OK, that’s a little strong, especially for me. I have a calm yet genuine dislike for the person. I think that the politician in question is, at base, extremely opportunistic. Not that others aren’t, goodness knows I will have that shouted in my face, how mine is “just like” this one, but mine at least seems to be motivated by a desire to actually do something positive for the country, and the record of his personal and professional life bears that out. This other one seems motivated purely by such calculated ambition that it makes every speech sound like hectoring and every show of emotion appear to be that of the proverbial crocodile.
I will be so disappointed if we nominate this divisive and warmongering person as the democratic nominee. But I will vote dem all the way from top to bottom because I want the change to filter downticket. As I’m pulling the lever, though, I’ll remember this choice quote:
Again, I fail to see your point. Are you observing that I made an error, and typed “of,” rather than “than?” I’m sure most people here recognized what I had intended to write. I didn’t see my error until you quoted it, unfortunately.
Or are you contending that somehow some of the FISA amendments were more important than others, or that voting on an amendment was more important than voting on the final bill. If that’s the case, I will note again that the votes on FISA were well known well in advance. The whole construction of the agreement was done knowing which amendments needed what number of votes. Glenn Greenwald saw this and predicted the outcome well in advance. Here’s what he wrote back on February 1st:
The amendment she did not vote for lost 67 to 31. What would have been critical about her vote? If the critical part is making her stand on the matter, it would have been equally critical for Obama to make his stand on the final bill.
It’s a shame to have to ask again, but what “theory” are you obliquely alluding to? Why can’t you be more clear on this matter?
Too long, did not read.
You do blather on, rationalizing your excuses for Hillary, don’t you?
I am tired of hearing , or making, excuses for Ms Clinton.
You should be too.
Shayna, give me a break. Clinton said she wouldn’t back Liebermen if he LOST the primary. If he lost the primary, he’d be running as an independent against the Democrat candidate. It’s appropriate for her to back the Dem candidate, instead of fracturing the vote. It doesn’t have any bearing on what she’s doing to try and with this primary.
She’s entirely right that the supers should be voting on who they think will be the strongest candidate and president. That’s what the supers are there for, to apply an experienced political view to the primary process, instead of having it be entirely by popular vote. The goal is to win the presidency, the end of the primary process should be to have the best candidate poised to win, not to simply run the most popular Democrat.
Oh, that’s fucking weak. You’re a pathetic hypocrite and a gutless weasel.
(There, could you read that? I can make it shorter, if you need me to.)
To anyone else who might be reading this exchange, please note that I don’t make any excuses for Clinton. I just also don’t make excuses for Obama. More to the point, the smearing of Clinton by Obama supporters is over-the-top and disgusting. I’ll be doubly pleased when Obama wins the primaries that I won’t have to see this stomach churning bullshit anymore. But Squink has provided a perfect example in calling out Clinton for missing a vote and then giving a pass to Obama for missing a vote. The sniveling about “theories” and gutless TLDR weaseling are just icing on the cake.
What’s your excuse for Hillary’s vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq?
I suppose it would have passed without Hillary, so taking a stand would have been pointless?
Yeah, that vote’s never come back and bit gutless democrats in the ass.
Even Hillary knows better than to try to push such lameass ‘reasoning’ in public. Instead, she just weasels around, hoping we’ll come up with the cynical viewpoint ourselves.
I was willing to put up with that for a while, but now she’s asking me to give her the benefit of the doubt again; and helping the Republicans spy on Americans.
Enough is enough.
So carry on with your “no vote is more important than any other” nonsense.
It’ll get nowhere with me, and increasingly, nowhere with the voting public.
I don’t have one. It’s one of the reasons why I prefer Obama to Clinton. That, and a host of other “centrist” votes, such as the one in favor of the bankruptcy bill, made me like her less and less over the past several years.
Now, I wouldn’t be certain that, had Obama been in the Senate at that time, he wouldn’t have cast the same vote as Clinton, but he wasn’t and thus he didn’t.
Disliking her policy positions, however, does not make me loathe her as a person, and she’d be a far better president for our country than anyone the Republicans could put forward. This mindless “if you ain’t fer me you’re agin me” thinking is sad, and the associated smear effort (axe murderess? ugly smile? ugly ass?) is disgraceful. It does not befit the grace that is supposed to be Obama’s forte.
I know that was kind of a long post - hopefully you were able to make it all the way through. If your lips get tired, take a break and get a drink of water.
To some extent, I think that’s a game of chicken played by supporters of one candidate. Clinton’s supporters, especially at NOW-NY, have been engaging in the same scorhced earth tactics. The candidates themselves haven’t been, as far as I know.
I don’t loathe her as a person either. I simply no longer support her as a candidate. There are better choices available.
If you want to rant on Obamaniacs, you’d best learn to distinguish those who are, and those who ain’t.
Many of us didn’t have trouble seeing Bush’s lies for what they were.
Naturally, as Americans, we have a responsibility to coddle the less gifted. We just don’t have to coddle them beyond reason.
Looks like it might be hereditary, too. I saw this on Drudge today and remembered this post. Poor Chelsea, I guess this is what you get if you shut out the press.
I don’t think so. I’d be more inclined to think that her teeth either taper in at the bottom or have some sort of indentation (from veneers, perhaps?) and it’s just an odd reflection of light.
This is the reason people hate Hillary right now. Because she’s shamelessly cheating and lying and trying to steal the election, giving herself free states and extra delegates. She doesn’t deserve to be president unless she wins the nomination fair and square, but since fair and square didn’t work out, she’s casting around for other ways to win. Sick of Hillary bashing? I’m suck of Hillary. I’m sick of Hillary supporters justifying this kind of crookedness and her negative ads and with the lies that people are only picking on her because she’s a girl and that boys don’t get criticized that way. Yes they do. They do get criticized when they cheat. They do get called out for running false, negative ads. They even get made fun of and called names.
