THE LIBERAL THREAD #3- No Debate Please

[Charade]

Did you hear the 8 questions Keith Olbermann suggested Stephanopoulos ask John McCain on Sunday? Because Stephanopoulos had defended the stupid stuff he asked the first 45 minutes of the last Democratic debate with - The right will bring this issues up during the general election.

Wow! Most of Keith's list were funny but there were a couple of really wicked ones. Why did you commit adultery? No, not with the lobbyist but with your current wife while you were married to your first wife.

I wonder what all those Bill Clinton haters on the right (he's such an immoral man) will have to say about that?

Do you really think their answers would be different?

 

[JARNJ3]

Could just be that people don't think she's a good person and she keeps giving them reasons to think that.

Right - people think SHE is evil (definition of not good?), cause she's running a bad campaign. How could I have forgotten that? I still contend - a male candidate would not be treated that way (considered "evil")........ but that is my two cents of course.

 

[disneyfan67]

.

 

[wvrevy]

Funny - I'm trying to stay away from those sites (at least HuffPo and dailykos) because of all the trivial crap they bring up about Hillary........ The woman can't catch a break.

I often wonder - if we replaced Kerry and Edwards for Obama and Clinton - would the blogs be so against the #2 (Edwards in that race) that they are with Hillary....

Could it be a woman thing? I think there's some merit to that.........

But the difference is, Obama is on the stump, for the most part, talking about what he wants to do in office. Hillary is on the stump talking about Obama being an elitist, Obama being out of touch, Obama "whining" - as if she didn't complain directly during the last debate.

But that's not what I wanted to get into here. I do not think for a SECOND that it has anything to do with her being a woman. My wife is actually more successful in her career than I am in mine, and I have a daughter who I'm trying really hard to get interested in politics. In other words, I'm about the least misogynistic guy you're likely to meet. In fact, in the beginning, I was very happy with Hillary being the potential nominee, even though I was in the Obama camp early on. But the longer this campaign has gone on, the more I've come to dislike her. But it is her personality I dislike, not her gender.

It's not a female thing, Jarn...it's a Hillary thing. Reverse the genders of she and Barack Obama but not the politics, experience, or anything else, and I'd still be on Barack's side. There is simply a bit of a revolution going on in this country...a rebellion against negative politics...and it's caused Hillary's campaign tactics to blow up in her face.

Seriously...I resent the implication that people are against Hillary because she is female, just as I'm sure people that are Hillary supporters would resent it if someone said that the only reason they don't support Barack is because he is black. It's just wrong, on both sides.

 

[JARNJ3]

But the difference is, Obama is on the stump, for the most part, talking about what he wants to do in office. Hillary is on the stump talking about Obama being an elitist, Obama being out of touch, Obama "whining" - as if she didn't complain directly during the last debate.

But that's not what I wanted to get into here. I do not think for a SECOND that it has anything to do with her being a woman. My wife is actually more successful in her career than I am in mine, and I have a daughter who I'm trying really hard to get interested in politics. In other words, I'm about the least misogynistic guy you're likely to meet. In fact, in the beginning, I was very happy with Hillary being the potential nominee, even though I was in the Obama camp early on. But the longer this campaign has gone on, the more I've come to dislike her. But it is her personality I dislike, not her gender.

It's not a female thing, Jarn...it's a Hillary thing. Reverse the genders of she and Barack Obama but not the politics, experience, or anything else, and I'd still be on Barack's side. There is simply a bit of a revolution going on in this country...a rebellion against negative politics...and it's caused Hillary's campaign tactics to blow up in her face.

Seriously...I resent the implication that people are against Hillary because she is female, just as I'm sure people that are Hillary supporters would resent it if someone said that the only reason they don't support Barack is because he is black. It's just wrong, on both sides.

I get it - with you its not a woman thing - but I respectfully disagree that with all - its just a "Hillary" thing. I think you're seeing the situation through anti "Hillary" glasses - whereas I am viewing it thru "anti-woman" glasses. What seems to be forgotten is almost half of the democratic votes have gone to Hillary. Are all us Hillary voters making a judgment to vote for someone bad? I resent that implication.

I think this election will be analyzed for years to come - and the biases against gender will be pointed out. This is the first time a legitimate female candidate has had a legitimate shot at the nomination. And yes, it hasn't helped that her team has run a terrible campaign.

And if God forbid in the general McCain should win - possible anti-black biases will be revealed as well.

