The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[wvrevy]

Nice post.

& fwiw, if HC doesn't get the nomination, she'll be one of the most powerfull senators in the US.

If BO gets the nomination, he & his supporters better respond to the republican attacks more deftly than the above.

So far, his campaign has responded very well to the attacks from the right. Take the patriotism thing as an example. They called it into question because he refuses to wear a lapel pin. His response: They want to talk about patriotism? Ok...then let's talk about walking all over the constitution for the last 6 years. Let's talk about sending soldiers to die in a war of choice while we ignore the people that actually attacked us on 9/11. Let's talk about American ideals and how they square with torture, secret prisons, and the suspension of habeus corpus for American citizens they've labeled "enemy combatants". They want to talk about Patriotism? I'm happy to have that discussion.

See...that is how you respond strongly to attacks without getting down and rolling in the slime with your opponent. It's Hillary at this point trying to drag him down there with her, not McCain.

 

[crcormier]

"I'm watching this thread...always watching"

Before you come on this thread, I need to see your paperwork...

 

[Hound 109]

Actually what Barak Obama needs to do is shove Hillary under the bus. She doesn't want to debate ideas. She wants to use the "Karl Rove" playbook. He needs to rattle her to the point where the next moron on her campaign staff who strays off the reservation gets a shot to the schwatz.

Then, he should refocus his campaign.

Another nice post.

Actually it's the Ragin Cajun / Begalla playbook. & in November (whether it's HC or BO) it will be "the economy...stupid" playbook.

If either candidate gets "rattled" at this point, I'll be disappointed.

Regarding debating the ideas.....they (we've) done that for months. (which is why i would support either candidate).

At this point, it's a race to win the popular vote & to persuade the supers to vote for you. The minute that HC won Ohio & Texas, this was the case.

Hillary is stating that BO is lacking foreign policy experience. His "judgement" response was measured & professional. He needs to come up with others that are similar. His workers stating that it is "unfair" or reading here that supporters want to "throw her under the bus or reference hot sticks" suggests that emotions are taking over.

If he doesn't start acting Presidential again & win a nice percentage of FL, MI, NC & Penn voters, he won't win the nomination.

(& re: him winning "more states" being a criteria from another poster .....ND? Utah? Guam?....counting as much as Illinois or Ohio??....that's laughable).

.

 

[Hound 109]

Before you come on this thread, I need to see your paperwork...

Heck in Texas, ol Zip could have voted in our primary AND in our caucus.

 

[Hound 109]

So far, his campaign has responded very well to the attacks from the right. Take the patriotism thing as an example. They called it into question because he refuses to wear a lapel pin. His response: They want to talk about patriotism? Ok...then let's talk about walking all over the constitution for the last 6 years. Let's talk about sending soldiers to die in a war of choice while we ignore the people that actually attacked us on 9/11. Let's talk about American ideals and how they square with torture, secret prisons, and the suspension of habeus corpus for American citizens they've labeled "enemy combatants". They want to talk about Patriotism? I'm happy to have that discussion.

See...that is how you respond strongly to attacks without getting down and rolling in the slime with your opponent. It's Hillary at this point trying to drag him down there with her, not McCain.

That is EXACTLY how he should respond to McCain. & regarding HC....his response on regarding his Judgement (& using some of the above) would be Presidential (imo).

We are in agreement.

 

[JARNJ3]

I haven't heard any speeches Obama has given praising McCain's fitness to be President.

There's a difference between praising his war record and service to the country and praising his fitness to lead the country. Perhaps Hillary and her supporters are missing that fine line. They'll see it clearly in November when all those commercials come out from the McCain camp with Hillary's own kind words in them.

on the subject of "coronation"- which candidate and supporters thought it would be wrapped up on February 5th again?

Here is the actual quote - I think its being blown out of proportion...... then again - I'm for Hillary as you can see.....

“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.”

As for the coronation part...... I'll agree Hillary's campaign started with the "inevitable" focus - but now that's in the Obama camp.

I really can't wait for the day when we can all get along.....

 

[eclectics]

If it works for her campaign, then why would she stop? What would be the incentive? Don't give me for the public good as an answer either because that is irrelevant, just like all us small states..... there are only a few states that matter, and if you're not in them, then you don't much matter.

Because puffing up McCain in any way whatsoever is detrimental to whoever becomes his opponent. It will be used against the party in the general election. I can see the ads now.

 

[LuvDuke]

Another nice one post.

Actually it's the Ragin Cajun / Begalla playbook. & in November (whether it's HC or BO) it will be "the economy...stupid" playbook.

If either candidate gets "rattled" at this point, I'll be disappointed.

Regarding debating the ideas.....they (we've) done that for months. (which is why i would support either candidate).

At this point it's a race to win the popular vote & to persuade the supers to vote for you. The minute that HC won Ohio & Texas, this was the case.

Hillary is stating that BO is lacking foreign policy experience. His "judgement" response was measured & professional. He needs to come up with others that are similar. His workers stating that it is "unfair" or reading hear that supporters want to "throw her under the bus or reference hot sticks" suggests that emotions are taking over.

