Hillary Supporters unite....no bashing please! only smiles

[JARNJ3]

Funny that no one has mentioned this buying of superdelegates. Interesting....

I actually posted an article about in the liberal thread last week. It fell on deaf ears........

 

[jacksonsmom]

I actually posted an article about in the liberal thread last week. It fell on deaf ears........

Of course it did

People don't want to think of Obama having a black mark on his record -- it would make him look human!

 

[Planogirl]

I actually posted an article about in the liberal thread last week. It fell on deaf ears........

I would have noticed but I haven't been there as much lately. It's been kind of strange over there.

 

["Got Disney"]

True....and I am sure it is going around how Hillary has bought votes and not a word about Obama doing the same and also paying more.

I don't know what it is,...if it is Obama himself or his followers or just all the speeches of his "How great I am " or the persona of him or what but I am getting turned off by it all.

I get annoyed when i hear him say "there is nothing to fear but fear itself" As to say relax there's nothing to be afraid of. As if there is no monster in the closet ! well I fear the Terrorists and they are very real " and they are the mosters in the closet.

I also started to think Obama should win because maybe he would have a far better chance than Hillary because that is what is being said.

than I sat down and started looking again at the polls and such and brought myself back to earth. So Than i started to think...if me a big supporter of Hillary's was thinking this than what about the others that are starting to think this due to all the media hype of Obama this and Obama that...

It is possible that he is starting to get some more votes also not because his momentum has picked up but because there are Dems that DO NOT WANT another Rep in the house and will ensure that it does not happen even if that means switching from Hillary to Obama because after all there issues are such the same.....

Has anyone else thought that at all even if for a second?

 

["Got Disney"]

I would have noticed but I haven't been there as much lately. It's been kind of strange over there.

you can say that again....they need to change the name of the thread to the "How wonderful is Obama... and how Hillary isnt

 

[wvrevy]

As an Obama supporter, I have no problem at all with saying that this shouldn't be happening. But if it's being done by both sides, how is this somehow any more of a "black mark" against him than it is her? Which is worse...bribing 30 people or bribing 25? Frankly, they both should have been above this practice, but I'm not about to condemn him for doing it when she is to.

 

["Got Disney"]

Frankly, they both should have been above this practice, but I'm not about to condemn him for doing it when she is to.

Of course your not

 

[JARNJ3]

As an Obama supporter, I have no problem at all with saying that this shouldn't be happening. But if it's being done by both sides, how is this somehow any more of a "black mark" against him than it is her? Which is worse...bribing 30 people or bribing 25? Frankly, they both should have been above this practice, but I'm not about to condemn him for doing it when she is to.

Therein lies the rub. Currently he has more money now - so he can buy more super-delegates. I find the whole thing offensive from both.

But if she were buying more - in today's climate - she would be raked over the coals. Its being quietly ignored because he's spending the most money......

Let's see if she increases her spending - is it now going to become a money war?

 

[wvrevy]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23268687]Of course your not [/QUOTE]

Why should I? He's playing the same game in this that she is...and I should condemn him for it more than I do her?

As I said, neither of them should be doing this. Does the fact that Hillary has make you less likely to support her? If not, then why should Barack doing so influence my support of him?

I don't recall anyone claiming he was perfect. Maybe you could point out where someone has, including Barack himself.

 

[JARNJ3]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23268523]T

I also started to think Obama should win because maybe he would have a far better chance than Hillary because that is what is being said.

than I sat down and started looking again at the polls and such and brought myself back to earth. So Than i started to think...if me a big supporter of Hillary's was thinking this than what about the others that are starting to think this due to all the media hype of Obama this and Obama that...

It is possible that he is starting to get some more votes also not because his momentum has picked up but because there are Dems that DO NOT WANT another Rep in the house and will ensure that it does not happen even if that means switching from Hillary to Obama because after all there issues are such the same.....

Has anyone else thought that at all even if for a second?[/QUOTE]

Of course - that's what is happening! A lot of the voters in the Potomac switched candidates - you can see that in the poll numbers. Those states tended to have more minorities and upper income folks.

What I find interesting - is the switch isn't happening as quickly or at all in WI, TX, & OH.

Perhaps their demographics are fairly solid:

Clinton - working class, lower income, seniors, white women, hispanics
Obama - upper income, younger votes, african americans, white men

Time will tell.

I am just happy that she hasn't given up. Does that truly make her the candidate of hope?

 

["Got Disney"]

I don't recall anyone claiming he was perfect. Maybe you could point out where someone has, including Barack himself.

Oh Pa lezzzzzzzz lets start with you ....You for one has stated over and over how he has such a clean record and how he is sooooo trustworthy.

He himself is always talking about how we need to vote for him because he runs for truth justice and the American way....my words not his but his emphasis on it

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23268906]Oh Pla ezzzzzzzz lets start with you ....You for one has stated over and over how he has such a clean record and how he is sooooo trustworthy.

