PDA

View Full Version : More On The MSNBC Clinton Attack



Gayle in MD
02-09-2008, 05:10 PM
Meet the man in the middle. MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended for a question about Chelsea Clinton he asked -- me!

Appearing as a guest on Tucker last Thursday, with Shuster sitting in as guest host, I was puzzled when he brought up Chelsea's increasingly prominent role in the campaign and suggested that this was somehow "unseemly." Not at all, I responded. She was campaigning for her mom. Just like the Bush twins stumped for their dad. What's unseemly about that? (I should have, but didn't, think of mentioning the five Romney sons).

But Shuster persisted. Chelsea was even calling super delegates. Wasn't she being "pimped" into a more active role? Even though I winced at the word "pimped," I stuck to my point that Chelsea's campaigning for her mother is what family members always do. Like Michelle Obama, campaigning for her husband. No big deal. "Give Chelsea a break," I told Shuster.

Did his question merit suspension? Absolutely. Shuster's a damned good reporter, who's always been religiously fair. But even the best of us can sometimes go over the line. Chris Matthews did, earlier. This time, it was Shuster. Except he, unlike Matthews, has to pay the price.

But, of course, this isn't the first sign of media bias, intended or unintended. What's most disturbing about Shuster's pimp remark is that it reinforces the impression of media bias in this campaign.

It began with the networks' deciding which candidates were serious and which were not -- and therefore ignoring qualified contenders like Joe Biden or Ron Paul. It continued with the media's admitted infatuation with John McCain and Barack Obama. It culminated with the media's declaring open season on the Clintons. In contrast to fawning reports about Obama crowds, every story about the Clinton campaign is sprinkled with snide, critical, even crude, comments about Hillary or Bill. Now not even Chelsea is spared.

Enough's enough. The media's role is to report on the primaries, not decide the primaries. No candidate deserves favorable treatment. The media should treat all of them equally badly. That's their job. And there's a big difference between their job and ours. To bend a phrase: "They report. We decide."

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I suppose I'm just making all of this up, and there are no sexist attacks on Hillary. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

LWW
02-10-2008, 08:46 AM
I think it was low class of him but I don't think it was sexist and I don't think he should be punished when it is viewed by common media standards of today.

LWW

Deeman3
02-11-2008, 09:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
I suppose I'm just making all of this up, and there are no sexist attacks on Hillary. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<font color="blue"> No, you are nmot making this up. What you are making up is that these are sexist remarks and, you have, made it up that these are attacks from the right, both of which are hogwash.

This attack is a snide little remark by someone who does not like Hillary. If someone does not like Bush and makes sucha remark, you'd not even think to call it an attack on a Christian on a man, on a Republican, you'd call it what it was, an attack by someone who does not like him.

Wheather you'll ever admit it or not, there are many who don't like Hillary for much better reasons than her gender, even those in your own party, apparently. If you keep trying to turn this into a man vs. woman thing, you'll have the same results when they tried to turn this into a race thing between Clinton and Obama. Now she has had to dismiss her Hispanic manager and replace her with a black manager. Doe this look like more pandering? or just a cooincidence? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Is her campaign falling apart? How has the right orchestrated this, if they, as you say, are so hated by all?

I agree the right will attack her but not until she is the nominee. Most will then attack her for the same reasons the left is now, they don't like nor trust her, nothing to do with her gender.</font color>



<hr /></blockquote>

LWW
02-11-2008, 10:26 AM
Where was your outrage when the EEEVILLL right wing Olberman ... Gawd that's hard to type and not laugh ... accused Bush of pimping Petraeus?

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-11-2008, 12:46 PM
No, you are nmot making this up. What you are making up is that these are sexist remarks and, you have, made it up that these are attacks from the right, both of which are hogwash.

<font color="red">Given the non-stop attacks from Joe Scarborough, and all his guests, it's clear to me the right has been in the lead in attacking Hillary. </font color>

This attack is a snide little remark by someone who does not like Hillary. <font color="red">It is the flavor of the statements that make them sexist, such as "Riding her husbands coat tail" and "She became a Sanator in NY because her husband had an affair" that are sexist. If Hillary had been a housewife, hadn't earned a law degree, graduated first in her class, worked for children's rights, black rights, ran and organized her own campaigns, and her husbands, and won re-election in her state through her own hard work, then perhaps I'd have a different opinion.</font color> If someone does not like Bush and makes sucha remark, you'd not even think to call it an attack on a Christian on a man, on a Republican, you'd call it what it was, an attack by someone who does not like him. <font color="red">No, I'd call it an attack by someone with their eyes and ears open enough to see what a lousey president he is. </font color>

