In this Discussion
- beckysioux December 2007
- canoe7grape January 2008
- DJRose December 2007
- dollarflame6 December 2007
- manx9shrine January 2008
- mayonaise December 2007
- recordwolf57 December 2007
- thephantommilk December 2007
- tune1shade December 2007
Clinton Goes Too Far
Let me start off by saying I don't like Hilary Clinton. I think many of her positions would cause or exacerbate more problems than they would solve and my gut reaction to her is that she's more of the same. If it comes down to her or a republican, of course I'll vote for her, but I won't like it. I'm an Obama supporter: I've thrown myself into his campaign and I enjoy canvassing for him. What really irks me is when ppl say they won't vote for him b/c he doesn't have experience. What exactly is that supposed to mean? You vote by age?!
So now that Clinton has actually attacked Obama based on an essay he wrote in kindergarten, I have to say, I'm sick of her. KINDERGARTEN.
And now, to save face, Clinton's staff is running around trying to convince ppl she was joking. Good grief.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11560955/
I like this blogger's comment: "By the way its quite common for children to say they want to president when they grow up. When's the last time you heard one say 'I want to be a sarcastic blogger?'" from politics.wizbangblog.com
So now that Clinton has actually attacked Obama based on an essay he wrote in kindergarten, I have to say, I'm sick of her. KINDERGARTEN.
And now, to save face, Clinton's staff is running around trying to convince ppl she was joking. Good grief.
QUOTE
CNSNews.com) - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) took aim at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Sunday, claiming that Obama is "rewriting history" when he says he has not had long- held aspirations for the White House.
In a statement released late Sunday, Clinton criticized Obama for saying, "I'm not running to fulfill some long-held plans or because I think it's open to me." In Boston on Sunday evening and in Iowa earlier that day, Obama had said: "I have not been planning to run for president for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."
Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer, in the statement, said: "Senator Obama's comment today is fundamentally at odds with what his teachers, family, classmates, and staff have said about his plans to run for President. Senator Obama's campaign rhetoric is getting in the way of his reality."
"Senator Obama's relatives and friends say he has been talking about running for President for at least the last 15 years. So who's not telling the truth, them or him?" said Singer.
Clinton cited members of Obama's Senate staff, law school friends, and a comment from Obama's brother-in-law 15 years ago, as well as his kindergarten and third grade teachers.
According to the Associated Press, "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia.
The Obama campaign did not return requests for comment for this article, but according to the New York Sun , a spokeswoman for Obama, Jennifer Psaki, ridiculed the Clinton camp's tactics. "I'm sure tomorrow they'll attack him for being a flip-flopper because he told his second-grade teacher he wanted to be an astronaut," she said.
Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.
In a statement released late Sunday, Clinton criticized Obama for saying, "I'm not running to fulfill some long-held plans or because I think it's open to me." In Boston on Sunday evening and in Iowa earlier that day, Obama had said: "I have not been planning to run for president for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."
Clinton spokesperson Phil Singer, in the statement, said: "Senator Obama's comment today is fundamentally at odds with what his teachers, family, classmates, and staff have said about his plans to run for President. Senator Obama's campaign rhetoric is getting in the way of his reality."
"Senator Obama's relatives and friends say he has been talking about running for President for at least the last 15 years. So who's not telling the truth, them or him?" said Singer.
Clinton cited members of Obama's Senate staff, law school friends, and a comment from Obama's brother-in-law 15 years ago, as well as his kindergarten and third grade teachers.
According to the Associated Press, "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia.
The Obama campaign did not return requests for comment for this article, but according to the New York Sun , a spokeswoman for Obama, Jennifer Psaki, ridiculed the Clinton camp's tactics. "I'm sure tomorrow they'll attack him for being a flip-flopper because he told his second-grade teacher he wanted to be an astronaut," she said.
Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11560955/
I like this blogger's comment: "By the way its quite common for children to say they want to president when they grow up. When's the last time you heard one say 'I want to be a sarcastic blogger?'" from politics.wizbangblog.com
Comments
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
It might, in fact, be one of the most ridiculous things ANYONE's ever said.
Anyway, I actually like Hillary. I will most likely end up supporting her come election season barring some huge fiasco. I do have to agree with the fact that Obama does not have enough experience. It's not his age, but the fact that he is a young senator and, from what I've seen, most of his campaign is based on the fact that he is an exceptionally charismatic and convincing speaker. However, this does not translate to knowing how to run a country. For example, though they are very, VERRRY different politicians, in terms of their use of rhetoric, look at Hugo Chavez (great speaker, essentially good reforms for the poor, but seemingly very little long term economic plans).
