“Oh, the twisting and turning of Clinton and her supporters. Clinton has tried to change the rules wherever it serves her ambition. She signed onto an agreement, along with the rest of Democrats, that Dem candidates would not campaign in Florida after it broke the Party's rules for broadening the impact of early caucuses and votes. Then, while other candidates were honoring that agreement, she and her hubby went into the state and campaigned like mad. In Michigan, which also broke that agreement, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. And when Clinton, by cheating her pants off, got the most votes, she crowed like Bush on the USS Lincoln. And with as much validity.
Clinton needs enemies. She needs to be the victim while acting like a bellicose male with no principles. She writes a book about its taking a village to raise safe and healthy children and then votes AGAINST a bill banning cluster bombs, those notorious killers and maimers of children. Lord save us from this fake Democrat. She belongs in the other Party, where her corporate buddies are so much more comfortable. How about someone who still has a principle or two, for a change?”
texanna on Mar 21, 2008 at 17:13:19
“mick3, I don't know where you're getting your facts, but I could suggest factcheck.org to get the real information. Neither Bill nor Hillary "campaigned like mad" in Florida. In fact, Sen. Clinton went there to a private function that occurred just before the polls closed on the day of the primary election. Did you know that Sen. Obama had campaign ads running in the state for the month preceding the primary? Now, he didn't buy direct media time in the state, no, it came as a bundle of a national media buy. So, you see, both of these candidates are doing whatever they can as close to breaking the rules as possible to get their message out to as many voters as possible.”
TertiusIII on Mar 21, 2008 at 16:29:00
“mick3 - this is me. It's one thing to lie about Republicans, but Hillary is a Democrat. She did not campaign 'like mad' in Florida. As for Michigan, Obama chose party over people. He listened to Howard Dean and the DNC and chose not to put himself on the ballot and give the people a voice. He has no one to blame but himself. Both states conducted free and fair elections in accordance with state and federal law - but Dean thinks he can silence them disenfranchesing millions of voters who went to the polls in good conscience believing their votes would count. But you want to tell them that just like in 2000, it won't!”
accountability on Mar 21, 2008 at 16:24:25
“ummm... besides the obvious lack of critical thinking skills and objectivity as well as the need to feed the hate and pushing an agenda what does this have to do with the post, particularly the first line?
Something is so wrong with you crazy people... seeing Hillary supporters behind every bush. If someone dares to ask for fairness they are Hillary "shills"
You Obamazis are so far over the bend that it would be funny if it wasn't tragic and damaging to the party.
You are behaving like the 28%'r wing nuts that still approve of the idiot king.
You demonize someone else rather than putting forth anything positive or helpful.
Barack must be so proud of you.
I hope he can find away to get rid of you leeches once he is President if he is. You obviously won't be contributing to the upliftment of the country.
You are all pushing people away from Obama, you are creating so much strife and ugliness in this election.
Isn't it ironic that those who scream the loudest about HRC resort to the exact tactics they project onto her... we becomeme what we resist I suppose...
Or we project onto others what we can't face about ourselves.
Just like the idiot king with the evil doers.”
factanonverba on Mar 21, 2008 at 16:01:32
“read your comments and look for the misogynistic remarks. And the outright falsehoods. She did not campaign in Michigan. No one did. Obama and Edwards were the only ones to take their names off the ballot. Why? Because they knew they would lose. So why not revote?
The fake Democrat is Obama. That's why 70% of them won't vote for Obama in the general election. So if Obama wins the nomination it is Pyrrhic victory. A SUSA poll in Massachusetts yesterday has Obama tied with McCain. Massachusetts.”
“She doesn't need enablers. She is the force herself, inciting to violence, taking down the last shreds of democracy, feeding on her power to manipulate the peasants. She has built a following of the religious and the ignorant (no difference, really--"you don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church") and will be a Republican attack dog for years to come. The rest of the world must be watching in horrible fascination the farce/tragedy that McCain has brought to the nation, like watching a cobra in action, or the flu epidemic of 1918..”
“No, Palin has just made a place for herself in the politics of the Far Right and their followers , what those folks consider "the cattle." It's no wonder the Republican Party has nothing but contempt for ordinary Americans, when they can manipulate a whole pack of them to believe that it's somehow more respectable to vote Republican, i.e., vote against everything that people need for a healthy, vibrant society. Voting against their own wellbeing has been Republican voters' habit all along, which is as logical as equating capitalism with democracy. Capitalism server only the privileged few while exploiting workers and consumers and militarily attacking every small nation that attempts to protect its resources and citizens from corporate exploitation--it's called "US interests." Capitalism is the antithesis of democracy, which people would realize except for generations of successful propaganda by monied interests. Which is why Republicans attempt to suppress or corrupt voting while avoiding going anywhere near citizen issues. Palin will have a place with the cynical, corrupt Right from now on.”
