The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[NewJersey]

Well, now she wants Samantha Powers fired for calling her a Monster who would do anything to get elected

UPDATE: On a Friday morning conference call with reporters, the Clinton campaign called on Obama to end Power's role with the campaign. "Personal attacks are not the way to convince voters that you're capable of being president of the United States,” said New York Rep. Nita Lowey, a Clinton supporter. “We're calling on Senator Obama to make it very clear that Samantha Power should not be part of this campaign.”

Umm, yeh, she and her workers can say anything they want about Obama, likening him to Ken Starr while inferring he is a Muslim when they know he isn't, and saying things like he only has a speech in 2002, when in fact he has 12 years of legislative experience, plus his work with the poor in Chicago, all the while working with the elected officials to do so, Clinton feels she has standing to ask for this firing? Well, under this scenario, Howard Wolfson should be out on his ear as well.

Now Samantha Powers has resigned yet Wolfson still has his job....

I'm glad to see Obama closing ranks with his staff. Powers was right to resign.

 

[wvrevy]

I have a serious question for Obama supporters - then I will not participate here - because its very obvious - unfortunately - that there appears to be no more common ground amongst us.

If Hillary did not have a shot at the nomination - don't you think the party would have taken her aside and asked her to leave? To me, her continuation with the campaign is to me - a legitimate shot at winning the nomination.

I think had she lost OH & TX - she would have gotten out.

If the party leadership had any guts, they would be heavily leaning on her to cut the negative nonsense and get out before she did any more damage to the party. But this is the Democratic party we're talking about, along with the Clintons. Why would you expect leadership or strength from either of those groups?

 

[lilyv]

I'm glad to see Obama closing ranks with his staff. Powers was right to resign.

I admire the high standard for political discourse that Obama expects from his staffers. The resignation is a good example of this.

Gosh, it's awful quiet over at team Clinton. Wolfson? He'll probably get a raise.

 

[Laura]

Well, now she wants Samantha Powers fired for calling her a Monster who would do anything to get elected

UPDATE: On a Friday morning conference call with reporters, the Clinton campaign called on Obama to end Power's role with the campaign. "Personal attacks are not the way to convince voters that you're capable of being president of the United States,” said New York Rep. Nita Lowey, a Clinton supporter. “We're calling on Senator Obama to make it very clear that Samantha Power should not be part of this campaign.”

Umm, yeh, she and her workers can say anything they want about Obama, likening him to Ken Starr while inferring he is a Muslim when they know he isn't, and saying things like he only has a speech in 2002, when in fact he has 12 years of legislative experience, plus his work with the poor in Chicago, all the while working with the elected officials to do so, Clinton feels she has standing to ask for this firing? Well, under this scenario, Howard Wolfson should be out on his ear as well.

Now Samantha Powers has resigned yet Wolfson still has his job....

I do think it's hypocritical to not have fired whatever staffer sent out the turban photo when they fired the staffers who circulated the stupid Muslim e-mail.

I'm glad SP resigned. It's the right thing for her to do.

 

[NewJersey]

Is anyone else's head spinning?

 

[lilyv]

Is anyone else's head spinning?

It's not about ethics, or decency or honesty...it's about winning.

 

[chris1gill]

I admire the high standard for political discourse that Obama expects from his staffers. The resignation is a good example of this.

Gosh, it's awful quiet over at team Clinton. Wolfson? He'll probably get a raise.

Yes, but I don't hear Obama crying a river asking for Wolfson's resignation..... talk about your negativity... I just shake my head at this stuff. You really want to bring up Ken Starr? OK, then if I were Obama, I'd start asking the question, "I'm like THE Ken Starr? The one who called for impeachment proceedings against Bill and got them, THE Ken Starr who investigated White Water, THE Ken Starr that investigated the curious death of Vince Foster? I'm like THAT Ken Starr, I think that's an absurd statement to make, all I'm asking is for public documents to be released from a fellow rival."

 

[LuvDuke]

I have a serious question for Obama supporters - then I will not participate here - because its very obvious - unfortunately - that there appears to be no more common ground amongst us.

If Hillary did not have a shot at the nomination - don't you think the party would have taken her aside and asked her to leave? To me, her continuation with the campaign is to me - a legitimate shot at winning the nomination.

I think had she lost OH & TX - she would have gotten out.

I'll give it a whirl even thought I am not technically an Obama supporter. I hope he wins the nonimation, but if he doesn't, I'll vote for whoever the nominee is.

Getting back to the question "If Hillary did not have a shot at the nomination - don't you think the party would have taken her aside and asked her to leave?", maybe they did? Who really knows what's gone on in the "smoke-filled" backrooms? She isn't going to easily give up a dream she's had for so many years.

I've always believed that only those who truly want the presidency should have it. There has to be a reason why someone wants to be president. If they can't articulate "why", IMO they have no business seeking the presidency.

