Skip to main content

    You know what they're saying.  They're saying we are mean.  They're saying we are condescending.  They're saying we are sexist.  We are saying they're delusional.  We are saying they're divisive.  We are saying they're immature.  But it wasn't always like this.

    It wasn't always like this.  I remember a time, not too long ago, when Obama supporters and Clinton supporters admired one another.  Before things got so heated, Obama supporters - even before they became Obama supporters - would vigorously defend the Clintons to their Republican friends.  I myself lost friendships defending the Clintons.  

    And I still defend the Clintons against silly attacks.  Ridiculous assertions made by irresponsible Republicans that Bill Clinton didn't go after Bin Laden, despite the public record which shows that Clinton did send a number of cruise missiles in Bin Laden's direction, despite the fact that they missed their target.  Ridiculous assertions that Clinton didn't help the economy and didn't help job growth.  Ridiculous assertions that Clinton didn't reduce the deficit and the poverty rate.  

    I used to love the Clintons.  I looked on them with such pride.  And I always thought Hillary was such a great gal.  I remember back in 1992 when the media trumped up that phony attack on her for saying, "I'm not like Tami Wynette here, just standin' by my man."  I thought, 'You go, Hillary.'  I really admired Hillary's strength and independent spirit.

    So when it came to pass that Hillary was seeking the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, I assumed she would win it easily.   I did have a couple of concerns.  I was afraid of the concept of the Republican attack machine going after the Clintons again, and I was fearful of her polarizing nature - though I definitely didn't blame her at all for this.

    During the Fall of last year, I knew I liked pretty much all the Democratic candidates.  What an embarassment of riches that was!  Any one of them would make a fantastic President!.  Dennis Kucinich for his absolute consistency and devotion to progressive causes.  Chris Dodd for his superior knowledge of policy detail and excellent sense of compromise.  Joe Biden for his foreign policy expertise and likeable nature.  Bill Richardson for his down-to-earth regularness and deep weatlh of experience.  John Edwards for his unswerving devotion to those less fortunate in our society.  Mike Gravel for his obvious integrity and talent for telling it like it is.  Barack Obama for his positive energy, his consistent opposition to the Iraq war and to failed Republican policies, and his transcendent charm and charisma.  And yes, Hillary Clinton, for her mental toughness, her never-say-die attitude, and her understanding of the inner workings of Washington.

    I swear, I must have changed my mind over two dozen times in the early part of this process. I always knew I liked Hillary, but as I stated, I had some worries about her electability.  But, as I would point out to my friends, the "Clinton Machine" is a force to be reckoned with.  And I firmly believed she could win Arkansas, West Virginia, and New Mexico, so that was a good start as far as electability goes.  

    I fell in love with Barack Obama watching his speech from the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  Even my staunch, dyed-in-the-wool Repulican friend Jon exclaimed, "He hit it out of the park!"  I liked Obama very much on just a gut level, but didn't know that much about him.

    So, watching Barack Obama at the beginning of 2007, I thought,'Is he a real contender this time around?  I was skeptical to say the least.  So I gravitated to Joe Biden - I viewed him as a brilliant man and I thought his solutions for the Iraq crisis were the most intriguing.  But then I would listen to Bill Richardson and I would really like what he had to say.  Then it was John Edwards.  Then it was Dennis Kucinich all over again, when he reminded us that he wanted the troops out of Iraq NOW.  And then it was Mike Gravel with his eminently honest economic agenda.  And Hillary Clinton for her wealth of knowledge.

    When did I eventually gravitate towards Barack Obama?  I think it was in December when I really became excited about his campaign.  I had been following the polls and was surprised by how well Obama was doing in Iowa.  So I read his 2002 Iraq speech.  It was amazing.  It was uncanny.  Every single negative impact he said would happen in Iraq turned did happen.  

    I was also amazed to discover the breadth and depth of Obama's experience.  He had been a community organizer, a Constitutional law teacher, a devout Christian, and a Harvard scholar.

    It was around this time that a man outside my local grocery store was doing a voter registration drive.  (As a side note, I was a registered Libertarian for a long time, but usually voted Democratic due to the Republicans' obnoxious pandering to the Bible-thumpers and their outrageously anti-intellectual policies on the environment.)