If he doesn't start acting Presidential again & win a nice percentage of FL, MI, NC & Penn voters, he won't win the nomination.

(& re: him winning "more states" being a criteria from another poster .....ND? Utah? Guam?....counting as much as Illinois or Ohio??....that's laughable).

I said from the beginning I would vote for Mouse/Duck before I'd vote for a Republican. I suspect there's tens of millions who feel the same way.

I really didn't have any feelings one way or another who the Democratic nominee is, they'd get my vote. I also suspect, at least up until the last week or so, that tens of millions of Democrats also felt the same way.

But, Hillary Clinton has offended me. She offended me with her cheap, petty plagiarism charge. She offended me with her claims of how qualified she and a Republican are to be president, but not a fellow Democrat. And it goes on and on.

I will vote for her if she's the Democratic nominee, but without any enthusiasm. I suspect so will tens of millions of Democrats.

And if she should win, I'd hope this will be the last we will see of the Clintons and the rest of the party hacks. We can do better.

Btw, not only is McCain going to lose big on the economic issues, it appears the "surge" may be unravelling.

Coordinated Baghdad bombs kill 68

BAGHDAD -- A carefully orchestrated suicide bombing Thursday in a crowded shopping district killed at least 68 Iraqi civilians and security officials and injured 120 people.

The death toll was expected to rise overnight as hospitals in the capital struggled to contend with shrapnel and burn victims, many of them women and children enjoying an evening out at the start of the Muslim weekend.

The bombing followed by three days an attack that killed 26 people in Baghdad's Bab al Muadam district and by a month suicide attacks against Shiite Muslim pilgrims that killed nearly 100 people.


http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-fg-iraq7mar07,1,4047474.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Add this latest bombing to the string of bombings in February, and it seems as if McCain's "war" issue and the success of the surge is going south.

 

[wvrevy]

If it had been a one time thing, then yes, the response would be out of proportion. But she's done it at least three times in the last couple weeks. That's not accidental. That's an endorsement.

I SOOOOO want some reporter to straight up ask her, "Considering your comments, you seem to be endorsing Senator McCain if Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee. Is that the case, and, if not, why the praise for your party's Republican opponent over another member of your party?"

Let's see her spin her way out of that one.

I am SOOO hoping they have another debate, and Barack blasts her for both these comments and for the NAFTA lies.

 

[LuvDuke]

Here is the actual quote - I think its being blown out of proportion...... then again - I'm for Hillary as you can see.....



As for the coronation part...... I'll agree Hillary's campaign started with the "inevitable" focus - but now that's in the Obama camp.

I really can't wait for the day when we can all get along.....

I'd really like to know when Hillary thought she crossed the "threshold". What year of sharing a marriage license did that occur?

She's starting to remind me of my father. I worked in the aerospace industry and he thought that meant he knew how to build airplanes. But, I digress.

Using her criteria, Mamie Eisenhower had more experience since she was married to the "Supreme Allied Commander" for WWII.

Hillary Clinton is going to get burned by her delusional "years of experience" and "CIC crossing the threshold.".

And I see another debate on the horizon too.

 

[Fitswimmer]

This is the quote from Hillary that everyone is really on about:

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002," Clinton says.​

 

[wvrevy]

I'd really like to know when Hillary thought she crossed the "threshold". What year of sharing a marriage license did that occur?

She's claiming her trip to Kosovo as "experience." No mention from her as yet as to whether she's picking Sinbad or Cheryl Crow as her running mate, since both of them had the same "experience" on her trip to that country.

This is the quote from Hillary that everyone is really on about:

You missed the quote yesterday, Fits...This time, she said both she and McCain had passed the "Commander in Chief" test. As LuvDuke said, I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean, but there it is.

 

[lilyv]

This is the quote from Hillary that everyone is really on about:

Ahh, yes. This must be Clintonese for I'm working hard to be loyal and keep the party together.

 

[Fitswimmer]

She's claiming her trip to Kosovo as "experience." No mention from her as yet as to whether she's picking Sinbad or Cheryl Crow as her running mate, since both of them had the same "experience" on her trip to that country.



You missed the quote yesterday, Fits...This time, she said both she and McCain had passed the "Commander in Chief" test. As LuvDuke said, I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean, but there it is.

Yikes...I did miss that one. I just don't understand where she's going with it. One of the things I've always admired about Hillary was that she's smart. I always thought she was the brains of the pair-Bill's a smart guy, but common sense goes out the window with him sometimes. She's too smart not to be doing this for a reason-I just don't get what the reason is. Sure, go after Obama's experience and elevate your own-but why bring your eventual opponent into it??

 

[KikiFan]

This is the quote from Hillary that everyone is really on about:

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002," Clinton says.

That's the quote that has everyone in a frenzy? That's what you consider an "endorsement" of McCain?

