Hillary Supporters unite part 2; no bashing please

[jacksonsmom]

Obama has been very smart to follow in the footsteps of bush in this election process with the use of his carefully chosen words cadenced to lull listeners to feel revived 'n empowered. Voters who delve deeper into his background and beliefs than his book soon discover he just plays with the same 'words' as bush did to sway the emotions of his supporters. The republicans wised up 'n realized they couldn't continue that game with more informed voters, now some Democrats want to use their more 'liberal version' of bush brain passin' it off as "change." The irony is it leaves the rest of us with only "hope" we can survive another 4 years of simple sayin's.

Wow! You said what I have been thinking for a while now perfectly

Very wise words Uncle Remus

 

[jacksonsmom]

Anyone who posts in bolded red 6-point font is looking for attention. Why give it to him? You are taking his bait. He will go away if you ignore him.
:

More Wise words!
Please many fellow Hillary supporters DO NOT TAKE the OS's bait.

Just move along to the next post

 

[sdy]

Please forgive the intrusion.
But. I was just taking a look at the last few pages.
And something caught my eye that I couldn't resist addressing.

In my opinion.
The only way to fairly assess Senator Clinton's remarks is to do so without regard to one's personal political affiliations or affections.
The Politico dot com link argued that the news story that circulated was a histrionic misrepresentation or de-contextualization of the facts. This is not correct. From the beginning the headline was always along the lines of "Clinton invokes RFK's June assassination in support of her continuing in the Democratic Primary". There is no question that her argument is, essentially, "it's not too late, other primaries have lasted just as long, if not longer and a lot can happen in two months". Agreed?
So then the question must become; exactly what could happen in two months? Just what are the scenarios?
Pundits, lobbyists, politicians and bartenders across America are pondering that very question. If not Rev. Wright. Or Ayers. Then what exactly is the game changer that the Clinton camp is anticipating/hoping for that makes her being awarded the nomination a possibility? Because, as it stands, a (legal and legitimate) victory of Senator Clinton is a mathematical near-impossibility. And it is questionable whether her continuing presence is of ultimate benefit to her party's fight-worthiness and readiness come November.
Then, two points. First. In invoking RFK's assassination, Senator Clinton herself gave the American public a scenario in which she would be the nominee. And a grisly one, at that.
Second. Keeping in mind the inherent context of the current Democratic contest (the fact the the opponent is the first African-American ever to be poised for the Presidency of the United States. And that this country is socially, and literally, pubescent and as such still struggles with issues of race), Senator Clinton's public remarks can (should) only, at best, be viewed as insensitive and irresponsible.
Is it a news story? Absolutely. When a candidate who's primary struggle is against a rather loud, often bi-partisan, chorus demanding that she explain her very existence---- "why are you still around?!?!?" poses an answer/response to that question...it's news. The reportage was neither hysterical nor tabloid-esque.
Is it a big deal? Well. Depends on who you are, I suppose. To me, yes it is. There were many other examples of long-running primary contests to be referenced. She chose not to. She chose to invoke a tragic event. So tragic, in fact, that its place in history as having took place during a long-running primary contest, is nearly insignificant. When people remember that event, that June---they don't remember the returns of the prior Tuesday. They remember the pain, the shock, the grief and the senselessness of the thing. She chose to draw a parallel between the current contest and that one. I didn't. She chose to utter in public, on the record, the thing that many many people, of all types, races, and nationalities, are terrified of---that the very life of her opponent is seriously, exponentially at risk because of his skin color. As a reason for why she should remain in the race. I didn't.
No matter your political affiliations or affections. Senator Clinton made, at best, a serious mistake. A mistake she should make amends and be taken to task for.
No matter whom you support, some acts are simply indefensible.

 

[kinntj]

Year 1972 Democrats had tons of voters come out in the primaries and they lost the General Election. It's not a done deal the way the OS think it is.

Nixon won even with the Vietnam war on the people's minds. Nixon won by a landslide. Read up on it...very interesting. I think I got the year from Fox News and did my own research. I don't trust news media at all. They are all spinners.

 

[punkin]

No matter your political affiliations or affections. Senator Clinton made, at best, a serious mistake. A mistake she should make amends and be taken to task for.
No matter whom you support, some acts are simply indefensible.

Assuming it was a mistake (which given the context of the speech is not readily apparent to me), to whom should she apologize? She has already apologized to RFK's family.

 

[sdy]

Assuming it was a mistake (which given the context of the speech is not readily apparent to me), to whom should she apologize? She has already apologized to RFK's family.

To her opponent. Not only for single-handedly making his possible assassination the focus of a very public, very uncomfortable conversation, but also for legitimizing that notion.

To her supporters. For a very public, very ghoulish, very misguided moment/lapse in judgement. To assure the public that this is not her soul, nor the type of Commander-In-Chief she'd be, if nominated.

 

[kinntj]

Because, as it stands, a (legal and legitimate) victory of Senator Clinton is a mathematical near-impossibility. And it is questionable whether her continuing presence is of ultimate benefit to her party's fight-worthiness and readiness come November.

No matter your political affiliations or affections. Senator Clinton made, at best, a serious mistake. A mistake she should make amends and be taken to task for.
No matter whom you support, some acts are simply indefensible.

Thank you for coming on and debating this intelligently. See, we don't mind if people have opposing view points, but it needs to be presented in a fashion where we don't become defensive.

First, yes even Senator Clinton knows it's a near impossiblity that she can win. She has said in her own words she wants to finish for all the voters who voted for her and she wants MI and FL to be seated. Now, I do think she wants to negotiate a position for herself politically. Who knows what that is. I just like that she's fighting for her voters who want her in the White House. YMMV.

I seriously think she DIDN'T make a serious mistake. I don't see what the big deal is. I'm thinking that she referenced this time, because more people would have remembered it because it was a tragic time in history. I don't know about you, but I remember a lot of things associated around the time of 911, because it was such a tragic time and everything got lumped into that TIME. Not everyone is going to remember just any long term primary...just because. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

You (sdy) think that it's a terrible mistake that she's made and I totally respect your view on it, but I don't have to agree and I told you why I think the way I do.

 

[punkin]

To her opponent. Not only for single-handedly making his possible assassination the focus of a very public, very uncomfortable conversation, but also for legitimizing that notion.

Do you really believe that she "legitimized" the notion of Obama's assassination? If she had said "Obama should be assassinated or even Obama may be assassinated, you might have a point. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.
To her supporters. For a very public, very ghoulish, very misguided moment/lapse in judgement. To assure the public that this is not her soul, nor the type of Commander-In-Chief she'd be, if nominated. I am a supporter and I don't feel the need for an appology

I am still waiting for Obama to explain his 20 year lapse of judgment in listening to Wright's vitriol.

 

[sdy]

Because, as it stands, a (legal and legitimate) victory of Senator Clinton is a mathematical near-impossibility. And it is questionable whether her continuing presence is of ultimate benefit to her party's fight-worthiness and readiness come November.

No matter your political affiliations or affections. Senator Clinton made, at best, a serious mistake. A mistake she should make amends and be taken to task for.
No matter whom you support, some acts are simply indefensible.

Thank you for coming on and debating this intelligently. See, we don't mind if people have opposing view points, but it needs to be presented in a fashion where we want to become defensive.

First, yes even Senator Clinton knows it's a near impossiblity that she can win. She has said in her own words she wants to finish for all the voters who voted for her and she wants MI and FL to be seated. Now, I do think she wants to negotiate a position for herself politically. Who knows what that is. I just like that she's fighting for her voters who want her in the White House. YMMV.

I seriously think she DIDN'T make a serious mistake. I don't see what the big deal is. I'm thinking that she referenced this time, because more people would have remembered it because it was a tragic time in history. I don't know about you, but I remember a lot of things associated around the time of 911, because it was such a tragic time and everything got lumped into that TIME. Not everyone is going to remember just any long term primary...just because. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

You (sdy) think that it's a terrible mistake that she's made and I totally respect your view on it, but I don't have to agree and I told you why I think the way I do.

A of all. Thank you.
For hating me a little less than I hate me.
And for the welcome.
Really, really.

B of all. I totally agree with you.
I'm all for a respectful and intelligent debate.
And am, for one, quite glad that we don't all agree.
What a boring place this world when be if that were the case, no?

And, lastly.
I hear what you're saying about making effective references. But I actually think we're arguing the same point here. Just as 9-11, by necessity, took on a life of it's own and promises to overshadow other coinciding events in the annals of history, RFK's tragic assassination dwarfs the minutiae of that particular race. That race, by necessity, then becomes all but insignificant. So why reference it at all? The only reason would be to invoke that specific scenario (read: assassination) as somehow concurrent with the here and now. That's where I think her misstep lies.

