? Obama supporters have been tossing the race card around quite freely at anybody who is negative towards Obama. It's a sign that you have no other argument or substance. Fitting, considering Obama is the candidate of no substance.
No - just to people who have been overtly negative towards Obama on something related to race. Like using the term "Balack". You know - things that show that someone is a racist bigot.
It is pretty obvious that due to cult-like behavior of Obama supporters (as evident by the thread title and some posts here), the Democratic Party is now bitterly divided. So how come Obama doesn't take the high road to try to unify it? So he can work with Republicans but not a fellow Democrat? Somehow I doubt you guys are truly Obama supporters. Don't you guys think you will give him a bad name.
I'm not a hard-line republican or democrat. I like both McCain and Obama. Between the two of them, I don't care too much who wins. Your logic seems thoroughly bi-partisan to me. Why should Obama want Hilary on his ticket? He shouldn't be obligated to want to work with her simply because they happen to be in the same party. Yeah, maybe it would help him get more votes and make his election more likely... but I'd rather the guy take a stand against someone whose views he disagrees with than take her in against his own principles just to "unify the party" and get more votes. He IS taking the "high road": he's not sacrificing his ideals in order to get more votes, which is what he would be doing if he joined up with Hillary. It shouldn't be about getting a democrat or republican to win... it should be about getting the best candidate regardless of party affiliation. And as far as I'm concerned, that is NOT Hilary. I want no part of her. Yay McCain. Yay Obama. Booooo Hillary.
Yeah she lost my vote also....It didn't matter to me who would win at first, but after the last month or two I decied she would never get a vote from me.
Actually Obama did take the high road. It only took him a matter of hours, and the staffer that made the monster comment is gone. Meanwhile speaking of someone not trying unify the party, let's look at Hillary. When her campaign staffer said that Obama was like a second coming of Ken Star, she didn't remove him, but basically said that the statement was accurate. Yes as far as not unifying the party, how about when Hillary indicates that She and McCain are ready to be the CC, but her fellow democrat Obama is not. Sorry but Obama did the right thing in regards to Power monster comment, and we are still waiting on Hillary to do the right thing, and clean her own house. There is a difference in how the two campaigns are being run, and Obama's way is far more unifying for the party than Hillary, her 3 AM ad, and saying MCCain is more prepared to be CC than Obama.
I finally got to see the comment Ms. Clinton made comparing her experience to that of Senators McCain and Obama on CBS.com. (when I googled it, it was hard to find a site that wasn't tied, in some way, to one side of the campaign or another... finally found it there after a few minutes. hey, these things usually take a few seconds!) and it is indeed shocking. No, I still don't think, overall, that she has run a campaign that is significantly different from many, many campaigns I've witnessed over the years, but here she went beyond the pale and did something you just don't do when you are running for President. Something just politically stupid. You don't praise yourself while praising the person that will be your opponent in November in order to "score points" against who you're running against in the primaries. You just don't. I can't recall seeing anyone do this before. Not in this context. Just as the photo of McCain going up the steps at the White House to kiss Bush's ring and get his endorsement will be used, the video of Clinton comparing Mr. Obama unfavorably to McCain, while comparing herself in an equal light with McCain, will come back this Fall. I'll be shocked if it doesn't. And I simply can't imagine that Bill approved this. My guess is that someone else suggested it and she did it without Bill's knowledge or simply regardless of his opinion. Bill is too politically astute to make such a blunder. It was obviously prepared in advance. She knew exactly what she was doing when making the comparison. Did she realize just how politically stupid it was? I would assume not, but it doesn't speak well of her judgement, does it? I've spent a lot of time defending her here, because I believe, I still believe, that she is a victim of rampant sexism and the remnants of a political hit job that years and tens of millions of dollars were spent attacking her and attacking Bill. I've seen it here many times. That isn't what's going on in this instance. I'm very disappointed in her judgement to have been this dense. I would still vote for her in November. I've said before that I would vote for a dogcatcher if he/she were on the Democratic ticket, if it meant getting these fools out of office that have placed our country on a path of disaster. A bit of a joke, but my intent still stands. Hillary Clinton, however, should make a public apology for that comment, retract it, and fire whoever suggested it. And if she's smart, she'll put the interests of the Democratic Party ahead of her own and drop out, if she can't make this go away in a fashion that makes any sense. I don't think she can. Hillary has been toast for awhile, but the toast is burning. Time to throw it outside and clear the air. Impeach Bush.