He himself is always talking about how we need to vote for him because he runs for truth justice and the American way....my words not his but his emphasis on it[/QUOTE]He's definitely got people thinking he's going to change the way business gets done in Washington. PACs are evil, unless they're your own to be used to buy super-delegates. Then I guess they're only a one time deal to get your foot in the door and you push for laws so no one else can set them up?

 

[JARNJ3]

Since we've started talking a little bit about our competition - I thought I'd post this opinion from our neighbors up north:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion...087a1-90f2-423e-9840-5870e7b0034d&k=32911&p=1

Obama sells same old stuff

Terence Corcoran, National Post Published: Saturday, February 16, 2008
Story Tools


Somewhere and sometime between now and the Democratic convention, populist glamour boy Barack Obama's charisma can be expected to run out of candlepower. Not totally, of course. He'll always be able to raise a crowd to its feet and bedazzle some people -- like the sensible-looking thirtysomething woman interviewed last Tuesday by the CBC at a Washington pub after Mr. Obama swept the Potomac states. Suspending rational judgment, she said: "Are you kidding me? I'd walk over hot coals to vote for this man. I mean, oh, he's just ... he's a man that can change not our country, but the world."

Maybe she would walk on coals for Mr. Obama, but she should know that it's gonna hurt. Whatever the undeniably mesmerizing, ga-ga-inducing qualities of Mr. Obama's speechifying technique, at some point these skills are going to wear thin as people begin to spend a little time thinking about what he's saying. Although thinking apparently isn't something that's necessarily top of the Obama agenda. Michelle Obama reportedly advised her husband to suspend cerebral activity during political debates. "Feel--don't think," she said.

That advice is strangely similar to the advice Chris Rock received in Head of State, a very bad comedy about a black guy -- played by Mr. Rock -- who runs for president of the United States. Just before delivering a pre-set text from a Teleprompter, Mr. Rock is taken aside by his semi-violent and near-pathological brother and told to ignore the set speech and speak what he really feels -- from the heart. Which Mr. Rock promptly does, and instantly turns himself into a wildly popular man of the people with a speech that includes such Obamaish lines as: "You know what you need. Better schools, better jobs, less crime. How many of you, right now, work two jobs just to have enough money to be broke?"

An Obama speech is the work of much better screenwriters, even though at last count Mr. Rock's effort had grossed $38-million. Mr. Obama is expected to raise that much this month alone. How long can this go on? Recent polls suggest Hillary Clinton is well ahead of Mr. Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania, although Texas is close. Is Ms. Clinton about to turn the corner against Obama?

If primary voters actually spent time with Mr. Obama's speeches and ideas rather than react to his oratorical skills and rhetorical devices, some might begin to wonder what all the fuss is about. Mr. Obama can deliver rhythmic cadences and rolling repetitive references to "change" and "dreams" and "hope." As he said: "No dream is beyond beyond our grasp if we reach for it, and fight for it, and work for it."

When it comes down to content, however, an Obama speech is not about change at all. It's about more of the same, more of the same old anti-corporate demagoguery, more of the same old attacks on CEO bonuses, Exxon, gouging businesses. There are ritual panderings to big labour and populist notions of free trade and NAFTA and China -- as he did in a speech on Tuesday night to an arena crowd in Madison, Wisc.

On NAFTA and trade, under which businesses "ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart," Mr. Obama is playing on the same old populist mythologies that have driven political debate in America for more than a century -- the little people versus the wealthy, the lobbyists, the powerful, profits, special interests, the privileged.

How many proud Wal-Mart workers would find that demeaning reference offensive? Mr. Obama plays off such corporate images. After mentioning Exxon's record profits and high gasoline prices, he later introduces the teacher who works at the night shift at Dunkin Donuts. Will hard-working two-job-holding Americans really take kindly to a politician who tells them their effort is an unnecessary and even futile one that can only be fixed by going after excessive CEO bonus payouts?

When it comes to policy and prescriptions, the grand calls for change and hope soon spiral down to endless lists of tired and familiar programs and payments and promises. In another speech on Wednesday at a General Motors plant in Janesville, Wisc., Mr. Obama ran through thousands of words proposing enough initiatives to keep the same old Dem.-Rep. congressional crown busy for half a decade of the same old political games he says he wants to get rid of -- from universal health care to minimum wage increases to doubling the number of low-income people receiving an earned income tax credit, worth $1,000 a year.

What Barack Obama offers is more, much more, of the same old politics jazzed up by a dazzling salesman with a great big smile. For how long will Americans buy it?

 

[wvrevy]

He's definitely got people thinking he's going to change the way business gets done in Washington. PACs are evil, unless they're your own to be used to buy super-delegates. Then I guess they're only a one time deal to get your foot in the door and you push for laws so no one else can set them up?

