It’s no secret that presidential contender Hillary Clinton and her campaign have hit a few rough spots as Barack Obama digs into her electoral base.
Clearly Mrs. Clinton’s sliding in the ranks and needed to make a good showing during last night’s CNN-sponsored debates. Multiple pundits and journalists are calling Clinton’s appearance a failure, but we’re not sure that’s entirely fair.
Slate’s John Dickerson writes that Obama won the tie, if that makes sense:
Clinton was occasionally aggressive, but not enough to shake up the dynamic that has her nearly tied in polls in the crucial March 4 primary states of Ohio and Texas. Clinton’s game plan was to connect with voters, not to tear down Barack Obama. She took pains to show that she understood the concerns of regular folks and that she had plans to address them. She did this well at times, particularly in her final answer of the debate, but Obama turned in one of his strongest performances so far of this campaign. In an even match, the tie goes to the front-runner.
The AP’s analysis echoes these sentiments, highlighting the former First Lady’s “graciousness,” particularly with part of her closing remark: “No matter what happens in this contest – and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” Obama supporter and Texas Representative Rafael Anchia described Clinton’s comments as “almost a quasi-concession speech”. We’re not sure we agree, especially considering that both she and Barack Obama have said similar things during previous debates.
No, Clinton didn’t hit a grand slam last night, but it seems to us she managed to throw Obama off guard. Not that he was terribly balanced. He looked tired and sluggish, which made Clinton – and her awesome outfit! – seem more energetic than the hopeful presidential candidate. And, if you ask us, we thought her “Change you can xerox” comment may be part of a larger tactic. As Chris Matthews noted on Hardball last night, Clinton used the phrase “Let’s get real” – or a variant – a whopping ten times during a recent speech. She may very well be looking for another angle for her experience argument.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The standing ovation at the end definitely didn’t help matters and seemed to hit Obama a bit. Those of you watching the end of last night’s debate may have noticed what we perceived to be obvious discomfort on Obama’s part. His moment of chivalry – pulling out Mrs. Clinton’s chair – came off (to us, at least) as a last ditch effort to dominate the stage. It didn’t work, particularly when the Senator from Illinois ended up standing around waiting for Campbell Brown to stop speaking and shake his hand.
So, did Hillary Clinton fail last night? No, not necessarily. Did she blow Obama out of the water? No. Did she do well? Yes, we think so. That doesn’t mean, of course, that she’s going to do any better in the remaining primaries, especially as more “blue collar” voters go toward Obama, who also leads with Democrats living abroad.
todd
Does anyone watch MSNBC? Mysogyny TV? They can’t stand women over there at all. It’s blatant and obvious. Tweety Matthews talks about how he gets a thrill up his leg when Obama talks, and Tucker Carlson blathers on what a shrill harpy Clinton is every day. Are they journalists, or hacks? Is it news, or info-tainment?
Dusty
Yes I watch msnbc/cnn/fox…any place I can hear what others are saying, to see if they’re on the same wave that I am. I am an independent thinker and I decide for myself.
One thing for sure, I am just through with the Clintons and the Bushs’! We need some new blood running this country, and that’s the bottom line.
Gregoire
I wanted them to hug and agree on national TV to run as a combined ticket. With the mess we currently have in this country, we really do need a visionary fresh face (Obama) to bring some excitement back, combined with a hardedged connected politician to do the backroom dirty work (Clinton).
abracadaver
I am absolutely sick of the “we’ve had 27 years of a either a Bush or Clinton on the national tickets” rhetoric. If you really must push this view, don’t be disingenuous and throw around some random number like “27 years”; instead, delineate and specificy that on ly 8 of those years included a Clinton. That’s less than 1/3! Lets also not forget that in those eight years, we saw the largest of expansion of the economy in the past 40 years, 11 million families lifted out of poverty, the longest period of peace and prosperity since before WWII, etc. etc. What have we seen come out of the the 19 years of the Bush monopoly? Nothing but high crimes and misdemeanors, ruined economies, restriction of liberties, unprecedented deficit spending (someone please explain to me the real difference, if any, between “tax & spend” and “borrow & spend”), and on and on ad nauseum.
Michael Bedwell
Leaving out the also rans, despite all the early understandable spin that the nomination was originally “hers to lose” it never was given that she was effectively having to play catch up before a single primary vote had been cast—this contest began between a woman whom the Republicans, with the help of millions of dollars in “dig up or create dirt” money from a right wing psycho, had spent 15+ years demonizing, and a man who was essentially a blank slate upon which people could paste whatever they wanted to believe about him.
Though none of the charges stuck from Whitewater and Troopergate and Travelgate and Nannygate and Monicagate and She’s Not Likeablegate and Having Vince Foster Murderedgate the smears did, kept perpetually fresh and warm with the likes of Matthews who, when he’s not cooing over his frequent guest Ann Coulter, has said some of the most vicious, hysterical, sexist things that have ever been said about her by anyone who calls themselves a progressive to Ivy League loon Tucker Carlson who bragged about once beating up a gay guy who made a pass at him and is still bitter because she won the bet which he publicly made that her book wouldn’t sell. It did in huge numbers, but so are the lies and libels. NY Times columnist Paul Krugman calls it “the Clinton Rules” in which most media automatically report on anything she or he does as if there was something inherently malevolent in it—while carrying Obama on their shoulders for nearly a year like a combination Super Bowl winner and Christ entering the city, palm fronds and hosannas swaying.
The sound of those hallelujahs is now being joined by a darker, more ominous drone. The more articles I read about what’s going on with the superdelegates the more I see a candidate being decided upon by people with a gun held to their heads by the Obamamaniacs.
The graciousness of the sorta “we’re all in this together; our common goal is to beat the Republicans” statements along the campaign trail that you mention seem to me to have come more often and with more believable sincerity from Sen. Clinton. Maybe I’ve just not heard enough.
But what I did hear was Obama’s answer to a question along those lines after the generally agreed graciousness of the debate before Super Tuesday. He said with, again way too much gravity on his face, that he was sure Sen. Clinton’s voters would support him if he got the nomination he wasn’t certain his supporters could do the reverse.
I’m SURE he believes that, but what the fuck good did it contribute to an ultimately needed united front to kick the Repugs out of the White House, prevent them from stacking the Supreme Court for the next 30 years with more troglodytes, to say it publicly? At one time he seemed to be saying that there are good reasons they shouldn’t back Clinton even after he’d lost and blessing it—the appropriate verb given the messianic mindset of so many of those who blindly back him. Is this a new phenomenon-the Sore Loser before he’s even lost?
Then there’s Donna Brazile, one of the most influential women in the Democratic Party whom I once really admired. That was before I read her remarks about superdelegate scenarios. Though she had no trouble with their mandate when SHE was made a superdelegate, the very suggestion that in fullingly their obligation to evaluate who might be more likely to beat the Repugs the majority of them might select Sen. Clinton rather than HER flavor fave Obama and she threatened to resign. [Note, too, she was one of the co-captains on the USS Obama that Swift Boated President and Sen. Clinton with false charges of racism before Obama stepped up and said he knew they weren’t. But the smear had already stuck [and still does] and suddenly Obama who the majority of black voters had only yawned over before suddenly were voting for him in droves.
With the help of the Nader Nuts, George Bush fils stole the White House in 2000. Are there so many who are more obsessed with Obama the individual than stopping the Repugs that they might be willing to simply give the election to John McCain by staying home if their American Idol doesn’t win?
Charley
Hillary failed in that she was not inspiring. It was more or less a rehash about her resume over the past two decades. We have heard it all before. I am unimpressed. As a Senator, she could have done alot more for LGBT’s, and didn’t. She doesn’t have to be President to introduce anti-discrimination bills.
emb
Michael Bedwell — It might help in getting Dems out to vote for whoever comes out of the convention as the nominee if we all put a lid on the demonizing of whichever is our non-preferred candidate. The use of terms like “Obamamaniacs” and “American Idol” and “obsessive” serves only to deepen divisions among people who should be allies (the same, of course, goes for similarly dismissive phrases tossed at Hillary and her supporters).
The fact is, we are blessed for the first time in memory with two strong candidates for the democratic nomination. Reality being what it is, only one will get it, and the half of us who supported the other MUST fall in unified line behind her or him. The more vitriolic we are at each other during the primaries, the more challenging that becomes.
Last night, Clinton was booed for her “change you can Xerox” comment not because the audience was pro-Obama, but because the audience of democrats was offended by the cheap (and obviously prepared) shot. We all want them to behave, to not rip each other apart (thus doing the republicans’ work for them). And we need to do the same. Otherwise, divided (as you correctly point out), we’ll lose for sure in November, and be doomed to four more years of pseudo-bushness.
Dawster
I have to agree with Charley (gasp!)
Hillary did not do BAD. She was more gracious and more fluent than other times we’ve seen her. But even with all her “heart”, she was still uninspiring, especially since she actually got Boo’ed.
Obama was shaken a few times. i can honestly say he was not on his best game. this showed later in the night when he gave a short speech at the Austin Music Hall about an hour after the debate. THEN he was going over to the Hyatt regency at around 10:45 pm. Today he has a rally at 9:00 pm. I’m not sure how much sleep he’s getting, but whatever it was slightly showing (not NEAR as much as it did Governor Richardson back with his gaffe).
I don’t think Hillary “failed” as she “didn’t quite succeed”. Obama didn’t fail by a long shot, but i’m not sure how many people he actually converted. After 19 times meeting, it’s practically a tea-party at this point… even though CNN constantly tries to throw in their “under the belt” questions.
Obama tried hard to express that change is needed in Washington… and that includes Hillary. he didn’t come out and say “anyone who has been wrapped up in politics that long will have friends, have enemies, and will have special interests that will come before the american people.” he danced around that statement. one day i hope Obama will come out and just say it. not too many people here got that, though.
Austin is slightly Obama-crazed. He has made a stop here on his campaign trail (last year about this time). Hillary has not. the exit interviews from the CBS news station gave interview after interview of people claiming that Obama and Clinton where practically the same.
No, one is an idealistic young punk newcomer, the other is a well established political cougar, but part of a bigger machine. take your pick. both have faults, true… but everyone here agrees it’s better than what we have now.
Here are two final comments about this particular area: first off, his being attacked and his recovery gave him a slight lead with a sympathetic vote… and secondly, his “chivalry” to Hillary won him a LOT of points in this area (believe it or not).
PolishBear
The elephant in the room is marriage equality for Gay couples. Politicians and pundits don’t want to talk about it in any great detail, but there it is. Barak Obama says that it can be left to the states, and most Americans think that’s reasonable; Hillary Clinton says that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) negated the threat of a Federal Marriage Amendment, and that sounds reasonable also. But when you get down into the nitty-gritty of the matter, both their positions start to fall apart.
Even Andrew Sullivan, for all his articulate support for marriage equality, is disingenous on this issue. He invokes federalism and insists that marriage can easily be dealt with on a state-by-state basis … but that doesn’t work because the federal government has a vested interest in marriage for the purposes on income tax law and Social Security. From the federal government’s standpoint, it simply wouldn’t do for a couple to be considered legally married in one state, then miraculously “UN-married” if they decide to move somewhere else.
So how about all those lucky Gay couples that have been legally married in Massachusetts? From the federal government’s point of view, all those people are just blissfully single. Because of that pesky DOMA, even Gay couples legally married in Massachusetts still are not allowed to file joint federal tax returns, not may they declare one another as beneficiaries under Social Security.
According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1100 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1100 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for because of DOMA. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I’m sure any heterosexual would, but in essence I’m throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.
So YES, marriage equality for Gay couples is going to become one very big issue for the Supreme Court of the United States, and probably in the very near future. And if John McCain gets to pick the next two or three Supreme Court justices, this country will go careening ever-closer to a Christian theocracy, and Gay couples will likely be written out of the Constitution for good. Keep that in mind as we all continue to bicker over Clinton vs. Obama.
CHUCK ANZIULEWICZ
Jack Jett
Don’t you think that Obama is pretty much got the nomination nailed?
With that in mind, should the GLBTQ community cut this lady a little slack? While she may have not been the perfect candidate or have the appeal of an Obama, she is not the evil witch the media is making her out to be.
It reminds me a bit of the ENDA bill when people wanted to throw the transgender community under the bus. With Hillary Clinton, can we just NOT vote for her and avoid throwing her under the bus?
We may need her help or her husband’s help somewhere down the road.
I’m just saying, in the words of that famous gay philosopher Chris Crocker…Leave Hillary ALONE!
Dawster
PolishBear you may (or i may) want to look that up again.
Obama said to have civil unions as a matter of FEDERAL importance. Clinton said she would leave it up to the individual STATES.
now, over a year ago, Obama did say that civil unions should be a state issue, but when Clinton flubbed on the issue, Obama took the opportunity to bump it up to a federal issue (also shown on the LOGO “debate”).
Also, i will repeat (as i have many times) that the Netherlands has civil marriages now… ONLY AFTER having registered partnerships from 1998-2001.
If you listen to the inebriated/tired Bill Richardson at the LOGO debate, he was not completely incorrect. you go with what you have the votes for. this can be stair-stepped… it SUCKS, but the end result will be full-blown honest and actual gay marriage – just like we deserve.
emb
PolishBear: OK, you totally got my attention with the social security thing. By NOT paying $1100 a month to your non-spouse, the federal government is pocketing $13,200 annually. If we pretend for a moment that in A Perfect America there’d be 50,000 married homos, then by NOT paying partner benefits to 25,000 people the Social Security Administration is saving well over $3 million a year? Small change in the SSA context perhaps, but still notable for a fund teetering on bankruptcy. Kinda makes one think about whether or not Morality and Tradition are really behind the federal-level opposition to gay marriage…
And Dawster, I agree: “some rights in the real world” beats “perfection in imagination-land” every time. Cultural evolution is sometimes a bit more sluggish than one might like.
PolishBear
DEAR DAWSTER:
Well, if anything this confusion over which candidate believes what about marriage equality is emblematic of how little people want to talk about it, let alone hammer out a concrete position. I took a look at Barack Obama’s website, and I didn’t see any firm position articulated one way or another.
As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is “civil unions.” If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term “marriage” for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.
But so far that’s not happening. Look at New Jersey, where a state commission has just determined that “civil unions” are not only separate but VASTLY unequal to legal marriage. And as I pointed out previously, even Gay couples legally married in Massachusetts have no standing in the eyes of the federal government.
There is no denying this is going to be an incendiary issue, and it’s not going away. It doesn’t surprise me that people don’t want to talk about it in any substantial way, because either way it’s going to piss off a LOT of people. Word has it that Justice Antonin Scalia has suggested that DOMA is unconstitutional; wait ’til the theocons get a hold of THAT!
CHUCK ANZIULEWICZ
PulSamsara
For those imagining Clinton as VP.
———–
Not gonna’ happen.
Jonathan
Hilary Clinton was the more Presidential of the two with Barrack Obama coming off
Michael Bedwell
Dawster, what are you smoking with your assertion, “Obama took the opportunity to bump it up to a federal issue (also shown on the LOGO “debateâ€). Anyone can go to
http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/09/video-barack-obama-rewind/
And click on the video clips under “On the church’s role in determining civil rights” and “Stance on the marriage issue” and see EXACTLY what he said which has NOTHING to do with taking control of civil unions away from the state level but endorses giving gay couples federal benefits—the EXACT same position that SEN. CLINTON SUPPORTS.
Note he also effectively says that he would have voted AGAINST full MARRIAGE equality in the Illinois Senate if it had come up when he served there. And has the GALL to say that he “understands” our position because of his parents’ once-illegal mixed race marriage but, effectively, YOU don’t deserve the same equal protection under the law that they did.
Further he STUPIDLY or simply disingenously suggests that states have no control over what he calls “the legal rights that have consequences on a daily basis for loving same sex couples all across the country.” Do I need explain how absurd that is? He could succeed in getting access to every FEDERAL right and benefit for gay couples and the non-federal hospital your lover of 20 years is in could refuse to let you see him or make any medical decision—something a legally recognized straight partner would never be faced with. Without an ironclad will/joint ownership, and a pit bull, your deceased lover’s loathsome half-cousin who stopped talking to him ten years ago the moment she found out he was a Sodomite could kick you out of the house you’ve shared all that time and sell everything in it you don’t have a receipt for with your name on it—something a legally recognized straight partner would never be faced with. The state could deny a gay parent joint custody/visitation of his/her children if the other parent opposed it simply on the grounds that you’re gay and a bad influence. Deny you the right to adopt or be a foster parent. Deny you state income tax benefits. Etc. Etc.
While calling up crocidile tears about anti-miscegenation laws that could have imprisoned his parents, he shows shocking ignorance for a black, part time Constitutional law instructor, or how the Loving vs. Virginia Supreme Court case came about. It was NOT a distracting, weakening from “more important” rights agenda of the overall black civil rights movement but a case almost single handedly fought by the couple involved.
As for your suggestion that Obama has somehow evolved away from his “over a year ago” position that civil unions [or whatever same gender relationships might be called] are a state issue— again IDENTICAL to Sen. Clinton’s—I again refer you and everyone to an interview set up BY OBAMA’S STAFF immediately AFTER the LOGO forum in which Lawrence Tribe, an Obama supporter, and the Senator’s Constitutional Law professor at Harvard, described at Wikipedia as “generally recognized as one of the foremost liberal constitutional law experts and Supreme Court practitioners in the United States. He is the author of American Constitutional Law (1978), the most frequently cited treatise in that field, [and 10 other books], and has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 36 times†said, emphasis mine:
Lawrence Tribe, another Obama supporter, and the Senator’s Constitutional Law professor at Harvard, described at Wikipedia as “generally recognized as one of the foremost liberal constitutional law experts and Supreme Court practitioners in the United States. He is the author of American Constitutional Law (1978), the most frequently cited treatise in that field, [and 10 other books], and has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court 36 times†didn’t know what he was talking about when he told ABC News last August that, emphasis mine:
“Same-sex couples [for instance] in Massachusetts are neither better nor worse off with DOMA repealed except that the repeal of DOMA is a way of telling that couple that their marriage in Massachusetts is not going to be made the subject of a symbolic and ineffectual slam by the federal government.â€
And, specifically,
“OBAMA BELIEVES STATES SHOULD BE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES FROM OTHER STATES. He wants to fully repeal DOMA, however, because he views the statute as ‘ineffectual and redundant’, in the words of Tribe. OBAMA BELIEVES A LONG-RECOGNIZED PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION TO THE CONSTITUTION’S FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE EXEMPTS A STATE FROM HAVING TO RECOGNIZE A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE FROM ANOTHER STATE WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO ITS OWN PUBLIC POLICIES. ‘Marriage is NOT SOMETHING THAT STATES HAVE EVER BEEN OBLIGED TO RECOGNIZE if it’s been against their own public policy’, said Tribe, who has testified on the subject before Congress.â€
Though the article specifically references “marriage,†it clearly applies to Obama’s support for the states’ right to ban any same gender relationship, whatever it might be called.
See for yourselves at: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Poli…..amp;page=1
Additionally, rewatching the LOGO clip I realized I hadn’t remembered that there is video of his telling the same LIE that he told to “The Advocate†two months later: that he was the “chief cosponsor†of what he referred to in the forum as the Illinois version of ENDA when he was NOT any kind of cosponsor, his name appears nowhere on Illinois Senate Bill 3186, and added that “we passed†it when he couldn’t even vote for it because he had moved on up to the US Senate. “The New York Times†and others caught him in a similar lie in which he claimed he passed a nuke industry regulatory bill in Illinois. NEVER HAPPENED!
So, Dawster, et al., regardless of what you think he’s said about what he’d do, regardless of what he’s actually said about what he’d do, why do you keep believing in someone who keeps lying about what he has DONE?
Yes, if he gets the nomination, god forbid, we must unite behind him, but those who value the truth, who aren’t so eager to throw their legs in the air for this “say anything†guy, must keep speaking out until then in hopes of influencing those in states like Texas that could teach him we can’t be played so stupid.
Jonathan
as her much younger protégé, vague and ill-equipped to zero in on details and specifics unlike Senator Clinton’s laserlike focus. Pres. Obama is a nice idea, but his time, not “its” time, hasn’t come. Whether a woman or an African- American, it would be and has been revolutionary. Skin color or gender should be irrelevant. On that note, somone should tell Obama to keep his hands off Clinton’s chair the next time they debate. Its a patronizing, sexist gesture that doesn’t make him look statesman-like, rather he looks like a patronizing sexist. Hilary Clinton doesn’t need Barrack Obama to pull out her chair.
Clinton was superb, a total pro, while Obama was weak, muttering the same mantra to every question. We need a strong fighter in the White House and that’s Hilary. I saw a woman from Texas complain about Hilary’s overreaching ambition, particularly when she resorted to the “Xerox” comment and I wondered, “why is ambition, focus and depth, particularly in a Presidential election, not embraced?”
Obama is wet behind the ears compared to Clinton and to dismiss her 30+ years of hard boiled political, “in the trenches,” experience, whether domestically or around the world, is to overlook a key component of the leadership skills needed to run & manage a country as large and complex as ours.
Dawster
Michael Bedwell:
on the link you suggested, the video states clearly that Obama thinks the church has no right to make determination for legal rights for individuals of same sex couples on a state level.
then he said when it comes to federal rights, the over 1,100 rights that are not being given to same-sex couples, that is unacceptable and he will fight for it.
when asked if it would even come up in his home-state (which was a dumb question since he JUST stated he wanted to change the federal law) Obama said that it depends on how the bill was to come up, but he believes in a separation of church and state… so he would fight to have legally sanctioned rights for same-sex marriage on a legal level and leave the church to their own issues (with the actual word “marriage” for example).
i don’t see where that is confusing. is it confusing for you? you gave an awfully long response based… i didn’t read it all, but there are numerous transcripts and youtube videos you can check out if the Logo video was somehow confusing to you.
Dawster
and we should never forget our Ellen!
http://www.proudparenting.com/node/951
Dawster
and a year ago, he gave this statement of on the Federal Marriage Amendment:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/
it was there he mentioned that “marriage”, by term, should be left to the states, but it is the rights of gay couples to be treated fairly by the federal government.
I don’t know what else to say here… really… you can look it up all yourself if you want.
Dawster
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/
060605-floor_statement_5/
that link is..
Michael Bedwell
The LOGO forum question about what Obama would have done when he was in the Illinois Senate [Bill Richardson was asked a similar question when he was still running—if a passed marriage equality bill came to his desk as New Mexico’s governor would he sign it?] was entirely legitimate because the STATE level is where serious problems would remain even if any federal laws were changed, as I outlined above—sorry about your attention span and reading-for-comprehension challenges. If you had the decency to read all I wrote and DOCUMENTED before commenting, you’d already have your answer direct from the mouth of his campaign’s chosen expert/spokesperson on states and marriage or marriage-like unions. As you chose not to, one can only assume that you’re simply trying to bully people into shutting up by repeating the same thing over and over. I don’t know where your head is, Dawster. Is it up Obama’s ass?
Solmonese explicitly asked how Obama would have voted on “civil MARRIAGE,†and Mr. Leader, Mr. Change, Mr. Dump the Old Ways of Thinking, spun and he spun and he distracted and he hemmed and he hawed and he finally only said that he would have supported a “CIVIL UNION†with, quote, all the “benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage …AND THEN IT IS UP TO RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS MARRIAGE OR NOT.†End quote.
Hello fucking me! There and EVERYWHERE he continues to pretend that the right to call your relationship “marriage†shouldn’t be ONE of those benefits. He says we need to “disentangle†the word “marriage†from religion and then does the OPPOSITE. He talks about a separation of Church and State but then cedes them control of the word marriage—agreeing, in effect, with them that the Church has a right to tell the State what it should do when the State [and gay marriage equality activists] is not telling the Church what to do. Oh, and by the way, let HIM decide what equality is for YOU.
Despite the fact that “marriage equality†is a dog that will not hunt in this election, what the candidates say about it is STILL important in evaluating where their heads and hearts are. How much they “get it.†THAT is what fucking pisses me off about Obama’s arrogant, sanctimonious self. Though functionally speaking he and Sen. Clinton are at the same place about marriage equality, I’ve never heard her wrap it up in insulting lectures trying to tell us what “real equality†is, or justifying it by bending US over and letting the Church shove it up our asses one more time. As gay California Assemblyman Mark Leno, who has passed marriage equality bills twice only to have phony baloney Arnold veto them twice, might say, “Sen. Obama, if civil unions are as good as marriage would you trade yours for mine?â€
Bitch Republic
Obama is NOT a strong candidate and I will not support him if he wins the Democratic nomination. Third party voting for me.
emb
Thanks, then, Bitch Republic, for helping elect another republican. You’re saying Obama is not better than McCain? Because that, really, is the choice. Voting for Nader or whomever doesn’t send a message to anyone, and only results in tragedy. So by “voting your conscience” for some zero-chance gadfly who is free to say 100% of things we all love to hear, you just help ensure the success of the theocratic dimwits who’ve been in charge for the last 8 years.
emb
Jonathan: Interesting how our own preferences color our view of the same event.
Obama was “ill-equipped to zero in on details and specifics unlike Senator Clinton’s laserlike focus” is patently untrue: they both wonked out on details of plans that will never be enacted (IF national healthcare becomes a reality, it will have gone through so many committees, subcommittees, hearings, and compromises that it will be unrecognizeable from anyone’s campaign pamphlets.)
“Clinton was superb, a total pro, while Obama was weak, muttering the same mantra to every question.” Well, “ready on day one” anybody? We clearly saw different events; no one told me what channel the one you watched was on. And please: “Change you can Xerox” was so prepped, rehearsed, and artificial, and the debate audience rightly booed the incivility of it. Plus the whole plagiarism tempest was preposterous to begin with.
“Obama is wet behind the ears compared to Clinton and to dismiss her 30+ years of hard boiled political, “in the trenches,†experience,” … I’m sorry, can we please all recall that for 8 years she was NOT secretary of state or on the joint chiefs of staff? She was first lady. She went to some overseas conferences, she made some speeches, she attended a funeral or two, and she welcomed scouting troops to the white house. And before that she was a corporate attorney, and the first lady of Arkansas for christsakes. She has good and valuable experience, but boil it down and it’s not really that much more than Obama’s in terms of substance.
If she’s the nominee, I’ll support her. I voted for Obama because I don’t think the president needs to be a micromanager: I would prefer an administration comprised of an eloquent, inspriational leader who listens to the best and brightest minds, chooses an option, and communicates it to the nation, rather than someone who is bogged down at 2 in the morning reading subsection 3 of article 4 of subchapter 18.6(b) of some piece of legislation.
Bitch Republic
I don’t particularly care for Republicans, but McCain (who is really an independent) would be better than Obama for president. Obama is a naive, neophyte who has less experience in politics than Bush Jr. did when he became president. We don’t need another person learning on the job like the last one. Hasn’t America learned anything?
Bitch Republic
Also, if McCain wins, Hillary can come back in 2012 and challenge him for the presidency.
Michael Bedwell
Now I get it EMB, you want a Prime Minister. We disagree about that but agree on the need to unite, at least AFTER the candidate is actually named.
I have a little trouble, too, with your mind reading of those booing Sen. Clinton in Dallas last night. “Last night, Clinton was booed for her “change you can Xerox†comment not because the audience was pro-Obama, but because the audience of democrats was offended by the cheap (and obviously prepared) shot.” I’m thinking of a number between one and one hundred…..
As for debate performanc reviews, they cannot help but be selective perceptions driven by the subjectivity regardless of who the observor says won or lost.
I have been known to speculate on motivations, but along with faith healing [really one has to put up with such riff raff] I gave up my own mind reading and divining true character and intent act long ago. I prefer the empirical. What I can prove.
And I can prove to anyone that Obama lied about the LGBT rights bill and nuke industry regulatory bills in Illinois. Has Sen. Clinton ever lied. I bet she has. But I weigh her strengths and his other weaknesses along with the fact that he told those silly, needless, easy to disprove lies in the last five months and go, “Wait a minute! What is this guy really about?”
