyway. As a practical matter, it is over. That is why people would be happy is she gracefully exited off stage.

If it were two white men, or two black men, or two women, you might be right (although I still have my doubts). But with these two candidates, as a practical matter, it is over. I don't think it is sexism. I think the same would be true if Clinton were ahead by a same amount at this point.

Reilly, can you seriously imagine the Dems calling for a black man to step down if the race were this close?

 

[ReillyT]

Reilly, can you seriously imagine the Dems calling for a black man to step down if the race were this close?

Yes. I think if the tables were turned, it would be the same situation - some Dems would be calling for Obama to step down. As much as the Democratic Party can't afford to alienate the African American community, it also can't afford to alienate women. In such a case, it will always rely on any objective metric it can to plausibly wash their hands of the situation (here the popular vote and the pledged delegates). That poses the least potential of alienating its core consituencies (of which women are one). I think if it were Bill Clinton instead of Hillary Clinton, there would have been stronger calls for him to step down some time ago.

P.S. It is only close if you ignore the practicalities. Otherwise, it isn't really that close. Close would entail her having a chance at catching him in the popular vote.