interesting ... in one comment, you chide conservatives for hating the Clintons, in another, you tell us your husband hates Bush "with the intensity of a thousand burning suns" ....
Are you saying one is irrational and the other rational?
FWIW - - - - accusing your opponents of 'hating', of being motivated by some sort of animus (racism, sexism, etc.) is the coward's way out of an argument.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Well from our point of view, doing things like invading countries on false premises, allowing the US to engage in torture, Katrina, the US attorney scandel, etc.. etc... are a good basis for hating GWB.
I'm sure you can come up with similar arguments re the Clintons although most of them seem to center on how Hillary shot Vince Foster on her way to run over Kathleen Wiley's cat so it is a little hard for me to take them seriously.
Old Texas Turkey
· 1 year ago
If there was ever a laundry list of silly reasons not take seriously, Theresa, you just printed them.
I will not go into length over well trodden ground with a confirmed moonbat such as yourself as to the falacies fo your "reasons" suffice for the following:
invading countries on false premises : FALSE. Oil for Food, UN weapons resolutions, documented WMD, correlation of nearly every other intelligence agancy in the world.
allowing the US to engage in torture : FALSE. Why doesn't congress rule that torture, waterboarding in this particular case, is illegal? Especially after most of the democrats on the intelligence committess have been briefed on CIA activities in advance and did not raise any objections?
Katrina: FALSE. This primarily the fault of the City and State governments to mobilize people out of NO. As much blame as you can place on the slow response of FEMA, the fatal mistakes were made by Nagin and Blanco in the early hours prior to the storm making landfall.
the US attorney scandel (sp) ,/i>: FALSE. Former Pres Willy Klinter fired the entire staff of US attorneys, including a few who were investigating a land deal called whitewater, upon entering office. Where is the outrage there? US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
We can argue this stuff all day long and neither of us will convince the other. You guys keep hating the Clintons and I'll keep hating Bush. The good thing is that neither one of them will be president next year.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
So far, the only political casualty of Hurricane Katrina has been Democrat Louisiana Governor MeeMaw Blanco.
New Orleans Mayor Ray "Schoolbus" Nagin won re-election, but that was only because his alternative, another Democrat, was even worse.
E1701
· 1 year ago
I'm personally still waiting for whichever Christmas is was Clinton thought we'd be out of Kosovo by... oh, but that's right, we were invading a nation embroiled in a civil war that was none of our concern and had no real bearing on the interests of the United States. That's okay then. The response to Katrina was a mess, but that was 90% in the court of the corrupt and incompetent government of Louisiana and New Orleans... oh, wait, sorry, those were Democrats. And the US attorney "scandal" wasn't one... it revealed the unfitness of Alberto Gonzolez, but nothing illegal went on... the same cannot be said for Filegate, Hillary's secret Hillarycare meetings, a president who perjures himself before the entire country and a Grand Jury, and a close associate stealing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives. And that's only the tip of the Clinton iceberg on scandals.
So if you're going to *hate* Bush for that stuff... yeah, that's irrational looney-left territory. I don't even hate Clinton - he was a consumate politician of the type engendered in any democratic system where the government is given too much power and leeway. He was probably the most dangerous and destructive president of the past forty years - Jimmy Carter was at worst a useful idiot, and only LBJ did more damage to this country. But hate him? No, that's taking things far too personally.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
According to John McCain it is OK to occupy a country for 100 years so why are you whining about Kosovo where no Americans are being killed?
E1701
· 1 year ago
A red herring and strawman argument in one package... how efficient of you.
First off, I'm "whining" about Kosovo because it was ten times the sort of "invasion on false premises" that Iraq was, in your estimation. It was a civil war, where neither side had any moral high ground over the other (they've been killing each other there since 1453 with equal brutality), it wasn't threatening to spread, it was a purely European issue that the nascent EU had no interest in fixing themselves (and failed when they tried under UN auspices), and paramount, had zero impact on the national interests of the US. It was also carried out poorly (from the political side, primarily) when Clinton did finally decide to intervene, and the reason US casualties were so low had more to do with his "peace through high-level bombing" strategy than anything else. And since then, our intervention has done little but keep the lid on a pot that's been simmering for more than 500 years. Bravo.
If "no Americans killed" is your criteria of success, I have to wonder about the liberal plan to rescue the inhabitants of Darfur, as so many have been demanding - orbital kinetic strikes, perhaps?
And occupying a country for a century? Wouldn't be the first time - the bulk of American overseas troops who aren't in Iraq are stationed in Germany and Japan, which we've been "occupying" for the past sixty years.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
No Americans killed is not my idea of success (although it is a good thing), but it seems to be McCain's. After all he explicitly stated that the only reason people are upset about the US being in Iraq is because soldiers are being killed. He said that if it were like Korea or Germany, no one would care if we were there. (I actually think he is right about that -- that most Americans would not care in the slightest if we weren't wasting so much treasure and losing so many lives.
I don't think we should interfer in Darfur beyond putting pressure on the various parties. I think our presence would not be in our best interest at this time and that the Chinese should take a larger role in quelling the violence there.
E1701
· 1 year ago
I do find it interesting how you've leaped from "hating Bush for his policies is okay, but it's a sign of dementia to hate Clinton" to "Clinton didn't do anything that bad", to "But John McCain says"... without actually addressing anything. C'mon, I know you can see that this staggered batch of strawmen isn't actually responding to the argument.
The fact is, Clinton did the same thing Bush did that has your dander up - only Clinton aimed at a pathetically outmatched target that nothing at all to do with any American interests in order to distract attention from his perjury and obstruction of justice. And when he did, he did it so halfheartedly that the end result was wasted time, money, and lives (Serbian... our troops didn't go in, so our intel was satellite only, which is how we bombed the Chinese embassy), which accomplished nothing, except that we're still tied up there. From my point of view, that makes what Clinton did rather the worse - the job of the president as command in chief is to determine where to use the military to advance US interests, and the job of the military is to carry out those objectives. Bush picked a goal, provided a basic framework, and let the military get to it. Clinton had no goal in mind beyond personal political advantage, and micromanaged to an absurd level... we didn't have major casualties because Clinton hamstrung the military.
The crucial difference of the aftermath here is that nothing of substance was accomplished in Kosovo. As I said, that fight has been waged for the past 500 years - only the Soviet Union kept it in check, and only because they shot anyone who tried playing those games. We could stay there another 500 years as we are now, and still not resolve a damn thing.
Iraq is more akin to the Philippines around 1901 - badly unstable, ridden with a declining insurgency, rife with religious and cultural rifts, unused to democratic values, etc. But there's potential there, and a lot of practical value to US national interests if we succeed. And if that means we secure permanent bases there ala Ramstein and Iwo Jima, then that's what we do.
I am at least you aren't among those well-intentioned by agonizingly short-sighted liberals who want us to withdraw from Iraq so we can invade Darfur, as though Iraq would not quickly collapse into a bloody anarchy and as though "solving" the Darfur situation would not involve casualties or yet another nation-building exercise.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Do you also hate the Democrats in New Orleans and Baton Rouge who were the REAL cause of the problems after Hurricane Katrina? They enlisted the national Democrat Party to use its sway with the mainstream media to shift the blame to Bush, and many gullible people bought it hook, line and sinker.
Bush declared a state of emergency over 2 days before Katrina even came ashore. What's to hate about that? And at the same time, he pleaded with Mayor Nagin to evacuate New Orleans, but Nagin refused. How is that Bush's fault?
Disaster Response 101: The state and local governments are always the first responders in such a disaster, and FEMA for years has always told communities that they're on their own for the first 72 hours (3 days) after such a disaster. But in those first 72 hours, the US Coast Guard (of which the evil Bush is Commander in Chief, by the way) rescued over ten thousand people from their roof tops. That was Bush's fault too. But he never claimed or got any credit for it.
By the way, a Clinton appointed Federal Judge ruled a couple of weeks ago that the Army Corps of Engineers was not at fault for the New Orleans levee problem. Which means that its fault was due to shoddy construction by local officials (Democrats all).
FEMA could have done better, of course, but Bush accepted the blame for that. Do you hate him for doing that too?
Brad Bettin
· 1 year ago
Thanks for your honesty, Teresa - - - - self-justification at it's finest. What you list is, of course, only a series of hostile opinions you happen to hold to justify your hatred, but whatever floats your boat ....
And, no, I won't be coming up with "similar arguments" re: the Clintons. I don't hate them; they've never been worth the effort.
They're spectacularly wrong on policy & extraordinarily self-righteous ... but that seems to go with the party affiliation.
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
Beyond that, though, Hillary still remains the favorite to win the nomination.
Just like she had the nomination "sewn up" last October, right?
Make no mistake, Republicans fear Obama a lot more than Clinton.
keemo
· 1 year ago
Completely wrong Ship; I "LIKE" Obama a lot more than Clinton. I fear Ms. Clinton for many reasons; most of all, I fear the tens of thousands of "favors" this woman owes to every kind of human around the world. I don't think Obama has been around long enough to have the kind of debt accumulation that Hillary has amassed.