1 The sexist victim card on Hillary is tired, worn out nonsense. You are free to be wrong, but most people dislike Hillary because of herself, not her sex. If you refuse to believe that, so be it. 2 The concept of voting for a party "no matter what" is one the biggest reasons the problems of this country aren't addressed and why partisan gridlock rules the day. 3 You got it right with the final comment. If the Dems do that in 2008, they might get my vote. If not, I'll definitely vote for McCain. In 2004, the Dems made the mistake of choosing Kerry instead of Edwards, which cost them my vote. That time, I declined to vote for either nominee. Again to your sexist accusation, consider this: My wife is extremely apolitical. But she is now so fired up against Hillary that McCain will get her vote in November if Hillary is the nominee. That is almost miraculous. The 4 ladies on my job, all of whom fit Hillary's most supportive demographic, cannot stand her or say one good thing about her. Only one of them is a Republican. I guess my wife and co-workers are probably sexist.
She has done it twice. Whats amazing is nobody has called her out on it. It is basically an endorsment of MCain. Why hasn't the media brought this up, where is the DNC? This whole thing really needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP come november Dean is gonna catch hell. My theory is two pronged first she again attacks Obamas experience and touts her own secondly she's thinking if she loses she wants to ensure Obama loses to MCain so she can have another shot at it in 2012.
More proof that you're delusional and blinded by the Obama kool-aid. Let's recap what happened in full context from last week: 1) Obama says he's going to go on the offensive (and negative) against Hillary 2) Somebody on Obama's team calls Hillary a monster 3) Obama pretends it's not a coordinated effort, and tries to look good by firing said team member hmmmm. If he comes out and says he's going negative, I tend to think that there was no "high road" taken at all.
bigtexx are you on drugs?What does somebody else calling her a monster have anything to do with obama?
via HufPo -- Breaking the Final Rule It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned. By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her. As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters. Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/breaking-the-final-rule_b_90420.html
1. As you tell me, you are also free to have your opinion. You think sexism regarding Clinton is rediculous. It is not. Her high negatives are rediculous, which explains why so many women don't support her. Sure, she gets the majority, but not nearly the percentages she would get if she wasn't such a polarizing figure. My opinion is that a lot of that polarization is due to the intense, and expensive, years long assault on her and her husband during the Clinton Administration, and the continuation of it by a host of sources afterwards, mostly, of course, from the Right. But that's different from the situation today. As mc mark pointed out a couple of posts up, and I pointed out myself, but in less detail, she's gone beyond conventional primary campaigning, at least as it's practiced by the Democratic Party. (we do nothing near the viciousness shown by Bush/Rove in the GOP, South Carolina in 2000, with the assault on McCain and his family, being a good example) 2. I disagree. I'm a Democrat and I strongly believe that any of the likely Democratic candidates from 2000 to 2004 would have been far superior to the idiot we've had in the White House during that time. So yes, any major Democratic candidate is getting my vote. It is my political party and it is my position that it is far better for this country than the GOP. The record of the GOP Congress, and of George W. Bush, is enough to prove that to anyone that's paying attention, in my opinion (and with all due respect! ). 3. I voted for Edwards in the Texas Democratic primary and against Kerry, who I think was/is an idiot. Idiot or not, he would have been a much better President than Bush in his second term. See #2. And finally, if you have liked the policies of George Bush for two terms, you should enjoy McCain. If not, you should, in my opinion, consider voting for the other party that can change those policies. Thanks, and you're welcome. Impeach Bush.
The problem is these Obama voters who will never vote for Hillary are the types that vote for the guy they like the most. They don't care about his/her policies or the well being of this country. There are a lot of these people. That's why we had Bush for the last eight years.
Actually I would vote for Obama, and I won't vote for hillary, and I've never in my life voted for the person based on who I like more. I've always voted based on issues.
Out of the likely hundreds of millions of voters in this upcoming election, you've shown a sample size of five. Wow, I guess you really showed him. By the way, from my experience (and I'm not talking any political race here, just in general), many women are every bit as sexist against their own gender than men, if not more. It's a significant problem. I know countless women who despise any woman with ambition beyond making their husband happy. It's a serious problem in our culture. Please don't overreact -- I'm not accusing your wife or your co-workers of this in the least. I'm sure that's not the case for them. But in general, there is a big chunk of women who despise other women out of principle.
I agree, but it's worth pointing out that same also holds true for the Clinton voters who will never vote for Obama. It's a tough race with a lot of insults, like any election season. But at the end of the day, these are two very strong candidates whose platforms are very similar. They're also incredibly different from the Republican nominee. To support one and not the other, like you said, is essentially the "who would I like to have a beer with" mindset that got us George Bush the last eight years.