    In any case, I decided on the spot to re-regsiter as a Democrat so I could vote for Barack Obama in the upcoming California primary.  Needless to say, I was surprised and delighted at the strength of his showing in Iowa.  But by the time New Hampshire came along, I had a slight change of heart.  I actually thought to myself, 'Do I really want this to be over now?  What about Hillary?  She's been dreaming of this for decades.  Isn't it Hillary's turn?'  So I was a little unsure.  It bears repeating:  I really liked both Barack and Hillary a lot.  

    So when it came to pass that Hillary won New Hampshire, I thought, 'Okay, now it's a real race.  Let's see what happens.  May the best candidate win.'

    The turning point in my thinking is very easy to find.  I was driving home from work one day, listening to Johnny Wendell on KTLK and was shocked to learn that the Clintons were behind a lawsuit in Nevada, led by a teachers' union, the purpose of which was to change the rules in order to suppress voter participation in the polling stations in casinos.  My thinking was, 'Wait a minute.  The Clintons are trying to... Stop. People. From. Voting.'  'Hold the phone,' I thought to myself, 'Isn't that something ripped from the Republican playbook?'  

    To me, this was absolutely disgusting, outrageous, and almost unforgivable.  True, I do admire the Clintons' toughness and their willingness to fight to win.  But there's a right way to do that and a wrong way.  The Clintons chose the wrong way.  I remember so clearly listening to a woman in her 50's call into the Johnny Wendell show and expressing how she had always loved the Clintons but would no longer be supporting them.  'My thoughts exactly,' I reflected.  

    So the Clintons' reckless campaign continued, with Hillary's chief strategist Mark Penn attempting to marginalize Barack Obama (and marginalize the black community as a whole in my opinion) by sending out an internal email comparing Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson - which basically implied:  black people vote for black people because they cannot think for themselves.  The comparison of Obama to Jackson was parroted by Bill Clinton during an interview on BET - a network run by a major Clinton supporter.

    Then came another outrage, in my view.  Hillary Clinton stated that the civil rights movement would never have been successful without the advocacy of President Lyndon Johnson.  While this was factually correct, it left a bad taste in my mouth and I'm sure in the mouths of millions of other Democrats.  To me, when I heard it, it seemed to say:  black people - you owe white liberals something so vote for me.  This to me, was one of the most silly mistakes of the Clinton campaign.  All the statement did was alienate people and lose votes.    

    It is important to note that at one point late in 2007, Hillary Clinton was crushing Barack Obama among black voters, outpolling him by over 30 points.  True, black voters gravitated toward Barack Obama in a conspicuous fashion after Iowa.  But the Clintons' racially-tinged statements helped to accelerate this trend.  

    But there was, in my mind, still some hope for the Clinton campaign.  The California debate just prior to Super Tuesday was a marvelous outpouring of togetherness from both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  The outcome of Super Tuesday was, at best, a split decision, with Obama taking more states and pledged delgates, and Clinton grabbing some of the biggest prizes (California and New York).  

    Following Super Tuesday, Obama went on a run of 12 straight victories which I found truly stunning.  It wasn't a huge shock that he won these states.  But the margins.  17 points in Wisconsin?  36 points in Washington?  30 points in VIRGINIA?  Are you kidding me?  

    I was absolutely thrilled.

    And then came the kitchen sink.  The Clinton campaign, hopelessly behind in pledged delegates with almost no chance of winning that metric, decided to throw whatever they could at Obama, no matter how irresponsible, untrue, ridiculous, or dirty.  

    The official point of no return - the thing that made it absolutely impossible for Obama and Clinton to share the Democratic ticket for the Presidency was this statement made by Hillary Clinton on March 6th:

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold.  I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy."

    For any Democrat to place another Democrat below John McCain in terms of being qualified to be President was, in my mind, way beyond the pale.  Way, way, way beyond the pale.  Can anyone imagine what would have happened if John McCain had said to his fellow Republicans that Hillary Clinton would be a better choice than Mitt Romney?  There would have been hell to pay.  Amazingly, Hillary Clinton went on to repeat this idea at least three more times, culminating in this pearl of totally mean-spirited dishonesty:

"I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002."

    It was at this point that I began to grasp the full extent of Hillary Clinton's campaign:  she would say just about anything to win.  It reminded me of 2004, with the machinations of Karl Rove and the Bush campaign and the swift-boaters.  