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
I meant in terms of running against him in the general election.
E1701
· 1 year ago
In terms of the general election, correct. Obama is the toughest of the two to beat by far. Even had Hillary swept the nomination already she'd face a very stiff resistance from independents, let alone conservatives. She simply does not have the charisma to face a more experienced challenger and not look foolish.
But with that said, I hope Obama does win the nomination - for the good of the country, we need the best possible candidates to be our choices. I'm not a McCain fan, but I trust him at least far enough not to do any real damage with the powers the President exercises most often, and in some ways to do very well. And I disagree with Obama on every one of his talking points. But he's not a maniac, his more extreme ideas will necessarily be tempered by the office (he sure won't be invading Pakistan, whatever he said early on), and he's a more genuine person overall.
Hillary I believe would be relatively easy to beat come the general election, but even the *chance* of her in the Oval Office given her history and methods is far too dangerous for the future of our Republic. Hillary will do what helps Hillary the most as she has in her time as Senator, and she sees any means as legitimate to accomplishing her goal of the month, legality be damned.
Obama is someone you can forge a loyal opposition to. Hillary is someone who would need to be cut off at the knees for the sake of the country.
captained
· 1 year ago
I think Obama will be tougher to beat than Hillary, but I see him as a beatable opponent. Like Keemo, I like him a lot more than Hillary, and I respect him more as well. I think he's a better person.
Fear? Not anywhere near as much. If he won, he's a man we can work with. It wouldn't be the end of the world.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Interesting. My husband -- who hate GWB with the intensity of a thousand burning suns -- said the same thing about McCain the other day. We were watching McCain give a talk and my husband said, the good thing about McCain is that he isn't GWB. If he wins, it won't be the worst thing that ever happened.
always_right
· 1 year ago
Keemo and CE had it right. Republicans will have a tougher fight if Obama gets the nod.
But I see more of a "fair" fight this fall. Let the policy differences shine from the right and the left, so that voters will have something to compare. On second thought, McCain will be center (only slightly center-right), Obama will be far left.
If Mrs. Clinton is the chosen one, we will continue (nay, intensify) this trend of personal destruction in selecting our politicians.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Not everyone thinks so (VDH in the corner):
"I think Obama is the weaker candidate in the general election for a number of reasons:
One, there is less chance that Hillary would accept the VP and unify the party (Obama just might accept a VP to get the requisite experience and stature for the next run);
Two, so far his repertoire is limited to the brilliant set "change" speech and repartee in debates, but we have no idea how he will sound when asked for specifics in ex tempore occasions;
Three, his high-profile wife Michelle, being bright, educated, confident, but completely without experience in reacting to criticism or counter-argument, is a loose cannon, and so are some of his staunchest supporters (who wants a Moveon.org ("General Betray Us") endorsement? or the support of his "black value system" church?);
Four, moderates and independents are surprised that the non-race candidate has been winning overwhelming block racial support. One might have expected Obama, in a race against the liberal wife of the first 'black' President to garner 50 percent or 60 percent of the African-American vote, but not 80 percent. That disparity might in itself prompt a like counter-reaction among whites, Latinos, and Asians that legitimizes voters taking into consideration race -- as Hillary's surrogate Gov. Rendell, in perfect Clintonian fashion, has just "suggested."
always_right
· 1 year ago
I am not sure at this point Obama is willing to be No. 2. Even if he is willing (to abide for his time), his followers would certainly cry foul. Not a small percentage of them are truly tired of the Clintons.
So after four years of R in WH, the dem side will still be equally split for 2012.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I think your analysis is wrong. You are forgetting two things:
1) The super delegate vote is public. People will know who they voted for. Do you really think that a super delegate from a state that went for Obama by 40 points is going to vote for Hillary?
2) Most super delegates are elected officials and many will be on the ballot in November. Again, do you think that if Obama is winning in their state that they will buck the tide and vote for Hillary?
You guys are so blinded by your hatred of the CLintons that you ignore the fact that they beat you fair and square in 1992 and 1996 -- not by any evil tricks or magical powers. They are fighting a good fight against Obama, but they will probably lose. And Hillary will go back to being the senator from NY and Bill will go back to running a multi-million dollar foundation. And Obama will trounce McCain in the fall.
Jeff_from_Mpls
· 1 year ago
Hatred of Clintons?
When Bill Clinton had heart surgery a few years ago, I prayed for him at mass.
I guess that makes me a religious fanatic, but then maybe our culture needs more of that.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
"Hillary will go back to being the senator from NY"
Sure she will.
While she works to undermine Obama's campaign.
Do you think Ms. Inevitable will go quietly into the night?
She'll torpedo Obama in the hopes of running against McCain in 2012.
If Obama wins, she's finished.
If McCain wins, she lives to fight another day. Torpedo Obama, and she can run as "Ms. Told You So" in 2012.
Obama will lose in the fall. It's inevitable.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Get back to me in a month. If Hillary loses Ohio and Texas she will drop out for the good of the party.
And I'll bet anything that Bill gives a rousing speech at Obama's convention in favor of Obama.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"If Hillary loses Ohio and Texas she will drop out for the good of the party."
No she won't. How naive can one be? The Democrat Party means nothing to Bill and Hill, other than a means to gain power.
Back in 1999, if Bill had resigned the Presidency for the "good of the party", President Gore would have easily been elected in 2000, and likely re-elected in 2004. The Dems would have held the White House for 16 years. But Bill put himself and his "legacy" above the party, and the rest is history. He had no problem lying under oath, because he knew he could get away with it. And he did.
Captain Ed is spot-on here. She's been running for the Presidency since she decided not to leave Bill all those years ago. It's her turn, and she's not going away.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Oh, she'll try and be gracious in public. Of course. Anything less will end her future.
The knife in Obama's back will arrive with no way to trace it back to her.
And it will come at just the right time.
Anyone who has followed her career knows that she's not going to give up without a fight.
Waiting another four years is one thing. End game is another.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
Or, if it comes from Hillary, the knife will arrive with a trace back to her alright. She hasn't proven to have her husband's skill at this game.
THEY beat us? Interesting way to put it Teresa. I never hated Bill Clinton, although I'd have preferred a different president. I never even really disliked the guy. I do, however, truly despise Hillary. She's a snake. If the Democratic party has realized it, if Obama wins the nomination, and if in the fall, reluctant conservatives elect (by their absence from the polls) Obama, then I'll be satisfied that at least we didn't end up with a President who isn't really interested in the well-being of America or any of its citizens, except as a token to wave in order to gather more power.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
The insane Hillary hatred is just something I don't understand. By all accounts she has been a good senator from NY who has worked across the aisle (even getting praise from Trent Lott) and understands military issues better than almost anyone in the senate. That makes her a snake?
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
"she has been a good senator from NY"
What specific legislation has she passed? Anyone can attend committee meetings or cast a party line vote, but what's she done that so outrageously magnificent, that she deserves to go straight from the Senate to the Oval Office?
"even getting praise from Trent Lott"
Most Republicans were glad to see Lott go, so I don't see where that gets any points.
"understands military issues better than almost anyone in the senate"
Again, on what basis does "Ms. Willing Suspension of Belief" have a grasp on military issues? Other than a firm belief in the tactics and goals of Code Pink, that is?
And she certainly doesn't have an understanding that even approaches John McCain's.
"That makes her a snake?"
She's built her short, undistinguished career out of lying about and slandering not only Republican politicians, but of anyone who agrees with Republicans (e.g. Gen. Petraeus).
Don't expect us to like her for it. If she manages to claw her way into the Oval Office, she will be the President of the Democrat base, no one else. Obama and McCain would be the President of the American people as a whole.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
1) What has McCain done that was so magnificent he deserves to go from the senate to the WH? And please tell me what it was that GWB had done that he deserves to be there? I'm not sure anyone "deserves" to be president. They have to work hard for the job and hopefully be successful when they get there. 2)If you read various newspapers they will tell you that Hillary has worked really hard on the Armed Forces committee and has earned the respect of the military 3)I don't recall her "slandering" any GOP politicians lately, but I recall a lot of them slandering her. Do you expect her to say nothing in her defense while she is being accused of having Webb Hubbell's love child, murdering her good friend Vince Foster, etc... ?
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
McCain has been in Congress since 1982. He's been a Senator since 1986.
Clinton carpetbagged into the Senate in 2000. She's chaired no committees and has spent the majority of her 8 years in the Senate campaigning for the Oval Office.
I googled "Hillary and Military Support" and all i found were articles linking to Bill Clinton's speeches about how she has military support (there is an unimpeachable source) and how retired/paid adviser Gen. Clark supports her.
Hillary has lied about, impugned and slandered President Bush for her entire eight year career. This from a woman who continually moaned about how mean everyone was to her husband during his time in the White House.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
LOL. You didn't even try to answer NoDonkey's first question, which is what legislation she has passed?
