...but it wasn't a "misstatement", it was a lie, plain and simple. Quoting her former CoS, and speechwriter to back it up (which they didn't do, if you'll read it carefully) isn't exactly confirmation, it's just more massaging of the facts by people who like her. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
What kind of thing to say is that? Us Libertarians might plausibly be described that way, but Socialists? You throw out the closet-socialists, half the Dem party is gone...Also, you just said people who lie are "lousy people" :) the irony of that...
I just went and read all of kid oakland's posts. I'll grant he's not a Hillary supporter, but give the guy credit for not being one of the trolls. As to the Strike, Alegre brought up a valid point, but why respond to hate with disengagement? If my Southern-White-Male-Libertarian ass can take a lesson from my candidate, and be more civil, and more open-minded, then you can surely take a cue from your candidate, and stand your idealogical ground in a hostile eniviroment. Were chewing on each other, and ignoring the real threat. Only a Fool fights in a burning house (Frank Herbert's line, btw, not mine)
lori, you are true Irish. Being Irish myself, I know you can hold a grudge longer than anyone on earth. Yes, there are some toads on DKos (and other sites I could mention), but fuck 'em. Read the post, Angel.
good video. Why didn't she show that side of herself during this campaign? Far as I can tell, most people already knew she was a scrapper, why hit that so hard? If she'd made this campaign more about how nice she is, and less about how cutthroat she can be when pressed, I think she'd have done better.
Actually, I suffer from a burning anger that "Ol' Toothless" Harry Reid has been such a sorry-assed champion of alot of causes I beleive in. I wasn't patronizing her, I'm frakkin begging her to spend the next 10-15 years doing what she's doing right now: fighting tooth and nail for what she beleives in, in the arena she's best equipped for.
I have to disagree. The President has to appear above the fray, to be able to make everyone feel they are getting a fair hearing. The SML has to be able to smile for the cameras, to be sure, but the job itself consists of knocking heads, grinding out details, and whipping 59 egotistical prima-donnas into shape. If you can reccomend someone who'd be better at that than Sen. Clinton, plz do.
"load of crap" i like that. I prefer people to lay their opinions out bluntly, but why the whole "wet behind the ears" thing? The guy is a U.S. Senator.
This is what kills me about Sen. Clinton. This lady has her stuff together. She has issues she obviously cares deeply about. She can be as focused as a laser about policy details I think far too many pols don't pay attention too. I hear that in person she is funny, charming, and warm. She's clearly smart as hell. And yet, I can't bring myself to support her for the nomination. It's partly policy. We hear alot about how the two candidates have near-identical positions, and mostly that's true, but I notice that where they do differ, it's more a matter of what I'll call "philosphy of implementation". Mandates, for one thing. Top-down planning by a small group of people who agree with each other, for another. The conviction that you are "right", and that those who disagree w/ you are either benighted simpletons, or bloodthirsty enemies. It has more to do with attitude, to be honest. I know Sen. Clinton is a warrior. I remember her husband's presidency, and all the filth that was slung at her, and her family. I wouldn't blame anyone who'd gone through that for being a little (or even a LOT) touchy, for deciding to abandon the Flight part their brain, and going full-on Fight as a survival strategy. I can even deal with her, ahem, creative interpretation of objective reality. Every election, people seem to rediscover the fact that gasp politicians lie! I just don't think I can make it through another 4 years of melodrama, and scorched-earth politics. I can't escape the feeling that a Clinton presidency would be, one way or the other, all about Clinton. Because, as sure as bears defecate in forests, the Republicans who are making nice with her right now will, upon her securing the nomination, morph back into the thuggish, slavering trogolodytes we all know them to be. They will attack her, Sen. Clinton will go nuclear, and it will be the 90's all over again (without the whole "prosperous economy" thing, of course...) And any solutions that manage to get applied will be more about political advantage, and Gotcha games, than about the actual problems they purport to address. I can't face it, I flat cannot. The next President, whoever that unlucky person turns out to be, is going to face problems so horrendous that I lack the courage to contemplate them all at one time. This President will need to draw upon the talent, fortitude, and goodwill of every single person in America if they are to have any hope of succeeding. I am no Hillary-Hater (I still have my "Hillary in 2008" T-shirt :) , but I do not beleive she has the personality to accomplish this. I beleive that Sen. Obama does. And, I know I keep harping on this, but there is a job in Washington where Sen. Clinton's character and talents are desperately needed : Senate Majority Leader. Sen. Obama is a nice guy. He's smart, eloquent, and a natural diplomat. If he doesn't have a hard-core policy warrior leading the charge in Congress, those crusty old theives are gonna block anything he tries to do. I can't think of anyone I'd rather have on my side in a knife-fight than Hillary Clinton (O yeah, she'd cut you...)
Hillary, I love you. But, barring some disastrous miracle, you can't win without harming the thing you love, our Nation. All the hot air and hurt feelings aside, I know you wouldn't do that. Stay in the race as long as you feel like you have a legitimate shot. If you win, I'll fight for you. If you lose, hold your head up, and get yourself ready for the fight that's coming. We'll all need you for that one.
Interesting points, mostly. But did you just link to Victor David Hanson to buttress an argument?? I realize you have a job to do, but who's next? Rush on civility? Manning on "Love thy Neighbor"? You have opinions and ideas, let me hear em. You have Republican spin, and "Operation Chaos", keep it to yourself....
ROFL, is that what you heard? And where did you hear that? What I heard was a presidential candidate who put himself out there in a more thoughtful and forthright manner than I have ever heard any politician before him. No disrespect to anyone's prefered candidate. When Hillary Clinton comes up with a vision of the American Experiment as comprehensive and positive (and, yes, as painfully personal), as Sen. Obama has, she will have, if not my vote, at least my respectful attention. Until then, I'm in the tank for Sen. Barack Obama.
These "attacks", as you deem them, are legitimate points. I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about "going negative". If I were to consider off-limits all of the points you mention, I'd have very little to say about Sen. Clinton. It plainly is not issue-based, as their positions on the issues differ very little. Your argument seems to come down to "Obama was mean to her first". Objective reality, and an active internet connection will dispel this argument in about 4 seconds. Sun-Tzu says "Those who fling feces must expect return fire".