Wheather you'll ever admit it or not, there are many who don't like Hillary for much better reasons than her gender, even those in your own party, apparently. <font color="red"> I was addressing the media, however, I think the sexism comes from men, period, politicians and media, Republican and Democratic, and the sexism is much more rampant in this country than racism. </font color> If you keep trying to turn this into a man vs. woman thing, you'll have the same results when they tried to turn this into a race thing between Clinton and Obama. <font color="red">I think Obama did that, and his wife, with remarks that skewed original statements made by Bill Clinton, and about Hillary. </font color> Now she has had to dismiss her Hispanic manager and replace her with a black manager. <font color="red">Had to? Why do you say she had to? </font color> Doe this look like more pandering? or just a cooincidence? <font color="red">Politicians re-organize throughout their campaigns. What makes this any different? </font color> Is her campaign falling apart? How has the right orchestrated this, if they, as you say, are so hated by all?

<font color="red">If they are hated by all? Not clear of whom you speak. The media slants right. That is my contention. </font color>

I agree the right will attack her but not until she is the nominee. Most will then attack her for the same reasons the left is now, they don't like nor trust her, nothing to do with her gender.

<font color="red">The men from the left who have attacked her have done so using sexist remarks. The same ones who have been singled out by Women's organizations for making sexist remarks. The same ones who have been forced to apologize on the air. Chris Mathews is one of them. He has been relentlessly attacking Hillary Clinton non stop, and using sexist statements to do so. Hence, women held demonstrations in front of NBC. Apparently, there are many women who hear his statements as being sexist statements. I'm not the only one.

Watching the Republicans lose will be far enough for me, though. If hillary loses the nomination, sexism will have played a role. Even Bush's former campaign strategist, who appeared on Bill Maher's program last Friday evening, stated that sexism is far more prominant in this country than racism. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>

Deeman3
02-11-2008, 03:06 PM
Not nearly so many on either side are as sexist as you claim. This is a weak attempt to garner the guilty vote. I had rather let the people of the U.S. decide on the next President by the results of the voting, not of false charges meant to deflect people's attention from the issues which are:

Who will help the economy?

Who will deal best with Iraq and the threat (or perceived threat) of global terror?

Who will best pretent to protect our borders?

Who can offer the most attractive redistribution of wealth?

Who look more Presidential?

Who can get enough MTV slackers off the sofa long enough to find a voting booth and properly read the voting instructions?

No matter what you believe, Hillary has to beat Obama, then McCain, which may the easier of the two, by showing she can gain the trust of a plurality of Americans, plus her super-duper-delagates.

I believe she would make a better President than Obama. However, I am not a racist because I feel that way. This is not the first time I have said this.

Gayle in MD
02-11-2008, 03:37 PM
I have the same concerns, but would have to add health care to the list, as the number of Americans who cannot afford it is mind boggling. Additionally, hunger is another serious problem which has not been addressed sufficiently, IMO.

We need policies which do not reward corporations which hide their money in tax safe accounts, out of the country, and outsource American jobs. We should remove the loophles which permit, and promote opportunities to hide money.

I don't believe there is any candidate available, on either side, that could and would do as much to turn around the negatives left from Bush, as Hillary, and I do feel that unfair media treatment, sexist resentment, and myths which have been spread around by the right wing Republican attack machine since Bill Clinton's first presidential win, play a huge role in that.

The press has been anti Hillary throughout this campaign. I do not believe that has been the case because she is unqualified, racist or dishonest. The Clinton's are the most investigated couple in history, and the only sin uncovered was marital infedelity. Hillary has never been proven to have broken the law, or her marriage vows, yet she is attacked non stop. I'm not suggesting the Hillary Clinton is perfect, nor is she above using all the same tricks that all candidates use to get elected, but she is held to a higher standard than the others, and that simply isn't fair. To suggest that sexism has not played a role in the Hillary bashfest, is not what I have observed. I hope she wins because I believe that she will do the best job for our country, and also, because I think Obama is not smart enough, experienced enough, or worthy of the position. I think Hillary has paid her dues, in sweat, and effort, and would surely do the best job of solving our pressing preblems. Obama is given a wide birth, which IMO, he has not earned. His wife, for example, uttered one of the lowest attacks on Hillary Clinton that I've ever heard in a Presidential campaign. It was close to being as bad as John McCain, making fun of Chelsea's looks during the Clinton's first presidential campaign. Any grown man who would stoop that low, doesn't deserve to have even a shot at running this country, IMO, and is a sick human being.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
02-11-2008, 03:57 PM
Gayle, on one level I agree with your point... but at the same time I can't help but feel it's a "don't dish it if you can't take it" type of thing. She really hasn't been above throwing her own jabs, either.