As for these "newspapers" claiming she's earned the respect of the military, can you provide us some links? I don't buy it.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Kind of hard for a Democrat to pass any legislation when Republicans controll the White House and up to recently the Senate. (And are still able to filibuster every bill a Democrat offers).
runawayyyy
· 1 year ago
So the fact that she's ineffective is all those nasty republican's fault? Wake me when you have an original thought, but I won't hold my breath.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
How about you get back to me in a year. When we have a Dem president with Dem controll of congress and tell me what significant legislation gets passed buy ANY Republican.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
LOL. You didn't answer my questions either! Thanks for playing.
She broke her word to her own party on Michigan and Florida, the moment it became inconvenient to keep that word.
I don't trust her for a single moment.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
She's been good at delivering earmarks to buy the loyalty of local Democrat pols, and at helping large N.Y. corporations like Corning send N.Y. jobs to China.
It's not worth recounting the sheer banality of her tenure as N.Y.'s U.S. Senator. Love him or hate him, Chuck Schumer is an authentic New Yorker.
Honky
· 1 year ago
More like a 1.5 hour, self-focused, rambling speech for Obama.
Mike M.
· 1 year ago
I don't know if I would go so far as to say that it's inevitable that McCain would beat Obama. But once everyone in America understands just how truly far to the left Obama really is (most people don't know he's the most far-left member of the Senate), the Republicans will once again hold their noses and come out in droves. The turnout in this election is going to huge by U.S. standards. The theme to push is that in an age when the Islamofascists are on a murderous rampage around the globe, we have to elect the responsible, experienced grownup over the nice, but empty-suited child who hasn't accompished anything of substance in his life.
But personally, I still think Hillary is going to steal the nomination from Obama. Slick Willie is just too popular and powerful among the party elites. The black man is going to once again get screwed by the racist Democrat party, just like they always have been throughout history.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Yeah.... the racist Democratic party that just voted for the black guy over the white woman by 40 points in three primaries yesterday.
E1701
· 1 year ago
With a big chunk of party regulars hemming an hawing about America "not being ready for a black president." I don't think the membership of the Democratic party are institutionally racist, but let's recall some history here:
The first Democratic president was badass Andrew Jackson who kicked the Cherokee out of Georgia and invited the Supreme Court to humbly kiss his posterior. The Democratic party was for fifty more years the party of southern aristocracy and northern tycoons, the party that saw the bulk of its senators and Congressmen join and actively support secession, and the party that from 1877 to nearly the present day (the shift to the GOP in the south is a recent one) was the backbone of Jim Crow, segregation, and KKK sympathizers... including one who's still a sitting senator.
And more recently, it was the Democratic party that waged campaigns against black Republicans by accusing them of being Uncle Toms, race-traitors, and "house n***ers." We saw all of those leveled at Colin Powell, Michael Steele, Condolezza Rice, Alan Keyes - and even Barack Obama was initially accused of not being "black enough." Whether leveled by DNC regulars, party hacks, or the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton contingent, that'd be racism.
The worst I've seen leveled at the man by Republicans has been the generally foolish focus on his tenuous ties to Islam from his upbringing and his middle name. Mostly the charge against him has been sheer inexperience and a generally vapid campaign message.
I won't say this wouldn't be the reverse situation if Hillary and Edwards were the Democrat frontrunners and Condi Rice a GOP frontrunner - I don't doubt bigotry exists in both parties. But let's not pretend some imaginary moral high ground here.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Who every called Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice "Uncle Toms, race-traitors, and "house n***ers" ? Please name some names? And not just some random crazy on the internet.
The Democratic party has elected African-American congressmen, Governonrs, a senator and now we are about to elect one a President. I just don't see the endemic racism there. Esp when he is beating the white candidate by 40% in the primaries.
runawayyyy
· 1 year ago
Harry Belefonte. Did that jog your memory?
Teresa
· 1 year ago
No. Please link.
Besides, who cares what the Bananna Boat song singer thinks? He isn ot an elected official or spokesperson for the DNC. That would be like me saying that everybody in the GOP thinks whatever Ann Coulter says.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Harry performed at John F. Kennedy's inauguration, and has been the recipient of many honors and awards. He's much better-known to the public than Ms. Coulter.
And when Harry says it to a national TV audience, people notice:
"KING: First, for openers, we thank Harry Belafonte for giving us this time exclusively. Second, to also inform you that I've known Harry Belafonte for over 40 years. I've also known Colin Powell for well over 12 years, consider both friends. Harry Belafonte needs no defender. His work in activism in well noted, but I will tell you that I was with him in Miami Beach when he became the first black to stay at a Miami Beach hotel.
He was a close friend of Martin Luther King, worked as a humanitarian, won numerous prizes, including a Nelson Mandela Courage Award. He has -- he brought together performers like Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen, was responsible for "We are the World." His work with troubled youth, President Kennedy named him a cultural adviser to the Peace Corps. The list could go on and on. "
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"Who every called Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice "Uncle Toms, race-traitors, and "house n***ers" ? Please name some names? And not just some random crazy on the internet."
OK, let's see...first of all, there was a radio host in the university town of Madison Wisconsin, who called Condi Rice "Aunt Jemima"
Left wing syndicated cartoonist Ted Rall referred to Condaleeza Rice as a ‘House Ni**a. His work is regularly featured in the Washington Post and he's also picked up by Google and Yahoo News.
By the way, the very first African-American to be elected to the United States Senate was a Republican, Edward Brooke, in 1966. From the blue state of Massachusetts, no less.
Brooke would remain the only African American elected to the Senate until almost 30 years later, when Democrat Carol Moseley Braun was elected to the Senate.
The first Democrat African American elected Governor of a state didn't happen until 1989, and he just barely beat his Republican opponent. A Republican African American had previously served as Governor of Louisiana in the 1870s, but he ascended to the post as Lt. Governor when the Governor was impeached and so was not elected. The only other African American Democrat to be elected Governor just happened recently, in Massachusetts.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Wow.... Harry Belafonte and some local radio host in Wisconsin. Truly representative of the entire Democratic party.
Why don't I just go over to Free Republic and click and past a few comments from there over here and smear the entire GOP for them?
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Tell us again how many African Americans the last 3 Democrat Presidents had in their cabinets.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I don't have time to go back and look at Carter and LBJ, but here is Clinton:
Appointing the most diverse Cabinet and Administration in history. Members of the Clinton Cabinet include two African Americans. Fourteen percent of all Administration appointees are African American. More African Americans (45) serve in the White House now than at any time in history. The President has nominated 42 African Americans to the federal bench -- over 18 percent of his total federal bench nominations. http://www.4president.org/issues/clinton1996/cl...
By the way, rumour has it that Colin Powell is going to endorse Obama
Nate
· 1 year ago
Yes, the SDs will buck the trending of voting in their state, little example of how bucking the voting trend of their state would look good.
They will look at who is going to offer them or their states the best bribe. If Obama's camp honestly offers the SD a chance at a cabinet position, and HIllary offers the state a multibillion dollar boondoggle, for example an ethanol plant that is largely subsidized by the Federal Government. The SDs would almost have to take the Hillary bribe, as it potentially helps their entire district, and not just them personally.
If the SD's do not take the deal that would give their state the Federal project and went with the Obama offer, do you really think that little piece of information would not be 'leaked' along with an aggressive spin to show how Obama's team is buying SDs?
The Clintons' team has been playing this game and playing it for blood for a long time, if you do not think that they would not pull something like that to get an SD on board you have not watched their behavior during this campaign.
jerry
· 1 year ago
Teresa:
The Clinton's owe their dynasty to Ross Perot. In a two man race Clinton would have gone back to being governor of Arkansas and Hillary would be just another ambulance chaser at the Rose Law Firm.
Now I happen to agree with you that don't count on the super delegates not to bail out Bill and Hill. The Clinton's are now emperors with no clothes nobody will be a afraid of their wrath if Obama wins the nomination. It is clear that Hillary is no longer electable since the price of selling out Obama will be a lower black turnout and more votes for black votes for McCain.
You are wrong about Hillary. She will not go back to being the junior Senator from New York. The Clinton’s will do everything in their power to undermine Obama in the general election so that Hillary can say I told you so and win the nomination in 2012. If Obama does win the Presidency, Hillary will resign from the Senate and probably divorce Bill. Her political career will be over and she will no longer have need for her reprobate husband.
You are bound to be disappointed by Obama. He comes from the “Don’t make no waves, don’t back no losers” Chicago school of politics. He appears as a vessel that you can pour your own preferences in without reference to his real views. Obama is what you want him to be not the man who he really is. While I don’t expect him to be a Ron Paul on domestic issues I suspect he is not the socialist that you want him to be.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I'm certainly not a socialist nor do I think Obama is. He is a traditional liberal Democrat.
