Chris Matthews Show: Hillary Clinton's Message Of Experience Isn't Working
Download | play 
Download | play
Chris Matthews has being going after Hillary Clinton with a passion during the campaign, but on this morning's Chris Matthews Show it wasn't just Tweety who was doubting her, his panelists were all in agreement -- there's a long way to go in the primary season, but right now, things don't look good for Hillary Clinton.
The consensus was that the message that worked for Barack Obama in Iowa was change, yet Clinton is still playing the experience card in New Hampshire. It's obvious that she isn't going to give up and has plenty of money to stay in for the long haul, but the feeling among all the panelists is that Hillary is going to have to change her message and image if she wants to beat Obama. So much can happen in an instant -- is this line of thinking premature?
She keeps claiming "experience". Every time she says that it's like proclaiming "Make me President because I'm Bill Clinton's wife". Most people can see through that bullshit I would imagine even Hillary's supporters are kind of wishing she'd cut that out (a presumption on my part, of course. I could be wrong). Way wrong message she's sending, but that's not gonna stop the Golden Girl of the DLC.
Big News! Tweety hates Hillary Clinton and loves him some major testosterone! It must be that smell of Aqua Velvet.
He (and the rest of the we know best Washington Press Corps) are giddy because the first candidate EVER with the potential to win the Presidency with even less experience than G.W. Bush won the Iowa caucus.
The "terrifying" thought of Hillary (the first woman ever to have a real shot at the Presidency) might win has ended.
Barrack, noun-verb-hope, Obama has rolled out his holding hands republican talking points (big bad trial lawyers, mandates for health care are socialized medicine, unions are evil washington special interests, social security is in crisis) and we will all now just raise our voice in harmony and float to the presidency.
History making (more testosterone) candidate Obama will announce his positions later. He can't be bothered right now, he has history to make. After all he has quite an inspiring upbringing, all that middle class hardship, Harvard Law school low brow he had to go fight through.
Let his minions flame all who dare to challenge the myth of Obama (and that includes the Press). By the time November rolls around we will all be stuck with a lofty sounding candidate who has been beaten to a bloody pulp after the republicans, and some members of the press who love to be snarky, learn things about his "hardship" life, he says things that are completely misinterpreted (invented internet), his wife dares to act like a career woman and her career is investigated, his "present" voting history is exposed for the embarrassment it is and everything just waiting to be exposed in a :30 sound bite.
Me personally, I am just waiting for Senator Obama to announce just who, outside of the former Clinton staffers advising him, he will have in his administration. My guess, they will have less experience and knowledge than he does.
Good thing nothing important needs to be accomplished in the next four years. It is not like we have an economic, foreign, health care, immigration, credit, etc. crisis. I for one will always vote for the least experienced person on the ballot. After all George Bush was a much greater change than Al Gore would ever have been.
Experience= I have been around for a long time and perpetuating this B.S. through my complacency. Vote for me if you want things to stay the exactly the same.
Oh wow! I'M NUMBER ONE, NUMERO UNO! Uh, not that I'm bragging or anyting! :-)
Americans are tired of Bushes and Clintons being in office. She can say what she wants and defend herself to the hilt, but in the end, Americans are sick of hearing her last name, as well as, the gawddamn president's last name! Case closed.
What I noticed is that every single candidate is now playing the "change" card. The Republicans called themselves the candidates of change, and Hillary started labeling herself with it, too. It's sort of sad, because it dilutes Obama's original message so that people who haven't heard him before won't really notice the difference between his change and theirs. They are petty, petty people who saw something that worked and every single one of them stole it for themselves. "Change" is going to be the most played out word of this campaign.
During this debate it took two men to try to win a stronger woman, one who knows exactly what needs to be done in order to change and improve the life of the American people. Obama admittedly has charisma and gifted stump speeches. But his plans to implement his vision are devoid of real experience and thoughtful, workable collaborative pathways. Where is the beef in it? It is words and words and only empty words. We need policy, policy and more policy proposals, and he is offering none. This Obama thing is more like puppy-love, juvenile infatuation. It is not a rationally thought choice. For god sake, the guy has ONE year in the Senate and you want me to vote for him because he talks a good game? Clinton’s five points of how to deal with Iraq show the nature of her experience and comprehensive understanding of how to move forward on day one. The Republicans were articulate in how they will attack his inexperience. We know the attack on Hillary will be about her plans - that fight is totally winable. The US today needs smart, experienced vision over cool, impressive talk. Obama will just be another George W. Bush, bumbling his way with empty speeches and running the country further into the ground.
Haha, he hates her just as much as I do.
It's funny to see this boomer Hillary who probably plays Dylan thinking he is singing about her in "the times they are a-changing"
turns out it's actually for obama that song has more a place
it's an amazing turn of events and i give props to buchanan for saying a while back that hillary would win NH, Iowa, NV and SC
Certainly read Bob Somerby's Daily Howler for an exquisite look into the depths of the media circus around Hillary. Like me, he doesn't think Hillary is the best Democrat, but, like me, we know outrageous behavior when we see it.
Until a few weeks ago, I believe, if one had looked over the major corporate media, one would have seen a distinct pro-Hillary stance.
Nitwits like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris, among countless others, have books and careers centered around the Clintons, and would find themselves needing to do new slapdash, cursory investigations to find new dirt if a different Democrat gets the nod.
I can only echo one of Molly Ivins' last columns: A woman for president? Yes. This woman? No. She is an enabler of some of Bush's worst excesses, I don't think she really stands for anything--she will take what she perceives to be the prevailing position on any
I want someone who represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, and John Edwards remains the most progressive candidate I see. I like listening to Obama, but I don't hear real policy, just sound bites.
I don't have a dog in this fight but since Hillary is at least partly responsible for getting the U.S. into the mess it is in today, why should anyone take her seriously? And what good is her so-called "experience" if she is so easily / willfully "deceived" by the political establishment when it comes to U.S. imperialist chicanery?
Oh, that's right, she fully supports U.S. imperialist chicanery and a unilateralist / interventionist foreign policy. Perhaps the American public understands her all to well and is finally saying: "No thanks. Been there, done that. Got f*cked."
Hillary has bad judgement hanging with Mark Penn and Michael O'Hanlon
No one but the pundits cares about Hillary's campaign. Most of America thinks this is great!~
atheists all over the country are down on their knees thanking the Lord God in Heaven for the decline and fall of Clinton.
Amen brother, now if we can stall the Obama candidacy and elevate Edwards we are golden!!!