I'm sorry I really don't see it that way. All she's doing is pointing out the obvious and the same thing McCain himself will be highlighting. Afterall when you're as old as McCain what else can you sell? Your vim and vigor? Your vitality? Your radiatant health? No you've got to sell your experience - most especially if you're running against one of the youngest candidates in history.

Hillary's just pointing out that's she's in a better position then Obama to counter that particular argument.

Fitswimmer My guess is that if she goes head to head with McCain she'll then turn his "experience" against him. Something like how can someone with his experience want to stay in Iraq for 100years? I truly believe Hillary is too smart to set a trap like that for herself.

 

[LuvDuke]

She's claiming her trip to Kosovo as "experience." No mention from her as yet as to whether she's picking Sinbad or Cheryl Crow as her running mate, since both of them had the same "experience" on her trip to that country.



You missed the quote yesterday, Fits...This time, she said both she and McCain had passed the "Commander in Chief" test. As LuvDuke said, I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean, but there it is.

I think Hillary rode an elephant once. That must mean she's ready for that new career as elephant trainer for Barnum & Bailey?

Here's the problem with Hillary's delusions: She's making herself a laughing stock. Sooner or later, her delusions will be punchlines in a political comedian's repertoire.

No one wins the presidency when they cannot be taken seriously. We're not the only ones questioning and making jokes and laughing. And no amount of "please put a lid on it" from her supporters is going to change that fact. It is the candidate who is leading the public down that road and the road seems to be getting wilder and wilder. The longer this goes on, the worse it will get because apparently there's no one in the Clinton campaign who seems to want to tell her the truth.

Hillary Clinton's entire campaign has been based on her "35 years of experience". Once that gets questioned successfully, the campaign is over. The empress will be exposed as not wearing any clothes. That's where Clinton and her delusions are leading the Democratic party.

 

[lilyv]

This is the quote from Hillary that everyone is really on about:

Yikes...I did miss that one. I just don't understand where she's going with it. One of the things I've always admired about Hillary was that she's smart. I always thought she was the brains of the pair-Bill's a smart guy, but common sense goes out the window with him sometimes. She's too smart not to be doing this for a reason-I just don't get what the reason is. Sure, go after Obama's experience and elevate your own-but why bring your eventual opponent into it??

I've found that folks who sincerely think they are the smartest in the room (or on the planet) are often poor leaders. They have a good snapshot understanding of historical facts, but when it comes to people skills they can be sorely lacking. It's very difficult for them to take advice, especially when it may mean listening to different views or outright criticism.

One of the most important things a president does is listen, take advice, and adapt to changing situations. On the other hand, folks that have little regard for the intelligence of others tend to go with their gut, regardless of the consequences.

 

[MerryPoppins]

A few days ago you were complaining that Hillary needed to play nice. She should stick to debating the issues and no mudslinging. Isn't that what she's setting herself up to do in debates with McCain? You don't have to say the opponent is evil...just point out the differences in your views and your plans. Come on people.

I put Hillary Clinton in the same category with Karl Rove. Both of them needed a red hot poker shoved up their *** by someone who can play dirtier than they do. Let's hope Obama figures it out.

Wow!

So, if I'm a moderate to conservative Democrat, and have been a fan of a particular Republican candidate for years that happens to fall closer to my own beliefs than the crop of Democrats that are running, I shouldn't be able to have a say in helping get that Republican the nomination? I don't agree with that at all.

Sure. I think you should have a say. Change parties and vote for the Republican of your choice. I still stick to my belief that the current system is flawed and this is the best solution.

Actually what Barak Obama needs to do is shove Hillary under the bus.

Wow again! Okay. All the talk about it being time to be unified is out the window again, isn't it? Obviously, most of the vocal people on this thread just want to bash Hillary instead of talking about what's happening. I guess it's time to back off again for a while. It's sad. I'm thinking more and more that maybe our party won't be able to come back together. It hurts me to hear Democrats attack another Democratic candidate...and yes I do mean when Hillary's followers do the same too. But I can't see I've seen anyone say things like I just read here.

 

[Fitswimmer]

That's the quote that has everyone in a frenzy? That's what you consider an "endorsement" of McCain?

I'm sorry I really don't see it that way. All she's doing is pointing out the obvious and the same thing McCain himself will be highlighting. Afterall when you're as old as McCain what else can you sell? Your vim and vigor? Your vitality? Your radiatant health? No you've got to sell your experience - most especially if you're running against one of the youngest candidates in history.

Hillary's just pointing out that's she's in a better position then Obama to counter that particular argument.

I missed this continuation of the theme..

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

Again-I have no issue with her applying that experience and readiness title to HERSELF, I just question applying it to the clear opponent.

 

[JARNJ3]

This is the quote from Hillary that everyone is really on about:

Senator McCain does have a lifetime of experience. She's stating a fact.

Obama doesn't. One can argue she doesn't have as much as McCain either.

Quite frankly - this doesn't bother me. But I can see how it would bother Obama supporters.

To me this is all part of campaigning.......