You have to be in the system in order to change the system. Obama has passed more ethics reform in his short time in the Senate than Hillary has in her entire career.

 

["Got Disney"]

1 - No, I haven't. I've posted that he lives an open life and has admitted to his mistakes in the past without quibbling. By all means, feel free to post links to where I've said he has a "clean" record.

You have more than once stated this in your posts...granted not using that word but using the text behind it.

And so because he has admitted his past mistakes and has an open life and without quibbling that makes it okay.....where as for Hillary even if she said "I made a Mistake"....you would be all over it and ridiculing her for it.

2 - He has said that with him, it will not be politics as usual. He hasn't run a single negative ad in this campaign, and considering how much of an underdog he was just a couple months ago, I find that remarkable. Why don't you?

Sorry but he has made nasty jabs at Hillary and keeps doing it. She has not either and they were even talking about that on CNN tonight. they also said that the adds on both sides are starting to heat up.

Why don't I you asks....I find it remarkable that ALL and I mean ALL the candidates have been playing nice.



You have to be in the system in order to change the system. Obama has passed more ethics reform in his short time in the Senate than Hillary has in her entire career.

Obama has not done near what Hilliary has done....not anything near......and if you recall that is one of the issues that has been brought up over and over again about him....

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

You have to be in the system in order to change the system. Obama has passed more ethics reform in his short time in the Senate than Hillary has in her entire career.

Every year there are more ethics laws put into place and every year the people who benefit the most from them are the people who write them.

McCain Feingold is such a great campaign finance reform Act. Of course Indian reservations don't count. They can donate however much they want. I wonder if there are any of those in Arizona or Wisconsin??? Hey, guess who was the top indiviual recipient of Indian gaming soft money in 2000? A certain senator from Az! Reform isn't what it used to be.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me, since Obama is the one making this an issue and stating that lobbyists are bad, what's the difference between federal and state lobbyists? If you think they're bad, just stop taking the money from both. If your opponant doesn't, that's up to them and the voters. But if you think they're bad and you're still taking the state money, there just may be a bit of a problem in ethics.

BTW, since you read and post here, maybe you can answer a question. I saw this on an Obama support board. Since I don't support him, I don't post there. But I did read it to see if people are making stuff up or whatever.

You posted this:

One thing we've got to start doing as supporters is breaking this notion that Hillary is somehow the "experienced" candidate. She has a grand total of 5 years in public office. That's it. Barack has 10, though admittedly not all of it on the federal level. This notion that Hillary is somehow an old-pro at getting tough legislation through congress while Barack is some kind of neophyte is complete and utter nonsense! Being first lady doesn't qualify you for the job, and it's time we start pointing that out when the meme is repeated about her "experience advantage."

Do you know how long a senators term is? Do you know this is Hillary's second term? Was that 5 years a typo?

 

[JARNJ3]

Last positive posting for Hillary - got to get the 8 hours to make the bucks in the morning.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/27935.html

Clinton would seek to try 9/11 plotters in established courts
By Carol Rosenberg | McClatchy Newspapers


If elected president, Hillary Clinton would ask the Justice Department to determine if alleged 9/11 plotters currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be tried in civilian courts or regular military courts rather than face military commissions that have sparked controversy both inside and outside the United States, her campaign says.

Clinton's response to questions about charges filed last week against six Guantanamo prisoners was the most far reaching of the three leading presidential candidates.

Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that the so-called "high-value detainees'' at Guantanamo should be tried in federal or traditional military courts, but did not say what actions he would take to move the trials.

Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, said he plans to continue the military commissions even if the detention center in Cuba is closed, as he has advocated.

The Pentagon disclosed last week that it planned to seek the death penalty against six alleged al Qaeda co-conspirators held at Guantanamo Bay on charges that they conspired in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

Those trials, however, are unlikely to begin before the end of the Bush administration — meaning it will be left to the next president to determine how those cases will be handled.

"As president, she would direct the Justice Department to evaluate the evidence amassed against these prisoners and make a determination," said Lee Feinstein, the Clinton campaign's national security director.

Feinstein said that Clinton would ask her Justice Department to consider two possible alternatives to the military commissions: Indictments in federal courts, as some al Qaeda captives have been, or trial by regular courts martial in the military system.

Obama was less specific though he, too, questioned the military commissions.

"As a candidate to be the next commander-in-chief . . .I think it's important to be careful about commenting on specific cases pending before the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay," Obama said in a statement.

But he said the "trials are too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges.

"As I have said in the past, I believe that our civilian courts or our traditional system of military courts martial are best able to meet this challenge and demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law."

