The sexism argument doesn't really play out in the voting: 1. While there has been a gender gap, it tends to play in Hillary's favor more often than not. That is, the people that vote for her because she's a woman almost definitely outnumber the people that vote against her because of it. In that regard, you could say those people are being sexist and aren't voting for Obama because he's a man. 2. The voters that most often support Obama - younger people, wealthier people, and more educated people - are the demographics generally least likely to be sexist. His voters also consist of a lot of new voters, who are voting specifically for him and wouldn't vote either way otherwise. I'm sure there are a few people out there that are sexist and won't vote for her. But they aren't going to affect the net results in the slightest.
I think that you are right when you say the Clintons (and I'd never say they weren't a team... you get one and you get both, for better or worse) are running using what you would call "old dishonest campaigning" and what I would call standard operating procedure during a primary season. If attempts to portray your opponent in a bad light or a negative way didn't go on, you'd have to toss out the election campaigns of the last several decades, from both political parties. There are plenty of ways to do that. I think Obama is doing it as well, but he is far more subtle and intelligent about it. The problems the Clinton's have is that they have already been through two highly successful presidential campaigns against incredible odds. One against a sitting President who had fought and won a major war, and one in the midst of one of the most beautifully orchestrated hit jobs against a sitting President we'll ever see. And what happens? They find themselves, used to being the "change candidate," the underdogs, the outsiders, the ones with no chance, running against an articulate, highly intelligent candidate who happens to be "out-changing" (and the rest of what the Clinton's ran on) them until their heads spin. And as the topper? He's a member of the large minority of this country who have always been not only their political party's strong supporters, but some of their strongest supporters, as well. And what do they do? Mishandle that dreadfully. The comment about MLK, which was true and, in my opinion, not intended to insult him at all, is used by the Obama campaign in its subtle and intelligent way to hurt the Clintons with Black voters. Then, when that could have been contained and they could have at least split the Black vote, many wanting to support Bill and his wife (in that order, imo), Bill shoves his foot way up his mouth with the Jessie Jackson comment. After that, it was all over with the Black vote and the Clintons. Obama didn't have to subtly and intelligently exploit that. All he had to do was ignore it and the Black community would get angry all by itself. Now, you may see those examples I just gave on how the Clintons lost the Black vote (and most likely any chance at the nomination) differently, but that is how I view it and I have no agenda against Obama. I like the guy and will be happy if he wins the nomination. I just think a lot of the flack Ms. Clinton has been getting is based on the fact that she is a strong woman. Not all of it, certainly, and not from you, of course, but from a lot of men, I think it's true. Does that help? I really ought to eat lunch. Impeach Bush.
Yeah, that helps some. Go eat lunch. This will be here when you get back. I appreciate you conceding that the Clintons are running a dishonest campaign. I strongly disagree that Obama's doing the same. If the MLK thing is all you've got to equate the two of them on this when they have accused him of "selectively" leaving people out of his health care plan, flip flopping on Iraq, being soft on choice and thinking only Republicans had "good" ideas (followed hilariously by Bill saying, "I'm not making this stuff up, folks," when he clearly was), well... Need I say more? On the MLK thing specifically, let's look at what happened here. The wonk went after the inspiration by basically saying: sure, get worked up by the speech-giver but he shouldn't be president -- the legislator should. It was a dangerous argument to make -- especially since they (willfully or not) made it using an analogy to another inspirational black man -- but they made a strategic decision that they needed to make it to stop him. They virtually said that if there was a race between LBJ and MLK, America should vote LBJ. There's nothing dirty in that and I had no problem with it. I think both sides are right on this. It is factually true that it took a president to get things done and it is also true that the statement played down the importance of MLK's inspiration. That didn't happen by accident; they were trying to do that in order to downplay the importance of Obama's inspiration. It was a bad move. Who do you think America would vote for today in a contest between LBJ and MLK? I have a pretty good guess. But they decided to do that and they did it. What was Obama to do in response? I didn't take it as a jab at his race and I don't think he did either. I took it as a jab against the entire premise of his campaign. And HRC followed it up with a quote about how words were all well and good but they didn't matter like action does. This line of thinking, like the "hope for change" versus "work for change" is a pretty nasty dig. It strongly implies that an inspirational speaker will not work and will not take action, when Obama has done both his entire career. What would you have him say? Would you have him say, oh yeah she's right, I'm dropping out? What he did say was that the MLK quote was unfortunate. Pretty heavy stuff. Is that what you're calling dishonesty? Really? Huh??? If you can equate Obama saying that the MLK quote was unfortunate to the various, repeated trickery from the Clintons on health care, Iraq, choice and party loyalty, I don't know what to tell you.