Also - I'll wait to agree with your revolution against negativity until I see the general election unfold. I get the democratic base is behind Obama - and despises all the "negativity" its been dealt - but the general is a totally different animal. The democratic party is the more tolerant party - the whole of the USA? Not so much.......

 

[chris1gill]

I wouldn't say she's evil, I'd say she's not honest, but at least she does own up to it after a while #1 Bosnia, #2 Blaming Democratic Activists behind a closed door meeting for her losing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XX08McRPHI it's in her own voice, saying she disagrees with the group, yet one year earlier on tape, she's praising them. #3 NAFTA proponent from the beginning vs. not a proponent from the beginning & probably add Columbia to that list. I am beyond a doubt certain there is more, but I don't really go into people's closets.

One minute she's compassionate the next minute she is like a pitbull, will the real Hillary please stand up? She's all but endorsed McCain against Obama, in fact implying that only she or McCain would make good POTUS's, specifically excluding Obama from the statement & she said it several times. She whines to the press at every opportunity if she doesn't like their reporting, yet when Obama says it took 54 minutes to get to one substantial question, she says he is whining. I would have liked more than 3 minutes on gas prices, I would have like to have heard about this Columbian trade agreement our president is intent on passing before elections, I would have liked a conversation on the extended GI bill that is underway and I would have liked the fact that our POTUS has admitted he knew of and approved of torture to have been brought up. And how about the corporate welfare to Wall Street firms that backed subprime mortgages they knew were risky? This information has all come to light since the last debate, yet none of it was brought up. I think Obama has a right to say that for 54 minutes of a 90 minute debate nothing substantial in way of policy was brought up, and she says he's whining, the American people should be whining after that "debate". 54 minutes of policy issues were lost.

And finally, what is it that now worries me? This alliance she'd like to form with all the Arab countries, that we would protect them should Iran attack them with great military force, they just have to sign a document saying they won't develop a nuclear arsenal... That's more hawkish than John McCain With what money and what human lives was she planning that little gem with??

I agree, if you switched platforms between Obama and Clinton, I would back Obama, ie. the female candidate...

 

[wvrevy]

What you're basically asking is, do I think it's possible for a rational person to look at the two candidates and choose to back Hillary, correct? The answer is, of course I do. As I said, at one time, I'd have been perfectly happy with her as the candidate. Would have been sad that Obama had lost, but I'd have switched my regular donations to her campaign from his, and gone on from there.

What I think turns some people that were once in that position into people who, like me, are unsure they could even vote for her in the general (and LuvDuke if you come near me with a needle and thread I'll...um...well, you ain't gettin' near my nose or anything else! )....what I think has done it has been her campaign tactics. As I mentioned elsewhere, Hillary was blasted as an "elitist" once upon a time. People took her comments out of context, changing the meaning of them, and said that she "looked down on" stay-at-home moms and women who didn't choose to put their career near the top of their priority lists. So, for her to be doing what she's done since last weekend...it's actually worse than if the Republicans did it. Frankly, I'd expect that kind of nonsense from a Republican candidate, but not from someone who darn well ought to know better.

And that is just the latest in a long line of things that got me to this point, and I'm sure I'm speaking for many others when I say that. Do you think it's a coincidence that Obama's poll numbers have gone up after the initial drop in popularity following these manufactured scandals? I don't. Nor do I think it's a coincidence that Hillary has gone from presumptive nominee awaiting coronation to also-ran begging for the super delegates and pledged delegates to overlook the voice of the voting public and give her the nomination.

I honestly do not think that misogyny has any role in her defeat. For every old, dumb hillbilly out there that "ain't votin' for no woman", there are two rednecks who "Don't want no n-word in the WHITE House". Fact is, Obama has had to overcome a heckuva lot more than Hillary has just to get to this point.

As for my "Revolution" argument...look back at those poll numbers I quoted, and consider these two others: In Alaska, Obama trails McCain in polling by something like 2 points. In Nebraska, same story. Those two states last went Democratic sometime back around the Kennedy Administration. Obama's message of "Let's get past silly season and get to work" is resonating in some of the reddist of red states. In those same two states, by the way, Hillary trails by double digits. Given that their policies are much the same and neither state holds a huge African American population, I think you have to ask yourself why that is...and I don't think for a second that the answer has anything to do with the candidates gender.