“Chris Dodd has white hair. He isn't old. Also, he isn't a TV personality. How did he get in there? A kid later in life? It's the latest thing, albeit really a bad idea. Imagine having a grandparent for a parent. So to speak. So where are the real grandma and grandpa, then? Nursing home? Cemetery? Probably moot, since so few families pay much attention to their elders (while others' lives are eaten up caring for them). Ah, what a society. One looks at France and understands their reluctance to engage in war (from terrible experience, as well). The French are family oriented but not so nuclear about it. The French also "get" how to live well, enjoy life, make the best of it. We should be so lucky.
Of course, they get at least a month, and sometimes two, of paid vacation. Go there baefore out utterly worthless dollars prevent movement. The French way is great.”
“It's what I've always said: Lincoln was wrong to keep the South in the Union. Just think of the nation's rise in average IQ. Well, it's religion in good part. Those folks are discouraged from learning anything that isn't in their book of superstitions. All part of "faith" you know.”
zoozey on Oct 1, 2008 at 22:46:03
“mick3: You need to consider that Gore, Clinton, Carter are southernors. You also need to know that the South consists of many, many African Americans, and some of the MOST liberal Whites you will ever see! I will guarantee you that the average White Dem in the south is much more inclined toward being a Progessive, or even a liberal, than a Dem in say, Michigan.
Yes, it is true that the south has been in the tank for the neocons of late. But the south is not the only area of this country that is.
See, it is this sort of comments that makes southernors call fowl and vote against their own economics. They see this as evidence of "elitism." It is not regional, but rather a 'provincial" mindset where we need to be concerned. The kind of provincialism you speak of, is present in Palin. And no one is farther from the south than she is!”
Nannabanana on Oct 1, 2008 at 15:28:29
“Wow. Here I was enjoying my afternoon read of the pol blogs--when BAM! mick3 slaps me right in the face! I was born and raised in the South, and I am deeply offended by those hateful remarks of regional prejudice. mick3, do you, with your superior intelligence to mine, not know that the rural South is more densely populated with African Americans than any other region of the nation? Your ignorant remark is racially charged as well as regionally charged. You need to join the 21st century--you are no better than the ignorant parents of those Arkansas school children. I am a proud Southern supporter of Obama/Biden. Your remarks are devisive and do not represent the values of the Obama/Biden campaign. Are you deliberately trying to hurt the campaign by offending an entire region of people??? You should be ashamed of yourself.”
“Republican candidates cannot and never could campaign on real issues. Theirs is the Party of elitism and utter contempt for working people, let alone women. Thus, we get one batch of nonsense after the other.
Early on, it was communists in the government (another Mc, Joe McCarthy). Then it was socialism, without which the needs of the people are never taken into account, which is why Europeans live such better lives, enjoying forms of democratic socialism. Then it was a woman's basic human right to control her own body. Next the glorification of greed and the very rich.
Currently, the Right have added immigrants,to its propaganda, hoping that, as usual--as always, in fact--workers (whose jobs have been abolished in order to provide more profit to capitalist parasites) will turn against each other, rather than blaming those who actually victimized them. The Right are now demonizing those livelihoods have been destroyed by Clinton's NAFTA. There's nothing left for ordinary Mexicans, no land, no crops, no work. So here they come. Well, the Right wants a peasantry, desperate and helpless, fighting each other for survival, and that's what we are being turned into.
It has always been that way; the elites turn working people against one another. In earlier times it was the "dirty" Irish, "sneaky" Chinese, "criminal" Italians, "shiftless" blacks, etc.. Now it's immigrants from Mexico, whose livelihoods have been destroyed by NAFTA and whose nation used to be twice as big before the US stole half of it.”
“They say that Kerry lost by not responding quickly enough to attacks. Now they're saying that Obama shouldn't respond at all. He must be feeling the way Hillary felt when the Right was attacking her for being a woman. Actually, both Obama's and Clntnon's problem has been their being Democrats, rather than belonging to the party of greed and endless war.”
