I still havent heard KVH come close to addressing the fact that Obama offers a fresh start and (possibly) some national unity. Hillary is yet another incredibly divisive figure, just like the last 2 presidents. How is she not the perfect way to unite the republicans and right-leaning independents after the disaster(s) of Bush?
Saba, damn dude, here I thought you were just a partisan hack and heartless extreme right winger. Now I see you are also a conspiracy theorist and petty character assassin. You guys really are scared of Edwards huh, to be pulling out claims like that? Well breath easy, looks like you'll have either a Clinton or a black guy to demonize....
I know you guys don't trust Zogby and all (although their numbers have been the closest so far, if you discount NH) but they're showing Obama with a commanding lead over Hillary and Edwards in SC...
I still havent heard KVH come close to addressing the fact that Obama offers a fresh start and (possibly) some national unity. Hillary is yet another incredibly divisive figure, just like the last 2 presidents. How is she not the perfect way to unite the republicans and right-leaning independents after the disaster(s) of Bush?
first, are you really serious about me addressing the "fresh start" argument? bill clinton has an 83% approval rating among democrats and suddenly Hillary's association with him is a negative thing. why isn't a vote for edwards a fresh start?
second, since when was bill a divisive figure, outside of the witch hunt created by ken starr? he worked with the republican congress and passed laws, including welfare reform, that left many liberals feeling like he comprised too much.
the fact that obama is getting more votes from independents and republicans is only relevant if it becomes obvious that the Dem nominee will not win the general election without crossover votes. But, as a democrat, why would it be an attribute that a candidate is getting gop support? should we nominate joe lieberman?
I still havent heard KVH come close to addressing the fact that Obama offers a fresh start and (possibly) some national unity. Hillary is yet another incredibly divisive figure, just like the last 2 presidents. How is she not the perfect way to unite the republicans and right-leaning independents after the disaster(s) of Bush?
first, are you really serious about me addressing the "fresh start" argument? bill clinton has an 83% approval rating among democrats and suddenly Hillary's association with him is a negative thing. why isn't a vote for edwards a fresh start?
second, since when was bill a divisive figure, outside of the witch hunt created by ken starr? he worked with the republican congress and passed laws, including welfare reform, that left many liberals feeling like he comprised too much.
the fact that obama is getting more votes from independents and republicans is only relevant if it becomes obvious that the Dem nominee will not win the general election without crossover votes. But, as a democrat, why would it be an attribute that a candidate is getting gop support? should we nominate joe lieberman?
You're right!
To hell with independents and moderates! Hillary will win on the strength of die-hard democrats alone.
Don't you think that people are a little disillusioned with party allegiance for allegiance's sake?
I think you're missing KVH's point. The Clinton's are NOT divisive. Obviously. AND fuck the independants, they were NEVER really down anyway. Sounds like a winning strategy, put me down as "converted"....
Are we seriously debating whether the Clintons are divisive, polarizing figures?
no. my point was that bill passed democratic legislation despite a republican congress (for a majority of his presidency), and despite shameful tactics of the gop to push aside the best interests of the country to go on a witch hunt over a blowjob. you can call him divisive, but through the whole mess, bill still reached across party lines to get shit done with the same political figures who were out on this bogus moral crusade.
as far as hillary goes, there is no doubt that gop voters and independents are put off by her. and? fuck the republican agenda and, as i said, if we (democrats) base our votes on how chummy a candidate is with the gop, then we'd be stuck with fools like Lieberman.
the fact that people interpret this to mean that, once elected, she won't be able to pass legislation or communicate with gop congressmen is absurd. what do you think she's been doing in the senate?
obama riders are trying to have it both ways. they want you to vote for this progressive guy who can't utter a sentence without using the word "change"....and yet they also want you to believe that conservatives are going to unite with liberals in ushering in a liberal agenda. it doesn't work like that.
salient points: A Hillary win = 3rd term for Bill, which is a good thing. Nominating a candidate who does not repulse moderate/centrist Republicans and Independents is not important. Hillary Clinton's hawkish, centrist history as a blue state Senator is cause for belief that she will, in fact, look out for left wing interests as President and SIMULTANEOUSLY work with Republicans to enact significant legislation.
I know you guys don't trust Zogby and all (although their numbers have been the closest so far, if you discount NH) but they're showing Obama with a commanding lead over Hillary and Edwards in SC...
I know you guys don't trust Zogby and all (although their numbers have been the closest so far, if you discount NH) but they're showing Obama with a commanding lead over Hillary and Edwards in SC...
as far as hillary goes, there is no doubt that gop voters and independents are put off by her. and?
And what? How many times do we have to drag you in circles dude? This is not about issues or positions, or how wrong the Republicans have been. This is about who's got the best chance to beat them. And if your conceding that she does poorly among independants and swing voters, than who cares if she's right on every issue. If that was the point, can I put you down for Kucinich? If the first term of Bush did not get enough of our team out there for Kerry, do you really think putting an even more divisive and hated candidate is the way to win? Don't you get it dude, they are frothing to go up against her. Do you care?
as far as hillary goes, there is no doubt that gop voters and independents are put off by her. and?
And what? How many times do we have to drag you in circles dude? This is not about issues or positions, or how wrong the Republicans have been. This is about who's got the best chance to beat them. And if your conceding that she does poorly among independants and swing voters, than who cares if she's right on every issue. If that was the point, can I put you down for Kucinich? If the first term of Bush did not get enough of our team out there for Kerry, do you really think putting an even more divisive and hated candidate is the way to win? Don't you get it dude, they are frothing to go up against her. Do you care?
the title of the thread is "hillary is shady" and 90% of the posts are about trashing her and praising obama...now your talking about "this is about who's got the best chance to beat them". first, no its not. that only becomes an issue if it becomes clear that edwards, hillary, OR obama wouldn't win the general election against any gop candidate. you can throw up a zogby poll to show huckabee would beat clinton or whatever, but i'm not buying it right now. any dem should and will beat any gop in this election after iraq, katrina, abu ghraib, the economic crisis, etc.
if mccain runs away with it and all the polls show tremendous support from independents...then i would look at obama to see if his national numbers among independents would mean a slam dunk for the dems. otherwise i'm riding for hillary.
For better or worse, I doubt that a Clinton presidency would be a return of Bill.
Hillary knows her own mind, she will surround herself with her own people.
She will throw Bill a bone the same way all presidents throw their spouses bones. I doubt he even gets anything as high profile as UN Ambassador, though that would be a good place for him.
Just days after the November 2004 election, Bill Clinton pulled Rove aside at the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas. "Hey, you did a marvelous job, it was just marvelous what you did," Clinton told Rove
KVH, with all due respect, I think you are either misreading some of the responses to what you have said, or you are ignoring the points that were made.
For example, when someone says, "Hillary is a divisive figure in a America, hated by lots of people." Referring to her popularity among democrats is not a very compelling argument because that is only half of the country.
If I understand Jonny and LW correctly, what they have been mostly speaking about is finding a leader who will be able to bring the country as a whole together, at least as well as any candidate in a two party system can. Whether Obama will be able to do this remains to be seen, but it is beyond doubt that Hillary brings a lot of baggage to the table that will make it an uphill battle for her from the start.
Republicans absolutely hate both the Clintons, justifiably or not. It is unlikely that this opinion will change during her presidency, but who knows. Still, I think it is a mistake to ignore the polls suggesting that Obama is has a better chance against the Republicans than Clinton. This not only suggests that he has a better chance in the general election, but that he may in fact have an easier time governing if elected.
That said, I admire your conviction and I would support Clinton if she gets the nomination, but I feel as though you are not listening to other points of view enough.
This is getting worse everyday. I'm not saying Obama should be free from scrutiny, but the Clintons are just making shit up. Their new radio ad twists his "party of ideas" quote on its head. Shameless.
KVH, with all due respect, I think you are either misreading some of the responses to what you have said, or you are ignoring the points that were made.
i'm not misreading anything, you fools don't know what the hell you are talking about. four years ago, people rode for Dean because he was divisive. he put a line in the sand on Bush and democrats didn't give a shit if the gop was offended that we were calling him a war criminal. now all the sudden, you guys are worried about whether the gop dislikes hillary? please. a majority of the people in this country are a bunch of idiots who voted for bush in '04. its probably a good thing that so many people dislike her. meanwhile, peep the articles today about which candidates received endorsements from governors. my boy ed rendell know's what time it is here in pa.
KVH, with all due respect, I think you are either misreading some of the responses to what you have said, or you are ignoring the points that were made.
i'm not misreading anything, you fools don't know what the hell you are talking about. four years ago, people rode for Dean because he was divisive. he put a line in the sand on Bush and democrats didn't give a shit if the gop was offended that we were calling him a war criminal. now all the sudden, you guys are worried about whether the gop dislikes hillary? please. a majority of the people in this country are a bunch of idiots who voted for bush in '04. its probably a good thing that so many people dislike her. meanwhile, peep the articles today about which candidates received endorsements from governors. my boy ed rendell know's what time it is here in pa.
Rendell + Rezko =
People (career politicians) are worried about getting their backs scratched, not what's good for the country. Rendell's endorsement means nothing more than politics as usual.
KVH, with all due respect, I think you are either misreading some of the responses to what you have said, or you are ignoring the points that were made.
i'm not misreading anything, you fools don't know what the hell you are talking about. four years ago, people rode for Dean because he was divisive. he put a line in the sand on Bush and democrats didn't give a shit if the gop was offended that we were calling him a war criminal. now all the sudden, you guys are worried about whether the gop dislikes hillary? please. a majority of the people in this country are a bunch of idiots who voted for bush in '04. its probably a good thing that so many people dislike her. meanwhile, peep the articles today about which candidates received endorsements from governors. my boy ed rendell know's what time it is here in pa.
Alright dude, whatever. Anyway, we at least know who the divisive person is on soulstrut.
KVH, with all due respect, I think you are either misreading some of the responses to what you have said, or you are ignoring the points that were made.
i'm not misreading anything, you fools don't know what the hell you are talking about. four years ago, people rode for Dean because he was divisive. he put a line in the sand on Bush and democrats didn't give a shit if the gop was offended that we were calling him a war criminal. now all the sudden, you guys are worried about whether the gop dislikes hillary? please. a majority of the people in this country are a bunch of idiots who voted for bush in '04. its probably a good thing that so many people dislike her. meanwhile, peep the articles today about which candidates received endorsements from governors. my boy ed rendell know's what time it is here in pa.
Furthermore, Hillary's campaign is turning good politicians into scumbags. C. Rangel? The fuck?
Regardless, the real loser will the Democratic party as a whole even if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. People are already so divided over The HillBilly's -v- Obama that whoever gets the nod will not only have to beat the GOP, but also attempt to reconcile with the rest of the party. And really, the person to thank for that is Bill Clinton.
Sidebar: Bill Clinton says that Blacks and Women are too stupid for vote for candidates.
"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender _ that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president said. "But that's understandable because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time."
Dean put a line in the sand on Bush and democrats didn't give a shit if the gop was offended that we were calling him a war criminal. now all the sudden, you guys are worried about whether the gop dislikes hillary? please. a majority of the people in this country are a bunch of idiots who voted for bush in '04. its probably a good thing that so many people dislike her.
Um....
This is not about issues or positions, or how wrong the Republicans have been. This is about who's got the best chance to beat them. And if your conceding that she does poorly among independants and swing voters, than who cares if she's right on every issue. ...Do you really think putting a divisive and hated candidate is the way to win? Don't you get it dude, they are frothing to go up against her. Do you care?
How many times do we have to drag you in circles dude?
Comments
Saba, damn dude, here I thought you were just a partisan hack and heartless extreme right winger. Now I see you are also a conspiracy theorist and petty character assassin. You guys really are scared of Edwards huh, to be pulling out claims like that? Well breath easy, looks like you'll have either a Clinton or a black guy to demonize....
Given with a grain of salt...
first, are you really serious about me addressing the "fresh start" argument? bill clinton has an 83% approval rating among democrats and suddenly Hillary's association with him is a negative thing. why isn't a vote for edwards a fresh start?
second, since when was bill a divisive figure, outside of the witch hunt created by ken starr? he worked with the republican congress and passed laws, including welfare reform, that left many liberals feeling like he comprised too much.
the fact that obama is getting more votes from independents and republicans is only relevant if it becomes obvious that the Dem nominee will not win the general election without crossover votes. But, as a democrat, why would it be an attribute that a candidate is getting gop support? should we nominate joe lieberman?
You're right!
To hell with independents and moderates! Hillary will win on the strength of die-hard democrats alone.
Don't you think that people are a little disillusioned with party allegiance for allegiance's sake?
no. my point was that bill passed democratic legislation despite a republican congress (for a majority of his presidency), and despite shameful tactics of the gop to push aside the best interests of the country to go on a witch hunt over a blowjob. you can call him divisive, but through the whole mess, bill still reached across party lines to get shit done with the same political figures who were out on this bogus moral crusade.
as far as hillary goes, there is no doubt that gop voters and independents are put off by her. and? fuck the republican agenda and, as i said, if we (democrats) base our votes on how chummy a candidate is with the gop, then we'd be stuck with fools like Lieberman.
the fact that people interpret this to mean that, once elected, she won't be able to pass legislation or communicate with gop congressmen is absurd. what do you think she's been doing in the senate?
obama riders are trying to have it both ways. they want you to vote for this progressive guy who can't utter a sentence without using the word "change"....and yet they also want you to believe that conservatives are going to unite with liberals in ushering in a liberal agenda. it doesn't work like that.