However, there are those who want it a bit too much. They want it to fulfill a personal dream or they think they're entitled to it. I think Hillary Clinton has put up with all the BS from Bill, from the media and from the rightwing so she could keep the fantasy alive. Take that dream away from her, and what does that say about her life. It says she really was Tammy Wynette "standing by her man" for the payoff at the end and it never came. She won't let go because she can't let go.

Even if Hillary Clinton should "win" every primary from now on, the Democratic setup is not winner take all but proportionally divided among the candidates. It is a PR device to say someone won primaries, when the reality is, they gained nothing delegate-wise. That's the lesson of last Tuesday for Hillary Clinton.

She has to be depending on the super delegates and/or taking results to court. About a week ago, I said that if Hillary Clinton feels she can win this, it's up to her to tell the party how. And the way she's going about it now is not good for the party or good for the country.

 

[chris1gill]

I do think it's hypocritical to not have fired whatever staffer sent out the turban photo when they fired the staffers who circulated the stupid Muslim e-mail.

I'm glad SP resigned. It's the right thing for her to do.

As I've indicated, I think it's also very hypocritical to not fire Wolfson for his comment....

 

[NewJersey]

It's not about ethics, or decency or honesty...it's about winning.

It just boggles my mind that even me, a 24 y/o political novice, can recognize the detriment Hillary is having on the party and Obama with her latest round of attacks on Obama while in the same breath praising McCain, while Hillary herself, with her 35 years of experience, doesn't see anything wrong with her scorched earth policy.

 

[KikiFan]

She would never have gotten out. Her legitimate shot at winning is by using the Super's to override delegate counts and popular vote, so yes, she does have a legitimate shot, but at what cost?

It's only an "override" if Obama has a clear cut majority - as in 2025. One hundred delegates does not make a majority.

Even at the caucus, which Obama is such a fan of, party rules dictated that if the vote for a precinct office wasn't won by a specific majority we had to vote over until we reached it.

You're trying to paint this as if Hillary is trying to steal the nomination. She's not, she's playing by the rules as they are currently written. I understand you'll be disappointed if it doesn't work out the way you want. But Hillary didn't write the rules. She's just playing the cards she's been dealt.

 

[LuvDuke]

Yes, but I don't hear Obama crying a river asking for Wolfson's resignation..... talk about your negativity... I just shake my head at this stuff. You really want to bring up Ken Starr? OK, then if I were Obama, I'd start asking the question, "I'm like THE Ken Starr? The one who called for impeachment proceedings against Bill and got them, THE Ken Starr who investigated White Water, THE Ken Starr that investigated the curious death of Vince Foster? I'm like THAT Ken Starr, I think that's an absurd statement to make, all I'm asking is for public documents to be released from a fellow rival."

And lest we forget, who was it who lied about having "sexual relations with the woman, Miss Lewinsky" which starting the whole thing?

Sad to say, I think we're seeing Hillary Clinton unravel mentally. She just isn't thinking straight.

 

[LuvDuke]

It's only an "override" if Obama has a clear cut majority - as in 2025. One hundred delegates does not make a majority.

Even at the caucus, which Obama is such a fan of, party rules dictated that if the vote for a precinct office wasn't won by a specific majority we had to vote over until we reached it.

You're trying to paint this as if Hillary is trying to steal the nomination. She's not, she's playing by the rules as they are currently written. I understand you'll be disappointed if it doesn't work out the way you want. But Hillary didn't write the rules. She's just playing the cards she's been dealt.

She's trying to reshuffle the deck with Michigan and Florida. She agreed to abide by those rules too.

 

[KikiFan]

However, there are those who want it a bit too much. They want it to fulfill a personal dream or they think they're entitled to it. I think Hillary Clinton has put up with all the BS from Bill, from the media and from the rightwing so she could keep the fantasy alive. Take that dream away from her, and what does that say about her life. It says she really was Tammy Wynette "standing by her man" for the payoff at the end and it never came. She won't let go because she can't let go.

Is it impossible for you to even consider that she wants it because she really believes she can help people? Because she truly wants to see a national healthcare system to help those of us who have none? That she's as digusted as we are about where this country is at right now? That she truly believes she is the person lead?

I believe wholeheartedly thats why she wants it.

ETA: She's "Unraveling mentally" ??? Wow. How can I argue with that kind of logic and reason.

 

[chris1gill]

It's only an "override" if Obama has a clear cut majority - as in 2025. One hundred delegates does not make a majority.

Even at the caucus, which Obama is such a fan of, party rules dictated that if the vote for a precinct office wasn't won by a specific majority we had to vote over until we reached it.