I don't think so at all. There have been many other female leaders in this country thus far. Perhaps not vying for the highest office in the land but nevertheless in powerful positions. Many strong females such as Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Reno, etc, etc, etc. And I've never heard any of them having been labelled with the terms that I and many others have bestowed upon Mrs. Clinton. It's because crooked to varying degrees as the others may be, they are still not wholly and sub-humanly lacking in any shred of integrity as Mrs. Clinton is. Even if she was a man or had one of those sex change operations, she'd still be a *****.
Batman, you should get busy and write for the Obama campaign. Really. They could use you. You are making assumptions based on what you believe was behind Ms. Clinton's comment about needing a President to push through MLK's dream (and Jack Kennedy's dream... she ticked off Ted because she left him out). How can you know? Unless I missed something, not impossible, she merely said that it took a President to push throught the Civil Rights Act. That it took a strong President to make a reality of a dream (my paraphrase). How is she wrong about that? And how does it insult Dr. King? I understand the Kennedys getting angry that Jack wasn't mentioned more than I do this supposed "insult to MLK." And how does subtle and highly intelligent Barack Obama respond? He said "that the MLK quote was unfortunate." And you think that was nothing. I say that it was all he needed to say to support the notion that what Ms. Clinton said was "wrong" "dishonest" "insulting to Dr. King," or however one wishes to spin it. Look. I've said I like Obama and will be happy, nay, thrilled if he is elected President. However, I'm not ready to canonize the guy. He isn't perfect. No one is perfect. And he certainly isn't above being negative. He's just more subtle about it. It's something to admire about him as a politician. Frankly, this defensiveness about Obama's actions is getting a bit tiresome. The man is a politician and he's playing the game. He's good at it. He doesn't need to be a saint and he's not. I don't want a saint as President. Impeach Bush.
Thanks for the kind words, Deckard. I'd love to write for the Obama campaign. Someone tell them to hire me. Back to regularly scheduled D&D'ing... Why is it that whenever an Obama supporter cites his refreshingly honest campaigning style we are accused of canonizing him or sainting him? I don't want a saint for president either. I just want someone that tells the truth. Is that too much to ask? I've said before that they each picked a strategy: the fighter vs. the uniter. Everyone thought HRC's strategy would win out and Obama was dreaming, but whatever the result those were the horses they chose and they have run their campaigns accordingly. To say that they're campaigning the same way with subtle differences in the face of that doesn't make any sense. To follow up on that, I don't believe I caught your response to my question whether you would equate Obama's MLK quote with the Clintons' trickery on health care, Iraq, Reagan and choice. Was your answer "yes, but he's more subtle?" Where exactly is the example of Obama misrepresenting HRC's position or history on EVEN. ONE. SINGLE. ISSUE? Subtly or not? Back to the MLK thing. It was one more example of an effort to poke a hole in Obama's inspiration balloon. Words don't matter, action does.... Hope for change vs. work for change.... We need a president not a preacher.... And, since you seem unclear as to why she chose to name LBJ instead of JFK, if wasn't an accident. JFK was inspirational AND got things done. He hoped AND worked for change. He used words AND action. Just like Obama has his entire career. Of course she wouldn't bring up JFK. He's the single best historic argument for an Obama presidency of all.
