• on a comment on Republican racist NC ad over 5 years ago

    I never said anything about these people supporting democrats.  Is that the only reason you can think of to be so righteous about another person's pastor, is if it is politically expedient?

    But now that you mentioned it...

    I noticed you conveniently did not answer my point about catholics, who are one of Hillary's key constituencies so far.  I guess it is a little too inconvenient for you to speak out negatively against the support the catholic church has given democrats, particularly Hillary.  The catholic religion has done far worse things than pastor Wright could ever dream of doing, but you are silent...

    Come on. Your selective indignation is astounding.

  • Kudos to a great point.  I hope everyone who has threatened to vote McCain instead of the candidate they support on the Democratic side thinks long and hard about this, because it is only the start of what we can expect from McCain.

  • on a comment on Republican racist NC ad over 5 years ago

    That's just it.  We all should be defending her from exactly these kinds of smear too. I hope with all my heart that Hillary is not the candidate, because I disagree with her in every way.  But attacking her like you mentioned is just as wrong.

    But as long as we all think it is OK that no one does the right thing, we are screwed.

  • on a comment on Republican racist NC ad over 5 years ago

    Then why aren't you blogging about the many many white pastors across the country who have spouted far more offensive and unpatriotic than anything Wright is on the record saying?

    Why aren't you rallying against every catholic politician, demanding they step down after the unspeakable horrors their faith has wrought on children around the world.

    That's the problem.  That is why this stinks. This is why your protests sound so wrong to many of us.  You hold Obama and Wright to a different standard. Why is that?

  • on a comment on Republican racist NC ad over 5 years ago

    Good for you.  At least there are several voices of reason who are not pretending all this is OK.

    This betrayal of 3 democratic candidates by Clinton is in my opinion the worst thing she has done to date, and those of you who support it might as well start voting republican now.

  • on a comment on Why won't Clinton denounce this over 5 years ago

    Read my comment directly above yours and then think about what your comment says.

    Stop trying to drag this election into the mud.

    Stop trying to excuse anything senator Clinton does.  My god, I could tell you she is strangling puppies and you would find reasons why it is the right thing to do.

  • comment on a post Republican racist NC ad over 5 years ago

    So many of you agree, it is OK for Hillary to let Bev Purdue and Richard Moore hang out to dry and have their campaign destroyed.  The reasons you all give is:

    1)She did not make the add
    2)The ad does not attack her
    3)If she responds someone will attack her
    3)Barack should respond to the add
    4)Because you think Barack should respond to Randi Rhodes
    5)It's a race baiting ad against Obama that she does not need to respond to.
    6)Because you think it proves Clinton's point that she is not electable.

    Wow, let me respond to your incredibly unethical responses

    1)  She did not make the add but made up the issue and perpetuates it every day she does not denounce it.  Besides, the response of "Teacher, it wasn't my fault" is not the response of a presidential candidate.

      2. The add does attack her, and all other democrats who have any sense of decency
       3. Barack has responded to this add.  As has the DNC, the RNC, and Mike Huckabee, John McCain, most pundits, everyone has, except for Clinton.
       4. I actually think they both should denounce these shock jocks...Barack should denounce Rhodes and Hillary should denounce the right wingers like Limbaugh who keep saying the same kind of crap in support of Clinton.  Does not mean just because one of them has not, the other gets a pass.  HOLD THEM TO THE SAME STANDARD, DON'T JUST KEEP LOWERING THE STANDARD. I know you don't believe any Obama supporter is capable of criticism him, but there you go...wrong again.
       6. She should do it precisely because it is race baiting and she should help the national debate rise above that, why do you think she is not seen as a good candidate for Black constituencies, or as an honest candidate, or as a candidate who will raise the national debate to a higher level that is more productive when it comes to the issues she cares about.
       6. I think it proves the point that Clinton is unelectable.  Super delegates will see this as more proof she will stab anyone in the back if they are not on her team.