    But it didn't stop there.  There was Hillary Clinton declaring that she would be willing to "obliterate" Iran if they attacked Israel - a policy idea that even Pat Buchanan found offensive and outrageous.  There was Hillary Clinton declaring her support for a "gas-tax holiday," a totally laughable and pandering move that was roundly and deservedly booed by economists and members of the press corps alike.  There was the Clinton campaign (obviously caught) floating a picture of Obama dressed in traditional African garb in order to scare voters about his heritage.  And there was Hillary Clinton saying Barack Obama wasn't a Muslim, "as far as I know," on national television - implying that he could actually be a Muslim - she just wasn't sure.  There was Hillary Clinton's campaign strategist, Mark Penn, doing double-dealing with the Colombians (along with Bill Clinton), there was Hillary's outright falsehood regarding sniper fire in Bosnia, her lies on NAFTA, Bill Clinton's bullying of the press corps behind the scenes, and so on.

    Meanwhile, Barack Obama was doing things like promising to fully investigate the Bush policy regarding torture.

    And then, recently of course, there was the race card.  It was dealt from the bottom of the deck.  Hillary Clinton claimed with a straight face that she was getting the votes of the "hard-working Americans" - you know - the ones who are white - implying somehow that all the people who vote for Barack are lazy or don't work hard.  Never mind the fact that, indeed, Barack Obama does have white working-class support and that it just happens to come more from the Midwest and West than from Appalachia.  And never mind the fact that some of us who have white-collar jobs did, in fact, WORK OUR ASSES OFF to get through college and maintain, in some cases, three jobs at a time just to make ends meat while getting our degrees so we could go on to achieve more.  And never mind the fact that there is a black working class and a Latino working class and an Asian working class and a Native American working class - all of whom are completely necessary to the success of our country.

    And then there is the Clinton campaign's obsession with trying to change the rules in the middle of a contest and allow completely illegitimate primaries to count for something, even though there is clear evidence that hundreds of thousands of people skipped out on them because they were told their votes wouldn't count anyway.  (How else does one explain that Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout was far higher in Georgia and Missouri than in Florida or Michigan?)

    But the most ridiculous accusation that the Clinton campaign has made against Barack Obama:  He's sexist.  The media is too, didn't you know?  Oh, that's rich!  In fact, I think I heard Barack obama say just the other day, "You know, I get the votes of the hard-working men.  The hard-working black men in this country."  And I think I heard Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews saying over and over again, "Can we really trust a woman to defend our country from terrorists?"  Give me a break!

    So it is for all these reasons, and many, many others that I don't even have time to mention that I fell out of love with the Clintons.  Quite frankly, when I am being totally intellectually honest with myself, I cannot think of anything that Barack Obama has done or said regarding Hillary Clinton that is morally objectionable.  He has been a paragon of patience and restraint in situations where I myself would have probably gone off the deep end.  I guess that's the quality about Barack Obama that defines a great President.

    In conclusion, I want to be clear that I used to love the Clintons.  It was their ridiculous words and actions, over and over and over again during this Democratic primary that made me turn away from them.  I still stand by my notion that if Hillary Clinton had run a positive campaign, absent of dirty tricks and divisive tactics, she would have been the nominee.  I no longer believe that either Bill or Hillary Clinton have any integrity or care one iota about anything or anyone but their own power and status in this country.  I remember with longing the first time I cast a vote for President of the United States.  I voted for a vibrant, energetic, young-looking, fresh face; a man with little foreign policy experience who appealed to our better angels.  I voted for Bill Clinton.

Originally posted to ObamaManiac2008 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:16 PM PDT.


Has the campaign tactics of the Clintons changed your view of them permanently?

88%94 votes
9%10 votes
1%2 votes

| 106 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This was the first (3+ / 0-)

    For any Democrat to place another Democrat below John McCain in terms of being qualified to be President was, in my mind, way beyond the pale.  Way, way, way beyond the pale.

    time I was like..huh? What did she just say? Before that, I was undecided.

    •  True. And there were some moments where (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I should she was getting her stride again.  I thought she did well in the Austin debate.  I thought, 'Wow, she was really positive for most of that.  I really like Hillary.'

      Then came the "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"  I just rolled my eyes.