And Ross Perot was not running in 1996.
jerry
· 1 year ago
Teresa:
As pointed out above Obama's voting record is the farthest left in the Senate. That qualifies as socialist voting record. The Democratic Party is farther to left then almost every socialist party in Europe and is even farther to left on economic issues then some of the “reformed” communist parties in Eastern Europe. I would expect Obama to govern that far left on domestic issues although I wouldn’t be surprised if his foreign policy began with him embracing left wing dictators and movements throughout the world.
Ross Perot was on the ballot in 1996 not that he a major impact although he kept Clinton from receiving 50% of the vote. Remember a majority of American voters reject Clinton in two elections. That said my major point was no Ross Perot no Clinton presidency in 1993-97 for him to be running for re-election in 1996. In a two person race in 1992 Clinton was actually less electable then Michael Dukakis was in 1998. It would be fitting if Hillary runs to have her lose because of the presence of Michael Bloomberg as a third party candidate.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Actual Democratic partisans like Ezra Klein are disappointed that Obama doesn't seem to be all that progressive in his politics:
"Whatever your opinion on mandates, Obama went in a timid direction on health care, avoiding mandates, single payer, automatic enrollment, and every other step that could be considered risky. He's ended up using his extraordinary eloquence to defend timidity and caution, not sell hard steps. The same goes for taxes, where Obama's plan is just a broad-based middle class cut, and Iraq, where he's gestured towards progressive opinions but not actually picked many fights (the negotiations fight, remember, was started by Hillary). This is not to say his plans are bad, or totally bereft of innovative elements (carbon auctions are important, as is government transparency, and he's got a great technology plan), but for all his talk of telling people the hard truths, he's largely protected them from both hard truths and unfamiliar policies." http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_ar...
Do you really think Bloomberg will win if Obama is the nominee? I don't.
jerry
· 1 year ago
Teresa:
You continue to show the density of a liberal. I never said Bloomberg would win. I said he was potentially the Ross Perot of 2008. As I recall, all Perot did was make a loser candidate like Clinton into the President by syphoning off angry Dumbos away from Bush 41. Bloomberg would syphon disastified left leaning "independents away from Hillary and put the Northeast in play for McCain.
pianoman
· 1 year ago
I normally just read the comments here and don't reply, but this last comment is pure ignorance. Perot DID run in 1996, and got 8.4% of the vote. Clinton probably would have won even had Perot not run, but to claim that Perot wasn't there at all is just stupidity.
Steve Z
· 1 year ago
Teresa writes that "the super delegate vote is public. People will know who they voted for." Maybe, up to a point, but how many people will bother to read in the press how each of 796 super-delegates voted, who they are, and whether any of them come from the average Democrat voter's state or Congressional district? Probably not too many.
If Obama wins a lot more pledged delegates than Clinton, and the super-delegates tip the nomination to Clinton, some Obama supporters will resent it. But what about the delegates that Obama won through caucuses, based on a small number of votes, even if more voters in those states supported Clinton, but couldn't take a whole day off from work to go to a caucus?
One thing for certain--the super-delegates will be under a lot of pressure either way, and each of them may not know what the others are doing, and may fear inadvertenly backing the loser, and fearing retribution from the winner.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Oh people will know. Most super delegates are people like the senators in each state, congress critters and the governor. I may not care what the senator in NY does, but if I live in California I sure will care what my guy does and expect the local paper will cover it extensively. 796 divided amongst 50 states is not that many folks. Roughly 13 per state. Now some of the super delegates are folks like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (ex-presidents), but most are going to be held to tight account by local politics.
FedUp
· 1 year ago
I think you're missing the point... they may be public, but, so what? Most of these people don't want to get on the Clinton's bad side! All the other fit that's hit the sham has been public and nothing came of it... The Clintons are great at buying what they want and it won't stop now!
Teresa
· 1 year ago
If Obama is the president, why would they give a rat's ass about being on the wrong side of the CLintons? Only crazy right wingers believe that the Clintons are some sort of mafioso who will kill people that go against them.
Mike O
· 1 year ago
And, if Barak has only a slight lead (100 or less) in voted delegates and the super-delegates overturn him, it would be massively damaging to her chances in November. Denver might know what Chicago felt like in 1968.
And if anyone else needs motivation to vote for McCain in November, just think of what John Edwards will be choosing from if the Dems win: Attorney General or Supreme Court?
Jeff_from_Mpls
· 1 year ago
I feel deflated by Captain's analysis, which essentially predicts that the super delegates will surrender to Hillary because most of them are indebted -- I prefer vulnerable with all its connotations-- to the Clintons. Sad, but true.
Peter
· 1 year ago
Hillary is done. First of all, Obama will indeed win all the way to Denver. And secondly, all these people may have been put in a position of power by the Clintons, but they are very likely to resent that fact and wait for the first opportunity to commit the political equivalent of patricide (since it is Bill who has been doing most of the work in putting these people in office). Most politicians are egomaniacs who like to think they made it on their own, so having the Clintons around to remind them of the fact that they are actually cronies must embarass them a lot. So, Hilary is also going to lose the superdelegate vote big time.
Mikey NTH
· 1 year ago
Then the Clintons better hope that their friends stay bought. Seriously - the nineties are eight years ago, and the show is looking tired; the one thing the Clintons had was the aura of invincibility. They do not have that any longer. Senator Clinton has taken a beating and has squandered resources. Many people went to bat for the Clintons twelve years ago and may be reconsidering doing the same now. True the Clintons have worked and helped others, but they have also taken a lot of help and owed a lot.
Do not discount that there may be discontent under the surface (there usually is in politics) and a lot of resentment. There are likely many people who are looking at everything and thinking whether they should continue to back the Clintons or whether they should look at a rising star of the party.
exhelodrvr
· 1 year ago
What is the "mission statement" of the super delegates? Clearly they are not just supposed to automatically go with the majority vote, or there would be no point in having them. They are supposed to vote for who they feel would be the best candidate; "best candidate" is probably determined by how they became a super-delegate. Some of them represent some constituency, some probably represent their own pocketbook.
pilsener
· 1 year ago
That's the fun part. There is no mission statement. they were created to keep the party from nominating a Dennis Kucinich-type that would "embarrass" the party. Hillary was INEVITABLE so no reason to change anything this year.
With the rise of THE OBAMA, super delegates and party leaders have to redesign the process without appearing to redesign the process. It has created the most interesting convention since Chicago 1968 and rioting in the streets.
The Yell
· 1 year ago
I have no doubt the Clintons would expect and demand that the election become a selection.
I have strong doubts the rest of the party will oblige. Drudgereport has a link to the London Times: Rumor has it Pelosi is leaning towards backing Obama. That would just about do it.
If this were John Edwards under the SD axe, it might be different. Barack Obama is the first and only black man to get this far. If he is jettisoned for not having forty years of connections it will only confirm the worst view of America by African-American radicalism. Democrats just are not inclined to blow off 90% of the black vote for a generation.
On the other hand, when Bill Clinton was winning reelection and leaving office with 60% approval ratings, his party lost a majority in Congress and most governorships.
And contrariwise, if Hillary loses, she's instantly another John Kerry. Can John Kerry break anybody these days?
If Hillary leads the popular vote and the voted delegates, her connections may swing the SD vote. If she loses those to Obama that will make a powerful case that tie should break with the vote winner.
sanssoucy
· 1 year ago
Is someone actually suggesting that these superdelegates will display *loyalty* to the Clinton machine? That's ludicrous. Far more likely that they'll be looking for any excuse to stab her (and Bill) right where it hurts the most. Mark my words, if Obama shows up at the convention ahead in the popular vote or in "elected" delegates, the superdelegates will have exactly two choices:
(1) Overturn the popular mandate and pick Hillary, ripping their party in half, bringing about another 1968, and going down in flames in November.
(2) Abandon Hillary without a second thought - after all, how *exactly* can she punish them - and back the better candidate.
Hillary is toast. And good riddance.
PackerBronco
· 1 year ago
I think that if Obama comes out ahead in the primary votes, he'll win the nomination. Democrats have 8 years invested in claiming that Republicans steal elections, they're not going to throw away that meme for the Clintons.
As for what they "owe" the Clintons; well, they'll rationalize that away pretty easily. They can legitimately tell them, "yeah, well we kept your lying perjuring @*$ out of prison and in the White House in the 90's. That makes us EVEN."
Bottom line: Obama will win and the Clintons will give gracious concession speeches with flowery rhetoric and not one ounce of honesty - but they're good at that. Hillary will throw lamps in the privacy of her home and wait for the next opportunity.
Yashmak
· 1 year ago
The decision for the superdelegates is going to be a rough one. But I don't think they'll see it as clearly as some have stated here.
If Obama is leading, their collective vote (which, remember, is made by individual people focusing in many cases primarily on their OWN best interests, not some wider objective view of consequences for the party as a whole) will foretell the immediate future of the Democratic party. If they vote against the leader, they toss to the wind the notion that real democracy should prevail. If they toss their vote to Obama, they are taking the chance that others will vote for Hillary and they will bear her wrath as a consequence of their actions.
