Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
12:55 PM on 03/07/2008
We were not, are not and never will be immune from terrorist attacks. The chances can be mitigated, but not eliminated. We have to learn how to live with that possibility, just like we've learned how to live with the possibility of hurricanes and tornados (while building levies and shelters). Remember that terrorism is not a feature of Islam (remember Oklahoma City) and not only a tactic used by our enemies ("shock-n-Awe", our support of the Contras, etc...). Deal with it, react to it, but whatever you do, don't over-react and expecially not to a point of being self destructive, just like what Bush did.

This nation has failed miserably in world leadership. And it's failed miserably in protecting and advancing it's own interests for now and inthe future.

Correction to your note, Clinton did not win Texas. The jury is still out, but with about 40% of the caucus results in, it's looking like Obama will win it and by enough to come out positive in it's delegate count. Hillary gets to braga about popular vote, but delegates are the currency of getting nominated. If Obama does indeed win Texas, I don't expect to hear much about it.

Everything abour Obama's campaign was about change from the old school and staying positive in politics. Why on Earth would he want to run with Hillary, the antithesis of what he stands for. And even more silly is the idea that he should drop out in the face of a Clinton win in Ohio. Who's being unreal now?

I think either Hillary or Obama should be president over McCain. But this thing will drag on to the convention, basically because the 2nd place finisher won't throw in the towel. And that's fine, that's how the system was designed, when the convention was scheduled, etc... .But it might very well cost the democrats the presidency.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dajo
Economic Justice for All
12:54 PM on 03/07/2008
Kristen,

You are a refreshing voice of reason. I agree with you completely.
It is time for every Democrat to put aside their petty differences for the good of the Party and America.
02:02 PM on 03/07/2008
When you say "every Democrat", are you including the ones who haven't had the opportunity to vote for their chosen candidate yet?

When you say "petty differences" are you referring to their chosen candidate?

Your remark implies that the voters who have not already had their day should just set aside their right to choose the candidate they prefer, and vote for the candidate you (and Kristen) prefer.

Is that what you mean to say? Really?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
claudiam
Proud Arizona Democrat
02:14 PM on 03/07/2008
The Clinton's are not for the good of the party. They are willing to divide the party to get what they want.
12:52 PM on 03/07/2008
How can there be a unity ticket, when Hillary says Obama is not qualified to be commander in chief and she trashes him and his supporters daily. She endorses McCain over Obam?. Her unity ticket is her at the top of the ticket and he is her lackey. That's a non-starter for someone who is behind. She's declared war on Obama and then says there is a "unity ticket." Come on!!
02:19 PM on 03/07/2008
I agree. She implied that she would have to be at the top of the ticket. Why would Obama, the frontrunner (yes people, he still is, because you don't win states in this game, you win delegates), consider a unity ticket as her VP? Sounds ridiculous. She and many of her supporters believe she has a moral right to this nomination which defies the math, sanity, logic, and tact.
02:29 PM on 03/07/2008
Yes, how can he be asked to be a heartbeat away from the 3am phone call when she says he has not crossed the threshhold to be commander in chief...VIce prez is not a training position...you have to be ready from day 1.
12:51 PM on 03/07/2008
If the Democrats do their usual "circular firing squad" thing again this year and nominate Hillary, I cannot imagine ANYONE wanting to be on the ticket with her. Not Obama, Edwards, Webb, Richardson, Sebelius, or anyone else previously suggested. Who wants to constantly have Bill Clinton up their a$$ 24/7/365? The Dems might as well nominate a bimbo from the nearest strip club. At least she could keep Bill occupied most of the time. Or maybe we could get Monica or Gennifer or Paula to run.( Talk about women with "experience"!)

Obama/Kucinich would be my pick, but that ain't happening.
04:15 PM on 03/07/2008
Hey - Where's that blonde that had John McCain phoning every regulator in town? By rights shouldn't she be as much a household name by now as Monica or Gennifer or Paula?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
getrealalready
06:03 PM on 03/07/2008
heavyrunner's right again. See how quickly "the other woman scandal" got extinguished by Republican terrorists living on our own shores.
12:50 PM on 03/07/2008
Quote: "... truly foolish to attack Hillary when your boy has performed so poorly against her..."