You're trying to paint this as if Hillary is trying to steal the nomination. She's not, she's playing by the rules as they are currently written. I understand you'll be disappointed if it doesn't work out the way you want. But Hillary didn't write the rules. She's just playing the cards she's been dealt.

If it is just one delegate, it is an override... according to the Clinton camp it is all about the math & the delegates... well, whoever has at least one delegate lead should be the nominee.... whoever that person is. If it is Hillary, good for her, she'll have her work cut out for her, as will Obama if he is the nominee. I'm only going by what each candidate says and how each one of them play's the game. If the kitchen sink works, that's just fine, but realize there is a detriment to the party. But perhaps I am the only American to think so.

 

[Mugg Mann]

I've pretty much just lurked throughout this whole Hatfield-McCoy feud that the Democratic nomination process has evolved into, but allow me to throw a couple of comments in;

-Having personally lived through enough election cycles, I've come to realize that the process is designed specifically as presently constituted for several good reasons. The election isn't merely a popularity contest; it's a ridiculously long, grueling affair purposely designed to winnow out those candidates who cannot problem solve, overcome objections, or properly assemble and then delegate to hand-picked staff to handle everything just the right way to "stay on the tracks" all while still retaining enough popular support to achieve their goals.

Just like the Presidency.

-While there is tremendous hand-wringing about all this at the moment, regardless of the eventual winner, this will all be forgotten by labor day after the dust of both conventions has settled and everyone focuses in on the general election.

Either democratic candidate will be severely battle-tested by the time one arises from the ashes. And no matter how you spin it, that is a good thing.

Keep your focus on the big picture.

 

[LuvDuke]

Is it impossible for you to even consider that she wants it because she really believes she can help people? Because she truly wants to see a national healthcare system to help those of us who have none? That she's as digusted as we are about where this country is at right now? That she truly believes she is the person lead?

I believe wholeheartedly thats why she wants it.

Then if that's the way the candidate feels, then the candidate can explain it without tearing down their opponent so as to better pump themselves up.

Hillary is responsible for what's coming down on her head now and no one else. And quite honestly, if she can't see what her tactics are doing to the Democratic party, how is she supposed to get all those things accomplished with those who are not predisposed to give her the benefit of the doubt?

I believe it is all well and good to want to accomplish things, but wanting doesn't mean they have the savvy to do just that.

 

[lilyv]

Then if that's the way the candidate feels, then the candidate can explain it without tearing down their opponent so as to better pump themselves up.

Hillary is responsible for what's coming down on her head now and no one else. And quite honestly, if she can't see what her tactics are doing to the Democratic party, how is she supposed to get all those things accomplished with those who are not predisposed to give her the benefit of the doubt?

I believe it is all well and good to want to accomplish things, but wanting doesn't mean they have the savvy to do just that.

Bully tactics aren't serving her well now, and they wouldn't should she be elected. It's 2008. Sometimes too many years around the political process can leave one sort of angry and jaded, rather than open to leading with dignity.

 

[robinb]

-While there is tremendous hand-wringing about all this at the moment, regardless of the eventual winner, this will all be forgotten by labor day after the dust of both conventions has settled and everyone focuses in on the general election.

Either democratic candidate will be severely battle-tested by the time one arises from the ashes. And no matter how you spin it, that is a good thing.

Keep your focus on the big picture.

Thank you for a voice of sanity in a cacophony of "debate".

 

[Hound 109]

Here is the exact quote:

I think the context of her comments means a lot. She was speaking to military leaders and national security experts. You can't deny that he McCain does have the whole War Hero thing going on and to dismiss McCain under those circumstances would be silly. At the same time, she wants to be able to say that she will be just as ready to take over the reins of war.

I see an interesting connection with Clinton's first pro-McCain comment and now her second. What they both have in common are issues that McCain probably has her beat on: length of experience and military experience. The truth is that she is between McCain and Obama on both those issues. As much as I like her, I can't quite figure out what she's trying to do except possibly acknowledge McCain's strengths now while making them their own against Obama. Time will tell if that will work in her favor or not.

Personally, I would prefer that she not talk up John while taking potshots at Barack.

Good post.

HC (& most of her folks) are alot of things, but they aren't dumb. They are mentioning McCain for a reason (& it's not to be VP nor get McC elected).

I remember when i first saw the 3am ad being discussed & pilloried. I thought it was a dumb ad & talking heads thought so too. I still don't know if it had an effect on Tuesday's voting, but maybe it did.

BO would be better served by saying.... that he "doesn't have experience in making dumb votes".... than whining about what HC says.


I heard on the radio that BO is strategizing in Chicago. The dude is a quick learner, & i suspect he'll be coming out strong tomorrow with an "HC has experience of dumb votes" theme & a renewed attempt to gather VOTES instead of the broken record about his lead in delegates. & privately he'll tell his folks to get off the pity pot & start working to get votes.

.