I agree and disagree with you. Bill Clinton was very popular in the World. I am not sure that another Clinton presidency would hurt our standing in the world at all. I prefer Obama to HRC. I agree this last minute “I’ll work to get these delegates counted” is a slimy trick, but I cannot agree with the World opinion portion.
Jim
I’ll see if I can dig up a cite, but I seem to recall reading that the only reason that Hillary’s name was still on the MI ballot was due to “late filing of paperwork”, which sure seems like a BS excuse to me. Leaving her name as the only viable one on the ballot set the scene for the current shenanigans that we see where she’s pushing to have the MI delegates counted only after verifying that they would be for her.
I’ve always thought that the Clintons were slimy, which, to some, automatically classifies me as a misogynistic Bible-thumping nazi.
This being said, however, I find it significant that friends and allies of the Clintons are publicly calling their campaigning practices into question. Such criticisms carry far more sting than any right-wing diatribe possibly could.
I also find the argument that having Hillary Clinton in the White House would be the continuation of some sort of dynasty to be dubious. If anything, if she is similar to Bill Clinton, it would be a return to a successful style of leadership after a horrendously unsuccessful style. There is no continuity between Bill Clinton and George Bush. There would be no continuity between George Bush and Hillary Clinton.
Having said that, I still favor Obama over Clinton, and with John Edwards out of the race, I now favor Obama overall for the nomination. I also find the attempts to suggest anything about Florida and Michigan distasteful. I just think that the over the top rhetoric and the return of Clinton death lists suggests there’s something more nefarious afoot, and that HRC is getting much more scrutiny and criticism than other candidates because of it.
Even as someone who is generally supportive of the Clintons and willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I’m not going to defend Hillary’s actions here.
But…
As long as we’re just making up outrageous shit, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear Obama say, “Kill Whitey!,” or Huckabee say, “Put infidels to the torch!”, or Ron Paul say, “Let’s grind up poor people and make them into meat pies!” Well-reasoned political debate is fun!
And by the way, whatever dirty tricks the Clintons have or haven’t played is not an excuse to smear everyone who happens to live in a trailer.
Huh? Could you please define this word and explain how it applies to Obama? I’m with Liberal on this one.
Anduril, too late to edit, I realized I’m asking for a complete hijack of the thread, so please consider my request for an explanation withdrawn.
Well said, but I feel I am pretty neutral on this subject.
Favoring Obama, hardly means I am a Hillary Hater. I think she is the second best candidate of the remaining candidates in both parties and I won’t mind voting for her.
I just find that at face value, this Florida delegate thing is slimy. No grand conspiracy, just an honest opinion.
Actually, I really could forsee this one around 2011. Scary man, scary!
Jim
Okay, enough with the 92% garbage. Are you deliberately misleading the Dope and skewing the statistics to misinform? You left out a very key word in your propaganda argument. The word is, “TV.” As in…
(my addition)
This makes a difference. According to Nielson (taken from here), the number of Florida TV households which get CNN is 6.6 million. The Florida census puts Florida at an estimated 7.5-7.7 million households. That isn’t 92%. And let’s stop pretending that Obama has inundated the state with ubiquitous ads, the cable TV networks don’t get that high of ratings anyway and the ad only ran on CNN and MSNBC. I’d be surprised if half the people who get CNN even saw the ad (it isn’t as if everyone who gets CNN watches it). You keep bring up this false number as if mentioning it can make everything everyone else has said go away. You’re the Dope version of a kid with a finger in each ear, “I CAN’T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA!”
And yet, you miss the point. It isn’t so much that she did the photo-op (I notice that when Clinton does it, it isn’t a “press conference” as it is when Obama does it), it’s that she did it after spending months hammering Obama on his own photo-op. It makes her a hypocrite.
It’s been said often that Obama not only tried to get Florida excluded from his national ad campaign (was unable to do so, and then even asked for permission first before running it), but he also tried to remove his name from the Florida ballot (Florida law apparently disallows this?). I have a feeling none of this matters to you though. You seem to have decided that Clinton can do no wrong.
Yes, really. Remember the context, that the delegates are obviously going to be restored. There’ll be the Hillary and the not-necessarily-Hillary delegates, if she’s clinched the nomination. There’ll be the Hillary and the get-with-the-winner delegates on the first round if Obama’s clinched. Either way, there will be a unanimous consent motion to make the nomination unanimous; there always is.
Okay, there’s a difference - if Obama is going to clinch the nomination, it’ll take a little longer, maybe even past next Tuesday. But Michigan wasn’t going to do it anyway.
When is that ever not the case?
That has rarely been a problem historically.
That argument is often raised, spuriously of course, by the right-wing punditry for reasons that they at least seem aware of. It boils down to “Bush 2 was a disaster, so Clinton 2 would be as well”. As if the Clinton and Bush 2 administrations were essentially the same in any way! Or as if HRC’s votes are somehow being cast by unthinking automata instead of actual voters! Yet you’ve bought into that nonsense too - using the failure of this administration to somehow reflect poorly on a prospective one by the other party. It would be ridiculous if it weren’t effective.
We heard much the same arguments 8 years ago, remember? How’d that work out for ya?
Got it. The candidate whose speeches you happen to like is running out of an altruistic love of country, but all others are running out of mere greed and ambition. How did you reach *that * conclusion? :dubious:
Speaking of Republican talking points.
You mean *Bill Clinton * talking points, right? Believe it or not, there are those of us who put more stock in actions than words. Always have been, and for good reason too.
Just btw, can anyone explain why electing the first *black * President would make Americans feel good about themselves, and restore our image for embrace of diversity etc. worldwide and all of that, but electing the first *female * President would not? Is there something more substantive to that claim than a mere rationalization of visceral admiration for his speeches? Seems to me we put a big piece of our past in the past where it belongs either way, doesn’t it?
