The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[chris1gill]

I was sitting here trying to come up with a cogent list and find you've done it for me and said it better than I would have. Thanks and a hat tip to you.

Thanks crazyforgoofy, I think I will copy that post and post it every time someone asks this question, no reason to re-type it every time LOL...

 

[chris1gill]

I just look forward to getting this whole nomination process settled so we can all back our candidate, regardless of whoever he/she may be, and start blasting McCain!!

Couldn't agree more, it's getting pretty old... Unfortunately a lot of people haven't yet made up their minds or voted, so it's still going to go on for a while, perhaps all the way to Puerto Rico! UGH.... I hope it doesn't.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Are you suggesting that Karl Rove has the Democratic Party's best interests at heart? I am obviously misunderstanding your post. Can you please clarify.

What I'm saying is, the Clinton campaign is holding up these fantasy "skeletons in the closet" as a reason not to vote Obama because it's all they have on him. Meanwhile, Hillary has a number of actual skeletons who we all know about, have all defended them over, and they drag them out as if they are a fantastic reason to vote for her.

My feeling is, Hillary attacking Obama on imaginary associations is hypocritical, and it's a passive aggressive way of using the same tactics that Rove and Co have used on her and her husband over the last decade or two. And honestly, what's to say she doesn't have anymore skeletons in her closet? If we can imagine Barack to have a few, what's to stop us from considering the possibility of her having a couple more as well. I'm supporting Obama, but I still love Hillary, and I wish she wouldn't stoop to this line of attack.

 

[lilyv]

What I'm saying is, the Clinton campaign is holding up these fantasy "skeletons in the closet" as a reason not to vote Obama because it's all they have on him. Meanwhile, Hillary has a number of actual skeletons who we all know about, have all defended them over, and they drag them out as if they are a fantastic reason to vote for her.

My feeling is, Hillary attacking Obama on imaginary associations is hypocritical, and it's a passive aggressive way of using the same tactics that Rove and Co have used on her and her husband over the last decade or two. And honestly, what's to say she doesn't have anymore skeletons in her closet? If we can imagine Barack to have a few, what's to stop us from considering the possibility of her having a couple more as well. I'm supporting Obama, but I still love Hillary, and I wish she wouldn't stoop to this line of attack.

I think it's just ludicrous for Clinton to sort of imply that all politicians have baggage equal to theirs. The reality is, everybody makes their own choices and ethical decisions.

Obama has impressed me with his generally transparent life. Beyond that, he seems to prefer taking the high road in political discourse.

I wish Hillary would stick to the issues, too.

 

[punkin]

I think it's just ludicrous for Clinton to sort of imply that all politicians have baggage equal to theirs. The reality is, everybody makes their own choices and ethical decisions.

Obama has impressed me with his generally transparent life. Beyond that, he seems to prefer taking the high road in political discourse.

I wish Hillary would stick to the issues, too.

I am sure that everyone (including you and me) has something in their background they would rather stay secret. That is not my point and that is not why I think you should not vote for Obama.

I am voting for Clinton because I believe she has a clearer grasp of the issues, has articulated her positions more clearly and deeply. She has more experience in working with Republicans, foreign affairs, and just about anything else. She has a track record of getting things done in the Senate that dwarfs his by a long shot. Those are the issues. Obamas "murky" past and Clinton's being "hated" by people who wouldn't vote Democratic on a bet are all side issues.

Now, I bring up the skeletons as a rebuttal to those in the Obama camp who think that he is spotless. It may be true, but he would be the only person (I will not say politician) who has absolutely no secrets to hide. And if he has anything at all, Rove and Co. will find it.

 

[eclectics]

What I'm saying is, the Clinton campaign is holding up these fantasy "skeletons in the closet" as a reason not to vote Obama because it's all they have on him. Meanwhile, Hillary has a number of actual skeletons who we all know about, have all defended them over, and they drag them out as if they are a fantastic reason to vote for her.