So poorly he's winning. Howzat for poorly?!
12:49 PM on 03/07/2008
"I think it was refreshing to see that Hillary Clinton recently mentioned the concept of a unity ticket." I think she was thinking about a Clinton/McCain ticket.
12:48 PM on 03/07/2008
I don't believe Clinton is remotely serious about a "unity ticket." I think her main goal in even suggesting one is so that people torn between the two can vote for her without feeling guilty, figuring they'll get both Clinton and Obama. As for actually considering him as her VP, I don't think she'd do that for a second -- unless he agrees to be neutered and never appear in public. Can you imagine being the VP in a Hillary Clinton White House, with the Clinton machine running the place and Bill Clinton roaming around? The last thing they want is a VP who would give her -- or Bill, for that matter -- a run for their money in either the judgment or charisma department.

No, Kristen, this is just another Clinton ploy. Calculated and dishonest.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
InternationalObserver
02:21 PM on 03/07/2008
Sheesh, I wish there was a way one could flag this comment to appear in bold.

THIS COMMENT IS SPOT ON LINDY222

I couldn't have said it better myself. All I'll add is:

Is Hillary *really* saying that Obama should take a seat at the back of the bus? Now *that* would make a great campaign ad ....

But I think Rosa Parks scotched that idea years ago.
03:15 PM on 03/07/2008
WOW - astute.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:46 PM on 03/07/2008
As one of the Jersey Girls you will always have my respect and admiration...but I got to call you on a statement you made in your post.

"It's even worse that al-Qaeda is plotting and planning for an attack on our homeland to kill thousands of innocents."

Honestly, how do you know what Al-Quaeda is planning? Its just as likely that Osama could have decided not to do anything and just let Americans tear each other apart. (Remember that famous Twilight Zone episode). After all we have given him almost everything he originally wanted; a) we pulled out of Saudi Arabia, b) we bogged ourselves down in a war with a Muslim country and c) we have given his movement enormous credibility. Why would he risk all of that if he doesn't have to?

The point here isn't that we should ignore Al Qaeda, its just the opposite ...we should be making every effort to understand where their organization is right now and what their intentions are:

Instead we throw around comments like the above and pretend they represent a known reality. This does not shed a lot of light and only make us afraid.

Remember the victory of the Terrorist is fear. We shouldn't be doing Osama's work for him by repeating comments that we don't know are true and only serve to make us afraid.
03:10 PM on 03/07/2008
Kirsten Breitweiser... another purveyor of paranoia.

Careful... the America Haters are after your BMW!
12:43 PM on 03/07/2008
If I was Obama I wouldn't take vice president to Hillary as she stands for what he is against. Also he really wouldn't have much influence as Bill would be her co president .If he is president he should not ask her to be vice president for the same reason, she is everything he is standing up against; power from the top down, dishonesty, dirty campaigning. I don't think it would help his ticket at all.
12:34 PM on 03/07/2008
Kristen, I have long admired your columns here on Huffpo. But I have to strongly disagree with you on this unity ticket concept. It's a ridiculous ruse that only attempts to marginalize Obama. It would never work, and Hillary knows this. May the best person win the nomination, and let the chips fall where they may at that point.