Preferring Obama does *not * require demeaning Clinton, people. In fact, for those of you thinking he’s somehow different, your doing so just plays into the arms of those who are not so fully convinced. Truly following his leadership would require you to admire and support her efforts and her symbolism as well, even if you cast your vote for someone you think would do an even better job. Too many people on this very board, who certainly should know better, have fallen into that trap.
No, I meant what I said, though I think Bill Clinton was also using that rhetorical strategy before he decided to clean things up.
You’re badly mistaken if you think those who support Obama are doing so because they believe more in words than actions. That’s a ridiculous narrative.
Obama is not an empty suit. His policies are every bit as detailed as Hillary’s, in many cases more so. He offers serious solutions for climate change, Iraq, health care, and poverty. Disagree with those policies all you want. That’s what the primary is about.
But don’t pretend that people just support him because they are naive and easily swayed by his charisma. That’s demeaning to Obama but it’s also demeaning to those of us who support him. You complain that Obama supporters are attacking Clinton. At least they’re keeping their criticism on the candidate.
Yes, he indeed has policy statements. Those are words. Tons of them. What has he *done * about them besides make speeches?
Being swayed by charisma does not necessarily imply naivete. If he can do half of what he says he’ll do, if he does usher in even half of an era of good feeling, that’ll be something solid.
Puhleeze. Reread the OP for a counterexample. Is there any way to read it, or the many supporting comments, that does not imply that Clinton’s supporters are somehow incapable of recognizing that Obama represents a more advanced life form? Criticism of Clinton “the candidate” in this thread, and elsewhere, have nothing whatever to do with her policies, which, if you’ll actually read them, you’ll find almost indistinguishable from Obama’s - and which therefore, by your own logic, make her just as admirable. No, these “criticisms” are abour her “greasiness” and “greed” and “ambition” etc.
Show me a *substantive * advantage for Obama and we can talk about it. You haven’t yet done so.
If I recall correctly, we’ve already had a debate about Obama’s record. He has many tangible accomplishments, including very serious, politically difficult ethics reform in the Senate (though credit is also due to Russ Feingold on that front).
My point wasn’t that she’s being attacked on policies. I’ve read her policies. I like them. I agree they are very similar to Obama’s. My point was that she (and to a lesser extent Bill, though as a reflection on her) are the targets. Not their supporters. I don’t think the attacks on Clinton imply anything about her supporters one way or another. Your attacks on Obama’s supporters, on the other hand, are quite clear.
Less tied to special interests.
Marginally better on environmental policy.
Better foreign policy judgment.
A demonstrated record of ethics reform.
A demonstrated record on nuclear non-proliferation.
More capable of working with Congressional Republicans.
Those are all substantive advantages. They aren’t even his primary advantages, which are his leadership abilities and his ability to organize a community of citizens to back his policies.
But I’m not interested in having a debate with you over Obama. I don’t really care if you disagree with all of the advantages I just mentioned. My argument is simple: You should stop saying people only support him because he’s a powerful speaker because it’s not true.
I see that nothing said to you had any effect. Oh, well, it happens.
To repeat, puhleeze.
Cite?
Marginally? O-kayyy…
Didn’t have the chance to vote on AUMF, assuming that’s what you mean (and record suggests he’d have tried to vote “Present”) - and remember, I asked for *substantive * advantages
Meaning what for a chief executive?
Those nukes keep getting more prolific all the time, don’t they?
A. How do you know? and B. Will it matter anyway? Substance, remember? :dubious:
I’m more interested in health care and tax fairness as priorities, and there is no basis to prefer Obama on those.
I didn’t limit it only to that necessarily - it’s not only about his speaking skills. There are other reasons he creates an emotional reaction in people, a reaction that lets them read their own hopes and imagination into what his presidency would be like, but which cannot be inferred from what he’s actually *done * with that skill. Supporting Obama is, in essence, an act of emotion more than reason. And that is hardly necessarily a bad thing. It’s just not enough, for one thing, and it involves a much higher risk of lack of tangible accomplishment in office, for another.
But sometimes such things do work out well eventually - Carter, for example, elected because of a comparable aura of inspirational superiority, has been a truly great ex-President.
Fine. Don’t stop. Keep up these inane attacks on Obama supporters. But don’t pretend to speak to us in the interest of party unity. That’s clearly just hot air coming from you.
It isn’t attacking. I’ve made that clear enough, to anyone willing to actually read. Lower your shields.
And then we can discuss the importance, and for that matter the definition, of “substance”.
It is an attack for two reasons:
First, it’s blatantly false and misleading. I’ve given you the non-emotional reasons I prefer Obama. You reject and try to rebut some of those reasons, but I didn’t say we’d agree on them.
Second, because irrational emotion is a terrible way to choose a candidate. You have implied as much inside and outside this thread. Calling someone irrational and emotional, to me, is an attack.
As for your personal definition of substance, I’m not interested in having that debate with you. I understand and accept that you disagree with me, and I don’t think anything I say will change your mind on the subject.
You can go on believing they’re non-emotional, but I’ve already shown you that they are. That isn’t attacking, it’s exploration of the topic.
Call it that if you like (and I have not used the word “irrational” or anything similar, you know). But
I have made it quite clear that it is not. There most certainly is a role for emotion in life and in politics. One simply has to be aware that that is what it is, and not confuse it with substance.
It’s a common tactic, on this board and almost any other forum for that matter, for someone who has had an argument exposed as insubstantive or downright false to claim they’re being attacked personally. I see it quite often, and no doubt you do too. It remains a fallacy no matter how often it is used, however.
It is no mystery why not.