I do not envy their position, nor do I envy them the necessity of picking between a candidate who is still quite green, and one who for whom the quest for power trumps all.
always_right
· 1 year ago
Those SD can go either way for either candidates, but tell me what the difference will be for the Dem party? Either one of them wins the nomination, the dems will be split, unless both Mrs. Clinton and Obama are on the 08 ticket.
Are we to believe if Mrs. Clinton comes in second, she will be a good VP, or Obma (esp. his wife) will be content to let her shine?
MattB
· 1 year ago
I don't know Cap'n. Aren't many of the Superdelegates current members of Congress? Seems to me they would reject the suggestion that the Clinton machine helped them get their job (regardless of the truth of the matter). Besides, don't they gain more leverage by establishing a new "you owe me" dynamic, than paying off and old "IOU"?
marc trail
· 1 year ago
Was it in "Goodfellas" where it was stated that when the Mafia wacks someone, they send the best friends to do it?
All the best friends [sd's] that the clintons have are motivated to loyalty by 2 things...fear & greed
When their "friends" sense that Hillary's wounds are near mortal, they will all rush to be the first to finish the job
fubar71
· 1 year ago
Was it in "Goodfellas" where it was stated that when the Mafia wacks someone, they send the best friend[s] of the one thats getting wacked?
The Clinton's friends are motivated to loyalty by fear & greed
When they see that she is near mortally wounded, they will all rush in to be the first to finish the job
TJM
· 1 year ago
BD 57, now you've done it. You chased mild-mannered and highly logical Teresa away.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Nah.... I just have to make 50 heart shaped Jello jigglers for my daughter's kindergarten Valentine's Day party tomorrow so I'm a little busy! ;)
captained
· 1 year ago
There's always room for Jell-O! Enjoy these moments ... they don't come back. Well, they do with grandkids, of course!
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Hopefully I still have a few years before the grandkids come, but I do like being the "class mom" and getting to go to all their parties. On the other hand, I'm up to my elbows in jello right now. Y'all want to come over?
fubar71
· 1 year ago
Are you making Jell-o shooters with the left overs?
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I'm sure I can dig up a bottle from CHristmas somewhere! Sure would make this task easier.
Georgfelis
· 1 year ago
I can only see a couple of ways this can go (but I need glasses). 1. Hillary breezes to a majority of delegates before convention. She then selects Obama as running mate and sets the Dems up for 16 years of domination. 2. Hillary squeaks thru with a virtual tie for delegates (+/- a few percent), twists arms and forces her way into the nomination. At which time she picks somebody else for VP, having earned the disdain of Obamaniacs. Many books will be written. 3. Obama wins enough delegates before convention to show he is the front runner, but not enough to be overwhelming. Things go fuzzy here, anything from full war to a behind the scenes wrestling match will happen. Bring popcorn. And bandages. 4. Obama blows thru the rest of the states and winds up the undisputed candidate. He will NOT pick Hillary as VP (brrrr), but will endorse her for Senate Majority Leader so he can work with her to shove…err... move legislation.
Despite what many think of Hillary, I do not see her torpedoing the Obama presidential run if he gets the nomination. Any Obama torpedoes she may have will be long used up in the primary, plus if he fails in his run, and the torpedoes are traced back, she will bear the wrath of Democrats thwarted. And nothing is as vengeful as a Democrat with a thwart.
Bogey
· 1 year ago
this analysis is faulty
HRC needs to win Tex and Ohio AND Penn and by decent margins.
she needs to average more than 56% in every contest going forward to catch him in pledged delegates, and that's not going to happen, because there are other contests he will win (and probably handily)
so she needs to win big in Ohio, Tx and Penn.. like 60-40 or more.
which probably won't happen I think he can tie her or even beat her in Texas, btw
if superdelegates go against the overall vote and pledged delegates the party will revolt.
they'll have to force Hilary to step down.
might take putting chloroform over her mouth, and putting her to sleep but that's what will have to do be done.
a "conservative"/Free market type such as yourself Captain Ed, should be paying more attention to what the MARKETS are telling you (like intrade.com)
and what they are telling you is that Obama currently is trading at 74 (out of 100) and Hilary is below 30
newton
· 1 year ago
Michael Barone has a different theory as to which delegates could put Hillary over the top. Are you seated?
P.S. I'm already frying the bacalaitos and chilling the coconut sodas as I type! ;-)
Bogey
· 1 year ago
read that right after Super Tue when it came out.
should be interesting.
but the markets are always aware of such things.
and the markets are telling you 75-25 right now.
texzen
· 1 year ago
What an joke this woman is. Any Texan knows the phrase is "Big hat and no cattle".
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I lived in Texas for six years and always heard "all hat"
Mike M.
· 1 year ago
Listening to Queen Hillary down there pretending that she loves Texas is just a scream! She has as much of a chance of beating John McCain in Texas in the general election as my dog has of sprouting wings and flying away, or of Senator Robert Byrd casting his superdelegate vote for a black man.
Xango Annie
· 1 year ago
Teresa.. Tell your DH that all the bile that keeps rising in his throat is going to play hell with his esophagus. ...it's awful....
keemo
· 1 year ago
CE's analysis is spot on... Hillary spent most of the past 14 years stacking the deck for this moment. Nothing will stop Hillary from this nomination; NOTHING... If it comes down to it, Hillary will bring in the entire Clinton War Room to bring Florida and Michigan back into play.
Black America will get a real good look at just how much the Clinton's really care about them as a people, as a community, as Americans... Black America will get a real good look at a couple of real life pimps; Sharpton and Jackson; both owned by the Clinton run DNC.
The battle on the Dem side is about to get really ugly; that is the only way Hillary can stop the Obama express... Back room deals loaded with "sell-outs"; it's time to pay back the Clinton's for the seat at the table.
Tom_Shipley
· 1 year ago
Nothing will stop Hillary from this nomination; NOTHING...
You guys really think she goes home a strokes a white fluffy cat while plotting her next move, don't you?
Teresa
· 1 year ago
You guys really think she goes home a strokes a white fluffy cat while plotting her next move, don't you?
----------------------------
Funny Tom! I guess they should really fear Obama then if he can knock off the most powerful, evil force to ever walk the face of the planet than really what chance does McCain have in the fall?
TomHolmes
· 1 year ago
"You guys really think she goes home a strokes a white fluffy cat while plotting her next move, don't you?"
No that's Ron Paul. Hillary disconnects her spinal module from her torso and suspends herself over Jeane Luc Picard, cackling about the inevitability of her nomination.
keemo
· 1 year ago
Her own people have written books about her nastiness Ship; snap out of it Tom...
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Dick Morris is not "her own people" Keemo. He is a nasty little worm.
Rich
· 1 year ago
Gee Teresa, talk to us some more about being blinded by hatred.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
"Dick Morris is not "her own people" Keemo. He is a nasty little worm."
A nasty little worm who the Clintons paid and took political advice from for years.
And who they would still be paying, if he hadn't been caught in that little toe sucking incident and they threw him overboard.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I think they "threw him overboard" for letting prostitutes listen in on confidential phone calls in the White House. Which I think is a firable offense in any office.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Sure it is, but whatever it was, he was on the Clinton's payroll and he wasn't fired for being ineffective.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Hey, lying under oath about sex is a firable offense too. Clinton's own Justice Department prosecuted a lady who worked for the Veteran's Administration for doing that very thing. But when he did it, there was no problem.
FedUp
· 1 year ago
Hmmmm impeachment comes to mind... gotta try to remember who it was.... wait... it's coming to me... it's.....
All Comments
interesting ... in one comment, you chide conservatives for hating the Clintons, in another, you tell us your husband hates Bush "with the intensity of a thousand burning suns" ....
Are you saying one is irrational and the other rational?
FWIW - - - - accusing your opponents of 'hating', of being motivated by some sort of animus (racism, sexism, etc.) is the coward's way out of an argument.
I'm sure you can come up with similar arguments re the Clintons although most of them seem to center on how Hillary shot Vince Foster on her way to run over Kathleen Wiley's cat so it is a little hard for me to take them seriously.
I will not go into length over well trodden ground with a confirmed moonbat such as yourself as to the falacies fo your "reasons" suffice for the following:
invading countries on false premises : FALSE. Oil for Food, UN weapons resolutions, documented WMD, correlation of nearly every other intelligence agancy in the world.
allowing the US to engage in torture : FALSE. Why doesn't congress rule that torture, waterboarding in this particular case, is illegal? Especially after most of the democrats on the intelligence committess have been briefed on CIA activities in advance and did not raise any objections?
Katrina: FALSE. This primarily the fault of the City and State governments to mobilize people out of NO. As much blame as you can place on the slow response of FEMA, the fatal mistakes were made by Nagin and Blanco in the early hours prior to the storm making landfall.
the US attorney scandel (sp) ,/i>: FALSE. Former Pres Willy Klinter fired the entire staff of US attorneys, including a few who were investigating a land deal called whitewater, upon entering office. Where is the outrage there? US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.