But even if one were to grant the fact that perhaps she is under a higher powered microscope than the others, I don't necessarily feel it is unwarranted... IF she is elected president... the first female president of The United States of America... then her term in office will absolutely be the most intently looked at and pressure filled term we have probably ever seen. The extra pressure now would probably be a good barometer of how well she'd handle the rediculous amount of pressure she would have to endure as our highest leader.

Sack

Gayle in MD
02-11-2008, 04:15 PM
You make a very good point. In fact, the points you make, are part of the reasons why I feel she would be the best person for the job. Women are used to that kind of intense scrutiny. What you mention is a fact of life, for women, throughout their lives.

Hillary has lived through everything the Republican slime machine has thrown at her for decades, and IMO, without the intense media bashfest, her campaign would be doing much better now.

For example, I felt it was completely out of line for Tim Russert to bring up any reference to Bill Clinton's dallyance, in a presidential debate. That would be considered extremely poor taste, even at a cocktail party. After all, it wasn't Hillary who was unfaithful, so why is it any issue as regards her candidacy? McCain was unfaithful to his first wife. Has anyone asked about that? Did anyone ask Guiliani?

Obama's wife did the same. I lost all respect for the Obama's when she did that.

OTOH, I did n't think that Bill Clinton's statements which recieved so much media bashing were at all out of line. When South Carolina's blacks voted for Obama, and he referred to Jessie Jackson's wins, with the Black support, why is that racist? What are we supposed to do, pretend Obama isn't black, or that the blacks in South Carolina didn't vote their race?

Same thing with Bill stating that Obama's harping on being against the war, is a fantasy. IMO, it is a fantasy. He wasn't even a Senator at the time, and further, he stated himself, in 04, that his views on the war were much like Bush's. Stated that he didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate at the time. His big campaign statement against Hillary, has no basis, according to his own statements, and the actual facts.

The Republicans can't bring Hillary down, like they did Kerry and Gore, but Obama will be a piece of cake, IMO. He's simply not as fast on his feet, which is why he has not taken questions on the campaign trail. Hillary, OTOH has welcomed the opportunity to answer questions by the hours.

The extra pressure you speak of has been a way of life for Hillary Clinton for decades. Bill Clinton's popularity around the world would be a very good thing for our country right now, and I'm sure he would be a roving ambassador, and that would serve this country well, especially right now.

Gayle in Md.

bamadog
02-11-2008, 06:01 PM
Hillary will be milking this minor incident for all it's worth, and then some. This is a chance for her to portray herself as a victim. A little preview of her Presidency? What's next, more tears?
P A L E E E Z E !

pooltchr
02-11-2008, 06:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> If someone does not like Bush and makes sucha remark, you'd not even think to call it an attack on a Christian on a man, on a Republican, you'd call it what it was, an attack by someone who does not like him. <font color="red">No, I'd call it an attack by someone with their eyes and ears open enough to see what a lousey president he is. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

So is it not possible that when someone "attacks" Hillary, it just might be someone with their eyes and ears open enough to see what a lousey president she would be?

Steve

Gayle in MD
02-12-2008, 07:16 AM
Attacks of a sexist nature, or regarding private marital issues, do not belong in a Presidential Campaign. That is the subject of my original post, and this thread. The press, IMO, should be neutral. It isn't, instead, it slants to the right, IMO. By any chance, albiet uncharacteristic of your usual posting style, would you care to address the subjects of this thread?

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
02-12-2008, 11:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> By any chance, albiet uncharacteristic of your usual posting style, would you care to address the subjects of this thread?

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Sure. I think the comment was crass and thoughtless.

Now, would you like to address my question. Why is an attack on Bush ok because you think it's based on his actions, but an attack on Hillary must be because of sexism? Can't we dislike Hillary for the same reasons you dislike Bush? Just because she is female, doesn't mean everyone who doesn't like her is sexist. Maybe we just don't like what she stands for.
Steve

Gayle in MD
02-12-2008, 12:25 PM
And maybe you don't like her because you're misogynistic, In your case, you've already proven it in your own words, IIRC. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
02-12-2008, 12:33 PM
Why did you ignore his question as he made a point to answer yours?

eg8r

pooltchr
02-12-2008, 06:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Why did you ignore his question as he made a point to answer yours?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Probably because she knows I'm right.
Steve

Deeman3
02-13-2008, 08:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> And maybe you don't like her because you're misogynistic, In your case, you've already proven it in your own words, IIRC. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> It does appear the the entire Democratic Party is becoming more misogynistic as they reject Clinton, what nine states in a row now with even the women starting to abandon her?

As funny as it seems, her only remaining salvation is the "Flyover" states which she now declares as the only important ones are what we have been told by her supporter have no judgement and should not be allowed to select the President. Maybe she was right!</font color>

Gayle in MD
02-13-2008, 01:32 PM
She surely isn't being attacked by the entire party. Hillary and Obama are virtually tied, at present. The media has given Obama a free pass throughout their coverage of this campaign. It is being written about everywhere, and spoken about, by those very pundits who are doing it.

Surely I don't suggest that ALL of those who bash Hillary, or don't vote for her, do so as a result of misogeny, but in the case of media, I believe it plays a huge role, and my feelings about that are a result of the kinds of things they say.

MSNBC has had the top three women's rights group demonstrating in front of their locations, both in NY, and in Washington. The questions asked of Hillary in the various debates, have been not only rude, but unprecedented.

No other candidate has been bashed this way. deny it all you want, it is quite evident to me, and to many others.

Hillary is still holding her own, in spite of it all, deaing with an obvious unlevel field, including non stop promotion of Obama, on all other programming, both CNN's and MSNBC, and given that mostly her deserters have been white men, according to the statistical information provided in the election polls, I believe that most of it is a result of sexism, particularly when one calculates the lack of experience of her opponent, running for the presidency, after only two years in the Senate, and having voted "present" 129 times in order avoid any record of his voting. There has been overall, very unfair, lopsided coverage by the media, skewed in Obama's favor, given he has yet to be put on the spot, even once, in any interview, or debate. It is clear to me that the Republicans would much prefer going up against obama, than Hillary, and given her intellect, and quickness on her feet, I am not at all surprised.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
02-13-2008, 02:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> She surely isn't being attacked by the entire party. <font color="blue"> I didn't mean the entire party, just a plurality.</font color> Hillary and Obama are virtually tied, at present. <font color="blue"> Yes, but he has sure run a string of balls in the last few weeks. </font color> The media has given Obama a free pass throughout their coverage of this campaign. It is being written about everywhere, and spoken about, by those very pundits who are doing it. <font color="blue"> I agree.</font color>

Surely I don't suggest that ALL of those who bash Hillary, or don't vote for her, do so as a result of misogeny, but in the case of media, I believe it plays a huge role, and my feelings about that are a result of the kinds of things they say. <font color="blue"> It seems you are saying only the men are doing this? Or am I reading you wrong here? </font color>

MSNBC has had the top three women's rights group demonstrating in front of their locations, both in NY, and in Washington. <font color="blue"> They don't seem to be convincing many people, do they? </font color> <font color="red">Maybe they need more "Groups". </font color> The questions asked of Hillary in the various debates, have been not only rude, but unprecedented. <font color="blue"> Perhaps but she said she wants the tough questions. I think she has done pretty well and has laid off the "everyone is ganging up on me," lately. </font color>

No other candidate has been bashed this way. deny it all you want, it is quite evident to me, and to many others. <font color="blue"> No other candidate has as controversial history as she does, if you exclude Bill.</font color>

Hillary is still holding her own, in spite of it all, deaing with an obvious unlevel field, including non stop promotion of Obama, on all other programming, both CNN's and MSNBC, and given that mostly her deserters have been white men, according to the statistical information provided in the election polls, I believe that most of it is a result of sexism, particularly when one calculates the lack of experience of her opponent, running for the presidency, after only two years in the Senate, and having voted "present" 129 times in order avoid any record of his voting. <font color="blue"> I agree, he is a horible candidate and has less experiece than Hillary, plus he, as you say, has avoided any position votes for all these years. </font color> There has been overall, very unfair, lopsided coverage by the media, skewed in Obama's favor, given he has yet to be put on the spot, even once, in any interview, or debate. <font color="blue"> Again, I copletely agree even Fox is siding with hillary more than the liberal press.. </font color> It is clear to me that the Republicans would much prefer going up against obama, than Hillary, and given her intellect, and quickness on her feet, I am not at all surprised. <font color="blue"> I don't think so but you could be right. My fear is that if Obama gets rolling like a train, he may be unstoppable and that would lead us down the road to unfettered socialism even faster than Clinton. He does make her look like a centrist. <font color="red"> However, given her new "Rudy" strategy of putting her eggs (not a sexist comment) in the baskets of Texas and Ohio might make some feel she is not as bright as advertised along with that great strategy of forcing Dean into changing the deligate rules in Texas to favor her when she thought she was the only candidate that could get the black vote, now at teh expense of her Hispanic vote. Does this add to the manipulative pandering charges or not?</font color>

Hillary now says the only states that really count are California, Texas and Ohio. Can she really win with only 5 or six real victories. As well, if her suit to let the Florida vote count, is that fair to Obama as he was not allowed on the ballot for her "victories" in MI and Fl? Would not people who did not go vote, because Obama was not on the ballot be as Jesse would say, "Disenfranchised",a no-no in your party?</font color>


<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
02-13-2008, 02:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Hillary is still holding her own, in spite of it all, <hr /></blockquote> You remind me of the violin players, on the movie Titantic, who kept playing even though the boat was sinking. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Hillary is losing the white voters and the female voters. Obama has been winning everything in sight lately.

My only problem is I don't know whether to be happy or sad?

eg8r

SKennedy
02-13-2008, 03:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Hillary is still holding her own, in spite of it all, <hr /></blockquote> You remind me of the violin players, on the movie Titantic, who kept playing even though the boat was sinking. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Hillary is losing the white voters and the female voters. Obama has been winning everything in sight lately.

My only problem is I don't know whether to be happy or sad?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Camille Paglia has an interesting piece out recently about Hillary and Obama and McCain. Very interesting and I agree with much of what she says. She is no fan of Hillary or of the old-guard feminist who adore Hillary, and the negatives from that group (Gloria S. &amp; Company). I would add a link, but don't know how. I'm sure if interested one could find it.

As to Obama beating Hillary, I'm glad. However, I am concerned about the almost "cult-like" fever that many display toward him. Regardless of his charisma, he is just a man. Time will tell about him. However, don't count Hillary out yet as we do have the superdelegates. Many in the democratic party were not aware of these superdelegates and are unhappy at the prospect that Obama could win the regular delegates and Hillary still obtain the nomination. But Bill and Hiilary's fan base is fickle and will turn on them if it suits their political advantage. Personally, I think the Clinton's reign over the DNC and all things democrat is over. Hillary losing the nomination is my only consolation for McCain winning the Rep. nomination.

Gayle in MD
02-13-2008, 04:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]

It does appear the the entire Democratic Party is becoming more misogynistic as they reject Clinton, <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">You may not have meant it, but that is what you wrote. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but he has sure run a string of balls in the last few weeks. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Easy to do when two of the three top cable news organizations are pushing his candidacy, and bashing his oponent left and right. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
It seems you are saying only the men are doing this? Or am I reading you wrong here?

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Those who have made the statements offensive to women, were men, yes, and it hasn't stopped yet, since Mathews is still at it. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
They don't seem to be convincing many people, do they? Maybe they need more "Groups". <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">I don't think they are trying to convince people of anything, just holding the offending men, and their networks, accountable for misogynistic statements for which one has been suspended. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps but she said she wants the tough questions. I think she has done pretty well and has laid off the "everyone is ganging up on me," lately.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">I haven't hear her say that, nor has she complained, other than when she was accused of pimping out her duaghter. I think even you might agree, she is not the type to complain about tough questions about the issues, and IMO, she hasn't complained enough. Again, how is it that none of the philandering men were asked about their affairs, while Hillary is still having to put up with questions about Bill's philandering, which she isn't even responsible for in the first place. Did they ask Guiliani? McCain? Thompson? Why is a wife fair game for questions about something she didn't even do? </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
No other candidate has as controversial history as she does, if you exclude Bill.

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Again, what has Hillary Clinton done? She has never had a DWI, Bush lied about his DWI, and refused to answer questions about his cocaine use, just as his dad refused to answer questions about his mistress. Has Hillary ever been convicted of a crime? No. Just because the right wing witch hunt against the Clinton's didn't turn up anything but Bill's misbehavoir, how does Hillary deserve to be called controversial? </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so but you could be right. My fear is that if Obama gets rolling like a train, he may be unstoppable and that would lead us down the road to unfettered socialism even faster than Clinton. He does make her look like a centrist. However, given her new "Rudy" strategy of putting her eggs (not a sexist comment) in the baskets of Texas and Ohio <font color="blue">She's been all over this country, caost to coast, I'd hardly compare that to Rudy partying in Florida for three months with his ex mistress wife. </font color> might make some feel she is not as bright as advertised <font color="blue">Not an advertizemet, a fact. Intellectually she is probably the smartest person to ever run for the presidency. </font color> along with that great strategy of forcing Dean into changing the deligate rules in Texas to favor her when she thought she was the only candidate that could get the black vote, <font color="blue">Forcing? Can you back up this accusation? </font color> now at teh expense of her Hispanic vote. Does this add to the manipulative pandering charges or not? <font color="blue"> As far as I know Hillary doesn't run the entire party. such a decision would most certainly come from Dean, not Hillary. </font color>

Hillary now says the only states that really count are California, Texas and Ohio. <font color="blue">When did she say that? I haven't hear her say that at all. </font color> Can she really win with only 5 or six real victories. <font color="blue">With three, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, she would have more than five or six. She has ten, now. And yes, she would be in front.</font color> As well, if her suit to let the Florida vote count, [ QUOTE ]
there is a law suit? <hr /></blockquote> is that fair to Obama as he was not allowed on the ballot for her "victories" in MI and Fl? <font color="blue"> My inderstanding is that he was on the ballot. Although neither of them, or any other Democrat, was allowed to campaign in Florida. </font color> Would not people who did not go vote, because Obama was not on the ballot be as Jesse would say, "Disenfranchised",a no-no in your party?