“The point? Yes, blacks sent blacks into slavery; white sent blacks into slavery; whites sent whites into slavery for centuries. That is history. Those who sent were all male, of course. Does that make another point?”
“Blacks will do themselves a huge disservice if they try to force Obama to campaign on black issues. The McCain campaign is doing its best to foster fear of his (half) blackness in the minds of the ignorant and bigoted. His black constituents should be intelligent enough to understand that they only undermine his campaign in this way.”
Jahsmah on Aug 5, 2008 at 02:20:02
“I could not agree more. That pissed me off. As a Black woman, I so sick of Black people shooting ourselves in the foot! Should he where a dashiki and African print clothes? Just as the white people who are are seeing this historic campaign through race are ignorant, so are black people. Honestly, I am disgusted. I am not saying all Black people should vote for him because he is black, but I will say...vote your interests stupid and I can promise, John McSame, to quote Kanye, "Doesn't care about black people [in the way an Obama administratioin will.]"”
“The writer seems to believe that the Clinton way was a good thing. But both Clintons are devoted members of the self-titled Democratic Leadership Council, which was founded to shift the Democratic Party from representing workers and women to representing corporate rule over all. Clinton's pushing NAFTA through was just the most obvious example of what a true DLCer will do for corporate America.
Obama has declined to join the DLC, a good sign only if overlooking his abrupt turn to the right after essentially securing the nomination. He has sounded like a DLCer ever since. Also, I don't expect to hear much about women's and girls' rights from Obama, now courting the religious right so energetically. Something like allowing females the basic human right to control one's own body is considered anathema to religiosos. A woman's life, versus the "holy" stray sperm. Possibly, the government should step in and outlaw male masturbation while they're at it. All those godlike (because male) sperm gone to utter waste, and the planet so needing more people. Not.”
“Obama presented himself as someone who cared, inspiring young and old alike, who felt hope for the first time since Slick Willy conned us by campaigning Left while all the while intending to govern Right. Obama waited just two days after Hillary's belated concession speech to turn due Right. He is no more a man of the people than was Reagan, who also had the gift of deception and whose legacy is a nation handed completely over to the "haves" at terrible cost to the rest of us, And yet there are people who still believe he was a good man and true.
In a smaller, more cohesive country----one that hadn't been propagandized into believing that capitalism has anything to do with democracy----we'd have had either a general strike or a violent revolution by now.
Certainly, capitalism cannot allow the people to see the benefits of socialism. Using our young, it takes down every budding democracy, every sign of socialism, that dares show its face. If the People saw how much better life is when government serves their interests instead of keeping them firmly under the heel of capitalism, they might start thinking for themselves instead of blindly accepting endless propaganda spewed on behalf of the rich and powerful.
So now we have this reverse Oreo of deceivers: Clinton--Obama--Clinton, capitalists, imperialists, militarists all. And people will still believe, because the reality is just too terrible to contemplate.”
KQuarksSuperKollider on Jul 1, 2008 at 14:23:11
“Time for you to move to Venezuela.”
soapington on Jul 1, 2008 at 14:22:23
“Obama has never presented himself as a socialist.”
“Obama has done what Bill Clinton did: campaigned Left, turned due Right. He is not what he presented himself to be; we Democrats were screwed. Again. Democrats have long been too passive and forgiving when betrayed by their candidates. I however, have seen too much for too many decades; I will now write in a real Democrat's name in the general election. The process of destruction and failure to be suffered by the People will only be faster with McCain than with Slick Willy redux, Obama.
When you think of all the energized, inspired young who believed, probably still do, and what Obama has already (bad timing, guy) shown himself to be........reprehensible.”
“Well, turns out Obama is just another Clinton, campaigned Left followed by an abrupt Right turn after getting what he wanted. However, it's just the first step, and you don't win hearts and minds one day and then tromp all over them the next and expect loyalty.
Obama sounded great while he ran against Clinton. It took just a couple of days for the bastard to betray us all, to show his true colors: globalism, cozying up to the war criminals running Israel. Bill Clinton redux. Probably, Slick Willy advised him to make the Right turn early on, so folks would get over it before the national election. Worked for him.
Well, it won't work for me. I've been snookered once too many times...told the Obama campaign that I will write in a real Democrat's name on the ballot. And I will. With McCain it will only be quicker than with Obama, the real Obama..
Democrats have always been too passive when betrayed; example, Clinton's re-election. And Obama doesn't even have to join the DLC, the Clintons' home base and formed to divert the Democratic Party from representing workers to representing Big Corp. He's doing their work anyway, now with Hillary and Bill at his side.