I can't sacrifice humans or animals (that's a for Republicans only) but I can swear to not smoke anymore weed if Edwards is elected!!!
is this line of thinking premature?
What, is this some kind of trick question? Of course this is premature. Hillary is a formidable opponent and has every right to be heard in this campaign. While not my first choice (that would be Barack) I would gladly vote for her to end the rule of the criminals that now hold sway in the Republican Party.
Mathews is an a-hole. Light on the brains.
I have Zero respect for anything that flops out of his mouth!!!!!!
Yeah, Hilary wants change alright. She voted on the military commissions act, so fuck her. Everyone is saying the word "change", but haven't really described exactly what type of change and when this will take place. I'm not sure about Obama, but if Kucinich wants his supporters to vote for Barack then I guess he feels the guy is the best out of the group. He's definately got a more responsible voting record, so I couldn't care less who much "experience" Hilary has. You can do something poorly for a lifetime and be outdone by someone else on their 1st day of work. Not to mention, there's a huge percentage of people who are disgusted with Hilary and would never vote for her. I'd hate for her to get the nomination and hand another victory to the republicans.
I wish idiots would stop whining about Hilary not being liked because she's a woman. I don't mind having a woman president, just like most liberals who dislike Hilary. It's THIS woman that I would hate to see in office. She's voted irresponsively numerous times, with the neocons, on some of the worst bills to come about in my lifetime. I see no reason to believe that she would "change" anything or make decisions with the citizens' best interests in mind.
Monoglot @ 10:
Doesn't make Obama the perfect candidate of "hope"? As in I hope he has policies I agree with...Ah, what the hell...he sure can orate! Oprah likes him. Can't be that bad.
Guy Fawkes @ 7:
That's right, Mr. Vice President, the lag from January 3rd, 2005, to January 6th, 2008, is almost exactly one year.
Would you like a french-cut and fried "potatoe" with that?
I think it is a very telling sign when most of the coverage from the MSM is all about Obama and Clinton. Why do they refuse to give John Edwards the same amount of coverage. It gets mentioned as little more than an after thought. I believe it says something when the most progressive candidate (by far) and the candidate that is willing to stand up to the oil companies, the health care companies, and the insurance companies, is almost ignored by the MSM. They are scared of his message and they know that he means what he says. Wake up America. This should be an ELECTION not an auction.
"Whatever the costs to us, let us think of the young men we have sent there:not just the killed, but those who have to kill; not just the maimed, but also those who must look upon the results of what they do."-- Robert F. Kennedy
Monoglot @ 10:
I gotta agree with you. I am rooting big for Obama to beat her on Tuesday just to really cripple that campaign of the establishment. But what is he running on - words. He would make a great President on what little we know of him, but he is right now, as someone put it, a Rorschach ink block. Whatever hope anyone has they can put on him because he isn't a polarizing figure and mostly unknown. But it's also that for a lot of people it's anyone who can beat Hillary. Now on specifics Edwards blows Obama out of the park. And Obama owes Edwards a lot for going after Clinton. Edwards may have more to do with Obama's showing than the media or Obama know. So, Hillary needs to go and we need real debates between Obama and Edwards. And I think if given that choice Edwards could pull something strong off. Count Clinton out, but watch out for Edwards. Highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened.
If Obama wins though he damn well better give Edwards a top position.
As someone from Scotland living in Canada, it really disturbs how acceptable it is to criticize Hillary Clinton in a way that would never be acceptable when talking about a male candidate. Use of the word "shrill" and making fun of her laugh. And ultimately, she is no worse a candidate than Obama. Maybe not as good as Edwards, but still a credible, capable candidate. Yet there is absolutel hatred towards her from within her own party, hatred that goes beyond that directed towards that pathetic excuse for a President you currently have. It is so destructive, unhealthy and not really deserved. Every candidate on both sides has strengths and weaknesses and being shrill doesn't count as a valid weakness.
I guess while America is apparently ready for a black candidate, they just aren't ready for a female and that is really, really sad.
Gee, you'd think Edwards wasn't even in the race from that exchange. Maybe its because he's not backed by lobbyists:
K Street Endorsements
Hillary 55
Obama 16
Edwards 0
Don't ever under estimate the power of corperate america. I wonder who would be more qualified to deal with these devils?
The only ones I take seriously here are Katty Kay and Dan Rather. Except for these two they've all decided Clinton is a loser and Barak is a winner--game over.
Where is the mention of Edwards here? What a propaganda fest.
I totally agree with you #2 Polly
With Obama we're hearing nothing but generalities designed to "inspire" and while that is important , it is not the most important thing that America needs - we need someone who can handle the mess that has been given to them by Bush. Real issues with real solutions are needed. Its wonderful that Obama's galvanizing support but to which stance - to what idea (besides a vague concepts of change) change can be any of the democrats on stage!!! Especially Obama or Hillary! But Hillary has the experience coupled with change.
Unfortunately, blind hatred for Hillary or blind naivete for Obama ( or a combination of the two ) are causing these results...
Hillary is definitely the best choice for the job hands down.
Experience and change are not opposing concepts !!!
Chris Matthews is obviously biased against the Clintons for some reason too so I wouldn't weigh too much on what he has to say
Moose @ 23:
You Go, Moose.
Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooose!
These are the same pundits that freak out over a two-percent bump. The point is she is the experience candidate, so for her to reivent herself would be silly. If the voters want to discount experience, then it's up to them. Certainly the media is doing their best to help them in that regard.
Some observations from a Canuck: US voters must ask themselves what matters most to their country's and the world's future (the two are inevitably linked). A couple of things on the list are global warming and health care. It looks like all Dems in this race agree broadly on the former, but their positions on the latter have important differences. And of Obama, Clinton and Edwards, only Edwards seems to be offering a health-care plan that could work for the masses because it would remove insurance companies from decisions about essential and life-saving care.
If health care is your issue, I'd say Edwards is your candidate.
I think it would be very short sighted to count Mrs.Clinton out at this early date.What ever one thinks of them,the Clintons are very shrewd folks who are definitely NOT going to roll over and play dead.Things are just starting to get interesting.
You know, Hillary has a lot of challenges. Worst of all are the people who lie about her.
She voted against thee military commissions act.
http://www.votehillary.org/CMS/node/993
If Canucks are so damn smart, how come you elected that boob?
Polly @ 2:
rememberingstanleyknowles @ 29:
I agree.I'd even go so far as to say that Edwards is the most "Canadian" of the top 3 candidates.