<font color="blue">I think the votes should count. The expense of another vote, may have to come into play. I don't think any of us knows how that will play out, however, just once I'd like to hear Obama admit that he was not in the Senate to vote for the original vote to give Bush bargaining power in dealing with S.H., and as John Glenn said last night on the Cris Mathrew show, it wan't introduced to the congerss or the senate as a prelude to Bush going into Iraq, without letting the inspectors finsish their jobs, and without UN sanction. Most Senators with knowledge would not want to tie the president's hands at a time when he is trying to threaten with intervention. Obama has blown it into something it wasn't. And, as Glenn stated, it was the correct vote, and not a vote that she should apologize for. Bush is the one that decieved all of them about what his intention actually was. It was suposed to be a threat to Saddam, not a war plan for invastion. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Deeman3
02-13-2008, 04:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Yes, but he has sure run a string of balls in the last few weeks. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Easy to do when two of the three top cable news organizations are pushing his candidacy, and bashing his oponent left and right. </font color> <font color="blue"> True, but again, this is the left critiquing the left.</font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
It seems you are saying only the men are doing this? Or am I reading you wrong here?

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Those who have made the statements offensive to women, were men, yes, and it hasn't stopped yet, since Mathews is still at it. </font color> <font color="blue"> I beleive many of Hillary's strongest detractors are women, maybe younger women and some of race but women all the same. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
They don't seem to be convincing many people, do they? Maybe they need more "Groups". <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">I don't think they are trying to convince people of anything, just holding the offending men, and their networks, accountable for misogynistic statements for which one has been suspended. </font color>

<font color="blue"> Accountable? Who can they hold accountable? Did someone appoint them as a Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton tag team? What are they doing? Taking names, making people stay after school? They can't even move voters, they have no teeth. The court of public opinion just doesn't give them relevance anymore. The 1960's are over. Women don't need these groups as a crutch, some of them just did not get the memo.... </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Perhaps but she said she wants the tough questions. I think she has done pretty well and has laid off the "everyone is ganging up on me," lately.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">I haven't hear her say that, nor has she complained, other than when she was accused of pimping out her duaghter. I think even you might agree, she is not the type to complain about tough questions about the issues, and IMO, she hasn't complained enough. Again, how is it that none of the philandering men were asked about their affairs, while Hillary is still having to put up with questions about Bill's philandering, which she isn't even responsible for in the first place. Did they ask Guiliani? McCain? Thompson? Why is a wife fair game for questions about something she didn't even do? </font color> <font color="red"> I have always agreed she is not fair game for her husband's crimes and should not be judged nor critizised for his actions nor falsely credited with his successes. I have never changed my position on this. However, I also don't put together CNBC's debate questions. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
No other candidate has as controversial history as she does, if you exclude Bill.

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Again, what has Hillary Clinton done? She has never had a DWI, Bush lied about his DWI, and refused to answer questions about his cocaine use, just as his dad refused to answer questions about his mistress. Has Hillary ever been convicted of a crime? No. Just because the right wing witch hunt against the Clinton's didn't turn up anything but Bill's misbehavoir, how does Hillary deserve to be called controversial? </font color> <font color="red">

Again, she may be as pure as the driven snow. I said, "She has controversial history." I think she has a long laundry list of things she is "accused" of by the press and even unfounded rumor. Still, in a real world, she must deal with this. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I don't think so but you could be right. My fear is that if Obama gets rolling like a train, he may be unstoppable and that would lead us down the road to unfettered socialism even faster than Clinton. He does make her look like a centrist. However, given her new "Rudy" strategy of putting her eggs (not a sexist comment) in the baskets of Texas and Ohio <font color="blue">She's been all over this country, caost to coast, I'd hardly compare that to Rudy partying in Florida for three months with his ex mistress wife. </font color> might make some feel she is not as bright as advertised <font color="blue">Not an advertizemet, a fact. Intellectually she is probably the smartest person to ever run for the presidency. </font color> along with that great strategy of forcing Dean into changing the deligate rules in Texas to favor her when she thought she was the only candidate that could get the black vote, <font color="blue">Forcing? Can you back up this accusation? </font color> now at teh expense of her Hispanic vote. Does this add to the manipulative pandering charges or not? <font color="blue"> As far as I know Hillary doesn't run the entire party. such a decision would most certainly come from Dean, not Hillary. </font color> <font color="red"> O.K. but it is common knowledge that they pressured Dean to alter the rules for their benefit. I just think the strategy backfired. Who would have guessed at Obama 2 years ago? </font color>

Hillary now says the only states that really count are California, Texas and Ohio. <font color="blue">When did she say that? I haven't hear her say that at all. </font color> Can she really win with only 5 or six real victories. <font color="blue">With three, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, she would have more than five or six. She has ten, now. And yes, she would be in front.</font color> As well, if her suit to let the Florida vote count, &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
there is a law suit? <hr /></blockquote> is that fair to Obama as he was not allowed on the ballot for her "victories" in MI and Fl? <font color="blue"> My inderstanding is that he was on the ballot. Although neither of them, or any other Democrat, was allowed to campaign in Florida. </font color> Would not people who did not go vote, because Obama was not on the ballot be as Jesse would say, "Disenfranchised",a no-no in your party?