My feeling is, Hillary attacking Obama on imaginary associations is hypocritical, and it's a passive aggressive way of using the same tactics that Rove and Co have used on her and her husband over the last decade or two. And honestly, what's to say she doesn't have anymore skeletons in her closet? If we can imagine Barack to have a few, what's to stop us from considering the possibility of her having a couple more as well. I'm supporting Obama, but I still love Hillary, and I wish she wouldn't stoop to this line of attack.

All I know is that before the primary campaigns even started and it was assumed to be a Hillary/Rudy matchup, the rumour going around was that the RNC had a big surprise skeleton on Hillary that they were saving. Not so much of a whisper about Barrack from the Republicans or anybody else. He has been so forthcoming about his past that I find it difficult to believe he has anything of consequence that he's hiding.

 

[JARNJ3]

I am sure that everyone (including you and me) has something in their background they would rather stay secret. That is not my point and that is not why I think you should not vote for Obama.

I am voting for Clinton because I believe she has a clearer grasp of the issues, has articulated her positions more clearly and deeply. She has more experience in working with Republicans, foreign affairs, and just about anything else. She has a track record of getting things done in the Senate that dwarfs his by a long shot. Those are the issues. Obamas "murky" past and Clinton's being "hated" by people who wouldn't vote Democratic on a bet are all side issues.

Now, I bring up the skeletons as a rebuttal to those in the Obama camp who think that he is spotless. It may be true, but he would be the only person (I will not say politician) who has absolutely no secrets to hide. And if he has anything at all, Rove and Co. will find it.

Exactly - stated better than I could!!!

 

[lilyv]

I am sure that everyone (including you and me) has something in their background they would rather stay secret. That is not my point and that is not why I think you should not vote for Obama.

I am voting for Clinton because I believe she has a clearer grasp of the issues, has articulated her positions more clearly and deeply. She has more experience in working with Republicans, foreign affairs, and just about anything else. She has a track record of getting things done in the Senate that dwarfs his by a long shot. Those are the issues. Obamas "murky" past and Clinton's being "hated" by people who wouldn't vote Democratic on a bet are all side issues.

Now, I bring up the skeletons as a rebuttal to those in the Obama camp who think that he is spotless. It may be true, but he would be the only person (I will not say politician) who has absolutely no secrets to hide. And if he has anything at all, Rove and Co. will find it.

Actually if you read Obama's book you will find he's pretty forthcoming. There is an advantage in deciding to lead a pretty transparent life. It's not that he's perfect, it's that he's generally open. Very refreshing!

 

[JARNJ3]

All I know is that before the primary campaigns even started and it was assumed to be a Hillary/Rudy matchup, the rumour going around was that the RNC had a big surprise skeleton on Hillary that they were saving. Not so much of a whisper about Barrack from the Republicans or anybody else. He has been so forthcoming about his past that I find it difficult to believe he has anything of consequence that he's hiding.

Kerry was a freaking war hero - with little skeletons and look what they did to him!

They really don't need a "skeleton."

My goodness - look what they did to McCain in SC those years ago.......

A positive for Hillary - is that they've been there - done that. And its so NOT the reason I am supporting her!

 

[eclectics]

Kerry was a freaking war hero - with little skeletons and look what they did to him!

They really don't need a "skeleton."

My goodness - look what they did to McCain in SC those years ago.......

A positive for Hillary - is that they've been there - done that. And its so NOT the reason I am supporting her!

The swiftboating was despicable, I agree. But if Kerry nipped it in the bud from the get go, it's influence on the voters would have been drastically lessened. This go round, I think both Hillary and Obama have their radar set for any blindsiding the Republicans might have up their sleeve and both are equally capable of dealing with it. Just mho.

 

[Laura]

This go round, I think both Hillary and Obama have their radar set for any blindsiding the Republicans might have up their sleeve and both are equally capable of dealing with it. Just mho.

I agree.

 

[eclectics]

I agree.

Another thing to consider is that the candidate themself sets the tone of the campaign. While I disagree with just about every issue McCain is in favor of, he is basically a positive type of campaigner. Let's face it, on the slime meter, no campaign could be worse than Bush/Cheney. I think there will be quite a different tone this election. At least I hope so.