I'm inclined to see what happens in New Hampshire, but deep inside I think her campaign is dead already.
Guy Fawkes @ 7:
maybe i have a differnt view of the presidency, i don't know. I like the fact that Obama has a message of hope and a vision for America, i am not too concerned about his purported "lack of experience". He has shown himself to have impeccable judgment and a willingness to work with people who do not necessarily agree with him. He will surround himself with powerful and experienced people should he win the presidency, as will any candidate. it is the job of the president to listen to all of those around him and make the best decision on the options he is presented with that matter most, and in this respect I believe Obama will do an excellent job.
Bill Clinton didn't have a ton of experience either, but he was a thoughtful and inquisitive president who often (not always) made good decisions (monica thing aside) and led us through 8 of the best years in my lifetime. The main problem with him is that he got the right in a frenzy over some of his personal problems.....Hillary will infuriate the right more so then he did, and she doesn't have the charisma to withstand these attacks as deftly as Bill did. John Edwards doesn't have that much experience either. He was a one term senator and has less legislative experience than Obama, so Edwards supporters can hardly use the "experience" argument either.
I want a president who will temper the incredible divisiveness and hatred from red vs. blue and vice-versa. I've talked to many republicans and George Bush independents and Obama is overwhelmingly the person that pisses them off the least. I read the lefty blogs as much as anyone, crooks and liars is one of three tabs I always have open on my browser (my email and my my.yahoo page being the others). I read daily Kos religiously (got it on my my.yahoo page) as well as Salon.com, huffington post, christian science monitor, etc. etc. etc. I traveled out every weekend to Reno Nevada (as I live in SF, where my vvoice only adds to the choir) during the 2004 campaign and plan to do so for whoever the Dem nominee is. I say this only to point out that I am as much of a raving lunatic liberal as anyone. But we cannot turn this country around in a slingshot, kucinich will never be president no matter how much I love him, turning around a country is a gradual process and Obam is my man to take us down that road.
Jim H @ 32:
LOL! I certainly didn't elect the current government. And I didn't think Canucks are on the whole smarter than people in the US. Though we do have a lot fewer of the Super-Christy fundamentalist types.
Tweety hates Hillary almost as much as the Huffingtonpost. If they get any more excited about Obama I'd suggest they strap on condoms.
And if Obama wins you can be sure Tweety will compare him to MLK and Ghandi. Odd historical comparison bombs seem to be his trademark.
#11
Obama has also cast votes that you wouldn't be happy with . Patriot Act, and giving Bush money for this stupid war so don't apply double standards. - Why is it only Hillary get blamed for these "imperialist" votes ??? hmmmm interesting
Is it an insult to refer the Hillary as an "experienced woman?"
I don't understand this sudden mad dash to bash Hillary. Christine has been after her ass for years. He has a man crush of Bill and Hillary gets in the way of that. But Arrianna Huffington and the rest of the so called liberal press coming down hard on this woman....because she is not black...
I call bullshit...this game ain't over.
And if you doubt the Huffingtonpost Obama bias, just go check out the photos of Hillary and Obama they have up at the moment. THey have Hillary lit from below doing a Hitler salute and Obama in nice evenly lighted profile.
change to what? experience with what?
i want to see meat from all of the candidates.
knock it off with the attack nonsense.
just simply tell me your positions like sane adults or is that too hard for you all?
attack ads annoy the hell out of me and actually do the opposite of what they're usually intended to produce.
rememberingstanleyknowles @ 37:
Its a minority government that appears to be on shaky ground.
Harper is a complete jack ass.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Kind of sums up the HRC campaign.
About this whole experience thing, I'm reminded of an election campaign manager who told me many years ago "One thing an old whore can always claim is experience."
Let me say right now that he was referring to a male candidate. This is a remark that could apply to any candidate claiming experience as the main selling point, male or female.
"Experienced" is different than "old." HRC has never held a position that she didn't obtain as "Bill's wife." And yet, as "Bill's wife," her qualifications apparently left much to be desired. We've just dealt with seven years of a nepotism in the White House. Why would we want more?
Yeah, Obama gets a walk on his voting record. Probably because even though he isnt that different from Clinton many liberal voters get to assuage their white guilt by giving him some kind of cult leader adoration.
We should have seen this coming a mile away. The media loves the idea of Obama and everyone is projecting their fantasies of reconciliation and redemption onto him.
#40
For some reason, an experienced woman is less desirable than an inexperienced man who makes vague statements that sound "pretty"... AND now all the media have convinced everybody that the word "change" belongs to Obama and the word "experience" belongs to Hillary!! SO INCREDIBLY RIDICULOUS. they are not mutually exclusive qualities!
bubba @ 42:
OMG. Not too obvious.
Hey, let's all follow Arianna Gabor to defeat in November. Shall we?
pinkobait @ 44:
yeah, and it'll be so nice to see the Cons voted out. They've really hurt Canada's image on the global stage, especially re: climate change. Not that I like the Liberals - which you might have guessed by the Stanley Knowles reference.
hedgehoggy @ 22:
So true. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of her: resorting to misogyny only strengthens the resolve of people who would be leery of her positions on issues to support her as a statement against those who resort to that level of discourse.
Would I love to have a woman as president--absolutely. But as Molly said, not this one.
hedgehoggy @ 22:
I guess while America is apparently ready for a black candidate, they just aren't ready for a female and that is really, really sad.
I honestly believe we are not only ready for a woman, but smart enough to be able to see BEYOND sex, or race.
And the only criticism I have for Hillary's laugh is that I find it very endearing, and therefore, very deceptive.
so Hillary is campaigning of having 4 more years of Senate experience than Obama? Where she gets this 35 year claim is beyond me.
Being first lady to Bill during his Presidency and Governorship does not mean experience.
John Edwards has more experience than Hillary and he is not running on that.
rememberingstanleyknowles @ 51:
WTF? Since when is this thread about Canadian politics?
In other words...Who gives a a sh*t? Eh?
Johnny2Bad @ 50:
No doubt. I think they photoshopped her head on to the emperor from star wars giving the order to exterminate the jedi. No bias there. heh. The only detail they missed was the ghostly image of mlk giving his blessing to obama. Use the force indeed.
i heard something on edschultz the other day… rang a big bell in my head…
the woman who called stated how important she thought it was to elect a woman as president, some day… not hillary…
not a woman who’s rise was because of her husband…
it should be a woman who made it on her own…
Guy Fawkes @ 7:
OK, I'm leaning towards Edwards...that said, you need a fact check. First, Obama has been in the Senate for three years, not one. (Hillary has been in for, what, eight, right?) Obama was an elected state official in Illinois, giving him more legislative experience than bush (who had none). Hillary had NO legislative experience, and I don't care how many years she lived in the damn White House; she wasn't the president, and the only thing she ever tried her hand at (health care) failed uncategorically (though not entirely because of the ideas). Obama, at least, does have a background in community grass-roots activism. Clinton has some of that; Edwards' record as a lawyer is even more impressive IMHO. Bush's first public service was as governor of Texas, a job that (in that state) carries all the responsibility of bagging groceries at Safeway (not that bagging groceries is a bad thing--I've done it, too). So your statement is a clear distortion.
Second, Clinton's "five points on Iraq"??? Give me a break. She helped GIVE us Iraq! And then she voted for labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. And she's going to help us solve our problems in the Middle East? Now THAT sounds like "talking a good game," as you put it. Obama's record on giving bush the money he wants isn't great; however, he didn't vote for bush being able to put us in Iraq. She has never addressed it.
Finally, Obama doesn't appear to be a bumbler like bush. He was actually quite articulate as Clinton was attacking his ideas last night. Although I somewhat wish he'd been less so (to Edwards' advantage), he was able to clearly differentiate between what Clinton said were the "flip flops" of his health care policy and where she was correct--that he wants to mandate universal health care for kids (because they have no choice in the matter) but not adults (because they do). Now, I may not agree with that, but he cogently set her straight--calmly, succinctly, and impressively.
I think you're wrong.
Johnny2Bad @ 55:
Noted. A part of the conversation just led that way.
But there is no need for your hostility, eh?
rememberingstanleyknowles @ 59:
Hositility? What hostility? I really don't give a sh*t. Nothing personal.
Cooo-rookoo cukookookooo...
I agree with Polly above. With Obama all we hear are vague generalities. He doesn't state how is going to accomplish anything. When Obama is matched up against McCain in the general election he loses big. Why do the Democrats always seem to want to loose. They have a great candidate like Edwards, and they are propping up Obama, who backed by big corporations, MSM, and will lose in the general elections. Have all the Democrats lost their minds? I believe so. I believe come November they will all be crying again how they lost their big chance to get the first African American ever elected. I have been a life long Democrat, but If Obama is annointed the Democratic nominee I won't be voting for him. I will write in my own candidate,
pinkobait @ 44:
You guys were so close to legalizing weed and you let it drop right through your damn hands. But let's just say it's a lot better up there. Weed is cheap and damn good. Escorts are legal. The strip clubs are like anything goes - with lots of hot french girls. I love that the Supreme Court of Canada sided with strip clubs over the morality police. They said touching in lap dances was allowed by the Constitution. Great job. Get rid of Harper though.
I think that barking at the moon is a viable choice.
It seems that the Republican party may be behind Obama. My gut feeling is that when Kucinich and Nader are meddling, they are partly working for the republican political machine. Back off, you two parasites! Not to forget a Rovian tactics!
No. This is it. matthews and his cohorts have decided for us what is going to happen. Now, there is nothing we can do about it. This is the way things work in a democracy.
Can anyone recommend the spouse of a good neurosurgeon? "Experience" is important, so I hope they've been married a long time.
So since when did Chris Matthews ever matter in anything he reports. He is constantly bashing Hillary and the crap he spews is just one bash after the other. What makes him an expert. All he does is drool and shoot spittle when he even mentions either of the Clintons.
And one more thing. Since when did what he says matter to anybody here. Oh unless bashing Hillary is the thing to do.
Why don't you have an article about Obama having two health care lobbyist in his campaign. Who are "raising" money and "giving" advice. No wonder he doesn't think Hillary's health plan is the one to work. His Health Care Corporate Masters have decreed he deride it.
And now he is against abortion. So he has flipped on that. He says he has religion. Since the nutso religious right are disatisfied with their candidates I suppose he thinks he can bring them over by changing his "outlook"...you see he is now against gay rights, and abortion. What else does the religious nuts want...won't take long before he starts espousing that also. Will it.
While the MSM concentrate on bashing Hillary, they are listening to their corporate masters and letting Obama have a pass. Because.....he is the only candidate that they have a snowballs chance in hell of beating. We all know it, but won't admit it.
about Canadian minorities.
Canadians don't wake up in the morning and say, "Hey, lets' elect a minority government to hold them accountable"
Canadians don't say that and don't vote like that. That is pundits talking, not the voters.
The Liberal party was dogged by the sponsorship scandal and Quebec being the 2nd biggest province for votes where the most affected by this scandal and Quebec used to be a strong base for the Liberals. They lost Quebec and they lost many votes.
+
The Liberals were in power for 12 years, and in ANY country in the western world Political Fatigue is fact of life and Liberal arrogance got high at the end of their 12 years.
+
Paul Martin is not Jean Chretien
The Liberals ran on campaign of fear against Stephen Harper's conservative during Harper's first run and Martin got an minority.
But the 2nd Paul Martin tried to run the fear campaign again, it back fired because Canadians realized that Harper is not that bad especially since Harper was doing allot of campaigning in rural Quebec to try to take advantage of angry Quebecers who were tired of being lied to by a Central Liberal Party.
Stephen Harper will never get a majority because Canada as whole is a Liberal country.
As far as Quebec, there are allot of complexities going on there now.
Quebecers are anti-war.
Quebecers are pro-Kyoto.
but Quebecers went provincial Autonomy and hate Centralization of Federal Power. This is where Harper shines and this where he Conservatives gained big time.
As long as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver (3 biggest urban ares) REJECT the Conservatives. Harper will never ever win a majority.
Canadians are not pundits who talk garbage about purposely electing minority governments. That is punditry BS.
JTM @ 19:
And let's not forget that lag of his years in the Illinois Senate.
I dont know if you can call it an actual conspiracy but the blogerati and the republicans both seem united in opposition to Hillary.
#61 Sany
I agree with everything except replace Edwards with Clinton.
Obama is vague and is unclear. Edwards is too much in attack-mode which turns a lot of people off.
So Clinton with her ..ahem.. EXPERIENCE and being a female (which would be ..uh-oh.. CHANGE) is the best choice
hedgehoggy @ 22:
oh really? Did you happen to miss what happened to Howard Dean last time around? His chances of a nomination were basically destroyed by making an odd noise when he was getting hyped up at a rally. Pretty stupid.
Hilary's voting record is terrible. I could care less what sex she is. I would never vote for her if she were a man. I'm not going to give my vote to anyone who wants to strip me of my most essential freedoms. I think the fact that people blindly follow her because she could be the first woman president, and claim that everyone hates her because just she's a woman, only further fuels the hatred towards her.
I wish people would stop blowing up the whole "ready for a female", "ready for a black man" crap. If you'd look at our society as a whole, it appears that white women are a bit higher up than black people on the totem pole so to speak, so that comment is nonsense. Hilary is just a terrible candidate, thats all.
Obama hasn't really made me believe he's got a plan to do anything, but at least he didn't vote to go to war and kill our freedom with the Military Commissions Act. What kind of liberal supports a nazi-like(and I mean that literally, thats a scary thing) piece of legislation like the MCA?
All in all, you would think that in a land of 300 million people, we could come up with better candidates...
I agree with Bubba in #48 above. Unfortunately the Dems are a bunch of lackeys and just keep falling for all this BS about Obama. The new Media star on the MSM. Meanwhile if you take a real good look at his record you can see he voted for the Patriot Act, he voted against the bankruptcy bill, and keeps voting to authorize more and more funding for the War. He also skipped out on many crucial votes in the sentate. But keep believing in the Myth of Obama. The new black Moses, who will lead his lost Democratic Party out of the wilnerness. I can't believe after 8 long miserable years of Bush, this is what we get. A senator with 4 years of senatorial experience who has been absent for at least one of them to run for President. PLease give me a break. It's like Mike Malloy saids, there is no hope left for the Democratic party.
>>oh really? Did you happen to miss what happened to Howard Dean last time around?
Thanks, Jon, for pointing out what should be obvious: HC isn't being picked on because of her gender; she's being criticized for her positions, perceived attitude and other things that have nothing to do with her having breasts.
I would say the MSM is treating her with more fairness than they allotted to Howard Dean.
I smells me a man-hating libtard in Polly. btw, Polly, did you know that you have testosterone, too?
Polly @ 2:
bubba @ 70:
Doubtful. Clinton leads all candidates in both parties for corporate donations and Newscorp has been throwing her fundraisers.
#72
how do you explain Clinton "stripping you " of your freedoms http://www.votehillary.org/CMS/node/993
Obama's voting record also leaves something to be desired .
damn double standards
Jon @ 72:
I felt exactly the same way about Dean - how could his entire run be summed up by an excited yelp. So utterly ridiculous. But with a news media who thrive on stupid little things like that instead of something substantive.
Hillary's voting record might not be perfect, but it isn't without redeeming qualities either. During the last few years, almost every politician has made some stupid votes, but so much of those options being put out there come down to the President. Just like the bullshit that is pedaled about the Senate and House approval rates being so incredibly low - that isn't really down to the Democrats, it is down to Bush's boneheaded decisions which are then rubber-stamped.
Hillary really isn't any worse than Obama - the presidency is about marketing. After all, people drink Sunny Delight by the gallon, don't they and it isn't because it tastes good...
Amazing how all this is framed. They lower expectations for Clinton in Iowa, and spend all their time talking about how she can win.
Funny how a third-place loser can get so much attention.
*meant lowered expectations for Clinton in New Hampshire
Experience is great when you're going in for brain surgery, but President Dummy has marrige you just have to have an IQ above a house plant to run the country effectively. Its not a coincidence that the Oval Office is without any plants either. Bush wants to be the smartest guy in the room.
Anyway, if "experience" was king, I would have married a prostitute. There are things in life that require honest devotion, not simply by so-called experience at running the country, from the marriage bed.
It's quite a leap to say you've got the experience to be President by sleeping with the President. Are we looking at a Monica nomination soon too?
My theory:
Carl Rove has a back stage in this play and that is making sure republicans who claim to be independants in the caucus and primaries get Obama the nomination. Its sad to say in this day and age; but I believe this country will not vote african american period; not enough to win anyway.But if they can get him in there; the republican will win.
I honestly believe this is the plan. And then you put up McCain or Romney its a done deal. We all better wake up to this soon before its too late.
Howard Dean should of been the Democratic candidate in 2004.
The media killed Howard Dean just because of "YEAHHHH" this proves are retarded some people can be when they get bothered by a surge of enthousiasm like "YEAAHH"
then you get John Kerry who looks, moves and talks like a Zombie who let himself get Swift Boated
#82 is soooo right. Doesn't anyone smell a Karl Rove rat in the room.?Oh, excuse me, all of a sudden I'm supposed to believe that many of the republicans are going to switch their party affiliation and vote for Barach Obama. What are you kidding me. That is what the MSM would have you believe. And we all know much we can trust the MSM, Right???? What are the Dems drinking, or better yet, smoking? Wake up People, quickly, or the Repubs are going to make fools of all of you once AGAIN!!!
These beltway twerps are so unplugged from real America I don't think anyone cares what they say. Hillary is a smart lady and she may yet win. Personally I think Obama will generate a lot of excitement, but against someone like McCain, the "experience" card will come in. And if you're not a partisan, looking at America with hundreds of thousands of troops engaged in combat, you may well come down on the side of experience in the form of an old white-haired guy. I honestly think Obama loses the general election to McCain, but not to anyone else on the Republican side. I think Hillary and McCain is a nail-biter. Edwards, I don't know. Again, a one-term senator who says some nice things but no real experience.
God I love the smell of a Primary first thing in the morning.
katy @ 57:
i like bashing hillary as much as the next guy, but i do believe that had she not married bill, and placed her own political aspirations to the side for him, that she would have indeed risen in the dem ranks on her own merit
Sany @ 61:
you have access to the internets...why dont you go over to his website to see specifics
i believe come november, all you paid pundits for clinton and edwards will be looking for work
Thirty five years experience? That's Clinton's hole card? Give me a break. You don't get credit, not even half credit for being the wife of a politician in my book. In fact, you get points deducted if your husband is the man who let his dick do his thinking for him and opened the door for the "we have to restore dignity to the oval office" crowd. If Hillary wants credit for her association with Bill she should be willing to share the blame, but no, she "stood by her man" when any woman with an ounce of self respect would have tossed him to the curb in a New York second for his penchant for strange. Any woman except one with blind ambition that is.
Obama is inexperienced? He was a voting rights/civil rights lawyer after graduating from Harvard Law magna cum laude, went on to teach Constitutional law, then won a US Senate seat. We could certainly use an expert in Constitutional law about now to repair the damage caused by the Neoconvicts these last few years, and it wouldn't hurt if he had a record of fighting for voting rights either, considering the last two POTUS elections. Obama oozes confidence, cool headedness, intellect, and a positive attitude. Good enough for me (although I'd be more than fine with Edwards....even though, horrors..he was a trial lawyer ).
Polly @ 2:
You nailed it Polly. When all of the Kool-aid has been drunk, the Democratic field has been cleared, and we're left with Obama and his minions singing "Kumbaya", the Repug "cocaine" and "muslim" ads ad infinitum. This is the MSM's Clinton/Obama coming to fuition. Just the way they planned it. (Here's your cracker. You earned it).
Unfortunately Senator Clinton does not understand this country needs and wants change and unfortunately for her , that means her and President Clinton also.
It is so clear that American people are so tired of Bush's and Clinton's, and just want our country back.
Pundits suck.
Period.
I remember my Republican friends all saying pre-2000 that "the president doesn't need to be smart, he just needs to surround himself with smart advisors". Well that sure worked out well!
I like Obama. And he's smart enough to truly surround himself with smart people that don't simply dupe him. Yet, it's absolutely naive to think that experience doesn't count.
More important, Hillary has been fully vetted. Obama, has not. The Repugs MUST be defeated in Novemeber. Hillary will win. Obama might.
Whats Obamas domestic economic strategy. Soon or later kids are going to have to get a real job and start paying Bushes debt off so he may as well come clean.
I just love your message and you are so right on the mark. Senator Obama has the experience American people need right now.
Thank You
seevee @ 89:
Well I sure am glad I'm not the only one who believes this sudden burst of talking from the right wing talk shows about how Obama is creating a movement right now and is becoming a force on the campaign trail...... Hello?? Wouldn't that give you a clue?
We haven't even come to the point of electing a woman president yet which I would of thought would come first. Don't get me wrong; I like Obama. But he will be eaten alive by this bunch by the time its over and we will be stuck with another 4 years of the same!
uncle joe mccarthy @ 87:
i like bashing hillary as much as the next guy, but i do believe that had she not married bill, and placed her own political aspirations to the side for him, that she would have indeed risen in the dem ranks on her own merit
who could know? i sure don't... but that is interesting...
i am not "bashing" hillary... just posted some insight i'd gained...
as for why i don’t want hillary to be president - it comes down to the right-wing-NUTS… i know she is smart and capable and qualified… but there will be no peace, no national harmony as long as the wingers have her to bi!ch about… this country can’t take any more of that… not yet…
the “vast right wing conspiracy” will not let it go… their hate for the clinton’s is all consuming… they won’t help the healing…
…
L.A. Confidential @ 94:
Obama's pretty smart. I imagine he knows we're fucked. With the mess we're in what could anybody do? The excrement is very near to the rotating blades.
Marcus @ 25:
For that you need the Associated Press--paragraph 16, to be specific.
Interesting you being nice to Matthews when he agrees with you.
How can you say Hillary will win and Obama might, when it seems Hillary is having a very difficult time beating Obama.
You are watching far too much Fox News and this polling data that has been wrong on everything sense the 2000 election.
BoilThemInTheirOil @ 93:
I've just had it with Matthews. He and most of the media refuse to give John Edwards his do! He came in 2nd in Ohio and for all the coverage he received he could have come in third!!! What are they afraid of him? Hey Chris everyone knows your game, you are still falling over the republicans (no matter who it is) and giving nasty comments to most of the democrats. I use to watch you and left but tried again because you seemed to come around but this is it. I'll watch Keith Oberman. The rest of the stations are all like Chris and we definitely need a change in this direction too!!!
How can you say Hillary will win and Obama might, when it seems Hillary is having a very difficult time beating Obama.
You are watching far too much Fox News and this polling data that has been wrong on everything sense the 2000 election
BoilThemInTheirOil @ 93:
jimmieg @ 82:
#97
i dont think you can unite a country on vague platitudes forever like Obama has only shown us so far.
Hillary will never win the Republicans, true, but it is naive to think that Obama, an african american, will win any hearts and minds in the deeply racist south and rural parts of this country. I like Obama but I like Hillary more because she is prepared and she has worked hard. It has nothing to do with race or gender- it has to do with who can take these people on realistically.
Obama will not stand a chance against the republican hate machine. Hillary already has shown us she can take them.
But these are side issues. who cares what the republicans think- Hillary has been scrutinized more so than any of the candidates , and she still is formidable , can you really say that if any of the others dems had taken such a pummeling?
seevee @ 98:
Yes it is. To close for comfort.
Obama supporters say they like him because they're tired of negative messages and campaigning, but then they attack Hillary Clinton pretty viciously. Strange new world.
seevee @ 98:
We have major problems no doubt but we're not fucked. We just need to change our spending priorities, scrap our current foreign policy and become forward-looking as a nation. Obama's pretty smart and understands this better than anyone else.
Sany @ 84:
This argument cuts both ways--more than "both," really. Let's say for the moment that you're right and Republicans (and racists) refuse to vote for Obama. Do you think Republicans are going to vote for Clinton, either? (I mean besides those who are corporate Republicans--the ones funneling money to her already.) She's their absolute "boogey-man;" they've been running against her since before she ever declared her candidacy. And fundies are going to vote for Romney? Questionable.
I'll agree with this: I don't trust the MSM, either. But like Gore said last year, it's all about "the best horse race money can buy" to them. That's why we had this "Hillary-vs.-Rudy" thing going on in the press for over a year. "They're the inevitable nominees, the front-runners; it's a grudge match made in advertising heaven." Except it didn't work out. They'll build somebody up just to knock them down. It's already happening with Obama (and did on Stephanopolis' program today).
Everybody knows McCain would be formidable. And yeah, the MSM is telling us what to buy, just like it did before Obama's rise. Buy it or don't. But don't try to peddle Clinton (or, honestly, even Edwards) as somehow more "marketable" to the right, or some kind of innoculation to right-wing smear and hate. That's going to come at the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. All three of them have weaknesses. So do all of the Repugs. If you like Clinton, vote for her. She's not going to somehow save the Democrats from the evil, old, white men, though. She's very possibly worse.
So the pundits - who were wrong about Iowa until about a day before, are now making long term predictions on how the primary is going to turn out ... and people are still paying attention to them?
I am 100% for content news, but am hard pressed to find it in these panel discussions. The question with them becomes whether or not what they say influences the way people vote - not whether or not they know what the heck they're talking about.