    Remember, she is telling Bev Purdue and Richard Moore she does not care enough about other democrats to help them out.  Probably because they are Obama endorsers.  I personally believe she would have already bailed them out if they were her supporters. But it is also a pretty good indication of why they are not her supporters.

    Finally and most important, she should do it because it is the most important political job of a POTUS, to build the biggest coalition they can.  Hillary is incapable of working with anyone who disagrees with her.

    This is the same reason Bill Clinton allowed thousands of democratic seats across the country to be lost on his watch.  We lost the House, the Senate, lost hundreds of governorships and state legislative jobs, and ultimately Clinton's VP could not get elected (don't blame it on Bush, if Clinton was doing his job of protecting the party, Gore would have won by a landslide big enough that none of us would remember the name GWB).

  • on a comment on Republican racist NC ad over 5 years ago

    This kind of sentiment is exactly why we lost over seat in the country when Bill Clinton was president, and we will lose them all again if Hillary gets the nomination.

    Thank goodness she won't.  This is exactly the kind of real metric super-delegates will pay attention to.

    Will you throw your opponents under a bus.

    Your answer is telling.

  • on a comment on Republican racist NC ad over 5 years ago

    You don't, but decency says you should.

    But the democratic candidate for president damn well better if we are to believe they care about the party, because it is false, salacious, and it is attacking two other candidates besides Obama.

    The truth is really showing here. None of you responding this way can see past your candidate to the larger party or bigger issues besides getting Hillary elected.

    It's not the Hillary party or the Obama party, it's the democratic party.

  • comment on a post Republican racist NC ad over 5 years ago

    Already posted about this, with very disappointing results.  See the post here:

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/24/2244 0/7800

    Actions speak much louder than words.  Hillary alone is throwing three democrats under a bus to try and keep a truly unfortunate narrative of her campaign alive.

  • I have to say I like both of your points. I came from Kucinich, and both O and C are lacking in progressive creds if you ask me.

    But in watching very closely, as you two thoughtful people have, I have reached a very different conclusion.  I believe they will each struggle to get their more progressive ideals in place, but Obama has the better chance overall.

    Plus, in reading between the lines and listening to the words spoken on small points over time, I have come to believe Hillary is not progressive at all, and Obama is more progressive than he lets on to.

  • comment on a post Progressives don't support Clinton over 5 years ago

    Yeah, your points are dead on. It is amazing that people who think they are progressive, think Hillary is progressive.  I don't know who is fooling who more.

    I only know 2 Hillary supporters, and they are both people who think they are progressive.  The funny thing is they both are among the most conservative people I know when it comes to gay rights, economic policy, housing policy, welfare policy, civil rights , animal rights, womens rights...the list goes on.

    Here is the thing, you don't just become a progressive by calling yourself one. There are specific things that define being progressive, and they are not really negotiable as they are sort of, well, definitions.

    You can't support unjust wars and call yourself a progressive.

    You especially can't get away without apologizing for that support, and making excuses instead of apologizing, that is the worst of all.

    You can't get credit being in favor of and opposed to free trade agreements.

    You can't support only the gay rights that you think might actually be popular enough not to piss people off.

    You can't say you fight for better race relations and then pull the kind of crap we have seen from this campaign...especially inventing an issue against a black pastor for the exact same rhetoric that white pastors get a pass for every day.

    You can't be utterly silent on animal rights.

    You can't support Fox News. Period.

    You can't gleefully accept right wing shock jocks boosting your campaign.

    You can't publicly support progressive activists and privately bash them.

    Oh and my favorite and most recent one, you can't let other progressive candidates be attacked by race baiting republican attack ads and let them hang out to dry just because you happen to agree with them. See my diary about this at:

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/24/2244 0/7800

    I could go on, but why. She is no progressive.  The rare occasions that she sounds like one are when she thinks she is "speaking to the choir" The very next week she sounds like a gun toting, duck shooting, whiskey drinker.  You can change your act but it is still clear you are an actor Senator Clinton.