Critics say the commissions, which were formally created by Congress after the Supreme Court ruled that the administration's previous efforts to set them up were unconstitutional, fail to protect defendants' legal rights and would open the United States to widespread criticism, particularly if the commissions result in death sentences. They argue that traditional military or civilian courts could handle the cases without raising such concerns.

They point to the prosecution of former enemy combatant Jose Padilla in a federal court in Miami, where a jury on Aug. 16 convicted him of conspiring to provide material support for al Qaeda.

Federal prosecutors crafted a case that excluded evidence involving military interrogations of Padilla while he was held in a U.S. Navy brig in South Carolina for more than three years. Instead, prosecutors relied on FBI-collected evidence to win the conviction, which got him a 17-year prison sentence.

In contrast to Clinton and Obama, McCain said he would stick with the military commission trials — though even a McCain presidency would also change the way the U.S. handles suspected al Qaida fighters.

McCain has proposed moving Guantanamo detainees to the military's maximum-security lock-up at Fort Leavenworth, where some legal experts argue the foreigners would be able to invoke more Constitutional rights because they are on U.S. soil.

"There is nothing that says if they are in Guantanamo or Lejeune or Fort Leavenworth that the process doesn't take place," said Randy Scheunemann, who handles foreign policy and national security for the Arizona senator's campaign.

''The last thing Senator McCain wants to see is Khalid Sheik Mohammed getting all the legal protections of someone who is arrested for a traffic violation or a criminal violation in the United States," he said, referring to the Guantanamo captive considered the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

McCain voted for the Military Commissions Act, which passed the Senate 65-34. Both Obama and Clinton voted against it.

All three have said the United States needs to close the detention center at the U.S. Naval station in southeast Cuba because it hurts America's international standing. But none has offered a specific formula on what to do with the 275 detainees currently at the base whom the Pentagon has decided to release, but whose home countries have yet to agree to take them.

The Pentagon has said it expects to try about 80 by military commissions, including 15 "high-value detainees'' who were held for years secretly by the CIA as suspected key al Qaeda insiders.

"While the policies at Guantanamo have hurt America's image, this is more than just an image problem," said Feinstein, Clinton's adviser.

"Senator Clinton believes those who have committed crimes against the United States should be brought to justice. And that justice is long overdue. Proper military commissions are established to expedite battlefield justice, but the deeply flawed military commissions set up by the Bush administration and blessed by the Republican congress in 2006 have only delayed the administration of justice in these cases."

(Rosenberg reports for The Miami Herald.)

ms

 

["Got Disney"]

time for me to go to bed...night.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Here's an example of Obama going positive:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/02/13/4845263-cp.html

You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring," said Obama.

"Now that she's running for president, she says we need a time-out on trade."

***
Hillary had less to do with NAFTA than Bill Daley, senior advisor for the Obama campaign. He was the special counsel for Bill Clinton on the passage of NAFTA and then became United States Secretary of Commerce.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Most people around Chicago kinda figure it's going negative if it's bad facts about your candidate, but setting the record straight if it's bad about the other one.

***

One of the differences between the two, and the basis in Obama's arguement that he will be 'right from day one' is Clinton's vote on the Iraq war.

Obama can make whatever statements he wants because he wasn't in the senate to vote.

He did say he wouldn't have voted for the war in 2002. That's a fact. But he also stated in repeatedly in 2002 and 2003 he wouldn't vote to fund the Iraq war.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2970972


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2970930

There isn't necessarily a contradiction in this position; other opponents of the war vote to fund the troops so as to ensure they're as safe as possible. But there certainly seems a contradiction between this view of war funding and Obama's view just a few years ago, after the war in Iraq had been raging for more than six months.

"Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'No,'" Obama said to applause as he referred to a bill to fund troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say 'No' to George Bush," Obama said. "If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance."

In a questionnaire he completed for the liberal group Council for a Livable World and in a 2003 press release he issued as a state senator, Obama suggested the Congress delay the $87 billion in funding "until the president provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq."

Anyone see that last part happen???

Since he's been in the Senate, he's voted the exact same way as HC on Iraq funding.
***

Of course when he was first explaining the contradiction of the Iraq funding, he said he wasn't quite sure if he knew what the senators knew he wouldn't have voted yes for the Iraq resolution in 2002.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/obama_slams_cli.html

"I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq," Obama said at the time, "although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence."

***

And then I'm still not 100% sure where he stands on that issue. I think I know now, but maybe back in 2004 if you're the Democratic nom. for President it was OK to vote for the war, but in 2008 it's not??

He did give the keynote speech for Kerry (who voted for the use of force, along with HC) at the convention in 2004.

And he was on meet the press in 2004 with Russert.

Tim Russert: "How could they have been so wrong and you so right as a state legislator in Illinois and they're on the Foreign Relations and intelligence committees in Washington?"

Obama replied, "Well, I think they have access to information that I did not have."