      •  I would have voted for her almost happily (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        up until the "Shame on you and your Karl Rove tactics" speech.  After that I was cringing that I might have to hold my nose and do it anyway.  Now I just thank God I won't have to worry about it.

        If Barack Obama was a sexist, Michelle would kick his ass.

        by choochmac on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:50:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I've been an Obama supporter from the beginning (2+ / 0-)

    but yes, I loved Bill in the 1990s, and I stood up for Hillary every chance I got.

    Why, oh why?

    Though a war may well be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way. --Albert Camus

    by GreenMtnState on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:23:09 PM PDT

  •  She would say "just about anything"? (2+ / 0-)

    Yesterday, she compared her attempt to change the rules of a political contest at the end because she was losing to voters being tortured in Zimbabwe.

    I'd say she's crossed the "just about" threshold.

  •  Great diary. It's tough when we have to (3+ / 0-)

    reevaluate past relationships.  As with the Clintons.  We've been taught that nostalgia is kind.  Not always, I guess.

    Where's that piece of paper I had in my hand yesterday? -- Miranda Priestley

    by BA BarackUS on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:27:26 PM PDT

  •  I loved the Clinton's (2+ / 0-)

    When Bill had his first term.  I even thought he had a beautiful wife.  Thought they looked good together.  Another JFK and Jackie.  Boy was I ever off.  They or nothing like the Kennedy's.  No shame or Pride at all.

  •  I was always an Obama supporter (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ObamaManiac2008, sovery, vixenflem

    Hillary was at or near the bottom of my list from the beginning of the campaign.  It wasn't a clear-cut dislike, it was a feeling that I couldn't shake.  I did not trust her.  I can't say that any of the campaign changed my view of her.

    Of course, had she been the nominee, I would have supported her.  I feel a little sad that she proved what my gut was telling me from the start.

    "You must be the change you want to see in the world." -Gandhi

    by diddosMN on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:29:58 PM PDT

  •  Even when you were in love with the Clintons (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    unfortunately they were only in love with themselves. The Clintons haven't changed. They've always been about political ambition and power. Everything else comes second. They've only had to become more open in their desperation to gain the nomination because it has been slipping away from them steadily since Super Tuesday. This is not to say they haven't done good things. They have, but their first priority has always been themselves.

  •  When have the Clintons ever "fought" for anything (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that truly benefitted the people of this country?  They attempted to reform health care (and I'm still not sure where they were going with that), and when that didn't work out, they gave up doing anything else except continuing Reagan's policies.  I suppose Senator Clinton's willingness to obliterate Iran could define her as a "fighter", but I certainly find nothing to admire in that.  Coming into the primary, I knew I would never vote for her under any circumstances because I think her nomination would push the Democratic Party further to the right; now I think she is as detrimental to the country as the Republicans.

    •  Did Clinton raise taxes on the wealthy Fabienne? (0+ / 0-)

      Didn't that lead to a budget surplus?  Did that make your life any better?

      You want ideoloical purity, ahnd in your quest, you will make McCain the president of the United states because you will pull him further and firther left.

      •  Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah (0+ / 0-)

        blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

        blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

        blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

  •  Race Race Race (0+ / 0-)

    It's a broken record with Obama supporters.  Whenever he loses, it's all about race, as if  Hillary needed to tell people Obama was black.

    Hillary said that LBJ helped make civil rights laws a reality.  That is undoubtedly true.  What the diarist neglects to mention is that LBJ and MLK worked together to make the 1964 Civil Rights Act a reality.  Hillary was talking about the power of a president and an activist working together.  Isn't that what Obama talks about, blacks and whites working together?  Why is it and insult when Hillary says it?

    The diarist quite rightly points ot that black people only started to vote for Obama after he won Iowa.  That has nothing to do with Hillary's "racism" It has everything to do with Obama becoming a viable candidate.

    The diarist never mentions the media distortion of Bill Clinton's "fairytale" comment.  The media jumped on that comment as Bill Clinton saying Obama's candidacy was a fairytale.  Wrong.  Bill was talking about Obama's Iraq policy.

    Have the Clinton's said and done stupid things?  Yes.  Comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson was race baiting, I belive.

    Blue collar whites voting for Hillary is a fact, you can attribute racism to it if you want.  I choose not to.

    •  You are wrong on almost every point. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      White working class voters vote for Obama in droves in the west and upper midwest.

      It's a fact you can't change.

      •  And what happened in the interim (0+ / 0-)

        Rwv Wright and bittergate?  Is it white  people's fault that Obama wants to stereotype gun owners or Christians, or that Wright is hateful?


        •  lol. That's funny how you want to cite facts (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          in some cases but not others.  

          Obama wants to stereotype gun owners and Wright is hateful?

          Nope and nope.

          Good luck in your delusional mindset.  Good luck with the DLC third way crap.

          •  Good luck in telling whites that (0+ / 0-)

            Rev Wright isn't hateful.  Goddamn America?  Excuse me?

            Don't tell me that bittergate didn't hurt Obama, he lost Penn by 10 points.  Explain that.  Oh yeah I forgot, everyone who finds Wright offensive is a racist too right?

            That must include Obama, because he kicked Wright to the curb, or have you forgotten that.

            Good luck with your unbridled progressivism.  You'll need it.

            •  Oh, I see. Condemning the U.S. goverment (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              for an immoral war is now hateful?  WOW!  That's news to me.

              Obama didn't kick Wright to the curb, it was quite the other way around - at least here in the reality-based community.

              Good luck living in your delusional world and pissing on the American worker with ill-advised free trade agreements.

              •  Whaatever (0+ / 0-)

                You must be dizzy with all that spinning.

                •  Um, no. You see I actually watched the (0+ / 0-)

                  entire sermons in context unlike you.

                  The Hillbots are the only ones who are dizzy with wanting to seat delegates from a Saddam Hussein style election in Michigan with only Hillary on the ballot.

                  Nice try though, I am entertained greatly by your delusions, please continue.

              •  Oh by the way (0+ / 0-)

                What's Obama going to do anbout NAFTA?  Is he going to repeal it?  No.  So you're wrong again.

                •  Nope, he's not going to repeal it. He's going (0+ / 0-)

                  to revise it just as he said.

                  Stop LYING.

                  •  He won't do a thing on NAFTA (0+ / 0-)

                    not a thing. Lip service.

                    •  And you think Hillary will? lol. Nice try (0+ / 0-)

                      You have nothing to stand on.  But please feel free to stay here all day so you can be intellectually abused.

                      •  I never said Hillary would do anything (0+ / 0-)

                        Protectionism is the progressive thing, not mine.  Where do those cool hybrids come from?  Japan?  That's free trade at work ok?  I guess you'd rather drive SUV's.

                        •  Japan has higher labor standards. (0+ / 0-)

                          But please continue.  Please go ahead and keep making yourself look foolish.

                          •  You want trade wars, go right ahead (0+ / 0-)

                            Does the phrase Smoot Hawley mean anything to you?

                          •  Enforcing labor standards doesn't equal (0+ / 0-)

                            trade wars.  Nice try though.  And hey, how's Hillary's Iraq war workin' out for ya?  Keep trying.

                          •  Didn't Obama vote to keep funding (0+ / 0-)

                            The Iraq war while he was in the Senate?  Did I miss the vote that he cast to cut off funding? Why would he vote to keep money going to a wor he opposes?

                          •  lol. Nice try talking point master. (0+ / 0-)

                            He voted for bills that had time tables and Bush kept vetoing them.

                            See, here's the thing:  until you can show some real contrast where Hillary did something right and Barack did something wrong, you have no standing.

                            Obama's and Hillary's voting patterns to fund the troops are the SAME.  So keep trying until you find something.

                            Let me supply you with some areas where Barack is better:

                            consistently opposed nafta.
                            opposed the iraq war from the beginning (like Dick Durbin)
                            didn't vote for Iran sabre rattling
                            against the gas tax pander
                            favors hard caps on carbon emissions
                            doesn't accept money from lobbyists or pac funds
                            has vowed to cut poverty in half
                            supports diplomacy as opposed to obliterating Iran

                            You got something for me chump?

                          •  Point by point (0+ / 0-)

                            Opppos NAFTA, he doesn't oppose NAFTA, he wants to do some mending around the edges and he won't even do that.  Do you think Canda has poor labor standards?  They;ll never agree to re-open NAFTA, and then what?

                            oppossed the Iraq war as a state Senator when noone outsde Chicago knew who he was.  Did you know who Barack Obama was in 2002?  I didn't.