And for the love of God, you've suffered enough at the hands of the Neocons, please refrain from using their Nazi tripe words like "homeland".
12:20 PM on 03/07/2008
Clinton's fake "unity ticket" olive branch gave the overt implication that Obama would be at the bottom of the ticket. For this reason, I didn't like her insinuation. Obama would make too good a president to cut ribbons as VP in the shadow of Bill Clinton for 4-8 years, and it does -- as has been noted -- stand in stark contrast to the whole concept of this year's "change" election.
12:53 PM on 03/07/2008
So very true and wll add, IF Obama did opt in to be a Clinton VP, would nullify his "judgement" status for sure and allow that he be but aother typical politician that will serve HIS own before OUR needs !!! Should a ticet like Clinton/Obama arise...the dems have definitely LOST this vote for sure/positively/etc and am not alone in that thought. Will write in Nader befor voting for that ticket and would NOT really be all that thrilled with Obama/Clinton ticket either but that would be SLIGHTLY more acceptable thou Obama would have to cover his back really, really well at all times for sure !!!!
02:17 PM on 03/07/2008
Bozewellian:

And Obama's 'dream home' with next door neighbor, Resko, was good judgment for him....?????

Call Karl and tell him you tried on HuffPo but those Dems are tired and savvy of our
lies and misreprepresentations about their candidates....
12:56 PM on 03/07/2008
He's ahead in delegates and she is offering him the vice presidency? I really believe that no matter what she says she will never chose Obama as her VP. She is only floating the possibility to make voters think it might be a possibility. After all she has said about him does anyone really think she would actually chose him?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
claudiam
Proud Arizona Democrat
02:17 PM on 03/07/2008
Yes, he is ahead in delegates. We need to look at the bottom line. If Clinton gets the nomination it is because of "dirty" business within our party. Someone within our party with "power" and integrity, remember this word? needs to stand up and say enough is enough.
12:19 PM on 03/07/2008
The question was posed on HuffPo yesterday or the day before looking for a solution that did not rip the party asunder. A unity ticket alone isn't the answer--only part of the answer. The two candidates need to make a joint statement to the world that they will keep campaigning for the nominee, they will allow ALL of the primaries and caucuses yet to happen to go forward and even allow re-dos for Florida and Michigan. The deal will be this, they WILL NOT campaign against each other. They will only campaign on their respective platforms against Senator McCain. He is the one to beat after all. The pledge will be that they will runn on the same ticket and the voters will decide with elected delegates who takes the number one position and who takes the number two position.

This sets up a 50 state general election campaign in a round-about way, no? The voters still get to decide. If either goes negative, the disgrace will be a certain loss and that broken promise will exclude them from consideration as VP should they lose.

It would allow the candidates to start chipping at McCain instead of their own party so he is less able to use his vast headstart on us to win in November. It is unprecedented, but this is an unprecedented year.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WAdem
12:11 PM on 03/07/2008
I can't believe how one-sided HuffPost has become. It is truly foolish to attack Hillary when your boy has performed so poorly against her. I can also guarantee that when I say an Obama nomination loses 2 votes in this house, I am not alone. The damage is already done. We are life-long Dems and will not be voting for a ticket that has Obama and no Clinton, period. So, either go with the will of the people (and I don't mean the disproportionate representation we witnessed at the caucuses) or lose in November.
12:36 PM on 03/07/2008
Are you insane? "Obama has performed so poorly against her." Is that why Obama has a 150 delegate lead and 600,000 overall vote lead? What planet are you on?
12:50 PM on 03/07/2008
The will of the people has been expressed. In case you hadn't noticed, Barack Obama is leading in the popular vote, and he has a significant lead in committed delegates.
12:09 PM on 03/07/2008
"In fact, some people -- namely Obama's foreign policy expert Susan Rice -- feel that neither Clinton and Obama are experienced to answer that phone call."

Don't be manipulative. Rice is accurate in saying that nobody running for president has had that experience. It's impossible Ms. Breitweiser, so stop tearing the Democratic party apart. That experience requires having been president. While Clinton can argue that she has known that Bill has taken that call, she cannot profess to know what confidential matters where handled. The idea that there is a big red for certain emergencies being answered by the ominipent executive is one of the dumbest fucking ideas I've ever heard. Is she saying that if she's President, she won't use a BlackBerry, lol?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PackyJ
11:59 AM on 03/07/2008
Given her propensity for endorsing McCain, it looks like the "Unity Ticket" Ms. Clinton would prefer is herself and the Senator from AZ.