Borrowing with permission but without attribution some speech passages might not even qualify as a misdemeanor but lying when you don’t have to is felony fucking with me and DESTROYS any notion that Obama is Mr. Integrity.
Better than McCain, absolutely, but for those who might still be able to stop Obama’s candidacy—please vote for Sen. Clinton who, BTW, just released this statement:
“I was deeply saddened by the recent death of 15-year-old Lawrence King who was killed at his school in Oxnard, CA. No one should face intimidation or violence, particularly at school, because of their sexual orientation or the way they express their gender identity.
We must finally enact a federal hate crimes law to ensure that gay, lesbian and transgender Americans are protected against violent, bias-motivated crimes. We must send a unified message that hate-based crime will not be tolerated.â€
Paging Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama, white courtesy phone. What? Elvis has left the building? Nevermind.
Jack Jett
Michael
I just wanted to correct one thing about my fucked up city of Dallas. The booing on the “xerox comment” happened in Dallas.
Today we found out Dallas will house the George W. Bush library, that the police provided inadequat protections for Obama, that a motorcade officer was killed while she was going to a rally. In addition to being the home of the assisnation of JFK, and Halliburton.
Anyway, it happened in Austin. I am just wanting to save any shred of crediblity this city might have left.
Michael Bedwell
Thanks, for the correction about Austin, Jack.
As much as I have made it plain that I hope Obama does not get the nomination [but an unlikely joint ticket would be fabulous], I am speechless at the story about the Secret Service essentially throwing away his protection! Forget, the concerns “in this day and age,” expressed by one cop interviewed, it was DALLAS people! Hellooooo. JFK! Lee Harvey Oswald! Jackie in a beautiful Chanelish pink suit with the President’s brains splattered across it!
And before jingoistic TexASSes weigh in, the point is not that there are more loons or racists in Dallas, though I betcha there are, Blanche Water, I betcha there are, but the attraction such crazies have, wherever they’re actually from, to the greater attention they’d get tying two events together.
So much for legendary Texas lawmen balls [and I’ve run into them—and not in the good way]. I would have said, “I don’t give an armadillo’s ass what agency you work for, Sparky! You wanna take the metal detectors down, do it yourself, but just gimme a second to go fetch those TV camera fellas!” What’s Sparky gonna do—arrest the sheriff for protecting a Presidential candidate TOO much?
Understandably not mentioned a lot in the press for fear of contributing to self-fulfilling prophesy, but in the days when most black voters were still supporting Sen. Clinton, one of the reasons some gave was that they feared helping a black man rise up to that level would only result in his being killed.
I still feel sexism will trump racism is this election, but given the criminally negligent stupidity evidence by those Secret Servicemen who are supposed to be the best and the brightest makes even jaded old me weep for the basement level intelligence of some people. Not a week has gone by lately without me fearing waking up at least one morning to hear that either O or H had been shot. The level of emotions swirling around this election are dangerously high. Now this!
Charley
Most gay people are single, go along with the liberal (Sex in the City) straights dismissing marriage as a dead instituion, so the marriage issue doesn’t really strike a nerve.
It is our only nerve, that along with DADT, and we can play in out to the hilt, becaue we are on a level playing field of separation of church and state.. Sancity of Marriage is a religious issue, and not all Americans are religious. It is our constitutional rights as equal American citizens in the pursuit of happiness that are at stake here.
Jack Jett
Last night I played media watch dog for a while. I switched between various news channels.
The talking heads did have one single positive thing to say about Hillary. NOT ONE. In fact they seem to go out of their way to say ONLY negative things.
This, while they glossed over the John McCain scandel. This is a sign of things to come. Even if you dislike/hate Hillary Clinton, we should not trust the mainstream media.
Michael Bedwell
Hate Springs Eternal
By PAUL KRUGMAN 2/11/08 NYT
In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.â€
The quote comes from “Nixonland,†a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.†As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.
And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules†— the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal†became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?†Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.
I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.
For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.
One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.
I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election. “
FROM LATER ARTICLE:
“We also have to be aware of McCain Rules, under which anything John McCain says, no matter how craven or dishonest, becomes proof of his straight-talking maverickness (mavericity?). He can shift his positions 180 degrees to pander to his new friends — and be forgiven because he allegedly looks uncomfortable doing it. “ – Paul Krugman.
No, Shame on YOU Clinton
Apparently Clinton is so clueless that the irony of shaming Obama for slinging a little dirt is totally lost on her — well, either that or she thinks we’re so stupid that we’re the ones who are clueless. And to compound the irony, Obama’s dirt was at least truthful, unlike the mud she and her husband sling. Speaking of Clinton and her husband, I wonder when To Catch A Predator is going to release the Bill Clinton and his Ambitious Enabler tape?
Jack Jett
The comments of No. 34 are an example to the comments of No. 33.
Why can’t you just support Obama? Why is it so necessary to bash Hillary Clinton? Just support your man. Point out his accomplishments, his votes, and how he has supported the GLBTQ community in the past.
Some of these Clinton attacks from the gay community have been worst that those of the right wingnuts.
Chill…….Your dude is going to win.
No, Shame on YOU Clinton
Dear No. 35,
Obama is not my “dude,” Jack. My state hasn’t had its primary yet, and I haven’t made up my mind who it’s gonna take to beat the crap out of the Republican nominee, as opposed to who I would personally like to see elected President.
As far as the gay community’s attacks on Clinton is concerned, I would be more concerned with Clinton handing the Republicans all their material for attacking Obama in case he gets the nomination. Both the Clintons behavior would indicate that they are more interested in their personal ambitions than in what’s best for the country.
I would really like to see her act less like a trained, killer robo-lawyer, spending an hour parsing the meaning of “is” and self-righteously prosecuting her opponent like he was Richard Nixon. But then again, if she isn’t elected President and Hollywood decides to make Terminator 4 and needs someone to play the heartless killer bitch from the past, er, I mean future . . .