Clinton was revolutionary as a first lady. She demanded influence and refused to be stuck in the typical first lady role. Sure, she had her troubles and mistakes (namely backing down from her health care plan after pressuring, as seen most recently in Michael Moore's "Sicko"), but listening to her talk, I do think that she's capable of bringing about solid change. Also, listening to the Youtube/CNN debate (whoo), I really liked Hillary's views on global warming; she made it clear that we need to focus on technology, using the immense resources available to develop usable technology. Having been lectured all year about climate change (go "Economics of Climate Change!"), it was a really refreshing statement to hear.
I'm still working out how I feel about everyone. I'm just ignoring all the smear campaigns for now because, seriously, they ALL get ridiculous (Hillary is not the only one). All I know for certain is that if Giuliani gets the Republican vote, it's going to be so depressing. He's such an asshole, it's unbelievable.
OH MAN YES. What especially drives me nuts is how Republicans got all up in arms about Bill Clinton's affair, and then excuse Giuliani's which was WAY worse. He used TAXPAYER MONEY to put his mistress up in a Manhattan apartment (not a cheap endeavour, I might add), and used NYPD resources to drive her places. Both of those things are ACTUAL crimes, not like lying about an incident unrelated to the one on trial to protect your family.
Sorry, it just gets under my skin how they'll make allowances for one thing and not the other.
Moreover, claiming Clinton has experience because she was a first lady is an unfair claim. There's no way Obama could have been a first lady or a first man- that kind of presidential status is exactly what he's working toward, so saying he doesn't have presidential experience wheras she does is absurd. It's more important to look, then, at their actual careers, not what opportunities fortune or chance happened to give. On that playing field, Obama has been exceptional while Clinton has been merely mediocre. I read an article a few months ago dissecting the claim that Clinton has been extraordinary in any way. The truth is, any woman given the opportunities she had in life would have produced much the same results: from her Wellesley graduation speech to her behavior in the White House, Clinton has achieved, but not in a remarkable way. She is not a woman of change but simply a woman who has been in the right place at the right time.
"She hasn't accomplished anything on her own since getting admitted to Yale Law," wrote Joan Di Cola, a Boston lawyer, in a letter to The Wall Street Journal this week, adding: "She isn't Dianne Feinstein, who spent years as mayor of San Francisco before becoming a senator, or Nancy Pelosi, who became Madam Speaker on the strength of her political abilities. All Hillary is, is Mrs. Clinton. She became a partner at the Rose Law Firm because of that, senator of New York because of that, and (heaven help us) she could become president because of that."
Obama, on the other hand, has struggled throughout his life to create substantive change. He has overcome obstacles and will continue to do so. His campaign is not based on his eloquence or mannerisms but something deeper. To see him as only charming is to fall prey to all the dark speech Clinton and the Republicans are spewing.
As for the environment, of course Clinton has said use technology. Who wouldn't say that? There's nobody in their right minds who wouldn't say they support the environment. So let's look instead at the differences in what's being said. We'll find that Clinton is merely repeating a mantra, like a candy commmercial, while Obama actually understands the issues and has a carefully constructed plan.
Please check this out:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
The truth is, Clinton is just more of the same. I'll quote a comment someone gave on an online discussion: "Hillary doesn't have very much political experience at all, unless you count being First Lady as experience, which is ludicrous. While I don't like any of the democratic candidates, I agree that for a democrat to have a chance, Hillary can't be on the ticket. She's too conservative for most democrats and represents little change and big business. She isn't conservative enough for most republicans. I think an Edwards/Obama ticket would give the democratic party a chance to win this."
And to quote a more extreme but in amany ways true statement, "Clinton is Bush in disguise."
Besides, "experience" is a false value. Nobody had more experience than Bush, Cheney, and their whole despicable gang.
Moreover, Clinton voted for the war in Iraq- and never admitted it was a mistake.
She then voted again for the Patriot Act.
Clinton was revolutionary as a first lady. She demanded influence and refused to be stuck in the typical first lady role. Sure, she had her troubles and mistakes (namely backing down from her health care plan after pressuring, as seen most recently in Michael Moore's "Sicko"), but listening to her talk, I do think that she's capable of bringing about solid change. Also, listening to the Youtube/CNN debate (whoo), I really liked Hillary's views on global warming; she made it clear that we need to focus on technology, using the immense resources available to develop usable technology. Having been lectured all year about climate change (go "Economics of Climate Change!"), it was a really refreshing statement to hear.