  • comment on a post Why won't Clinton denounce this over 5 years ago

    So you all agree, it is OK for Hillary to let Bev Purdue and Richard Moore hang out to dry and have their campaign destroyed.  The reasons you all give is:

    1)She did not make the add
    2)The ad does not attack her
    3)If she responds someone will attack her
    3)Barack should respond to the add
    4)Because you think Barack should respond to Randi Rhodes
    5)It's a race baiting ad against Obama that she does not need to respond to.
    6)Because you think it proves Clinton's point that she is not electable.

    Wow, let me respond to your incredibly unethical responses

    1)  She did not make the add but made up the issue and perpetuates it every day she does not denounce it.  Besides, the response of "Teacher, it wasn't my fault" is not the response of a presidential candidate.

    1. The add does attack her, and all other democrats who have any sense of decency
    2. Barack has responded to this add.  As has the DNC, the RNC, and Mike Huckabee, John McCain, most pundits, everyone has, except for Clinton.
    3. I actually think they both should denounce these shock jocks...Barack should denounce Rhodes and Hillary should denounce the right wingers like Limbaugh who keep saying the same kind of crap in support of Clinton.  Does not mean just because one of them has not, the other gets a pass.  HOLD THEM TO THE SAME STANDARD, DON'T JUST KEEP LOWERING THE STANDARD. I know you don't believe any Obama supporter is capable of criticism him, but there you go...wrong again.
    4. She should do it precisely because it is race baiting and she should help the national debate rise above that, why do you think she is not seen as a good candidate for Black constituencies, or as an honest candidate, or as a candidate who will raise the national debate to a higher level that is more productive when it comes to the issues she cares about.
    5. I think it proves the point that Clinton is unelectable.  Super delegates will see this as more proof she will stab anyone in the back if they are not on her team.

    Remember, she is telling Bev Purdue and Richard Moore she does not care enough about other democrats to help them out.  Probably because they are Obama endorsers.  I personally believe she would have already bailed them out if they were her supporters. But it is also a pretty good indication of why they are not her supporters.

    Finally and most important, she should do it because it is the most important political job of a POTUS, to build the biggest coalition they can.  Hillary is incapable of working with anyone who disagrees with her.

    This is the same reason Bill Clinton allowed thousands of democratic seats across the country to be lost on his watch.  We lost the House, the Senate, lost hundreds of governorships and state legislative jobs, and ultimately Clinton's VP could not get elected (don't blame it on Bush, if Clinton was doing his job of protecting the party, Gore would have won by a landslide big enough that none of us would remember the name GWB).

  • on a comment on Why won't Clinton denounce this over 5 years ago

    I know, it is literally making me sick to see it.  Attacking each other is bad enough, but I guess it is too late to put the genie (sp?) back in the bottle.

    But letting them hang is exactly why the protracted primary is bad for the party.  This is real concrete proof that no honest person can deny.

  • on a comment on Why won't Clinton denounce this over 5 years ago

    First, it was not defamation of America. You are wrong and repeating it often enough does not make it right.  You, personally, are manufacturing this issue right along with republicans by trying to do so.

    Second, it is disingenuous of you to attack Wright, but not all the other nut job preachers across this country who speak their madness without getting attacked with accusations of defamation. I know, as a gay man I have been listening to them call me a second class citizen for my entire life and get away with it with nary a peep from the majority of Americans.

    It is astounding how many of you are happy to throw these democratic candidates under a bus to protect Hillary from doing the right thing.

    And it is insulting how many of you keep telling me what I would do if she did do the right thing.  I constantly state my opinion without putting words in your mouths out of respect for different opinions. Just cause we obviously disagree doesn't mean I can tell what you will say or what you will do.  I am not interested in guessing what people will do, I want to see it.

    If she spoke out now, despite being late, I would praise her, exactly the way I praised her when she finally started talking about party unity and admitting Obama was a better candidate than McCain and could easily beat McCain.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads