New Hillary In Ad In Iowa Touts Des Moines Register Endorsement
Wasting no time, the Hillary campaign hits the airwaves in Iowa today with a new spot devoted entirely to her endorsement over the weekend by the Des Moines Register:
Comments (51)
NCSteve wrote on December 17, 2007 1:30 PM:The DMR notwithstanding, the case against her, in a nutshell, courtesy of Tom Tomorrow.
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/12/17/tomo/
Michael A wrote on December 17, 2007 1:31 PM:Yawn. This is the third or fourth post on the endorsement. I think we get it. How about a post on the big pow-wow in the clinton II camp where they are changing their message? Front page of the NY times. The message is going from lets relive the 90's to she is the messenger of "change" or something to that effect.
BluePuppy wrote on December 17, 2007 1:32 PM:I just watched this ad on hillaryclinton.com. Amazing, Hillary is going full force positive in the closing weeks. Edwards is attacking Obama. It's like 04 with Dean and Gephardt at each other's throats, and Kerry emerging, except now it's Hillary. I predict that Hillary takes Iowa, Edwards comes in second, and Obama third.
Susan wrote on December 17, 2007 1:33 PM:Hillary is just bad news all the way around.
She is just pain ol NASTY.
She is the female Guliani
loki wrote on December 17, 2007 1:33 PM:Hillary,
You should be in DC helping Dodd right now.
BluePuppy wrote on December 17, 2007 1:36 PM:"Hillary is just bad news all the way around.
She is just pain ol NASTY.
She is the female Guliani"
It's only lunch and the insults are already out...I smell desperation. Hillary is taking Iowa, it's becoming obvious. The voters filtered with Obama, but are coming back to the sensible choice. Onward to victory, Madam President!
loki,
As an Obama supporter, I second your suggestion and urge the same for Barack.
terrible editors wrote on December 17, 2007 1:37 PM:Is this the same Des Moines Register
run by a bunch of sappy editors who put on the most unrevealing debates in presidential history.
They are Irrelevant at best and probly a counter productive endorsement at worst.
DRinOH wrote on December 17, 2007 1:39 PM:BluePuppy,
Are you BlueDog post name change, BlueDog's kid, or unrelated?
BluePuppy wrote on December 17, 2007 1:42 PM:"They are Irrelevant at best and probly a counter productive endorsement at worst."
LMAOROTF.....It's a devasting endoresment, for Obama. It captures his appeal (and weakness) perfectly...
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/84.aspx
Victory is ours, Madam President.
BluePuppy wrote on December 17, 2007 1:42 PM:A Hillary-hater called me that and I liked it, so I went with the change.
destor23 wrote on December 17, 2007 1:45 PM:I'm glad my senator can very quickly make an ad. Now maybe she can quickly book a flight to DC and do her job.
Jeremy wrote on December 17, 2007 1:45 PM:I agree with loki and DRinOH. I appreciate the public statements against immunity. I also appreciate not voting for cloture. I would appreciate it more if the campaign's could hold for a day for this important issue. The filibuster doesn't technically stand or fail according to what Biden, Obama, and Clinton do. It only fails if there's enough votes for cloture. I think it's important to keep that in perspective for those that want to decide there presidential support over just this. However, I do agree that they should get back and participate in the filibuster actively.
dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 1:49 PM:Susan wrote on December 17, 2007 1:33 PM:Hillary is just bad news all the way around.
She is just pain ol NASTY.She is the female Guliani
Dear Susan: Giuliani is sometimes his own female so you might want to revise that post because it makes you sound not only very nasty but also stupid...
Michael A wrote on December 17, 2007 1:51 PM:Sorry bluepuppy, I'm not a "hillary-hater." I just don't like her politics or policies. If that makes me a hater, I guess all clinton II lovers hate all the other dem candidates. By the way, I guess you are taking the new "change" theme of the campaign to heart. The change in the clinton II camp is just amazing.