When you think of all the young who have responded to Obama rhetoric with hope and youthful energy.........Reprehensible!”
“Edwards has pretty much the right stuff with the wrong delivery. His speech just sounds so smarmy. Wish he'd hired a voice coach. He didn't. So probably Sam Nunn would be the better choice. So would Russ Feingold, but no presidential candidate wants someone who might outshine him, and Feingold is very good at reaching people because of his honesty and engaging personality. So: Nunn?”
“Tiny note. I think the fist bump should be the coming thing, if we still, after thousands of years of so-called civilization, need to demonstrate that we have no weapon in our hand, e.g., the handshake. Other than that, the handshake is pretty much all lose:lose. For one thing, it's so insanitary. Imagine if you're a public person and had to shake hands with hundreds of people whose hands have been god knows where. Eeyoo! Then think of the useless wear and tear on such hands. Shouldn't happen. I, myself, have damaged hands from a massive attack of rheumatoid arthritis. I can't even clap with one hand, although the hands seem to be okay to others. I have had some really nasty handshakes from macho land. Personally, I am tired of explaining that I don't shake hands. I'd rather that people who insist on it explain why.
So, if not a fist bump, which at least saves having someone wiping his fingers on your palm, howzabout the Indian namaste. So easy, so courteous.”
“My god, I can't believe it. Who passed out the rose-colored glasses? I, a lifelong radical feminist, was appalled at the sheer LACK of grace, the fixation on self, the pettiness of her speech, the I, I, I, I, ad infinitum. Before she spoke, I told a friend with whom I was watching TV that she would not actually concede, that she'd be all about Clinton. My friend chuckled at my cynicism; that was before she spoke. Afterward, he just sat looking at the screen in amazement. I felt like I needed a shower. The woman was just a horrible disappointment throughout both that first speech and her whole campaign. I say this from what she said and did, not from expectations. As a feminist, I had always hoped that Hillary would be different from Bill, the misleading Corporatist-to-the-eyeballs. In this campaign, she showed otherwise. So be it.
Well, that's what rallies are for: to crank up emotions. Hers had little to do with laying out any sort of plan to help the suffering populace except for her one-note set of issues: health care. And on that, she is firmly in the pockets of Big Corp. Well, at least she's a good senator, we're told....despite her supporting Bush with most of her votes. Rallies. Guess you had to be there.”
StephenJK on Jun 9, 2008 at 20:05:02
“Feminist? Yet you tear down the one woman who, going to the future, will be the most instrumental role model for little girls and young women everywhere. The days of bitter and militant feminism is OVER. Attitudes like yours will have no place going forward. Get used to the rejection now.”
“Yes. Clinton has shown poor, even disastrous, judgment repeatedly, from her vote on war, her claim to be willing to attack---"obliterate," to be exact---another nation that has done absolutely nothing to us, her brown-nosed co-sponsoring of a flag-burning bill, her vote AGAINST a ban on cluster bombs, her sly cozying up to the Right on women's issues ("we should revisit Roe v Wade"), her unfortunate choice of campaign managers, her further, supposedly sly, remarks about Obama's religion and race, her trying on one persona and set of issues after the other. Nothing principled, nothing actually important to her except getting elected President. Her TV ad about whom we'd want answering that phone at 3 a.m. ended up working against her. With charisma, she might have gotten away with it, as had Bill on winning a second term after having turned due Right after his first election. But Hillary has no charisma except in the arena of feminism, and if feminists believe she wouldn't let them down whenever convenient, they'd have been in for a huge surprise. It would suddenly be all about free trade and the economy, big money (her backers), and to hell with the poor and the downtrodden. I hope her supporters calm down and look back.”
egal on Jun 10, 2008 at 06:34:24
“That's it in a nutshell, really: Hillary proved she would do anything to win, not that she would be the one to do the best for our nation.
In the end, no matter personal feelings, I couldn't imagine voting to give more power to a woman who shirked her Senatorial duty in supporting (what she stated she knew at the time would become) war without fact-checking first. And she didn't check because she was voting to preserve her electability, so she admitted.
She's very Big Brother, Nanny State, as if he is a queen not an elected leader--which alone might have turned me off from her.