<font color="blue">I think the votes should count. The expense of another vote, may have to come into play. I don't think any of us knows how that will play out, however, just once I'd like to hear Obama admit that he was not in the Senate to vote for the original vote to give Bush bargaining power in dealing with S.H., and as John Glenn said last night on the Cris Mathrew show, it wan't introduced to the congerss or the senate as a prelude to Bush going into Iraq, without letting the inspectors finsish their jobs, and without UN sanction. Most Senators with knowledge would not want to tie the president's hands at a time when he is trying to threaten with intervention. Obama has blown it into something it wasn't. And, as Glenn stated, it was the correct vote, and not a vote that she should apologize for. Bush is the one that decieved all of them about what his intention actually was. It was suposed to be a threat to Saddam, not a war plan for invastion. </font color> <font color="red"> You, my dear, make many excellent points here. I do completely agree with you that Hillary will never get a completely fair deal with the left or the right. As stated earlier, I think she would make a better President than Obama. He is an empty suit but a great speaker.</font color>

<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
02-13-2008, 05:37 PM
I wish you'd change colors instead of making it look as though I had written, what you wrote.

[ QUOTE ]
I beleive many of Hillary's strongest detractors are women, maybe younger women and some of race but women all the same.
<hr /></blockquote>

According to polls, women still support Hillary. She still gets the highest numbers in the women's vote. Also, the men who were made to apologize, and one of them suspended, were in fact, men, not women, and not both from the left, if any were from the left. If Mathews is still considered to be from the left, he surely doesn't seem to be.

[ QUOTE ]
Accountable? Who can they hold accountable? Did someone appoint them as a Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton tag team? What are they doing? Taking names, making people stay after school? They can't even move voters, they have no teeth. <font color="blue">One was suspended, and the other, Chris Mathews was made to apologize. </font color> The court of public opinion just doesn't give them relevance anymore. <font color="blue">OIC, and you speak for the entire country? </font color> The 1960's are over. Women don't need these groups as a crutch, some of them just did not get the memo.... <font color="blue">And as a woman, you are best qualitfied to make that judgement, I suppose. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Again, she may be as pure as the driven snow. I said, "She has controversial history." I think she has a long laundry list of things she is "accused" of by the press and even unfounded rumor. Still, in a real world, she must deal with this.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> I believe she has dealt with it quite well, given she's in a dead heat for the presidency. Also, just because the right wing press went on a witch hunt after the Clinton's, doesn't mean that we all bought into the resulted controversy, hence, she is no more controversial than any other politician.</font color>

[ QUOTE ]
O.K. but it is common knowledge that they pressured Dean to alter the rules for their benefit. <font color="blue">who is "they" and what of rules do you speak? If you are talking about the Florida vote, she abided by the rules completely. </font color> I just think the strategy backfired. Who would have guessed at Obama 2 years ago? <font color="blue">AGain, I am not clear about exactly what you are addressing. </font color> \

[ QUOTE ]
You, my dear, make many excellent points here. I do completely agree with you that Hillary will never get a completely fair deal with the left or the right. As stated earlier, I think she would make a better President than Obama. He is an empty suit but a great speaker.

<hr /></blockquote>

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Yes, I agree. I believe it will be a loss overall for our country if she does not win. </font color>

pooltchr
02-13-2008, 06:38 PM
Dee,
The question of experience is almost a non-issue. There are only 4 people alive who actually have experience, and none of them can run again. Nobody knows what that job is all about until they have actually been there. I do think that past actions are the best indicator of future behavior, and that is all we really have to judge the candidates on.

BTW, did you see in the news today that BC's 1992 campaign manager came out for Obama? I wonder what he knows about the Clintons that we don't know...

Steve

SKennedy
02-13-2008, 09:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> BTW, did you see in the news today that BC's 1992 campaign manager came out for Obama? I wonder what he knows about the Clintons that we don't know...
Steve <hr /></blockquote>
No telling...but the rest of us know enough anyway!