                            Was to busy campaining to vote yes or no on Kyl-Lieberman on Iran.  Sort of like his present votes in the state Senate.

                            He's against cutting the most regressive tax for one summer as prices reach 4 dollars.  Good idea.  Regressive taxation is one that hits poor people the hardest.

                            Favors nuclear power and clean coal.  Two things i detest.  EWhere does obama plan to dump the waste?  Yucca Mountain?

                            I like that he doesn't take pac or lobby money it's refreshing.

                            The only president who ever did anything about poverty was LBJ and the Great Society.  Let's see if Obama can live up to his rhetoric.  I fear that the first people he'll forget are the poor people, a lot of whom put him in a position ro win the WH.
                            I hope I'm wrong.

                            Talking to Iran without precondition. WHY?  Because Iran continues to work on nuclear weapons?  Do you think talking to them will make them stop?  Did N. Korea stop building it's nuclear weapons program.  We talk to them twice and they cheated both times.

                            That is one reason why I didn't vote for him, he thinks talking to people like Ahmadinajad and Castro will make everything better.  He's wrong,

                            He's wrong on healthcare too his approach is more market based.  He will never get universal health care through the free market.

                            Chump?  That reminds me of Aunt Esther from Sanford and Son.  Love Redd Foxx. I know, the 70's too far back for you.

                          •  Yawn yawn yawn. (0+ / 0-)

                            Clinton just sticks a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before she does ANYTHING.

                            Yep, he stood up and opposed the war when not a lot of people knew who he was.  Dick Durbin stood up against the war when a lot of people knew who he was.  So did Richard Byrd?  What's your point?  Oh I forgot, you don't have anything original or substantive to say, except to try and justify HRC's pro-war hawkness.

                            Obama was opposed to NAFTA.  It was printed in the Chicago Tribune.  HRC was a cheerleader about NAFTA and then LIED ABOUT IT.  She's a COMPULSIVE LIAR.

                            Obama and Canada both know full well that when he's talking about labor and environmental standards he's talking about Mexico.  And once again, you have no standing here, because Clinton is saying the EXACT same thing as Obama.  And your point is that Obama won't do anything but HRC will somehow?  No contrast whatsoever and not any sort of reason to place HRC above Obama in this category.

                            Even Jim Baker and Brent Snowcroft support tough diplomacy with Iran.  HRC must be lobbying for McCain's VP slot at this point.  Nice try though.

                            LOL at your analysis of the gas tax issue.  There's a good solution for ya - cut taxes so that 7,000 people - who are already poor as it is - will be laid off.  Wonderful plan!  And of course this will save all those poor people 30 bucks over the summer.  That will reeeeeally make a huge difference in everyone's lives.  

                            See, now you have exposed yourself as a MINDLESS HILLBOT.  Before, you had a chance at actual legitimacy, but now you are just parroting everything Hillary says and does as if it were the Gospel.  It's dishonest and you and I both know it.

                            The reason North Korea is now cooperating with us:  because we're offering them stuff!  It's called diplomacy.  The reason North Korea was a miserable failure before now is because Bush the moron basically took his eye off the ball and put all his focus on Iraq.  

                            Missing the vote on Kyl-Lieberman is about 1,000 times better than voting yes on it like HRC.  Am I glad he missed the vote?  No.  But I'm glad he voted no on torture and no to the telecom companies on FISA.

                            Regarding clean coal, we will have to find somewhere - no different from how any other administration would handle it.  

                            In your world, ignoring foreign leaders is better than talking to them.  Reagan found out that this is fundamentally incorrect as did Nixon and also JFK.  In fact, why don't you go vote for McCain who would much rather bomb Iran and start a war with them than talk to them.  So go ahead.  I DARE YOU to vote for John McCain.  Go ahead... do it.

                            One final word:  HRC's health care plan doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing.  It would never ever happen.  And I love how you are all in favor of the free market when it's convenient for you (i.e. trade) but not when it comes to Obama's health care policy.


                          •  I see how you skipped over cutting poverty in (0+ / 0-)

                            half...see you forgot about the poor already. You call me a Hillbot, ok fine where's your criticism of Obama?  I see none.

                            Onama's foreign policy is non-exitant.  Was Syria obliterated when Israel bombed their nuclear facility this year?  No.  Was Iran obliterated when Israel bombed their nuclear facility in 1991? No.

                            Reagan talked to the Soviets after fighting two proxy wars against them, one in Nicaragua, one in Afghanistan, did you know that?  Or forget to mention it?  

                            Have a nice night, and don't call people you disagree with loons, it's not a good way to win supporters is it?

                          •  lol. What was there to say about poverty? (0+ / 0-)

                            He said he's going to try and cut poverty.  If he chooses Edwards as his VP, this will be given even more validation.  Poverty will go down under Obama's administration.  His economic policies alone will certainly help.

                            I have criticized Obama on a number of occasions on a variety of things ranging from his embrace of Donnie McClurkin last summer to his seeming unwillingness to at least embrace Hamas in diplomatic relations.  

                            You criticize me for not responding to one out your 12 points and now you don't even bother responding to any of mine.

                            Okay.  Whatever.

                            I'm not out to win supporters.  The hillbots are going to do what they're going to do in November.  You want McCain instead of Obama?  Go for it!

                            Non-existent foreign policy?  No.  He has exactly what we need right now which is a very nuanced and detailed foreign policy.

                            He supported the invasion of Afghanistan.  I completely agree with that decision.  Totally 100% behind it.  It should have happened sooner.

                            He supports bombing high-valued terrorist targets.  This is a great thing.  He has said there are about 40 to 50 thousand terrorists throughout the world that cannot be negotiated with and that we will have to destroy.  I agree!

                            He has said he doesn't supporting talking with Hamas.  Hamas sponsors terrorism, which I abhor, but I don't believe they are beyond hope.  And whether we like it or not, they are the democratically elected government in the territories and it seems silly for us to have encouraged the territories to hold democratic elections and then disregard Hamas just because we didn't like the outcome.  It would be great if we could get Hamas to recognize the state of Israel.  This probably won't happen anytime soon.  But ignoring Hamas isn't going to make them go away.  

                            He supports tough diplomacy with Iran.  I agree.  He supports talking with Castro.  I completely agree also.  Maybe we can offer something to Castro in return for him allowing more freedoms for his people.  It would be a good idea.

                            Was Iran obliterated when Israel bombed their nuclear facility in 1991? No.

                            So what is the implication here?  That we should or shouldn't obliterate Iran like your candidate wants us to?  I'm not clear on what your advocacy is here.

                            The fact that we had a Cold War going on with the Soviet Union just feeds my argument.  How do two nations who disagree with one another solve problems?  Refusing to talk with them and warring with them didn't solve anything.  Talking with them did.  Glasnost and perestroika were at least marginally successful.  I feel confident that an easing of tensions with Cuba could follow an intense diplomatic engagement with them.  I have studied Obama's overall policy on Cuba and it sounds good to me.


                    •  You know this how again??? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Arguing hypothetical "what ifs" is silly, unless you are some sort of prophet. In that case, let's talk China.

                      Sharks will save the Earth from climate change. Sharkwater

                      by trmasonic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:40:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  And btw even if you perceive certain (1+ / 0-)

      Obama supporters as blaming race, you can't deny that Obama himself has never once blamed race or used race to explain his defeats in certain states.

      But Hillary has no problem using the race card.

  •  I worked for Bill's campaign in 92 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I drove in his motorcade in Portland, Oregon in the primary. I defended him over Monica.
    Now I can't stand the guy, or his wife! They are finished in this party.

  •  Nice diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I have supported Obama since early in his career as a state legislator. I saw the honesty, the humility and the wisdom of a great president in him early on.

    I also liked the Clintons during their tenure in the WH and I used to go running while listening to podcasts of Bill's various speeches since he left the WH, admiring his extemporaneous brilliance.

    Sadly, although I believe that campaigns bring out the playful, gamesmanship of acting a part on the grand stage, I am consistently astonished at the bad decisions the Clintons have made, the poor management of their staff and finances, and the depths to which they have sunk in their pursuit of what they perceive to be their entitlement.

    The presidency doesn't belong to anyone or any one family. It is something that the American people entrust onto a deserving (sometimes) individual. Hillary has lost the trust of too many and she certainly doesn't deserve to be president. Ever.

    Not after this disgrace.

    Sharks will save the Earth from climate change. Sharkwater

    by trmasonic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:49:37 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site