First of all, thanks for the Great Info above. Nagourney is clearly not on our side, the only tactic being employed by both Rove and Nagourney is to provide a distraction to us away from the things that matter. Clinton's Record. Her Policies, Etc.
I don't know if any of you Clinton Supporters have noticed of late, but over at DailyKos.com a contingent of Bloggers are working overtime to try to convince people to not vote for Clinton if she wins the Nomination.
Part of it might be a game. Just a way for haters to push the "Divisive" meme, all the while saying the most Divisive things they, themselves, can imagine. And then blaming Clinton for what they say. Odd. I know.
And, it turns out, some Obama and Edwards supporters have started supporting these efforts even though they claim that they will still vote for Clinton if she wins the Nomination, these Edwards and Obama Supporters are Recommending these Diaries.
So it's clear to me they know it helps their candidate, and it's clear to me that they now realize that they will need this kind of unholy alliance if they are to have a chance.
My question is this. At what point does a Clinton Supporter have to consider that their loyalty (I would definitely vote for Obama or Edwards in the General Election, and not only would I never Recommend a Diary by someone saying they won't vote for Edwards or Obama in the General Election, I would condemn their point of view. Enthusiastically.) to the Democratic Party is not reciprocated?
If you're not sure what I'm talking about, check this out:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/26/ 22350/1976
I think we see that crap all the time. But what we don't see is it being so highly Recommended. This is an attack they're pushing now.
I'm at a point right now where if this keeps up, and if I think that Obama and Edwards advocates used disloyalty to their advantage, then my own morale should Edwards or Obama win the Nomination will be so degraded, I would seriously consider not voting for them in the General Election.
Personally, I like Obama now again. I think he is sincere just misguided in his campaign. I wouldn't blame him for some of his horrid supporters. Edwards, I don't even have to consider, he has no chance at the nomination. Honestly, I'd only give Obama a 5 percent chance to win it now, but a 5 percent chance is still a chance. He should have tried for VP, he would have benefited from someone like Hillary to take him under her wing and teach him to be prepared, stay focused, map and plan things out, how to watch everything you say, and idealism without realism is a losing strategy.
if this stupdity continues by the dailykooks, I would not vote FOR either or at least stay out completely.
Those guys on Kos are incredible , I am not going to bother myself too much with that site.
I saw the diary , it seems they are seeing the writing on the wall and some have decided to act like the bunch of kids they are.
If I don't get my way I won't vote.
The people supporting Clinton should just redouble our efforts in the primary and general so she is victorious regardless of whoever.
But I will definitely cast my vote for whoever wins the nomination.
I have issues with the other 2 candidates but I'll still cast my vote for them.
Obama - His foreign policy stance is a worry. But I sincerely doubt he will meet dictators without precondition , I think he just got stuck with that line and had to roll with the punches , sort of like I turn my weakness into strength. Overall I actually think He'll govern more like Clinton will.
EDwards - I have serious issues with his rhetoric , I am far from a liberal and he speaks for the crowd at daily kos , but I think he'' have to move in a General , but if He doesn't he is one that I'll have serious issues voting for because that will mean I am more in line with Guiliani's position's than him. But I'll still vote for Edwards.
How does she explain her comments about waiting till her 2nd term? We all know what a comment like that means.
What she means is that she's not just throwing empty campaign promises against the wall. She's serious.
Obviously, any serious health care reform proposal passed by Congress and signed into law will be phased in over a number of years.
I know that voters would like to believe that the President can just twitch her nose and make major changes instantly like Samantha of Bewitched. But, that's not the way our government works, especially on something that requires major budgetary changes. For example, the other candidates say that they will use expiration of the Bush tax cuts to pay for health care, but those tax cuts don't expire until 2011 or 2012. The candidates who are saying that full universal health care will be completely implemented within four years are simply lying (or as it is politely stated, "pandering".)
I think voters know that nothing will happen overnight. I also know that some of us are wise enough to know that starting something in your second term will result in very little getting done. When does a President get the most done? The first few years in office. That's when they are at their peak. What changes, if any, will she try to make in her first term? That's what I want to know.
Have you read any of the many insider books about the Bush/Cheney administration's selling of the Iraq war? If you have, you will know that the NIE was written as a sales brochure. It was cooked. The many strong opposing opinions from the intelligence community (on key issues like the aluminum tubes and the yellow cake) were either omitted entirely, or buried in obtuse qualifying footnotes. Read Suskind's "The One Percent Solution" for a full explanation of the aluminum tube caper. The administration knowingly left out the real story from the NIE and all CIA documents.
Even though the books were cooked, as you say, there was still plenty of evidence that BushCo wasn't being straight up. Heck, even people as different as Gore and Webb thought Iraq was a mistake beforehand. I just don't think a lot of Senators gave a lot of thought to what going to war with Iraq(and the possible aftermath) meant. In voting for war, did they think Bush would handle the post-Saddam period well? Did these people not know The Decider's history? And the history of Iraq?
I am willing to make you a bet that if Edwards was elected half of what he is saying now , he won't get done in his first year maybe even at all.
You have to look at the political reality of things. Edwards is advocating an uncompromising position and if he is going to govern like his rhetoric now , he wont pass his so called " uhc " probably throughout his term.