 

[Planogirl]

It won't be enthusiasm for Obama that will make some unlikely states close, it will be the number of Conservative Republicans who decide to sit this one out that will make the difference. Red states will not turn blue because of any love fest for Obama. If they turn blue, they will turn blue by forfeit, imho.

Will they sit this one out though? Or will the thought of Obama winning push them off their duffs and out to the voting booths? It could be that the idea of a Liberal Democrat would be way worse to them than a Moderate (perhaps waffling) Republican.

Note that I'm assuming that Obama wins in this scenario. I won't get into the bit about why Hillary is supposedly evil but I will look at the scenario of her not winning the nomination.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Hello All!

 

[eclectics]

Will they sit this one out though? Or will the thought of Obama winning push them off their duffs and out to the voting booths? It could be that the idea of a Liberal Democrat would be way worse to them than a Moderate (perhaps waffling) Republican.

Note that I'm assuming that Obama wins in this scenario. I won't get into the bit about why Hillary is supposedly evil but I will look at the scenario of her not winning the nomination.

With all due respect to the Hillary folk, it does seem like that will be the scenario in the end.... As for Cons sitting it out, I think a lot of the unyielding far right will, once they get a taste of what McCain will honestly bring to their table. Unfortunately, McCain is getting a free ride right now because all the focus is on the Dems. Once we have a candidate and they go at it one on one, a lot more on McCain will come to the surface and I think a lot of Cons will be holding their nose more tightly than they thought they would.

 

[dcentity2000]

Aloha my fellow fine liberals!

When do you guys get to vote between Clinton and Obama? They're both fine candidates of course...



Rich::

 

[Fitswimmer]

Aloha my fellow fine liberals!

When do you guys get to vote between Clinton and Obama? They're both fine candidates of course...



Rich::

I've already had my primary-but we've got until early June before everyone has had a chance to vote. I don't see an ending to this until then.

 

[Laura]

Aloha my fellow fine liberals!

When do you guys get to vote between Clinton and Obama? They're both fine candidates of course...



Rich::

I already voted last month, Pennsylvania decides tomorrow.

 

[robinb]

One minute she's compassionate the next minute she is like a pitbull, will the real Hillary please stand up?

I would rather have a compassionate "pitbull" as President than the "compassionate" conservative we have now.

 

[LuvDuke]

I'd write in the Democratic ticket of Mouse-Duck before I vote for a Republican.

 

[LuvDuke]

Yeah, 4 more Bush years in G.W.McCain:

Right Direction or Wrong Track

77% Believe the Nation is Heading Down Wrong Track

Three out of four voters (75%) say the nation is not better off than it was four years ago. Just 15% disagree and say the nation is better off.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...on_wrong_track/right_direction_or_wrong_track

Things are looking real good for McCain.

(Sidebar: I think I know who the 15% is and where they can be found. )

 

[LuvDuke]

Go, Johnny, go:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows John McCain with a three-point advantage over Barack Obama 47% to 44%. The presumptive Republican nominee has a six-point advantage over Hillary Clinton, 49% to 43%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Analysis: McCain has the stage all to himself and is running against a candidate who's had all sorts of "flaps" in the last month. He's also running against another candidate with 55% negatives.

And McCain is only beating those candidates by 3-6 points? Huh?

 

[dcentity2000]

Hola! Just thought I'd point out a great political liberal blog that's worth a gander:

http://www.idrewthis.org/



Rich::

 

[Mugg Mann]

Yeah, 4 more Bush years in G.W.McCain:


Things are looking real good for McCain.

(Sidebar: I think I know who the 15% is and where they can be found. )

That was my first thought as well!

One other interesting note; of all the mainstream pollsters, Rasmussen has a history of skewing to the right, which means that the 15% might even be on the high side.

But you're right, those '15%' are no more than a page or two away.

It's funny. Everytime I read political threads on the DIS, I have to remind myself that in the real world, Bush has lost 60% of his support since 9/11, the Pentagon itself has established that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, every major economic indicator is trending downward, and just this week alone not only has it been discovered that many of the generals 'touting' the war on the public airwaves are being disengenous (and have previously undisclosed personal financial interests in promoting and propogating the war) but also that a private internal Pentagon report has determined that the war cannot be won. There's so much more as well........

At times it seems fitting that many of the posts disagreeing with reality are done on boards here that promote a place called "Fantasyland".

 

[Mugg Mann]

I have a new working definition of irony this morning;

In the last 24 hours over on the Conservative thread, one of the diehard Bush faithful referred to a Democrat as a "filthy liar".