But what ELSE made me unwilling to vote for her were:
how Hillary likes to spend taxpayer money on proven-unconstitutional laws prohibiting free speech because she could spin it as "protecting the children" (she thus helped waste money needed to rebuild after Katrina) to earn votes, or the pandering gas tax farce; and
those ways in which she resembles our current president by not listening to, seeking, or respecting the advice of experts, such as in making her failed, insurance- and big company-rewarding and unwieldy universal healthcare plan, or ignoring the education experts to side with federal oversight and testing because she likes centralization.
Basically, Hillary is just too ambitious, too controlling, and too Machiavellian.”
“Pundits, pundits, pundits. How they go on. But no one I know supports Obama for his obvious and even welcome (see McCain) charisma. Obama speaks to where people are concerned, on leaving Iraq, on the outsourcing of jobs and the havoc that has wrought on working people, on diplomacy rather than force, on seeking points of agreement rather than division, and on and on. I haven't heard that kind of talk from any Democrat except perhaps John Edwards, whose smarmy voice rather than his stance on issues did him in. Too bad, because Edwards is also great on democratic issues.
However, charisma has surely had much to do with inspiring the young, who had once before risen up only to be cynically/mindlessly abandoned by John Kerry. Obama speaks to their ideals, something that the Clintons (plural because of that "35 years" claim) once cynically exploited only to betray repeatedly during Bill's tenure.
Hillary Clinton dug herself a hole and kept on digging with her 80's-style campaign and her reliance on corporate fat cats for support. Speaking here as a lifelong feminist. Clinton showed herself simply too unprincipled to support, so blatantly clear in her non-concession speech and from what we hear about her negotiations with the Obama camp; it wasn't about the many pressing issues now facing ordinary Americans, it was all about herself.. If I were capable of being embarrassed by someone else, it would have been her.”
“Lincoln, when asked why he had appointed so many of the opposition to his Cabinet, was said to reply that it was a way of keeping his eye on them.”
lindaqqq on Jun 5, 2008 at 17:02:01
“Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
Maybe he should offer Hillary the VP.
Webb is a little to angry for me.
Clark seems to match his intellegence and demeanor better. And he's hot :-)”
“I'm a generation older, and you don't know what you missed. Lucky you. But how old is Jong? She could be right about that, but she's definitely not right about Clinton, who showed appallingly bad judgment throughout her campaign and is far too bellicose and dishonest for my stomach.”
“No, I imagine that Erica Jong is pretty old by now. I am an 80-year-old "rabid" feminist, and I know how she feels about it's being the last chance for herself. Me, too. However, having seen the cynical debacle that was the real Clinton Administration under Bill (and purportedly herself as well) from which they emerged just in time before the economic bubble burst, and having watched Senator Clinton prove herself to be unfit through error after error in judgment : the war vote, supporting Bush for years, the Bosnia lie, the insulting "misspoke" explanation, the cold dismissiveness of another brilliant Democratic candidate, the lying and cheating involved in agreeing not to campaign in Michigan and Florida along with the other Dem candidates and then campaigning completely unopposed by those who kept their word and claiming her Potemkin "victory" and whining about it when expected to abide by agreed-to rules, brining race and religion into the campaign, and so on and on and on up to her appalling lack of grace on the night of June 3, 2008. A moment to remember as utterly typical, if you avoid the rah-rah of blind feminism and see the senator clearly. I won't be around in eight years, hopefully not even four years, so bummer.”
“Clinton: voted for Bush's war in order to protect her career ("I didn't want to appear unpatriotic); she voted with Bush repeatedly afterward; she is a devoted member of the DLC, formed to switch the Democratic Party from representing workers and women to representing corporations; she lied about Bosnia, so utterly unnecessary--just a reflex action, I guess; she then insultingly claimed that she merely "misspoke"; she agreed, along with the other Democratic candidates, not to campaign in Michigan and Florida and then, when she was losing elsewhere went ahead and campaigned anyway--completely unopposed by those who kept their word--and then claimed "victory" and got her supporters all riled up over how badly she was being treated, having lied and cheated the whole way; she voted against a ban on cluster bombs, so inconsistent, considering that they kill and maim numberless children (this, from the author of "It Takes a Village"--guess it only applies to the children of people "like us"); she crudely brought race into the campaign, supposedly slyly, but it is classic Clinton; she--also supposedly slyly--offered doubt about Obama's Christianity; she has behaved like a prima donna, dismissive and all about "me." I am a lifelong feminist, and have been appalled by my last chance to see a woman in the white house taken down by such an unprincipled (except orally, when addressing her base) person. Just terribly disappointed.”