Bill Perdue
Hillary Clinton’s problem is Billary. She and Bill are a much less appetizing commodity than Obama because we know so much about them.
We know that their health care proposal is simply a new method to steal from patients and aid HMO’s and insurance companies. We know she’s opposed to socialized medicine.
We know she’s pigheadedly opposed to samesex marriage and that her campaign manager Barney Frank gutted ENDA and eliminated it and the hate crimes bill so christians, Republicans and other bigot filth couldn’t, heaven forefend, accuse them of liking GLBT folk. We know Billary brought us DOMA and DADT.
We know that she’s for the oil piracy and approves of the genocidal murder of about a million Iraqis and that she wants to nuke the Iranians to make the world safe for zionist apartheid.
We know that she developed her reactionary social and economic policies, tax cuts for the rich and welfare cuts for the poor, during the six years she spent on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, home of “Always Low Wagesâ€.
And we know all hells going to break loose when people find out Obama’s just like Billary, except that he’s a little sleazier and a lot little sharper.
The time is long past when the Democrats can lie their way into office and stay there. This time around the Republicans have already self destructed and when the Democrats do the same after the election it’ll be our turn to build a party independent of them both.
No, Shame on YOU Clinton
I know Citizen No. 37, at the latest debate, Clinton kept bring up FDR’s social security program and LBJ’s Medicare program as justification for forcing everyone to buy health insurance under her plan, as if SS and Medicare have turned out to be these huge successes instead of being on the brink of perpetual bankruptcy.
hisurfer
For those who say that Obama is ‘wet behind the ears’ or the Hillary will be ready to go “Day 1” – I a somewhat agree, but does no one remember how absolutely tragic Bill Clinton’s first couple months were? Appointments not filled, he’d back off on good nominees, the Republicans running rings around him, compromises right and left …
It was a mess. He pulled through.
As for the “robo-Hillary” comments: the woman can’t win, can she? She’s had her personal life slathered all over the tabloids, and she still comes back strong. I think we’d all be a bit reserved after going through that. That, or we’d be shaving our heads and joining Britney in cuckoo land. Give Hillary some credit for being strong.
Michael Bedwell
Lying isn’t “slinging dirt” it’s slinging LIES. The network news departments have confirmed Sen. Clinton’s charges—Obama LIED about what she’s said about NAFTA and LIED about what would be involved in her universal health care plan.
And what was Opie Obama’s response? “Hey, she’s just catching up with my lies now? Doesn’t that mean I get off? If no one catches you in time, you haven’t done anything wrong, right?”
Obama lies about things she’s said.
Obama lies about the details of her health plan.
Obama lies about passing a nuke industry bill in Illinois when it died.
Obama lies about sponsoring and passing the gay rights bill in Illinois when he didn’t.
Who knew Obama was running not as a Democrat but on a third party ticket. The Liar Party.
Inspiring? Yes, he certainly is.
No, Shame on YOU Clinton
Slinging lies?!? LOL. In an article about Obama’s mailer by the associated press, (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMstUFD5AEMNiNIz7hf2cR-vV_pAD8UHMUMO0) the big, shameful “lie,” according to Clinton’s campaign policy director Neera Tanden, centers around Obama’s assertion that “the New York senator’s plan wouldn’t bring down costs.”
More than likely what really pissed off Clinton was the picture that was used with the flyer — it shows a young couple sitting at a table with a stack of bills worrying about having to pay for mandated health care. Clinton’s camp claims it was too similar to the one used by the health care industry in 1994 to help kill her efforts to reshape health care.
According to the article, one of Clinton’s advisors compared the mailer to “Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois.”
Hmmm. Claiming Clinton won’t be able to pay for her healthcare plan vs. having one of your watchdogs liken Obama to a nazi. Was this one of the “lies” you accuse Obama of telling or just a shining example of Clinton’s stench, er I mean strengths?
Michael Bedwell
“Shame”—you have the write word but you should be directing it at yourself and your LYING candidate [see above].
First, shame on you for not adding that the article you quote stated that, “Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson disavowed the analogy.” One of dozens of advisors goes overboard. Shall we talk about Donnie McClurkin screeching “GOD DELIVERED ME FROM HOMOSEXUALITY!” from the stage Obama paid for? Shall we talk about 40s-something Michelle Obama’s still trying to pull her foot out of her mouth from saying she is only NOW proud to be an American?
The spin of Obama Lying Memo #1 is that Sen. Clinton’s health care plan will somehow punish people who can’t afford it when, according to the Associated Press, “Her plan requires everyone to be covered, but it offers tax credits and other subsidies to make insurance more affordable.” AND “[Obama’s own] plan does include a mandate requiring parents to buy health insurance to cover children.”
Re Lying Memo #2, here’s what the paper, “Newsday,” whom he was referencing since said themselves: “Obama’s use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading,” the paper said. “The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said “boon,” not us. It’s an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office.”
From Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at Princeton University, and NY Times columnist:
“More Obama ugliness on health care
I really, really wish he would stop this
Obama likened Clinton’s health care mandate proposal to eliminating homelessness by requiring everyone buy a house. The Clinton plan does every bit as much to ensure affordability as the Obama plan. This is just grotesque.
There are no excuses this time. You can’t say that it’s the work of some staffer. This is unscrupulous demagoguery from the candidate himself.”
AND the following is still true vis-a-vis Obama even though economist Krugman wrote this when Edwards was still in the race:
“Mandates & Mudsling. From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.
Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis†— attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.
The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate†— a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.
Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.
And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.
Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.
As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.
In other words, when Mr. Obama declares that “the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it,†he’s saying something that is mostly true now — but wouldn’t be true under his plan.