...small side-note: I love C&L and have lurked here often. I hope someone among the blogosphere is keeping track of what these pundits say and can give a yearly list of they're glaring inaccuracies AND inconsistencies. Not that anyone will notice, but it could be fun stuff for Sam Sedar to talk about one of these Sundays.
gene214 @ 1:
I completely agree with you. I'm a Hillary supporter, and I think it's high time she started defining her presidency and more importantly, differentiating it from Bill's. She will lose the "...more of the same..." argument every time until she starts telling us what she's going to do differently during her presidency. That's why she's losing the "agent of change" battle. She needs to tell us what kind of President she will be, not only what she's done in the past.
unfrozencaveman @ 108:
Yes but can he pull it off? He's going to have a LOT OF PEOPLE looking over his shoulder and saying. "What have you done for me lately Sunshine?"
When will Americans get to understand, your hist depends on your past. In other words, learn from it. Go with what works!
Case in point and I would bet my house, (I'll be geneous too) about 10% of Americans realize that during an 18 month period, Bill Clinton removed Yugoslavian "Dictator", Milosevic from power and brought peace to Kosovo. This has been appreciated so much that, in Prestina city centre, there is a 6-story poster of Clinton and the main street is called Bill Clinton Blvd. Both given entirely by the Kosovoian people and not the USA military.
Now, the Bush Admin. attempted to do the same with someone they called a dictator (Saddam) and all they have received is insurgency (which if we cut the bullshit is another word for freedom fighter) and all mof the USA knows, there will never be a poster of GW Hammerhead in a single friggin' window in Iraq in your lifetime.
Keeping it simple, what does this tell you America?
Now, say what you want about Hiliary's experience but do keep in mind, from the gitgo, she has one very strong person in her back pocket who could kickstart this next Admin. down the road to improving the USA image. Nobody else has that!
Yes, there is baggage in the form of Lewinski but Geezus, losing a million sperm cells on some shitty blue dress is nothing like the cost of a million lives lost because of a trumped up invasion!
Sany @ 73:
You mean the one that was written by the credit card co's? I'm with him on that.
Jimmieg is on to something,Rove my have told voters,who would not vote for Obama in the genneral election,to vote in Iowa for Obama.That why i hope and pray that John Edwards wins in New Hampshire.The G.O.P will be able to beat Obama,he is John Kerry with a dark skin tone.
L.A. Confidential @ 112:
This could be said of all the Democratic candidates.
L.A. Confidential @ 107:
It's true. The same unexplainable attraction to Obama's message simultaneously produces an unexplained repulsion from Hillary. It's probably unfair but that's the way it is for me and probably many others.
Caveman ( you're not a lawyer by chance? "your bright lights frighten me")
I hope you're right about us not being totally sunk economically speaking. One thing that might help the price of oil go down would be electing a black man with a middle name like...oh, I don't know, maybe Hussein for example. :)
L.A. Confidential @ 112:
Yeah the devil's in the details. But Obama, if a elected president, would have a pretty generous "honeymoon period" with congress, much more so than Hillary or Edwards. It all comes down to execution. One thing about the Iowa victory was that it showed that Obama's team was extremely well organized and disciplined. Obviously some of those people would stick around to work for him in the white house.
My God, I've never been able to understand the mentality of the American Presidential Candidate versus Canadian elections.
For 4-8 years you have all these Senators from each party agreeing with each other on anything that will go against the other party but, once they are running against each other, each candidate attacks the other as if he should never had been in their party in the first place. Also, here in Canada, the candidates running for leadership of their party gains momentum on what he/she has done and this is what is most vocal and what they promise to do, regardless how impossible it might sound.
The underlying thought is, to attack a person in your party, is to undermine the party. They don't wash dirty laundry so everyone can see what is coming out.
It just seems so hypocritcal and self-serving to us.
unfrozencaveman @ 117:
I'm starting to kind of get tired of Obama Mania. I want some substance. Clean clear definitive agendas. I'm going to do this, and I'm going to that, I'm going to put money in your pockets, get people employed, punish Corporations engaged in malfeasance . . . etc etc.
L.A. Confidential @ 121:
.but that's what people want to hear. It comes down to a crd thing after that and then, over the next 4 years, you eitherfollow through or pad your pockets with big biz $$$$. I mean, how long has this "story" been going on for?
I'd like to hear some ideas from all the Einsteins instead of criticisms.
Monoglot @ 10:
"I have been part of the part problem for thirty five years...I like big donor money".
L.A. Confidential @ 121:
His website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) has plenty of info about his plans, but at some point it comes down to how you feel about the candidate as a person. Best laid plans and all that. I would be OK with Obama or Edwards. In a perfect world I would be OK with Clinton too, except because of the level of hate she generates, I think she is the one who could lose to the dark side, and I can't even contemplate that, so that makes it easier for me to find fault with her.
L.A. Confidential @ 107:
"Dr. Feelgood" Obama doesn't mind negativity when it benefits him.
For the hundredth time...
Obama=Change? Really?
Have you compared his voting record side by side with Hillary's?
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
Every vote aside from 4 minor votes...Exactly the same as hers.
I agree with most of the votes; but stop parading around as an element of "change" when you're no different from the person you're claiming to be opposite of.
Edwards, if any of these 3, is the true "change" element.
Obama supporters deriding hillary at every turn, bite it...
With that said, ANY Dem over ANY republican.
Obama tops the Democratic contenders in negative campaigning with 51% of his ads being attack ads beating both Hillary and Edwards. Remember that it was Obama who started the attack ads first when Hillary was the front runner. How hypocritical is that?
Josh @ 127:
THANK YOU!!!!
"CHANGE" IS A MEDIA BRAINWASHED WORD. BOTH OBAMA AND HILLARY WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. excpet Hillary has experience . Her performance at debates and elsewhere demonstrates that she would know how to deal with Pakistan, Iraq, where Obama wouldn't fail but wouldn't be excellent.
Why is it that America will vote for inexperienced WHITE people but not inexperienced Black people? Did the knucklehead-in-chief have "experience" when he was "selected" to run the country (into the ground by the way). NO!
will Obama "change" his Votes from 'present' to actual votes?
This is the most unfair press I have ever witnessed... I don't know if it's ginder bias or what but I have never seen a program that was set up to destroy one candidate... None of the men are getting this kind of treatment and I am wondering what the hell is going on.....
