Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site