I love the New York Magazine and I'm not going to pretend it's a beacon for in-depth journalism, but still, in October, they ran an article titled "Daughters of Hillary" which was rather fantastic. After a quote by Elizabeth Edwards, the article goes on to say, "The fact that Elizabeth Edwards can so blithely be both a cookie-baker and a political commentator has everything to do with Hillary, who insisted on being judged by the same standards as a man, who refused to play a secondary role, who (often clumsily) forced herself into the public debate, even before she was running for office." She has made great leaps as a first lady. Yes, she was given the opportunity, but she didn't just sit there, she RAN WITH IT. And I strongly believe that's what we need in office: someone who take the opportunities given to him/her and runs with it to the best of his/her ability. I think she's powerful, and though I don't agree with everything she's said (hey, no one's perfect, especially those in the public eye), I think she's our best bet.
Also, yes Hillary voted for the war, but so did many others and, frankly, that was the past. Now she realizes the mistake. If Bush were willing to realize the mistake, maybe we could move forward and at least TRY to expel ourselves from this mess. People make mistakes, what matters now is trying to fix them.
We're not going to agree with one another. I'll vote for Hillary and you'll vote for Obama. Such is the beauty of politics.
On a different note, looking further into this, neither Hillary nor Obama really are looking too much into the science of global warming. The cap and trade program is severely flawed. It was the backbone for Kyoto, a program that will most likely never make it off of the ground (especially since the US refuses to participate at all, thereby making emissions reduced insignificant). Though defining a specific target for emissions, cap-and-trade programs set unrealistic expectations about what can be reached. It's all well and good to say "we'll reduce emissions by x% come 2050!" but how in the hell are we going to do that? Solar and wind energies don't yet have the capabilities to store energy, thereby reducing them little more to an occasional energy supplement. Nuclear reactors have the issue of spent fuel and proliferation. The only real technology we could use now would be carbon capture for the coal plants already in existence. I mean, China is building coal-powered plants at such a fast rate that our green initiatives are doing little to combat global warming. If we were to aid China and other energy-intensive developing countries in carbon capture, we might be able to reduce carbon emissions by a big chunk. Instead of cap-and-trade, we should be focusing on carbon pricing. Sure, it doesn't ensure specific emission levels, but it's a start that will provide revenue for further reduction programs.
There I have to disagree, if only because the media has made a big deal about her refusal to apologize for her vote or call it a mistake. Everyone else in the public eye who voted for it has made it a point to call it a mistake, but she insists that she did right given her information at the time. And to that, I read, well, she's in the government- it's her duty to find out as much info as she can and not rely on what congress is being fed.
The other thought that I had while reading your post is that you were comparing Hilary to Elizabeth Edwards. Edwards, first of all, is not and has never been a first lady, so it's unfair to say she stands in the sidelines while First Lady Clinton acted. Moreover, Edwards has cancer...she's not exactly in the condition to start yelling and screaming and we really oughtn't to be criticizing her. Lastly, we weren't comparing Hilary to Edwards, but to Obama, so it just doesn't fit to say Clinton ran with her opportunities while he didn't. To me, it's more impressive that Obama worked on his own to get where he is. I'm a die-hard feminist of the Steinem sort, but that doesn't mean I'll automatically vote for Mrs. Clinton, or even consider her a feminist's dream candidate.
Lol, true. But I like to talk...perhaps too much. I shall shut up now.
The other thought that I had while reading your post is that you were comparing Hilary to Elizabeth Edwards. Edwards, first of all, is not and has never been a first lady, so it's unfair to say she stands in the sidelines while First Lady Clinton acted. Moreover, Edwards has cancer...she's not exactly in the condition to start yelling and screaming and we really oughtn't to be criticizing her. Lastly, we weren't comparing Hilary to Edwards, but to Obama, so it just doesn't fit to say Clinton ran with her opportunities while he didn't. To me, it's more impressive that Obama worked on his own to get where he is. I'm a die-hard feminist of the Steinem sort, but that doesn't mean I'll automatically vote for Mrs. Clinton, or even consider her a feminist's dream candidate.
For the first point: In my family, my mom is a die-hard liberal and my dad is more of a conservative. When the possibility for a war in Iraq was first put on the table, my mom was completely against it (as was I). My dad, however, felt that there were definite reasons to go to war. Now, some 4 years down the road, my dad has completely changed views. He sees it as a huge problem. However, I don't think he would change his mind about entering the war. I think he might say that we should have gone about it differently, but I think he, in the end, still would have decided to go to war.
