How would you weigh credit or blame versus the roughly 3500 or so American service members that will be killed in action in the next four years under McCain? Or the roughly 20,000 with severe injuries? Or the 50,000 plus Iraqi casualties?
I know I wouldn't try to sell "credit and blame" to a grieving veteran's family.
The man who shouted "Iron my Shirt," the creator of the Hillary nutcracker, and all of the other haters triumphed. Yet more importantly to me, the problem is that these people feel Barack Obama stepped back and let it happen.
The two who shouted "Iron my shirt" were staffers at a radio station that was staging a prank. And you draw the conclusion that Sen. Obama "let it happen"? What in the world could or should he have done - come to the rescue of Sen. Clinton? Yeesh. IMO, Sen. Clinton handled that incident quite well and needed no help at all.
The video contained exactly one example of Sen. Obama making a sexist statement (early in the clip), and arguably that was a misstatement, similar to the RFK whoops by Clinton. He was criticized for the remark -- rightly so. I'm inclined to give both candidates lots of slack in their campaign utterances: it's a long, long slog and they're human.
Sen. Obama has spoken out against sexism (and racism) many times during the campaign, as has Sen. Clinton. Sure, sexism exists and is on display daily in the MSM. No doubt some of the troglodytes responsible for the displays in the rest of the video are Obama supporters. But to blame Sen. Obama for "letting this happen" is ludicrous. Sexism existed before the campaign and persists afterwards, regardless of Sen. Obama and any amount of magic pixie koolaid.
Toss who? This is about votes, not whose feelings might get hurt. If Obama figures that Clinton adds the most to the ticket in terms of electoral strength, he'll probably pick her, otherwise not. Sure, you can issue an ultimatum about who he should pick, but seriously, over the VP slot?
FWIW, I'd much rather have Clinton where it matters -- in the State Dept., where she can use her overseas experience to great effect.
It's not quite that simple. Obama has to figure out if Clinton's a net gain for the ticket: are the Clinton supporters gained balanced by independent voters lost? There's a big geographic factor as well: Clinton will be useful in some states, like PA, OH, and FL (how much is anyone's guess), but harmful in states where Clinton underperformed (CO, WI, MN, arguably NM & NV). There are definitely "safer" VP candidates.
All this emphasis on the electoral value of a VP candidate doesn't speak well for the job itself. I'm hoping Sen. Clinton is offered a real job -- Sec. of State perhaps. (I don't think the Supreme Court is the best fit. There are plenty of wonderfully qualified women jurists with more experience than Sen. Clinton. Hillary's strength is her political savvy and fortitude -- it would be lost on the Court.)
I'm going to volunteer for Obama starting in July, and travel from the Bay Area to the nearest swing state for the days before the election. In 2004, that was Nevada, and I suspect I'll be seeing rural Nevada again (yay!).
You're undercutting your case if you're comparing Andrews to McClellan. In all the denunciations of the ex-Press Secretary, there have been no attacks on the substance of McClellan's allegations. Odds are, he's right.
No opinion on Andrews -- it does seem late to be casting such aspersions. How can he imagine benefiting from these remarks, true or not?
Or perhaps, it wasn't even a sanctioned election? I don't care whose name was on the ballot or not -- MI & FL were not DNC-sanctioned contests (witness the prohibition against participation) and don't count as anything more than beauty contests.
"Unity Express" - what crap. Outside of the Borg, unity happens when all sides of dispute decide that their joint interests should overcome their differences.
Cynical and disingenuous manipulation of the agreed-on DNC slate of primaries, busing in rabid activists to disrupt a DNC meeting, inflammatory statements stating the dispute over seating the Florida delegation is "worse than slavery" -- that's not meeting halfway. Those tactics are meant to sow discord and question the legitimacy of the process.
I'm not going to be mealy-mouthed and attribute this to "the heat of the campaign". Time and again, Sen. Clinton's campaign has chosen the low road, and in their increasing desperation shown that unity is not their foremost goal. Perhaps that's lost on a Clinton apologist, TexasDarlin.
In terms of foreign policy state that " the spread of freedom and Liberty " would be the driven force . We should stand with folks all around the world who want freedom.
An Unshakeable commitment to Isreal , the deterrence policy of Clinton would be great.
Do not cut the military budget or spending on improved weapons.
Jeez. #3 & 4 could have been written by Norman Podhoretz, and #5, Zounds!
#4 & 5 are my faves --
4: Yep, let's guarantee a nuclear response to an attack on Israel. Not like they have any nuclear weapons or delivery systems. What? You mean they do? What does Clinton's deterrence policy actually accomplish, other than putatively appeal to Jewish American voters? Yep, I want a candidate who won't be afraid to swing our nuclear shvants around. Oy.
5: Oh, by all means, improved weapons systems. Because we all know they are such a good idea and contribute so much to our security (caution: long PDF linked, worth the read).
And yes, don't want to get near that icky gay marriage issue (#11). I can't think of anything to say to that demand that won't get me troll rated as a personal attack.
I don't want Obama to meet your demands, and I believe you're delusional if you think that Sen. Clinton would meet them. Maybe McCain is your best bet. And don't let the progressive Democratic Party hit you in the ass on your way out.
Once the delegate race has been settled, Sen. Clinton's campaigning against Sen. Obama will mean something completely different. When she attacks him now, she is within her rights as a potential nominee. But once the party does the group hug, Kumbaya moment next week, if Clinton were to voice anything but full-voiced support for the nominee-in-waiting, she would be considered off base. Continued criticism of Obama would be beyond the pale: she'd join Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman as "Democratic" pariahs.
Rant on. I was just giving my personal impressions of people I've spoken to in the rural West. (N Cal, North & Central Nevada, and Eastern Oregon). FWIW, I think Obama and Clinton are pretty close on gun control issues. However, Sen Clinton has a very negative image as a "big government, anti-gun liberal" here. Again, this is an issue of perception, not necessarily reality. I'd guess it has something to do with Hillary's long-term presence on the national political stage.
It may be a bizarre observation, but your attempt to turn this into a Obama vs. Clinton tussle is misplaced.