Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Hillary gets it  and she does "support the troops" (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He Doesn't, Eh? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    testvet6778

    Then what about this remark?

    Seems pretty below-the-belt to me.

    •  Sorry can't reply (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      testvet6778

      I get page not found.  

      ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

      by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:02:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry Rebecca.... (0+ / 0-)

        ...here's the link to cut and paste: http://www.iht.com/...

        •  I fail to see what point you're making (0+ / 0-)

          The point of the comment I was making was to agree with you that our candidates don't always take the high road with their own.  

          Your article seems to show that perfectly.  The Obama campaign released a below the belt memo and then when caught out says it was a mistake and doesn't represent the candidate.  So I'm not sure what you're saying.  Sorry if I'm being dense today.  

          ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

          by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:13:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then I Apologize (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            testvet6778

            ...for misreading your comments.

            •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              testvet6778

              I'm sure I could have expressed my point more clearly.  Sorry.

              ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

              by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:04:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Interesting that you are only critical of Barack (0+ / 0-)

                When the dirty politicking has clearly been more from the Clinton's doing things like spreading lies about faith and dis-enfranchising voters.

                •  Not True (0+ / 0-)

                  I defend Obama when justified, like right here.

                  And please, Obama is no saint either, especially with his "Senator from Punjab" remarks. I want all three of them to knock off the nonsense.

                  •  Then you should give equal time (0+ / 0-)

                    Any you are clearly not.  The clinton's have recently engaged in a number of really low acts and you have skirted them all to bring up something no one in the media is even covering.  You did not bring up their "President signed the Civil Rights Act" comment.  You did not bring up their irresponsible faith flier activity.  You did not bring up Clinton's encouragement of dis-enfranchisement in Nevada.  You are not giving equal time and if that is your goal your comments are very one sided.

                    •  I'll Explain Why (0+ / 0-)

                      As Media Matters explains the LBJ/MLK comments by the Clintons were taken out of context. Hillary said nothing wrong or untrue.

                      As for the alleged disenfranchisement, if it's proven true, then I'll condemn it. But since it's only an allegation, I'll withhold judgment.

                      •  You cannot just cherry pick what you respond to (0+ / 0-)

                        You are clearly favoring the Clintons so why this veil of neutrality?  I think they are corrupt and they have not and do not tell the truth and think they will not do what they have promised in this campaign (that is the problem with people who do not tell the truth) so I will not support them, but do not claim to be neutral.  

                        And you cannot ignore the Clintons are polarizing as seen by the resulting state of the county after the Clinton presidency.  Barack is no Kerry and has held his own under pressure and especially when he is uniting people that would not ordinarily meet, namely independents and moderate republicans, which have already polled they would join Barack's Candidacy.  Clinton would get mauled in the left wing maelstrom.

                        •  Of Course I Favor the Clintons (0+ / 0-)

                          And when did I claim to be neutral?

                          While we agree to disagree on candidates, I notice that you're long on accusations, but short on details.

                          •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

                            Hsu, why was he not screened for felonies if he was to be such an important fund raiser for the Clintons?
                            http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

                            Bill Clinton defending voter dis-enfranchisement in Nevada only after his wife did not receive the union endorsement.
                            http://www.wcsh6.com/...

                            The most serious.

                            mis-truth emails from Clinton
                            http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...

                            Clinton would like to say that these did not orignate from her, but I do not buy it.  And even if they did not, that would make her incompetent to run an organization to allow this kind of repeated action.

                            Bill Clinton's Barack distortions
                            http://ap.google.com/...

                            I am being very critical, because people that find it this easy to look the other way and lie will not do what they say they will when elected.  There are just to many examples to explain away.

                          •  A Belated Reply (0+ / 0-)

                            I apologize for not replying to this comment earlier, but I signed off before you in turn responded. The following day for me was hectic. You raised some points which do merit a response, so better late than never

                            Yes, there is some behavior from the Clintons that I  am not happy with, but there is also quite a bit of similar nonsense coming out of the Obama camp, swill such as this from supporter William Jelani Cobb.
                            All Cobb did was to deride civil rights heroes such as John Lewis and Andy Young, guys who literally got their heads beat in for the cause.

                            And then there is this trash from Jesse Jackson Jr.

                            As for the Nevada teachers’ union lawsuit, while I disagree with bringing it, I still acknowledge that they had a decent argument. The culinary workers essentially voted in the presence of their union shop stewards. If you don’t think there was no coercion going on under those circumstances, you’re probably very mistaken. So to claim that only one side is distorting while the other pure is far from true.

                            And as someone who suffers from muscular dystrophy, Hillary has the strongest position on embryonic stem cell research. While all the Democratic contenders support the research, only Hillary stated that upon taking office she would immediately sign an executive order rescinding the Bush adminstration restrictions of August 9, 2001. It seems that both Obama and Edwards will wait an additional month or two for Congressional legislation. And for those of us racing against time, every moment counts.

                            In reality, the only point where Obama was a better liberal than Hillary was back in 2003 in deciding whether or not to give President the authority to use force in Iraq. Beyond that, Hillary (and for that matter, John Edwards too) have been much more consistent liberals.

                            As Paul Krugman pointed out on January 14, 2008 on economic issues:

                            Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

                            As well as this:

                            The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

                            Anyway, on Sunday [January 13, 2008] Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right (emphasis added).

                            For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

                            And if Krugman expresses concern, then so do I.

                •  I've been critical of both of them. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  testvet6778

                  Unfortunately, some people are accepting right-wing lies and character assassinations of the Clintons as truth.  

                  There is plenty to criticize in Clinton.  Using right wing memes based in lies to do that is pathetic.  

                  Some Obama supporters have shown they don't want to hear any criticism of Obama while they will accept any lie no matter how far fetched against Clinton to the extent that we have people saying she's just as bad as the Republicans and they won't vote for her.  I've been supporting her against these ridiculous attacks.  I have been supporting her against the notion that Obama is the only one who can possibly win this campaign.  

                  I have not been thrilled with the way Clinton has been running her campaign.  I have for a long time stated I don't want her to win the candidacy.  Unfortunately Edwards has disappointed and looks like he won't win and the only other option Obama has no real distinction in policy or voting record.  So since I am not in favor of the idea of postpartisanship I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that if I want someone who will understand that the Repubs are not going to work with us I'll have to go with Clinton.  

                  So yeah I'm so supportive of Clinton I've been against her for serious reasons like the people she surrounds herself with like Mark Penn, for her connections to the DLC, for her stand on the Iraq war, for her lack of showing any leadership (which Obama shares).  I could go on here.  But notice these are all substantial issues not right wing made up things like Bill Clinton is a rapist or attempts to slander Hillary with racism by saying she disrespected MLK by saying LBJ was necessary.  

                  As for your attacks on the way Bill Clinton was behaving in Nevada note that Obama's campaign doesn't have clean hands either.  So don't start yelling at me about how I've slandered Saint Obama when you won't even look at the things he and his campaign have done.  Hard ball politics is being played on both sides here and I'm not pleased with either of them.  

                  ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                  by Rebecca on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:57:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site