You guys keep hating the Clintons and I'll keep hating Bush. The good thing is
that neither one of them will be president next year.
New Orleans Mayor Ray "Schoolbus" Nagin won re-election, but that was only because his alternative, another Democrat, was even worse.
So if you're going to *hate* Bush for that stuff... yeah, that's irrational looney-left territory. I don't even hate Clinton - he was a consumate politician of the type engendered in any democratic system where the government is given too much power and leeway. He was probably the most dangerous and destructive president of the past forty years - Jimmy Carter was at worst a useful idiot, and only LBJ did more damage to this country. But hate him? No, that's taking things far too personally.
whining about Kosovo where no Americans are being killed?
First off, I'm "whining" about Kosovo because it was ten times the sort of "invasion on false premises" that Iraq was, in your estimation. It was a civil war, where neither side had any moral high ground over the other (they've been killing each other there since 1453 with equal brutality), it wasn't threatening to spread, it was a purely European issue that the nascent EU had no interest in fixing themselves (and failed when they tried under UN auspices), and paramount, had zero impact on the national interests of the US. It was also carried out poorly (from the political side, primarily) when Clinton did finally decide to intervene, and the reason US casualties were so low had more to do with his "peace through high-level bombing" strategy than anything else. And since then, our intervention has done little but keep the lid on a pot that's been simmering for more than 500 years. Bravo.
If "no Americans killed" is your criteria of success, I have to wonder about the liberal plan to rescue the inhabitants of Darfur, as so many have been demanding - orbital kinetic strikes, perhaps?
And occupying a country for a century? Wouldn't be the first time - the bulk of American overseas troops who aren't in Iraq are stationed in Germany and Japan, which we've been "occupying" for the past sixty years.
I don't think we should interfer in Darfur beyond putting pressure on the various parties. I think our presence would not be in our best interest at this time and that the Chinese should take a larger role in quelling the violence there.
The fact is, Clinton did the same thing Bush did that has your dander up - only Clinton aimed at a pathetically outmatched target that nothing at all to do with any American interests in order to distract attention from his perjury and obstruction of justice. And when he did, he did it so halfheartedly that the end result was wasted time, money, and lives (Serbian... our troops didn't go in, so our intel was satellite only, which is how we bombed the Chinese embassy), which accomplished nothing, except that we're still tied up there. From my point of view, that makes what Clinton did rather the worse - the job of the president as command in chief is to determine where to use the military to advance US interests, and the job of the military is to carry out those objectives. Bush picked a goal, provided a basic framework, and let the military get to it. Clinton had no goal in mind beyond personal political advantage, and micromanaged to an absurd level... we didn't have major casualties because Clinton hamstrung the military.
The crucial difference of the aftermath here is that nothing of substance was accomplished in Kosovo. As I said, that fight has been waged for the past 500 years - only the Soviet Union kept it in check, and only because they shot anyone who tried playing those games. We could stay there another 500 years as we are now, and still not resolve a damn thing.
Iraq is more akin to the Philippines around 1901 - badly unstable, ridden with a declining insurgency, rife with religious and cultural rifts, unused to democratic values, etc. But there's potential there, and a lot of practical value to US national interests if we succeed. And if that means we secure permanent bases there ala Ramstein and Iwo Jima, then that's what we do.
I am at least you aren't among those well-intentioned by agonizingly short-sighted liberals who want us to withdraw from Iraq so we can invade Darfur, as though Iraq would not quickly collapse into a bloody anarchy and as though "solving" the Darfur situation would not involve casualties or yet another nation-building exercise.
Bush declared a state of emergency over 2 days before Katrina even came ashore. What's to hate about that? And at the same time, he pleaded with Mayor Nagin to evacuate New Orleans, but Nagin refused. How is that Bush's fault?
Disaster Response 101: The state and local governments are always the first responders in such a disaster, and FEMA for years has always told communities that they're on their own for the first 72 hours (3 days) after such a disaster. But in those first 72 hours, the US Coast Guard (of which the evil Bush is Commander in Chief, by the way) rescued over ten thousand people from their roof tops. That was Bush's fault too. But he never claimed or got any credit for it.
By the way, a Clinton appointed Federal Judge ruled a couple of weeks ago that the Army Corps of Engineers was not at fault for the New Orleans levee problem. Which means that its fault was due to shoddy construction by local officials (Democrats all).
FEMA could have done better, of course, but Bush accepted the blame for that. Do you hate him for doing that too?
And, no, I won't be coming up with "similar arguments" re: the Clintons. I don't hate them; they've never been worth the effort.
They're spectacularly wrong on policy & extraordinarily self-righteous ... but that seems to go with the party affiliation.
Just like she had the nomination "sewn up" last October, right?
Make no mistake, Republicans fear Obama a lot more than Clinton.
But with that said, I hope Obama does win the nomination - for the good of the country, we need the best possible candidates to be our choices. I'm not a McCain fan, but I trust him at least far enough not to do any real damage with the powers the President exercises most often, and in some ways to do very well. And I disagree with Obama on every one of his talking points. But he's not a maniac, his more extreme ideas will necessarily be tempered by the office (he sure won't be invading Pakistan, whatever he said early on), and he's a more genuine person overall.
Hillary I believe would be relatively easy to beat come the general election, but even the *chance* of her in the Oval Office given her history and methods is far too dangerous for the future of our Republic. Hillary will do what helps Hillary the most as she has in her time as Senator, and she sees any means as legitimate to accomplishing her goal of the month, legality be damned.
Obama is someone you can forge a loyal opposition to. Hillary is someone who would need to be cut off at the knees for the sake of the country.
Fear? Not anywhere near as much. If he won, he's a man we can work with. It wouldn't be the end of the world.
said the same thing about McCain the other day. We were watching McCain give a talk
and my husband said, the good thing about McCain is that he isn't GWB. If he wins, it
won't be the worst thing that ever happened.
But I see more of a "fair" fight this fall. Let the policy differences shine from the right and the left, so that voters will have something to compare. On second thought, McCain will be center (only slightly center-right), Obama will be far left.
If Mrs. Clinton is the chosen one, we will continue (nay, intensify) this trend of personal destruction in selecting our politicians.
"I think Obama is the weaker candidate in the general election for a number of reasons:
One, there is less chance that Hillary would accept the VP and unify the party (Obama just might accept a VP to get the requisite experience and stature for the next run);
Two, so far his repertoire is limited to the brilliant set "change" speech and repartee in debates, but we have no idea how he will sound when asked for specifics in ex tempore occasions;
Three, his high-profile wife Michelle, being bright, educated, confident, but completely without experience in reacting to criticism or counter-argument, is a loose cannon, and so are some of his staunchest supporters (who wants a Moveon.org ("General Betray Us") endorsement? or the support of his "black value system" church?);
Four, moderates and independents are surprised that the non-race candidate has been winning overwhelming block racial support. One might have expected Obama, in a race against the liberal wife of the first 'black' President to garner 50 percent or 60 percent of the African-American vote, but not 80 percent. That disparity might in itself prompt a like counter-reaction among whites, Latinos, and Asians that legitimizes voters taking into consideration race -- as Hillary's surrogate Gov. Rendell, in perfect Clintonian fashion, has just "suggested."
So after four years of R in WH, the dem side will still be equally split for 2012.
1) The super delegate vote is public. People will know who they voted for. Do you really think that a super delegate from a state that went for Obama by 40 points is going to vote for Hillary?
2) Most super delegates are elected officials and many will be on the ballot in November. Again, do you think that if Obama is winning in their state that they will buck the tide and vote for Hillary?
You guys are so blinded by your hatred of the CLintons that you ignore the fact that they beat you fair and square in 1992 and 1996 -- not by any evil tricks or magical powers. They are fighting a good fight against Obama, but they will probably lose. And Hillary will go back to being the senator from NY and Bill will go back to running a multi-million dollar foundation. And Obama will trounce McCain in the fall.
When Bill Clinton had heart surgery a few years ago, I prayed for him at mass.
I guess that makes me a religious fanatic, but then maybe our culture needs more of that.
Sure she will.
While she works to undermine Obama's campaign.
Do you think Ms. Inevitable will go quietly into the night?
She'll torpedo Obama in the hopes of running against McCain in 2012.
If Obama wins, she's finished.
If McCain wins, she lives to fight another day. Torpedo Obama, and she can run as "Ms. Told You So" in 2012.
Obama will lose in the fall. It's inevitable.
of the party.
And I'll bet anything that Bill gives a rousing speech at Obama's convention in favor of
Obama.
No she won't. How naive can one be? The Democrat Party means nothing to Bill and Hill, other than a means to gain power.
Back in 1999, if Bill had resigned the Presidency for the "good of the party", President Gore would have easily been elected in 2000, and likely re-elected in 2004. The Dems would have held the White House for 16 years. But Bill put himself and his "legacy" above the party, and the rest is history. He had no problem lying under oath, because he knew he could get away with it. And he did.