Makes perfect sense.
he's expected to win in SC, its the feb. 2 states that are a major issue.
5th?
And what? How many times do we have to drag you in circles dude? This is not about issues or positions, or how wrong the Republicans have been. This is about who's got the best chance to beat them. And if your conceding that she does poorly among independants and swing voters, than who cares if she's right on every issue. If that was the point, can I put you down for Kucinich? If the first term of Bush did not get enough of our team out there for Kerry, do you really think putting an even more divisive and hated candidate is the way to win? Don't you get it dude, they are frothing to go up against her. Do you care?
the title of the thread is "hillary is shady" and 90% of the posts are about trashing her and praising obama...now your talking about "this is about who's got the best chance to beat them". first, no its not. that only becomes an issue if it becomes clear that edwards, hillary, OR obama wouldn't win the general election against any gop candidate. you can throw up a zogby poll to show huckabee would beat clinton or whatever, but i'm not buying it right now. any dem should and will beat any gop in this election after iraq, katrina, abu ghraib, the economic crisis, etc.
if mccain runs away with it and all the polls show tremendous support from independents...then i would look at obama to see if his national numbers among independents would mean a slam dunk for the dems. otherwise i'm riding for hillary.
A:
Yup. Clinton had a lot of charisma as a president but if you look at this policies? Some scary shit in there, especially the welfare reform.
This is a double edged sword....
Barack can't really refer to Bill without being reminded "Bill's not running" which is probably the way it should be.
Yet Bill is out there on the front line campaigning as hard as anyone.
Hillary knows her own mind, she will surround herself with her own people.
She will throw Bill a bone the same way all presidents throw their spouses bones. I doubt he even gets anything as high profile as UN Ambassador, though that would be a good place for him.
Just days after the November 2004 election, Bill Clinton pulled Rove aside at the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas. "Hey, you did a marvelous job, it was just marvelous what you did," Clinton told Rove
KVH, with all due respect, I think you are either misreading some of the responses to what you have said, or you are ignoring the points that were made.
For example, when someone says, "Hillary is a divisive figure in a America, hated by lots of people." Referring to her popularity among democrats is not a very compelling argument because that is only half of the country.
If I understand Jonny and LW correctly, what they have been mostly speaking about is finding a leader who will be able to bring the country as a whole together, at least as well as any candidate in a two party system can. Whether Obama will be able to do this remains to be seen, but it is beyond doubt that Hillary brings a lot of baggage to the table that will make it an uphill battle for her from the start.
Republicans absolutely hate both the Clintons, justifiably or not. It is unlikely that this opinion will change during her presidency, but who knows. Still, I think it is a mistake to ignore the polls suggesting that Obama is has a better chance against the Republicans than Clinton. This not only suggests that he has a better chance in the general election, but that he may in fact have an easier time governing if elected.
That said, I admire your conviction and I would support Clinton if she gets the nomination, but I feel as though you are not listening to other points of view enough.
This is getting worse everyday. I'm not saying Obama should be free from scrutiny, but the Clintons are just making shit up. Their new radio ad twists his "party of ideas" quote on its head. Shameless.
i'm not misreading anything, you fools don't know what the hell you are talking about. four years ago, people rode for Dean because he was divisive. he put a line in the sand on Bush and democrats didn't give a shit if the gop was offended that we were calling him a war criminal. now all the sudden, you guys are worried about whether the gop dislikes hillary? please. a majority of the people in this country are a bunch of idiots who voted for bush in '04. its probably a good thing that so many people dislike her. meanwhile, peep the articles today about which candidates received endorsements from governors. my boy ed rendell know's what time it is here in pa.
Rendell + Rezko =
People (career politicians) are worried about getting their backs scratched, not what's good for the country. Rendell's endorsement means nothing more than politics as usual.
Alright dude, whatever. Anyway, we at least know who the divisive person is on soulstrut.
Furthermore, Hillary's campaign is turning good politicians into scumbags. C. Rangel? The fuck?
Regardless, the real loser will the Democratic party as a whole even if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. People are already so divided over The HillBilly's -v- Obama that whoever gets the nod will not only have to beat the GOP, but also attempt to reconcile with the rest of the party. And really, the person to thank for that is Bill Clinton.
Sidebar: Bill Clinton says that Blacks and Women are too stupid for vote for candidates.
"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender _ that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," the former president said. "But that's understandable because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time."
The fuck is that bullshit!
"He's picking on a brother"
Um....