The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning. Still, as I said, advocates of health care reform were willing to cut Mr. Obama some slack.
But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots.
First, Mr. Obama claims that his plan does much more to control costs than his rivals’ plans. In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures.
Second, Mr. Obama claims that mandates won’t work, pointing out that many people don’t have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn’t require that drivers have insurance? If not, what’s his point?
Look, law enforcement is sometimes imperfect. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws.
Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: “Their essential argument,†he says, “is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way.â€
Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.
That’s actually a terrific idea — not only would it prevent people from gaming the system, it would have the side benefit of enrolling people who qualify for S-chip and other government programs, but don’t know it.
Mr. Obama, then, is wrong on policy. Worse yet, the words he uses to defend his position make him sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against “socialized medicineâ€: he doesn’t want the government to “force†people to have insurance, to “penalize†people who don’t participate.
I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.†Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.
What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,†it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.
Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.
Chad
While the rest of the country is rubbing one out to the “change is in the air” Obama spin machine, we are loosing sight of reality! Obama is in full on politician arousal. He will now say and do anything, and clearly so will his wife.
If Obama gets the DNC nomination MCCain WILL WIN THE ELECTION! Can we really afford another four years of Republican leadership?
Jack Jett
I did some research on Obama this weekend and I would suggest that even if you are an huge supporter and fan of this man, that you at least take the time to look at some of his negatives.
The reason I say/ask this, is that I do think he will get the nomination, and I wanted to see what the right wing would be using against him.
It is vast. They have a lot to work with. It is going to be like opening a new can of worms.
Just be prepared.
logan767
Hillary Clinton is a polished and eloquent political speaker. I dont see the same thing in Obama. What I see from him is oversimplified political rhetoric.
No, Shame on YOU Clinton
Unlike you, the reason I provided a link to the article instead of quoting it in its entirety is:
1. I was using it to support the points I was making. Duh.
2. Clinton is well known for having one member of her camp make inflammatory statements and then have another member make a conciliatory statement.
3. I wanted to keep what I wrote short and to the point to increase the possibility that someone would actually read it.
4. I wanted to make it easier for anyone, like yourself, to check my source. Since I read the entire article and knew what it contained, if I was trying to be underhanded I wouldn’t have provided the link.
Clinton claims she is paying for her health insurance plan through tax subsidies and cost controls. Keeping in mind that, if her plan is implemented, and millions more people will be insured, thus increasing demand:
1. Where does she plan on obtaining the money to subsidize the humongous health care industry, including the HMOs, hospitals, drug industries, nursing homes, etc.?
2. How much input will the existing multi billion dollar health care industry have on her finished product.
3. How will cost controls impact quality of care, which already sucks out loud, even if you have insurance.
4. Keeping in mind that Capitalism is the new God, who do you think is going to be the big loser in this mandated plan — big business who controls Washington DC or the sheep, er, I mean public?
5. In response to your “The spin of Obama Lying Memo #1” is this quote from the ABC News website article titled “TRANSCRIPT: Sen. Hillary Clinton talks about the election.”
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=4235364&page=3
STEPHANOPOULOS: And, I mean, you talked about automatic enrollment. Will you garnish wages of people who don’t comply, don’t buy the insurance?
CLINTON: George, we will have an enforcement mechanism. Whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.
mjc
obama will throw gays under the bus just like any other democratic nominee.. not to mention he is all to much of a wimp when it comes to negotiating, he’s a panderer, a liar, and a phony.
don’t forget donnie mcclurkin and obama’s gospel tour. not to mention he shares a ‘spiritual advisor’ with g.w. bush.
phony.
No, Shame on YOU Clinton
Like it or not, the gay rights political movement is just one of many, many movements. If any politician “pandered” to every special interest group, then they’d be standing all by their lonesome selves, wouldn’t they? As far as being “a liar, and a phony” is concerned, name a politician who isn’t.
Bitch Republic
Tina Fey was back on “Weekend Update” on SNL and endorsed Hillary Clinton… she said “We have our first serious female presidential candidate… why are people abandoning Hillary for Obama? They say people are put off by the fact that Hillary can’t control her husband and we’d end up with co-presidents. ‘Cause that would be terrible (major sarcasm), having two intelligent, qualified people working together to solve problems… The thing that bothers me the most is that people say Hillary is a bitch. And let me say something about that. Yah, she is. And so am I. And so is this one (points to her left). ‘Yah, deal with it,’ (says Amy Poehler). You know what, bitches get stuff done. That’s why Catholic schools use nuns as teachers and not priests. Those nuns are mean old, clams and they sleep on cots and they’re allowed to hit you. At the end of the school year, you hated those bitches, but you knew the capitol of Vermont. So, I’m saying, it’s not too late Texas and Ohio, get on board. Bitch is the new black!”
Jack Jett
I was ready myself to hop on the Obama bandwagon, but I thought, if Hillary is willing to fight a worldwide media that is stacked against her, I am not caving in now. Any bitch is better than the pussy we have in office now.
I’m not trading in Hillary for a newer model yet.
The fact that she stands up everyday to this shit people are throwing in her face, lets me know she will be able to take on the right wing nutcases that currently control our government.
I still can’t get past the fact that Obama voted present so many times.
No, Shame on YOU Clinton
I can’t get over the fact that she was either:
a. So stupid she didn’t know her husband was hitting on anything in a skirt for the entirety of their relationship , or
b. Knew it, but did nothing about it, which enabled a sexual philanderer loose on unsuspecting women. Whip it! Whip it out!
hells kitchen guy
NoShameOnYou: That really elevates the political debate.
hisurfer
It’s this stuff that made me cringe: http://www.avclub.com/content/videocracy/4493
And I don’t understand. She was doing so well. I want to know who advised her to start nagging as a campaign strategy. It feeds into every negative stereotype about her.