Captain Ed is spot-on here. She's been running for the Presidency since she decided not to leave Bill all those years ago. It's her turn, and she's not going away.
The knife in Obama's back will arrive with no way to trace it back to her.
And it will come at just the right time.
Anyone who has followed her career knows that she's not going to give up without a fight.
Waiting another four years is one thing. End game is another.
THEY beat us? Interesting way to put it Teresa. I never hated Bill Clinton, although I'd have preferred a different president. I never even really disliked the guy. I do, however, truly despise Hillary. She's a snake. If the Democratic party has realized it, if Obama wins the nomination, and if in the fall, reluctant conservatives elect (by their absence from the polls) Obama, then I'll be satisfied that at least we didn't end up with a President who isn't really interested in the well-being of America or any of its citizens, except as a token to wave in order to gather more power.
What specific legislation has she passed? Anyone can attend committee meetings or cast a party line vote, but what's she done that so outrageously magnificent, that she deserves to go straight from the Senate to the Oval Office?
"even getting praise from Trent Lott"
Most Republicans were glad to see Lott go, so I don't see where that gets any points.
"understands military issues better than almost anyone in the senate"
Again, on what basis does "Ms. Willing Suspension of Belief" have a grasp on military issues? Other than a firm belief in the tactics and goals of Code Pink, that is?
And she certainly doesn't have an understanding that even approaches John McCain's.
"That makes her a snake?"
She's built her short, undistinguished career out of lying about and slandering not only Republican politicians, but of anyone who agrees with Republicans (e.g. Gen. Petraeus).
Don't expect us to like her for it. If she manages to claw her way into the Oval Office, she will be the President of the Democrat base, no one else. Obama and McCain would be the President of the American people as a whole.
2)If you read various newspapers they will tell you that Hillary has worked really hard on the Armed Forces committee and has earned the respect of the military
3)I don't recall her "slandering" any GOP politicians lately, but I recall a lot of them slandering her. Do you expect her to say nothing in her defense while she is being accused of having Webb Hubbell's love child, murdering her good friend Vince Foster, etc... ?
Clinton carpetbagged into the Senate in 2000. She's chaired no committees and has spent the majority of her 8 years in the Senate campaigning for the Oval Office.
I googled "Hillary and Military Support" and all i found were articles linking to Bill Clinton's speeches about how she has military support (there is an unimpeachable source) and how retired/paid adviser Gen. Clark supports her.
Hillary has lied about, impugned and slandered President Bush for her entire eight year career. This from a woman who continually moaned about how mean everyone was to her husband during his time in the White House.
As for these "newspapers" claiming she's earned the respect of the military, can you provide us some links? I don't buy it.
when Republicans controll the White House and up
to recently the Senate. (And are still able to filibuster
every bill a Democrat offers).
When we have a Dem president with
Dem controll of congress and tell me
what significant legislation gets passed buy ANY Republican.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/51434
Thank YOU for playing!
I don't trust her for a single moment.
It's not worth recounting the sheer banality of her tenure as N.Y.'s U.S. Senator. Love him or hate him, Chuck Schumer is an authentic New Yorker.
But personally, I still think Hillary is going to steal the nomination from Obama. Slick Willie is just too popular and powerful among the party elites. The black man is going to once again get screwed by the racist Democrat party, just like they always have been throughout history.
The first Democratic president was badass Andrew Jackson who kicked the Cherokee out of Georgia and invited the Supreme Court to humbly kiss his posterior. The Democratic party was for fifty more years the party of southern aristocracy and northern tycoons, the party that saw the bulk of its senators and Congressmen join and actively support secession, and the party that from 1877 to nearly the present day (the shift to the GOP in the south is a recent one) was the backbone of Jim Crow, segregation, and KKK sympathizers... including one who's still a sitting senator.
And more recently, it was the Democratic party that waged campaigns against black Republicans by accusing them of being Uncle Toms, race-traitors, and "house n***ers." We saw all of those leveled at Colin Powell, Michael Steele, Condolezza Rice, Alan Keyes - and even Barack Obama was initially accused of not being "black enough." Whether leveled by DNC regulars, party hacks, or the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton contingent, that'd be racism.
The worst I've seen leveled at the man by Republicans has been the generally foolish focus on his tenuous ties to Islam from his upbringing and his middle name. Mostly the charge against him has been sheer inexperience and a generally vapid campaign message.
I won't say this wouldn't be the reverse situation if Hillary and Edwards were the Democrat frontrunners and Condi Rice a GOP frontrunner - I don't doubt bigotry exists in both parties. But let's not pretend some imaginary moral high ground here.
on the internet.
The Democratic party has elected African-American congressmen, Governonrs, a senator and now we are about to elect one a President. I just don't see the endemic
racism there. Esp when he is beating the white candidate by 40% in the
primaries.
Besides, who cares what the Bananna Boat song singer thinks? He isn ot an elected official or spokesperson for the DNC. That would be like me saying that
everybody in the GOP thinks whatever Ann Coulter says.
And when Harry says it to a national TV audience, people notice:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/15/...
Here's how a fawning Larry King introduced Harry:
"KING: First, for openers, we thank Harry Belafonte for giving us this time exclusively. Second, to also inform you that I've known Harry Belafonte for over 40 years. I've also known Colin Powell for well over 12 years, consider both friends. Harry Belafonte needs no defender. His work in activism in well noted, but I will tell you that I was with him in Miami Beach when he became the first black to stay at a Miami Beach hotel.
He was a close friend of Martin Luther King, worked as a humanitarian, won numerous prizes, including a Nelson Mandela Courage Award. He has -- he brought together performers like Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen, was responsible for "We are the World." His work with troubled youth, President Kennedy named him a cultural adviser to the Peace Corps. The list could go on and on. "
on the internet."
OK, let's see...first of all, there was a radio host in the university town of Madison Wisconsin, who called Condi Rice "Aunt Jemima"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6530925/
Well-known singer and political activist Harry Belafonte is also guilty, as runawayyyy below notes:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/col/sullivan/20...
Left wing syndicated cartoonist Ted Rall referred to Condaleeza Rice as a ‘House Ni**a. His work is regularly featured in the Washington Post and he's also picked up by Google and Yahoo News.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article...
Clarence Thomas has also been called an Uncle Tom:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...
By the way, the very first African-American to be elected to the United States Senate was a Republican, Edward Brooke, in 1966. From the blue state of Massachusetts, no less.
Brooke would remain the only African American elected to the Senate until almost 30 years later, when Democrat Carol Moseley Braun was elected to the Senate.
The first Democrat African American elected Governor of a state didn't happen until 1989, and he just barely beat his Republican opponent. A Republican African American had previously served as Governor of Louisiana in the 1870s, but he ascended to the post as Lt. Governor when the Governor was impeached and so was not elected. The only other African American Democrat to be elected Governor just happened recently, in Massachusetts.
Why don't I just go over to Free Republic and click and past a few comments from there over here and smear the entire GOP for them?
but here is Clinton:
Appointing the most diverse Cabinet and Administration in history. Members of the Clinton Cabinet include two African Americans. Fourteen percent of all Administration appointees are African American. More African Americans (45) serve in the White House now than at any time in history. The President has nominated 42 African Americans to the federal bench -- over 18 percent of his total federal bench nominations. http://www.4president.org/issues/clinton1996/cl...
By the way, rumour has it that Colin Powell is going to endorse Obama
They will look at who is going to offer them or their states the best bribe. If Obama's camp honestly offers the SD a chance at a cabinet position, and HIllary offers the state a multibillion dollar boondoggle, for example an ethanol plant that is largely subsidized by the Federal Government. The SDs would almost have to take the Hillary bribe, as it potentially helps their entire district, and not just them personally.
If the SD's do not take the deal that would give their state the Federal project and went with the Obama offer, do you really think that little piece of information would not be 'leaked' along with an aggressive spin to show how Obama's team is buying SDs?
The Clintons' team has been playing this game and playing it for blood for a long time, if you do not think that they would not pull something like that to get an SD on board you have not watched their behavior during this campaign.
The Clinton's owe their dynasty to Ross Perot. In a two man race Clinton would have gone back to being governor of Arkansas and Hillary would be just another ambulance chaser at the Rose Law Firm.
Now I happen to agree with you that don't count on the super delegates not to bail out Bill and Hill. The Clinton's are now emperors with no clothes nobody will be a afraid of their wrath if Obama wins the nomination. It is clear that Hillary is no longer electable since the price of selling out Obama will be a lower black turnout and more votes for black votes for McCain.
You are wrong about Hillary. She will not go back to being the junior Senator from New York. The Clinton’s will do everything in their power to undermine Obama in the general election so that Hillary can say I told you so and win the nomination in 2012. If Obama does win the Presidency, Hillary will resign from the Senate and probably divorce Bill. Her political career will be over and she will no longer have need for her reprobate husband.
You are bound to be disappointed by Obama. He comes from the “Don’t make no waves, don’t back no losers” Chicago school of politics. He appears as a vessel that you can pour your own preferences in without reference to his real views. Obama is what you want him to be not the man who he really is. While I don’t expect him to be a Ron Paul on domestic issues I suspect he is not the socialist that you want him to be.