Deeman3
02-14-2008, 08:45 AM
You know Gayle, most of us only want what is best for our country and, of course, we don't all agree on what that is. People will discriminate for many reasons against cnadidates, some, perhaps, because Hillary is a woman, some because Obama is black and some will say McCain is too old. If an atheist or a midget ran, I'm sure they would be unfairly voted againt for those reasons as well.

In any case, people who decide by factors other than who is best for the country are bigoted in some way. However, most won't hang their hat on that as you can't change people's prejudice by pointing it out, real or not.

If she is indeed, just not a viable candidate because a vast majority of people won't vote for a woman (something I don't believe) then 10 women's rights organizations coming out and saying that probably won't aid her cause.

If she is going to win the democratic nomination and then the general election, she much convince the public she is the best person to do the job. It seems she is still touting her experience which we can debate here but her opposition is seems to be better able to sell change and link her to the old Washington beltway politics, something they may be able to do to McCain later as well.

Politics is rough. Yes, the right was tough on her for many years, in some cases they may have been right and some they may have stepped over the line. At this point, she must deal with the doubts and possible prejudice in her own party.

In one of your own points earlier you pointed to Laura Bush as not having the right stuff but perhaps that shows what some are talking about. Laura, would probably get a lot of flak if she ran for president and claimed her 8 years as executive experience, but, of course, she is not running. You may say, she did not do some of the things Hillary did as First Lady! You are right. But if she all of a sudden moves to a state she never lived in, ran for Senate on her husbands record, then a few years later ran for president, she might be seen as an opportunist. That combined with her part in travelgate, lapses in memory in testifying on that and her investments along with no recall on the Whitewater scandal, might call into account her claim to be ready to lead the country. Should she get a pass on these questions because she is a woman? Now, was she convicted in any of the above? No, and it might be unfair to have the public wonder about hese things but, again, politics is brutal and even if, for instance, Roger Clemens is innocent, he will be tared with that forever, Fair?, no but questioning McCain's temper might not be fair as well.

Politics just aint fair. You say she is tied. If so, this will probably be a fight to the convention and, there, she will be able to win through super-deligates but I beleive your party will forever give up black support if that happens. It would be very ugly.

If she weathers all this, then wins the general election, she will deserve to be the president.

SKennedy
02-14-2008, 09:06 AM
I just read a new poll result showing women in the democratic party favor Obama over Clinton 36% to 31%. I think my preference may be Mrs. Obama....kind of wish she was running....

Gayle in MD
02-14-2008, 09:47 AM
An excellent post, Deeman, and I agree with ost of what you are saying.

This morning I was watching Joe Scarborough, and the discussion was about the disadvantages Hillary is dealing with in this campaign. Dee Dee Meyers was on, as was Andrea Mitchell, along with Joe. There seemed to be agreement among them that it is much more acceptable to use the traditional political tactics against a woman, than against an Afro-american, and actually acknowledged that the media has had a love fest with Obama from the start. I've even heard Pat bushannon, state much the same thing. The Washington post, and the NY times and others, I'm sure, have written about this phenomena, and no doubt, more will be written about it in the future.

[ QUOTE ]
But if she all of a sudden moves to a state she never lived in, ran for Senate on her husbands record, then a few years later ran for president, she might be seen as an opportunist. <hr /></blockquote>

This is what I don't get, frankly. I see all politicians as opportunists, and tell ya the truth, I think they have to be. I believe that is a charge that would be much less likely thrown at a man, than a woman. And, as you know, I think it is an unfair charge, particularly in Hillary's case, since she was so much a part of her husband's administration, and had made her own mark in her college years, and after, before Bill Clinton was even a governor. She's been in the Senate into her eight year, and has established herself as a Senator who reaches out, works very hard, and works across the Isle. I do believe she played a huge role in her husband's Governorship, and presidency, and of course, in her own political career. As I said, I think she has surely paid her dues, and while you are absolutely right, that she, or any other candidate, must be able to take the heat, I must also say I know of few who have been tested to the degree that Hillary has.

Obama, OTOH, has worked to establish himself as the reincarnation of JFK. A ridiculous assertion, given that JFK served for twelve years in the Senate before he ran for the presidency. His campaign seems to be based on a vote which he never made, and while he is no doubt an inspring orator, my fear is that at this time, inspiring oration is not enough, and that he falls far short, of knowing enough about the skills required to be successful in getting thing accomplished inside the Beltway, and in our present circumstances, in foreign affairs.

At this time, Hillary is ahead in the Texas and Ohio polls, by double digits, but who know if that will remain the case. All we can do is hope, that the right person will win the nomination, and election, as we are facing the worst circumstances we have ever faced, as a nation, IMO. i happen to think that if Hillary does win, she will have won a contest in which she had much more unfair opposition going against her, than any of the other candidates. And I think much more will be written about this, in the months to come.

Gayle in Md.