Maybe I'm more willing to forgive Clinton because of this because I see the same point of view in my dad. They both now see a need to leave Iraq, a task that's not going to be easy and, as painful as it is, can't be rushed (we rushed into the war. Rushing out may cause problems of a similar magnitude).
For the second point: It was not comparing Hillary to Edwards, but saying that Hillary, in part (I won't say she did it alone, but she certainly was part of the change), now allows future potential first ladies (no matter who they may be) or women in politics in general. Edwards just happened to be talking for the interview, she was not being compared to Clinton. It was simply saying that the interview, in which she makes definite political statements, was partially possible due to past political progress made by Clinton when she was first lady. Edwards doesn't have to yell at all, but if she wants to, she CAN.
(Frankly, I think that Edith Wilson was perhaps one of the most influential women in the White House, but that was kind of an anomaly)
And can I just say that I love you two? You guys give me hope for the future.
You are both fantastic!
This has turned into quite the "awww"fest, and I love it.
I haven't been paying as much attention as I'd like to the race, mostly cause I'm fed up cause it started so long ago and there's still like a year to go.
I think this discussion is very interesting, though, and I like both your points.
And I think it's really really incredible that the two top runners for the Democratic ticket are a woman and an African-American. I know it's been working towards this point for a long time, but at the same time it seems to come out from nowhere where last election all of the Democratic choices were people like John Kerry- all white males.
And also, this time around the Democratic side has a fair amount of pretty good choices.
unlike the Republican side... I mean, maybe I shouldn't be commenting as a 'liberal' voter or whatever, but if I was Republican I'd hate to be choosing between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee or whoever else is running.
Although it was a stroke of brilliance for Mike Huckabee to have Chuck Norris in his campaign ads.
And no matter how much I dislike my former governor, I don't think it's fair for people to be criticizing Mitt's Mormonism. Republicans don't seem to get separation of church and state (no offense to any Republicans on the boards, I'm sure you're all wonderful and smart and all). I mean, it's not like they're polygamists anymore or anything- they're pretty normal as far as I can tell. Intolerance like that makes me mad, even though I could care less if Romney or anyone else gets the Republican nomination.
It seems wrong to be criticizing a Mormon if our current president is such a moron when it comes to religion in the first place.
It'd be nice to have people choosing not to vote for people based on their platform rather than all of these attributes that really matter in the campaign (in other words, criticizing someone's religion is very different than criticizing their views on the separation of church and state).
Though this really just applies to the current administration:
Oh hey, teen pregnancy rates are on the rise in the US for the first time since 1991. AWESOME. Maybe that abstinence only program wasn't such a good idea huh?
I'm sorry, but pretending something doesn't exist and preaching "abstinence only" won't stop kids from being curious or, hell, hormonal. Sex is what our bodies are programmed to do, so why not educate and provide condoms and other contraceptives to these kids? Seriously. God, it makes me so angry.
Personally, I have to agree with Sally, and say that I'm an Obama supporter. I had the chance to actually see him speak at one of his conventions in NYC and I have to say, he is a great public speaker. I went there liking Obama and left there being like "wow, he's awesome." And he brought up the point about how everyone argues that he has no experience, or very little experience. Well look at the people currently running this country. They had tons of experience and that doesn't make them at all qualified.
As for Hillary, I'm just going to say I don't like her. I can't really describe it, I just don't. Maybe it's because she claims she is such a New Yorker, yet moved here a few years ago just because she knew she had a chance to run for Senator because NY is a fairly liberal state. Or maybe it's because she says she loves NY and wants to do good for it and is so loyal towards it and wants to be reelected as Senator, yet she'll leave the Senator spot to run for President. I understand that being president is better than being a senator, but if she is so busy campaigning for President, when does she have time to be a senator? And when she is so pro-NY yet doesn't do anything for it because she wants to be President. I don't know, maybe I'm just biased.
And I don't like how people are saying they are going to vote for her, just because she's a woman. People I know are like "Well I don't really like her, but I want a woman president, so I'll vote for her." I mean, ya, I would like to see a woman president one day, but I think that people just see a real chance for that to happen. People see Hillary and think that this is there chance to finally have a woman president. Also people that say they won't vote for Obama because he is African-American. Um so what. Why does it matter? No, you should vote for people based on their ideas and political agendas, not based on their sex or race.
Ditto.
I would love to have a woman president. But with the sad, sad shape our country is in right now, I can't vote based on gender. I have to vote for the best candidate who will do what's best for our country. And so far, the front runner, in my opinion, is Obama.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080107/pl_nm/...olitics_poll_dc