 

[robinb]

Another thing to consider is that the candidate themself sets the tone of the campaign. While I disagree with just about every issue McCain is in favor of, he is basically a positive type of campaigner.

I don't think we really know what kind of a campaigner he will be until the general election. I think he has changed quite a bit from the man who ran against Bush 8 years ago. And I don't mean for the better.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Another thing to consider is that the candidate themself sets the tone of the campaign. While I disagree with just about every issue McCain is in favor of, he is basically a positive type of campaigner. Let's face it, on the slime meter, no campaign could be worse than Bush/Cheney. I think there will be quite a different tone this election. At least I hope so.

I dunno about McCain anymore. He wants to win more than anything. Didn't he just vote FOR waterboarding?

 

[eclectics]

I dunno about McCain anymore. He wants to win more than anything. Didn't he just vote FOR waterboarding?

He's kinda fuzzy on that. I'm not sure what he specifically means when he says he is against torture but we have to keep our options open. Like I said, I don't particularly like the man, but he has gone on record quite a few times saying that he will not run a negative general campaign. That's not to say he'll not break his word. They all usually do.

 

[LuvDuke]

The swiftboating was despicable, I agree. But if Kerry nipped it in the bud from the get go, it's influence on the voters would have been drastically lessened.

Exactly! Kerry let the Swiftboat liars get away with it and pretended he was abover the fray. What he should've done is threaten to give the "Truman Treatment" to the next ******* who lied about his (Kerry's) war record. What's the "Truman Treatment"? When a reporter wrote disparaging things about Margaret Truman piano playing, Truman wrote this to the reporter: "I have just finished reading your lousy review. I never met you, but if I do you'll need a new nose and plenty of beefsteak and perhaps a supporter below."

If Kerry had taken that tack, or blasted the sickening Republicans with their "purple bandaids", he'd be sitting in the WH.

 

[punkin]

Exactly! Kerry let the Swiftboat liars get away with it and pretended he was abover the fray. What he should've done is threaten to give the "Truman Treatment" to the next ******* who lied about his (Kerry's) war record. What's the "Truman Treatment"? When a reporter wrote disparaging things about Margaret Truman piano playing, Truman wrote this to the reporter: "I have just finished reading your lousy review. I never met you, but if I do you'll need a new nose and plenty of beefsteak and perhaps a supporter below."

If Kerry had taken that tack, or blasted the sickening Republicans with their "purple bandaids", he'd be sitting in the WH.

Who knows what he should have done and how it would have turned out. Second guessing it at this point is useless.

 

["Got Disney"]

Exactly - stated better than I could!!!

Also seems that so many forget that Obama is still a politician and I must say that since we have had politicians there has never been one that is squeeky(sp) clean....after all they are politicians and he has also made pokes at Hillary....and some not so nice.

If it comes down to it he will come out fighting....he wants this as much as the other 3 do.

 

[punkin]

I was talking to DH (who voted for Obama) and both of us were so happy that we could finally vote FOR someone rather than against someone. Neither one of us was particularly happy with Kerry. We voted against Bush anyway. I really do think it is great that people finally have someone to vote FOR (whoever that someone is). Like I said earlier (in the other thread) this year is just an embarrassment of riches for the Dems.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I am sure that everyone (including you and me) has something in their background they would rather stay secret. That is not my point and that is not why I think you should not vote for Obama.

Kerry was a freaking war hero - with little skeletons and look what they did to him!

They really don't need a "skeleton."

My goodness - look what they did to McCain in SC those years ago.......

A positive for Hillary - is that they've been there - done that. And its so NOT the reason I am supporting her!

See, I respect that neither of you are voting for her because of her imaginary skeletons comments. My problem is, if that line of attack does nothing for her supporters, then why peddle it? It's almost like she saying "C'mon...we're all a bit sleazy, so why not vote for the sleaze you know instead of the potential sleaze you don't." I think that not only does that line of rhetoric sound like it's straight out of the Karl Rove handbook, but it hurts the party and the messenger more than it's intended target. It's one of the reasons why originally, I was firmly in the Clinton camp, but jumped ship around the time of the NC primaries.