I thought a president is young who has inspirational speeches and actions to get things done is a bad thing. It certainly looks that way based on the treatment Bill is getting in the media, and especially among his own party. Lots of them believed strongly that Bill's way was wrong, but he proved them wrong and got things done with 8 years of presidency. The same crowd still strongly believed that Bill was wrong, and distanced themselves to him. They lost in 2000 with a record surplus, to an inexperienced challenger. After that, that same crowd still strongly believed that Bill was wrong, and they lost with a war hero ended up like a traitor figure in 2004, lost to a president in recession. It doesn't really matter, the same crowd just believe strongly that Bill's way was wrong, they are right in 2008. I hope they can be right for once.
Either there's something they know about Obama that we don't, or it was a cynical calculation that Obama would immediately retaliate as hard and sneaky as they have been playing. Another guess is that they were planning to continue fighting in the trenches in an attempt to wear Obama down. I'm glad several prominent Democrats publicly criticized the road that was heading towards. I liked what Obama did in the last "heated" debate. Perhaps he calculated the drama would give his rebuttals air time against the free press Bill had been getting. They panicked after Iowa when Bill went wild. Dubya, perhaps out of personality, use his father sparingly in personal appearances but maximized his legacy. Instead, Bill really tarnished his public likability to the point where he's currently mute. I guess people like the nostalgia of the past but don't want to remember or relive it too much.
im asking for clarification on what you are saying here, not for you to keep reposting this and telling me to reread it. you cant honestly think that "most" people who are opposed to hillary are opposed to her b/c she is a woman? i already pointed out at least 10 valid reasons why i would never vote for her and none of them have to do with the fact that she is a woman. i did and it appears that you said "most" of the animosity towards her is due to the fact that she is a woman and people who say they are opposed to her b/c of her policies or past actions are lying and really are just sexists who dont want a woman as president. is that about right? i know - you already posted this 3 times. all you did here is retype what you have been reposting. some of the bs has been false...some has been true. but you dont even need to look at the bs - im critical of her record and what she says she will do as president. can you not criticize what she actually says she will do w/out being called sexist? can you not criticize/scrutinize her record w/out being accused of not wanting a woman as president? its ridiculous. ill ask again - can you not see that there are legitimate reasons for opposing hillary and none of them have to do w/ her being a woman. its just such a crybaby tactic - anytime someone is critical of her you can pull out the gender card. and i guaran-damn-tee you i would be against any male who had the same record as she does. im against bush, for one. honestly, do you think i am lying for the reasons i criticize her for and that i am really just a sexist? can people not have valid reasons to oppose hillary?
it would appear to be that way. i think deckard is anti-mormon b/c he was critical of my dawg "bling-bling" romney. and we all know that if you are against romney than you clearly must hate mormons!
I think you're missing the timeline here. He didn't comment on the quote for something like two weeks. After it had created a media firestorm and she was taking tons of criticism from it (NOT from Obama, mind you), she blamed the Obama camp for starting a racial firestorm. This was his entire response: "Sen. Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that. But the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous." That's all he said on the topic. I'd venture to guess that after two weeks, she also felt it was an unfortunate, ill-advised remark. What is there to disagree with there?
You seem incapable of reading my post. I suggest you try again, and instead of putting into it what you want to see, you actually read what was written. It's not Rockets science. Impeach Bush.
and you seem incapable of doing anything other than reposting and telling us to reread what you already said and not expanding on it or better explaining it for those of us who are trying to understand you. im trying to figure out where you are coming from - ill ask again - YES or NO? it appears that you said "most" of the animosity towards her is due to the fact that she is a woman and people who say they are opposed to her b/c of her policies or past actions are lying and really are just sexists who dont want a woman as president. is that about right? YES or NO? do you honestly think that "most" people who are opposed to hillary are opposed to her b/c she is a woman? that "most" people are lying when they say it is about the issues, her past and her policies? YES or NO? am i a sexist for being against hillary? even if you disagree w/ them, are my dozen or so reasons for opposing her not legit? YES or NO?
By teaming with Republicans to increase border security in bills and amendmendments he's passed, such as the secure fence act, and immigration reform. He's passed the Coburn-Obama transparency act which makes public where the candidates are getting their funds from, again that was with a Republican counterpart. There are others, but you just asked for one.
