• on a comment on Ohio aftermath over 6 years ago

    Usually, Jerome's analysis is not this crappy.  To make a claim about the general election, with zero evidence, analysis or even assertion about how Clinton and Obama match up with McCain in Ohio is an extremely weak and unconvincing argument.

    But to answer your question, I don't know why I keep  coming back to this site with it's strong pro-Hillary bias.  The front pagers in their zeal to promote Hillary have gotten sloppy .  And the diarists are down right insulting to any one who isn't a Hillary supporter.  Perhaps it's time to move on to a site that isn't a Hillary propaganda machine.

  • I wonder if you ever ask your self why Hillary Clinton's campaign is emphasizing that Obama is black?

  • comment on a post That inconvenient memo [UPDATED . NEW CTV Video] over 6 years ago

    particularly since every reporter knows that Obama has not been forthcoming, in any way, on his long association with Tony Rezko

    You support a candidate for who refuses to release her tax returns and then you have the gall to criticize Obama for not being forth coming?

    I used to dislike Hillary Clinton mostly for her cowardly conniving Iraq vote and then her stubborn refusal to says she regrets that vote.  Her supporters are positively are pushing me to the point where I loathe her.  The constant stream of bogus hypocritical attacks on Obama is just disgusting and it's making me ill that to think I'm a member of a political party where a huge chunk of members not only condone but enthusiastically support this kinda of gutter politics.

  • on a comment on WAKE. UP. over 6 years ago

    Price controls NEVER work.  History is littered with their failures.

  • on a comment on WAKE. UP. over 6 years ago

    For "new", how about a candidate that doesn't run risky campaigns gambling on winning a few key states.  Gore and Kerry both did this and lost.  So we're 0 for 2 of this strategy.

    Hillary Clinton is running that exact kind of strategy in the primaries and then attempts to down play her poor showings with "small states don't count" arguments.

    Best case in th GE, Hillary Clinton will be one Katherine Harris or Kenneth Blackwell away from losing the election since she'll need every state she contests to win.  She absolutely will not put more states in play because she won't even try to do so.

    So my "shiny new toy" is a candidate who doesn't cling to the failed electoral strategies of past.  

    Back to sleep for me.

  • Christine Todd Whitman?  Seriously?  That would be poke in the eye to the Republican base.  She's reviled by the conservative wing party for not completely towing W's line while at the EPA.

    We can only hope that McCain is this dumb since it would be mean as easy Democratic victory as hard core conservatives sat this election out in disgust.

  • comment on a post Why Obama's Party Can't be My Party over 6 years ago

  • Oh, so Axelrod is sort of the deity of in human form and no one else can match him?  

    Considering the money that the Clinton campaign has burned though, it's absurd to say they could not have found speech writers or political consultants that can write inspiring rhetoric.

    Hillary Clinton is not a superb orator.  Never has been.  Never will be.  It does not matter who writes her speeches.

  • on a comment on More Patrick & Obama over 6 years ago

    Why would I trust Senator Clinton?  She still thinks her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was the right vote.  That's not a 'meme' it's a fact.  I don't trust any Democrat who still thinks that voting for resolution is a good vote.

    Her stance on that vote doesn't matter to you which is your prerogative.  It matters to me.  Your initial argument was that Obama voters do not have one substantive reason to support him.  His position against invading vs Clinton's pro Iraq invasion position is a substantive reason so you've been proven wrong there.  

    And I really don't care that it was just "authorization" because I knew what Bush was going to do with it.  Any leader who couldn't figure that out is not smart enough to run for city council much less President.

    You can dismissively think that people who don't trust Clinton have bought into a 'meme' but you won't persuade anyone.

  • If Obama is just as poll-tested and pre-packaged as Clinton...then why again is he a better choice?

    If Obama's inspirational speeches are just the product of poll-testing and pre-packaging, why can't Hillary Clinton give some inspirational poll-tested pre-packaged speeches of her own?

    Leaders need to convince people to follow them.  It doesn't matter how good their ideas are if they can not persuade people to get behind them.  Hillary Clinton has shown herself to have little ability to inspire or persuade.  

    She has shown herself to an expert at trying to win by changing rules after the fact (MI,FL delegates) and exploiting the existing rules (super delegate campaigning).  I don't think this approach will accomplish much for Clinton as president.  She's not going to be consistently over maneuver Congressional Republicans without getting the public behind her.

    Obama has shown the ability to inspire and get people behind him so I think he can accomplish more.  You may discount this proven ability as pretty prose from speech writers but to think it does not make a difference means you are not living in the real world.

  • on a comment on More Patrick & Obama over 6 years ago

    I don't trust her at all.  Refusing to say she regrets voting for the war obliterates any trust I could have in her.

  • on a comment on Enough. (A long GBCW essay.) over 6 years ago

    Her speech shows either total incompetence or a level of self-interest before her duty to the county that I can not accept.  

    She was completely wrong on every point and has pointedly refused to say she regrets her mistake.

  • on a comment on More Patrick & Obama over 6 years ago

    Clinton as been quite careful to make no commitment about when she'd have troops out of Iraq.  The only reason for the ambiguity is because she intends to have combat troops in for a long time.

  • on a comment on More Patrick & Obama over 6 years ago

    I checked their websites:

    Obama:


    He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

    Clinton:


    She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

    Clinton has no commitment as to when the she'd have combat troops out of Iraq.  She could start in 60 days and plan to finish at the same time as McCain: 100 years from now.  Considering Clinton still thinks going into to Iraq was a good vote in the Senate on her part, I seriously doubt she'd be in a hurry to complete pull out.

  • on a comment on More Patrick & Obama over 6 years ago

    So far, not one of them can ID one concrete thing in support of their candidate.

    Maybe your friends are idiots which would probably mean you are too.

    For me, one reason I support Obama is that he has committed to leaving Iraq.  Clinton has not committed to leaving and I suspect if she's in the oval office there will still be 10,000s of troops in  Iraq 4 years for now.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads