• his experience as a state legislator. Both HRC and Obama have unique experiences. HRC is promoting the idea that her experience counts more. Surprise, surprise, that's what candidates do when they run for office.

    HRC touts the idea that she has more EXECUTIVE BRANCH experience b/c of the various things she did as First Lady. Since the President is in charge of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, not the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, then her EXECUTIVE BRANCH experience while First Lady is a plus. The EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the goverment is HUGE and contains MANY bureaucracies. The advantage that HRC has is that while First Lady, she dealt with all of those bureaucracies and has a feel for how to properly administer them. Considering how Bush has FEMA-IZED EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT AGENCY, one argument in favor of HRC is that she would know what it takes to run the HUGE bureaucracy from her experiences in the White House as First Lady, that she could start the Executive Branch's rehabilitation process much faster than her competitors.

    Yes, Barack has more legislative experience than HRC, but it is just legislative experience. Legislators require a totally different skill set than executives. JFK, the last member of the legislative branch to become president directly from the Senate, had a rough time his first couple of years or so trying to take on his executive role. The question that American voters will have to decide is does the US have the time (probably years) for someone to figure out how to become an executive given the VAST problems that we face now, ie the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the economic recession and the list goes on and on.

    I for one don't think there's that amount of time, which is one of the reasons why I'm supporting HRC.....    

  • comment on a post OBAMA: You Can Be A Democrat For One Day over 6 years ago

    but I can't imagine spending 2 hours to go caucus for a Republican--I don't care how much I can't stand them. Wouldn't people have better things to do with their Saturdays? Especially in the middle of the day? Do people even Republicans hate Hillary that much that they would give up the middle of their Saturday to stand in a room to caucus for Obama? This distribution of the flyer seems really dumb.

  • comment on a post California NAACP Prez endorses Hillary over 6 years ago

    It's been rather disheartening to hear some media reports of the reception that both President Clinton and Senator Clinton have received during their appearances on talk radio and the MLK event in NY today. No matter who wins or loses the primary, I think it would be such a shame if a significant bloc of the party came away with the view that the Clintons are racist. Unfortunately, I think the damage has been done. I just hope that the breach can be repaired....

  • on a comment on Clinton's Surrogate Problem over 6 years ago

    Yep, I totally agree. She can afford to lose the majority-AA states in favor of the majority-Latino states.

    As I said in a previous post, instead of succumbing to blackmail, Clinton is going to work around Obamamania. If Clyburn decides to endorse Obama, so be it. If Obama overwhelmingly wins AA support in South Carolina and other states, so be it. She can still win the nomination w/o getting a majority of AA vote if necessary. If she can retain a quarter of AA votes along with creating a coalition of Latino and working class white votes, she can win the nomination process...

  • on a comment on Clinton's Surrogate Problem over 6 years ago

    Sure, the Clintons did well with Latinos in 1992 and 1996.

    But again, why would you be surprised by the Clintons employing this strategy? Isn't this what the 50 state strategy is all about? Focusing more on the rural, white and Latino vote? Without the AA vote as a fallback, the Democratic party would be forced to turn to the 50 state strategy at a greater speed than they are doing now....

  • on a comment on Clinton's Surrogate Problem over 6 years ago

    Why does the campaign have to officially do anything when they have bloggers, callers on AA radio do the dirty work for them? You haven't seen the threats of "if HRC wins, I'm voting for McCain or sitting out the election?"

    Speaking of McCain, do these morons realize that McCain voted against celebrating MLK Day back in the 1980s when Congress was voting to make it a national holiday?

    Oh, well, as far I'm concerned the faster these Obama/Steele Democrats leave the party the better.

  • The Obamas say one thing to white crowds and another thing to majority-AA crowds. This stuff about no black Iowans is to emphasize the fact that whites voted for Obama. It helps reassure AAs who don't think that Obama could get elected. Michelle overstates the case, but if she added the fact that there were AA Iowans who caucused for Obama, it would diminish their case slightly that Obama is electable.

    Don't be surprised if you see more and more of this rhetoric as primary day draws closer and closer....

  • on a comment on Clinton's Surrogate Problem over 6 years ago

    The problem with Obama supporters is that they are so focused on the AA vote. You know that white people will be voting in South Carolina and others (Latinos/Asians etc) will be voting in the Democratic primary too correct? All of these polls assume that there will be high turnout of AA voters, thus Obama winning overwhelmingly? But what if there's high turnout among whites and members of other races as well, which none of these polls show? What happens to the race then? Ever think about that?

  • on a comment on Clinton's Surrogate Problem over 6 years ago

    ummm... Bob Johnson is a controversial figure in the AA community b/c of his creation of BET and their playing of rap videos and reality programming that offends the Bill Cosby types. I think it was fairly brilliant that the Clintons had Bob Johnson of all people to put the dagger in Obama with the neighborhood and Sidney Poiter stuff.

    "This ain't a movie, Sidney. This is real life." OMG!! That is the funniest thing ever!!

  • on a comment on Clinton's Surrogate Problem over 6 years ago

    Well, it's happened before. In 1988, after a bitter race b/w Dukakis and Jackson, many AA just sat on their hands and didn't vote in the general election. Here in Maryland, Bush won b/c there was record low turnout in predominantly AA areas like Baltimore city.

    So of course, the Obama campaign, knowing the history of the sad aftermath of the Dukakis vs Jackson fight, are again trying to exploit history with their threats that AA will stay home rather than voting for Clinton.

    I for one am SO glad that the Clintons are not succumbing to these blackmail threats by the Obama camp. If they want to threaten the loss of AA support in the general, so be it. I don't think that the rest of the Democratic party should wring their hands at the loss of these losers. Like I said in another response to this diary, Democrats like Cardin WON despite the fact that he lost 25% of the AA vote in Maryland. Democrats can do it again if necessary....

  • on a comment on Clinton's Surrogate Problem over 6 years ago

    ever since he got into this race. He has one message for white supporters but when he or Michelle goes before all-black audiences, like Harlem or Howard University, it's a completely different message. And let's face it, it worked. You're right. How many times do we get the spiel from Obama supporters about how racist the Clintons are on this blog and others? How the crime and welfare bills along with the Sister Souljah moment were racist acts blah, blah, blah....

    I just think that the Clintons have accepted reality and plan to bypass AA voters. I've seen it happen here in Maryland in the Cardin v Mfume and then Cardin v Steele race. AAs also threatened to boycott the race after Cardin won the primary. Guess what Cardin did? He focused on getting white swing, white, rural voters. In other words, he refused to be blackmailed by these race baiters. If Clinton wins the nomination, I expect that she'll employ the same strategy except she'll try to increase the Latino vote. In other words, this is a dare to AA. Go ahead and continue to threaten to leave the Democratic party b/c you didn't get your way and get Obama as the nominee. Fine. You can be replaced.

    No, truthteller. I'm coming from a completely different place than what you've stated....

  • comment on a post Clinton's Surrogate Problem over 6 years ago

    If you look at the polls, the Clintons have already lost a significant amount of AA votes not only in South Carolina, but in the other states with a significant amount of AA voters as well.

    Knowing that they've lost a significant amount of AA votes AND that Obama supporters are threatening to sit out the general election OR vote for the Republican if Clinton wins the nomination, what exactly does the Clinton campaign have to lose by using these passive aggressive tactics against Obama?

    You guys think that the Clintons don't know what they're doing the past few weeks. I do think they know what they're doing. They're pretty experienced in the rough and tumble of politics. This campaign tactic is about subtraction, not addition.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they win South Carolina or at least make it competitive at the end of the day.....

  • on a comment on Wa/Po C-42 O-37 E-11 MAC Surge over 6 years ago

    is the fact that there has been no changes in the race since last month--that includes the Iowa caucuses. We don't know if she had a New Hampshire bounce or not since the NY Times didn't take the poll after Obama's win of the Iowa caucuses. He very well may have had a bounce which might have fallen after Hillary's win, when she might have had a bounce. We just don't know....

    But this poll which shows that Clinton despite ALL the attacks that Obama and his supporters AND the mainstream media have launched at her over the past few months that she STILL leads by double digits over Obama. I don't see how this is good news for Obama fans. The media has barely touched him and he is STILL behind in the national polls. He has improved his electability numbers and change, change, change is now the narrative of the campaign and he is STILL behind Clinton. Go figure.....

  • comment on a post Wa/Po C-42 O-37 E-11 MAC Surge over 6 years ago

    that Clinton has lost a certain percentage of support due to AAs defecting to Obama. Isn't that what you Obama people said would happen since infinitum?

    I think it's pretty clear from the campaign that the Clintons aren't worried about the defection of AA support. So they potentially lose South Carolina, Alabama etc. So what. As you can see by this poll, Hillary can still win the nomination by relying on white and Latino voters along with a small minority (25% or more) of AA voters who can't stand Obama. It's all gravy, cardboard. No worries....

  • How do you know that Bush's reforms were much more permanent? He hasn't even left office and we haven't seen what the next president is going to do for you to say that his reforms are more permaent....


Advertise Blogads