We have wondered if a black man could ever become president ... I wonder if a woman will ever become president ..... I hear that she is evil but nothing about what makes her evil .....I hear that she is corrupt but Ken Star investagated for 6 years and filed no charges and every body knew it was political... They looked everywhere for off-shore money accounts and found none and finally decided that they didn't have any other moneys.... The 6 year investagation included Whitewater, which they lost money on... All the things they were susposed to have taken out of the Whitehouse, the Republicans finnaly admitted that they lied about that and the mess they said that they found.... Now some of these people should take a look at Rudy and lets get another program going .... And where's the program about GWB and Cheney.... And wasn't that John McCain that got caught in a FBI sting?
Steven @ 128:
any links to the negative ads...or are you pulling this number out of your ass
im so tired of the clintonistas coming on this board to smear obama
Jack @ 129:
what performance is that? you mean when she effed up and stated that musharif was now the only one running in next week's elections...even though they are parlimentary and he isnt running???
try again bucko....her experience doesnt mean squat if she has idiots as advisors
Bystander @ 132:
yes...a woman shall one day be prez...just not hillary
tell you one thing...if she was elligible, and was running, i would work for and vote for mrs kucinich
there is a woman with real experience who has a firm grasp on all the issues, and is a true progressive
uncle joe mccarthy @ 134:
I noticed in the debate last night she made sure to point out the Paki elections were parlimentary elections. I threw up a little in my mouth as it reminded me of shrub talking down to people when in fact he talks up to every non-institutionalized person on the planet.
gene214 @ 1:
No kidding. Where did she get this "35 years" experience? She's been a Senator how long? Nowhere near 35 years. You count being the wife of the President, and you didn't know/let on that he was getting skin flute lessons in his office? Or, when she was defending Walmart and Coke, that was government experience? Or fighting lawsuits over fraud in Arkansas, that kinda experience? Eek!
StCyrlyMe2 @ 101:
LOL, I sure don't watch FOX. But, as much as I like Obama, I personally have discomfort about such a newbie at the helm at this time of (BushCo created) crisis, even if Obama is a really "nice" guy. And most of my "Independent" friends aren't ready for Obama... they'll hold their nose and vote McCain. Hillary currently has some problems against Obama, because so many Dems are dreamers. Not to knock dreams, but there are times when we need to be pragmatic. This is such a time.
ConcernedCanuck @ 137:
I think he was GIVING skin flute lessons.
Bystander @ 132:
Were they not investigating and trying to impeach her husband? That wasn't her. She was "First Lady". That means she did little. Is Laura Bush qualified to become Prez cuz her dipshit hubby fraudulently was selected twice?
miss_kitty @ 139:
LOL, sorry. And this added to Hillary's "experience" apparently. I haven't heard of her doing squat except voting for all ReTHUG bills.
ConcernedCanuck @ 137:
uncle joe mccarthy @ 135:
And still where is the fairness? And do think the Good ol Boys with their sexism would not do the same to Mrs Kucinich.... Your playing the old head in the hole trick..... It's not about experience, it's about keeping women out of the presidency....
And still where is the fairness? And do think the Good ol Boys with their sexism would not do the same to Mrs Kucinich…. Your playing the old head in the hole trick….. It’s not about experience, it’s about keeping women out of the presidency….
Wrong.
ConcernedCanuck @ 140:
Laura Bush was a library attendent, Hillary was on the impeachment investigation committee of Richard Nixon, she was very active as a Governor's wife ... Her and Bill campaigned as 2 for the price of one... Even the Repugs claimed she was into too much while he was in office, that she sat in on everything... she has spent 6 yrs as a senator to Obama's one.... Nobody is disputing what she says she has done.... Where's the program on Obama and we can have one on Laura Bush when she runs...
Hillary was working on children's advocacy, education and poverty back in the 60's before many of you pups were born. She worked on 4 national campaigns before Bill got elected governor. She helped with the Watergate committee and Mondale's labor task force and has founded and been on the board of a number of serious national foundations for "change", if I might be trite. She helped build Bill's career from the ground up, and continued advocacy all through her time as First Lady in Arkansas and in Washington.
So if you can't even look up a candidate's background, go piss up a rope. If you equate "hope" with turning one blind eye and hopping on one leg, well good luck to you. If you want to debate actual issues and policies and experience and personality skills and other relevant issues for being President, well, great, let's get back to a sensible dialog and even heated argument. But for people so worried about someone feeling anointed a few weeks ago, a 22,000 vote win over 2 other candidates has certainly brought the pride and confidence out in a lot of people. You'd think RFK & MLK had a fling in heaven and out popped Obama. Try again. He didn't march on Selma and brave dobermans, he didn't find the grace to quote of all things Aeschylus to a shocked and distraught black crowd on the murder of their leader. He is wet behind the ears, and he better show us something more than hope if he's going to lead us both against the GOP and against Putin, Kim Il Sung, China, and all the other sons of bitches waiting to drop us down a peg.
Desider @ 145:
WELL SAID
Pundits don't vote, people do. I'm so sick of Chris Matthews that I've stopped watching MSNBC altogether. As for Hillary-bashing, she is strong enough to deflect it, and I would trust her to make the hard decisions and be tough enough to take on whatever the Repugs and global terrorist freaks throw at her. Forget Obama; he is "all talk and no cattle". Just how he is going to create this kumbaya bipartisanship that every president has promised but never delivered? Is he going to be reading "My Pet Goat" when we're attacked again, and take a few hours to think about it first like a good little intellectual? That's a very scary scenario. Another thing to think about: I saw a small poll this morning on CNN which polled Republicans about who they like best among the top 3 Dems, and they love Obama. Why? Because they can't wait to Swiftboat him...leaving us in 4 more years of hell once again with a Repug dictator.
I will vote for Hillary in the Feb. 5 California primary. If Obama ends up being the Dem nominee, I would vote for McCain, Paul or maybe even Romney before I'd vote for Obama. I am a 'moderate' Independent (as is my husband) and people just assume Independents will flock to Obama. Not any of the Independents I know!
Mrs Kucinich can never be president,she is not an America citizen.You have to be born here to be president.Mrs Kucinich is a nice woman,i like here more than hillary.The laws in this country just wont allow her to run.You have to lobby Congress,to overturn the laws.I wont be easy to do that.Congress has some racist and sexist in its body.
Desider @ 145:
Yeah, she's been making change happen for 35 frickin' years. But then we knew that already. Aren't you tired of the bunker mentality - Hillary's apparent world view? I don't think she represents anywhere near the best America has to offer, and hopefully the majority of Americans will agree.
A lot of people have never trusted Hillary. If she changes her message now, they will trust her even less.
Comments are closed on this entry