 

[sdy]

I am still waiting for Obama to explain his 20 year lapse of judgment in listening to Wright's vitriol.

Methinks I should take your reply in due order, no?
Here goes:

1. Yes. I do believe that the Senator's statement effectively legitimized the notion/fear that Obama's life is at risk. Before now, that notion was only uttered at kitchen tables or whispered at Starbucks. Nobody (I hope) really wanted to believe that Obama's life was really at risk---and people self-protected by chalking that notion up to paranoia. But Senator Clinton's remark instantly made it a plausible scenario. No longer is it paranoia---Obama's own running mate acknowledges the danger he could be in. On TV. She doesn't have to explicitly say "Obama could be assassinated" in order for that to be her core intent of message.

2. Regarding Reverend Wright. I have only listened to one of the two controversial sermons in it's entirety (the one from which the "chickens coming home to roost" quote was pulled). So that's the only one I'm qualified to comment on. That sermon is not at all vitriolic and that quote is not his own---he pulled it from (and attributed it to) an interview with a US Ambassador. The theme/message of that particular sermon is "self-examination". And taking appropriate action. And personal responsibility. Though a bit raucous for my own personal tastes (and considering that I'm not particularly religious), I found the sermon inspiring and thought-provoking. Having grown up in and around the Black Church and on the South Side of Chicago, I have a great respect for the Black Christian tradition. And for the good Rev. Wright did and does in my (former) community. However. At the end of the day, I know this much to be true--- no matter for whom I choose to vote...I'm not voting for Reverend Wright.

 

[kinntj]

And, lastly.
I hear what you're saying about making effective references. But I actually think we're arguing the same point here. Just as 9-11, by necessity, took on a life of it's own promises to overshadow other coinciding events in the annals of history, RFK's tragic assassination dwarfs the minutiae of that particular race. That race, by necessity, then becomes all but insignificant. So why reference it at all? The only reason would be to invoke that specific scenario (read: assassination) as somehow concurrent with the here and now. That's where I think her misstep lies.

I can see your point. I can see where the spin came from, but I don't think that she meant assasination on Obama would get her the nomination. I guess I have to look to Obama himself and the Kennedy's to how they feel about this instance, vs. the media and OS. I guess that's where I get my feelings from since it's really about them and Senator Clinton.

 

[punkin]

She doesn't have to explicitly say "Obama could be assassinated" in order for that to be her core intent of message.

I do not believe that was the core intent of her message. The core intent of her message was that no one told RFK to leave the race in June. That's it. Everything else is spin.

BTW, I too have spent some time on the south side and I know all the good that black churches have done there. None of that, IMO, trumps "God Damn America" the Sunday after 9/11. I am as disgusted by that as by Fallwell's remarks about gays in the same time frame.

True, Obama did not say that from the pulpit, but he did not exactly denounce the Rev, did he until the Rev made it impossible for Obama. We were discussing judgment, and I do not think Obama has any.

 

[sdy]

I can see your point. I can see where the spin came from, but I don't think that she meant assasination on Obama would get her the nomination. I guess I have to look to Obama himself and the Kennedy's to how they feel about this instance, vs. the media and OS. I guess that's where I get my feelings from since it's really about them and Senator Clinton.

I completely agree with you.

I don't think she meant it specifically at all.

As for the responses from the two camps:

The Obama campaign (I don't think it was a direct quote from Senator Obama but could be wrong) statement was to say that such imagery has no place in an electoral campaign.

At least one of the Kennedy family has publicly asked that people not put too much stock in Senator Clinton's comment.

 

[sdy]

I do not believe that was the core intent of her message. The core intent of her message was that no one told RFK to leave the race in June. That's it. Everything else is spin.

BTW, I too have spent some time on the south side and I know all the good that black churches have done there. None of that, IMO, trumps "God Damn America" the Sunday after 9/11. I am as disgusted by that as by Fallwell's remarks about gays in the same time frame.

True, Obama did not say that from the pulpit, but he did not exactly denounce the Rev, did he until the Rev made it impossible for Obama. We were discussing judgment, and I do not think Obama has any.

You're right. I stated that point badly.
The core intent of her message was "the length of the primary is not at all unsual and anything can happen between now and then".
(See the letter Senator Clinton wrote to the NY Daily News this weekend:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...y_why_i_continue_to_run.html?print=1&page=all)

And then referenced RFK's assassination, thereby offering up that as an example of "anything could happen".