And Ross Perot was not running in 1996.
As pointed out above Obama's voting record is the farthest left in the Senate. That qualifies as socialist voting record. The Democratic Party is farther to left then almost every socialist party in Europe and is even farther to left on economic issues then some of the “reformed” communist parties in Eastern Europe. I would expect Obama to govern that far left on domestic issues although I wouldn’t be surprised if his foreign policy began with him embracing left wing dictators and movements throughout the world.
Ross Perot was on the ballot in 1996 not that he a major impact although he kept Clinton from receiving 50% of the vote. Remember a majority of American voters reject Clinton in two elections. That said my major point was no Ross Perot no Clinton presidency in 1993-97 for him to be running for re-election in 1996. In a two person race in 1992 Clinton was actually less electable then Michael Dukakis was in 1998. It would be fitting if Hillary runs to have her lose because of the presence of Michael Bloomberg as a third party candidate.
doesn't seem to be all that progressive in his politics:
"Whatever your opinion on mandates, Obama went in a timid direction on health care, avoiding mandates, single payer, automatic enrollment, and every other step that could be considered risky. He's ended up using his extraordinary eloquence to defend timidity and caution, not sell hard steps. The same goes for taxes, where Obama's plan is just a broad-based middle class cut, and Iraq, where he's gestured towards progressive opinions but not actually picked many fights (the negotiations fight, remember, was started by Hillary). This is not to say his plans are bad, or totally bereft of innovative elements (carbon auctions are important, as is government transparency, and he's got a great technology plan), but for all his talk of telling people the hard truths, he's largely protected them from both hard truths and unfamiliar policies." http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_ar...
Do you really think Bloomberg will win if Obama is the nominee? I don't.
You continue to show the density of a liberal. I never said Bloomberg would win. I said he was potentially the Ross Perot of 2008. As I recall, all Perot did was make a loser candidate like Clinton into the President by syphoning off angry Dumbos away from Bush 41. Bloomberg would syphon disastified left leaning "independents away from Hillary and put the Northeast in play for McCain.
If Obama wins a lot more pledged delegates than Clinton, and the super-delegates tip the nomination to Clinton, some Obama supporters will resent it. But what about the delegates that Obama won through caucuses, based on a small number of votes, even if more voters in those states supported Clinton, but couldn't take a whole day off from work to go to a caucus?
One thing for certain--the super-delegates will be under a lot of pressure either way, and each of them may not know what the others are doing, and may fear inadvertenly backing the loser, and fearing retribution from the winner.
of the CLintons? Only crazy right wingers believe that the Clintons are some sort of mafioso who will kill people that go against them.
Which is the very bizarre reason that, when it becomes Texas's turn to vote, I'll be switching over and voting for Hillary.
And if anyone else needs motivation to vote for McCain in November, just think of what John Edwards will be choosing from if the Dems win: Attorney General or Supreme Court?
Do not discount that there may be discontent under the surface (there usually is in politics) and a lot of resentment. There are likely many people who are looking at everything and thinking whether they should continue to back the Clintons or whether they should look at a rising star of the party.
With the rise of THE OBAMA, super delegates and party leaders have to redesign the process without appearing to redesign the process. It has created the most interesting convention since Chicago 1968 and rioting in the streets.
I have strong doubts the rest of the party will oblige. Drudgereport has a link to the London Times: Rumor has it Pelosi is leaning towards backing Obama. That would just about do it.
If this were John Edwards under the SD axe, it might be different. Barack Obama is the first and only black man to get this far. If he is jettisoned for not having forty years of connections it will only confirm the worst view of America by African-American radicalism. Democrats just are not inclined to blow off 90% of the black vote for a generation.
On the other hand, when Bill Clinton was winning reelection and leaving office with 60% approval ratings, his party lost a majority in Congress and most governorships.
And contrariwise, if Hillary loses, she's instantly another John Kerry. Can John Kerry break anybody these days?
If Hillary leads the popular vote and the voted delegates, her connections may swing the SD vote. If she loses those to Obama that will make a powerful case that tie should break with the vote winner.
(1) Overturn the popular mandate and pick Hillary, ripping their party in half, bringing about another 1968, and going down in flames in November.
(2) Abandon Hillary without a second thought - after all, how *exactly* can she punish them - and back the better candidate.
Hillary is toast. And good riddance.
As for what they "owe" the Clintons; well, they'll rationalize that away pretty easily. They can legitimately tell them, "yeah, well we kept your lying perjuring @*$ out of prison and in the White House in the 90's. That makes us EVEN."
Bottom line: Obama will win and the Clintons will give gracious concession speeches with flowery rhetoric and not one ounce of honesty - but they're good at that. Hillary will throw lamps in the privacy of her home and wait for the next opportunity.
If Obama is leading, their collective vote (which, remember, is made by individual people focusing in many cases primarily on their OWN best interests, not some wider objective view of consequences for the party as a whole) will foretell the immediate future of the Democratic party. If they vote against the leader, they toss to the wind the notion that real democracy should prevail. If they toss their vote to Obama, they are taking the chance that others will vote for Hillary and they will bear her wrath as a consequence of their actions.
I do not envy their position, nor do I envy them the necessity of picking between a candidate who is still quite green, and one who for whom the quest for power trumps all.
Are we to believe if Mrs. Clinton comes in second, she will be a good VP, or Obma (esp. his wife) will be content to let her shine?
All the best friends [sd's] that the clintons have are motivated to loyalty by 2 things...fear & greed
When their "friends" sense that Hillary's wounds are near mortal, they will all rush to be the first to finish the job
The Clinton's friends are motivated to loyalty by fear & greed
When they see that she is near mortally wounded, they will all rush in to be the first to finish the job
would make this task easier.
1. Hillary breezes to a majority of delegates before convention. She then selects Obama as running mate and sets the Dems up for 16 years of domination.
2. Hillary squeaks thru with a virtual tie for delegates (+/- a few percent), twists arms and forces her way into the nomination. At which time she picks somebody else for VP, having earned the disdain of Obamaniacs. Many books will be written.
3. Obama wins enough delegates before convention to show he is the front runner, but not enough to be overwhelming. Things go fuzzy here, anything from full war to a behind the scenes wrestling match will happen. Bring popcorn. And bandages.
4. Obama blows thru the rest of the states and winds up the undisputed candidate. He will NOT pick Hillary as VP (brrrr), but will endorse her for Senate Majority Leader so he can work with her to shove…err... move legislation.
Despite what many think of Hillary, I do not see her torpedoing the Obama presidential run if he gets the nomination. Any Obama torpedoes she may have will be long used up in the primary, plus if he fails in his run, and the torpedoes are traced back, she will bear the wrath of Democrats thwarted. And nothing is as vengeful as a Democrat with a thwart.
HRC needs to win Tex and Ohio AND Penn and by decent margins.
she needs to average more than 56% in every contest going forward to catch him in pledged delegates, and that's not going to happen, because there are other contests he will win (and probably handily)
so she needs to win big in Ohio, Tx and Penn.. like 60-40 or more.
which probably won't happen
I think he can tie her or even beat her in Texas, btw
if superdelegates go against the overall vote and pledged delegates the party will revolt.
they'll have to force Hilary to step down.
might take putting chloroform over her mouth, and putting her to sleep but that's what will have to do be done.
a "conservative"/Free market type such as yourself Captain Ed, should be paying more attention to what the MARKETS are telling you (like intrade.com)
and what they are telling you is that Obama currently is trading at 74 (out of 100) and Hilary is below 30
Delegates from... drum roll please... Puerto Rico.
(?!??!?!?!?!?)
P.S. I'm already frying the bacalaitos and chilling the coconut sodas as I type! ;-)
should be interesting.
but the markets are always aware of such things.
and the markets are telling you 75-25 right now.
Tell your DH that all the bile that keeps rising in his throat is going to play hell with his esophagus. ...it's awful....
Black America will get a real good look at just how much the Clinton's really care about them as a people, as a community, as Americans... Black America will get a real good look at a couple of real life pimps; Sharpton and Jackson; both owned by the Clinton run DNC.
The battle on the Dem side is about to get really ugly; that is the only way Hillary can stop the Obama express... Back room deals loaded with "sell-outs"; it's time to pay back the Clinton's for the seat at the table.
You guys really think she goes home a strokes a white fluffy cat while plotting her next move, don't you?
----------------------------
Funny Tom! I guess they should really fear Obama then if he can knock off the most
powerful, evil force to ever walk the face of the planet than really what chance does
McCain have in the fall?
No that's Ron Paul. Hillary disconnects her spinal module from her torso and suspends herself over Jeane Luc Picard, cackling about the inevitability of her nomination.
A nasty little worm who the Clintons paid and took political advice from for years.
And who they would still be paying, if he hadn't been caught in that little toe sucking incident and they threw him overboard.