As for the "******* America" comment. Again. I'm not qualified as of yet to evaluate it---haven't listened to the sermon and thus am not familiar with the context. As for Obama's actions with regard to Rev. Wright---you're right. He did not denounce him. Let's be clear. Rev. Wright has never been characterized as an extremist or racist until this election season. Unlike Fallwell, who's reputation precedes him. I lived down the street from said church for the entire twenty years Obama was a parishoner. Until now, Rev. Wright has been a respected, if not a bit eccentric, community leader. And as such, I'm reluctant to vilify him based on two comments. Especially when I have first-hand knowledge that one of those two comments was egregiously decontextualized.

 

[punkin]

I'm reluctant to vilify him based on two comments. Especially when I have first-hand knowledge that one of those two comments was egregiously decontextualized.

There are youtube videos of the whole sermon I believe, as well as transcripts. Context is vital. See the whole thing and judge for yourself.

 

[kinntj]

I completely agree with you.

The Obama campaign (I don't think it was a direct quote from Senator Obama but could be wrong) statement was to say that such imagery has no place in an electoral campaign.

At least one of the Kennedy family has publicly asked that people not put too much stock in Senator Clinton's comment.

Good Morning my fine friends and contributors of this board!
Sorry I had to leave the conversation last night, but the kids were done with their baths and I was beat from landscaping projects DH and I were working on.

Senator Clinton made a response to her words of assasination on tv for the Kennedys and anyone who was offended. Who knows if she called the Kennedy's personally to express an apology. We really don't know what goes one behind the scenes unless someone calls them out on it and can .

As far as Barack's campaign comments, it sounds as though they thought she mispoke and was disatisfied with her choice of words. Too vague to read too much into it their comments. They just wish she hadn't said that word. I always leave it up to the candidate to make a statement and if they don't there's nothing to change that.

I was one who didn't like the Rev. Wrights words and was disgusted by them. I was waiting for Senator Obama to make the right statement to satisfy my needs as a voter. When he finally denounced or separated himself from him, that was enough for me for Obama to keep my vote if he got the nomination. I still feel that way.

It's obvious the OS isn't satisfied with Hillary's statement and that's their right as a voter to disagree with her. Even if it's never, I have to respect that, I just wish it was the other way around for some of my fellow HS on the reverse.

 

[DISUNC]

There are youtube videos of the whole sermon I believe, as well as transcripts. Context is vital. See the whole thing and judge for yourself.

The reverend himself admitted at a news conference, that he meant everything he said. That is when Obama finally 'cut the cord" with him.

 

[BelleBoo&AmisMum]

It sounds like bush!

I've always thought there were certain similarities between the two and their supporters.

 

["Got Disney"]

Good Morning my fellow HS friends...Happy Memorial day

Jacksonmom..hope your dad is feeling well today and Jarn if you check in we are also thinking about you and your family..so to both of you

And to all the OS today that love our thread more than there own...have not read your posts but I send you love with Pixie Dust

Did anyone notice that they changed the Smilies again...

 

[sdy]

There are youtube videos of the whole sermon I believe, as well as transcripts. Context is vital. See the whole thing and judge for yourself.

Done and done.

This sermon was much more difficult to listen to.
It was riddled with factual inaccuracies, particularly aggressive in tone---in short, a big fat mess. And irresponsible to boot. Because the histrionics of the thing almost completely masque an interesting message. In fact, Rev. Wright's showmanship seems to achieve and inspire the exactly wrong response in his parishoners---one of aggro emotion rather than thoughtfulness.
That said, I cannot fairly equate him with the likes of Fallwell or other socially controversial figures. Because. As I mentioned before, Rev. Wright is not a historically controversial figure---what is in question are two quotes/comments, not an entire ministry. And context is indeed crucial. Rev. Wright's comments were made in the wake of a tragedy that left us all distraught, confused and afraid. This particular sermon was given just shy of a year after the WTC attacks. At a time where the questions he posed to his congregation were questions many many people were asking. And these comments are now being examined in a climate rife with knee-jerk patriotism and political positioning. Where questioning one's government, Commander-In-Chief and their policies is, at best, unacceptable. I don't condone with his choice of words or method of delivery. At all. But, if I'm being honest, I have to at least acknowledge that the sentiment is legitimate.