Kefa wrote on December 17, 2007 2:02 PM:Onward and upward. A long race to go.
bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 2:05 PM:To those who say that Hillary is obviously going to win Iowa, or who say that voters "filtered with" Obama and are now turning back to Hillary, I'd like to see where this is coming from? I haven't seen any indication that Hillary's campaign is done falling relative to Obama, let alone making up their recent loses or surging ahead.
Also, Hillary is the sensible choice because why exactly? Is it her huge (a full 50% now) negative ratings in the general election, the fact that state GOP races are already attaching her face to their Dem challengers to defeat them, her fluffed resume which amounts to being Bill's wife and riding his coattails, her horrible decision making on Iraq and then making the same mistake on Iran, her Republican-lite policy views on corporate lobbying and foreign policy, or is it the fact that she neither represents change nor an opportunity to bring this country together? I'm really interested in understanding how she is the "sensible" choice, for Democrats, I should clarify, because she is a GREAT choice for Republicans (they have a better shot at beating her and even if they can't, at least they'll know we won't enact any meaningful reforms).
Anonymous wrote on December 17, 2007 2:09 PM:When I read Audacity of Hope, I thought Obama was my candidate. But them I reduced for myself the central theme of the book: Compromise for civilities sake. And I think he's wrong. I don't think we should compromise on our values to appease the other side. From DMR endoresment.
"When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it's hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead."
And
"Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she's demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.
The times demand results. We believe as president she'll do what she's always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country."
Obama is smart, but he's never really been tested. He had no real opposition for his senate race and then began running for president.
BluePuppy wrote on December 17, 2007 2:14 PM:Iowa: Clinton 29% Obama 26% Edwards 22%
Rasmussen, Dec. 10. Doesn't look like a fall to me, bridoc.
robert ethan wrote on December 17, 2007 2:14 PM:LOL, at these comments. It is always the dog who is the most afraid that bites first.
Keep it up you fear biting, bitter, ex Deanies. Your latest Messiah is as flimsy as the last one. What's next, an 18 year old Eskimo kid currently in high school in some remote inlet on the Alaska panhandle?
bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 2:44 PM:@BluePuppy
• IA-Pres (D) Dec 14 Hotline/Diageo
Obama 27%, Clinton 27%, Edwards 22% ...
• IA-Pres (D) Dec 14 Research 2000
Obama 33%, Clinton 24%, Edwards 24% ...
The point is, there is no data that shows that Hillary is pulling away from Obama. All data has to be taken together, and it is naive for you or anyone else to say that Hillary is picking up a lead. Don't play these stupid poll games because most people here are too smart for those games. You know perfectly well that she isn't surging anywhere, and that at this point it is anyone's game, or at least hers or Obama's, and if you don't know that, then you give away your ignorance and I'm embarrassed for you.
@Anonymous
Despite Obama's talk about working together, I see no indication that he will bend on progressive principles when in office. "New politics" is part of his campaign message, each candidate has their predetermined campaign messages, and his message ought to be seen in that context. Now I believe he will be more transparent and open to discussion than Hillary has been in the past, and probably will in the future. 50% of the population dislikes Hillary and won't vote for her, whereas Obama has mass independent appeal, and even some conservatives. I believe these indicators are proof that his promises of inclusiveness are real in that respect, but to assume this means he will waffle in the interest of compromise? No, that is just an assumption without basis.
And the alternative? Hillary? Ha, even if you were right about Obama, at least he'd have progressive principles to compromise, Hillary wouldn't even have to compromise her values because she is already nicely in line with Bush's foreign policy (thank the AIPAC lobby which bought her) and she obviously won't stand up to corporate special interests because she sees no problem with them. Give me a break. It is Obama or Edwards, at least they will try to advance our country, but if we elect Hillary, we can be sure that we will have lost our change for a progressive America any time soon.
And no I'm not alone on this, it is obvious to anyone who actually follows the issues and knows anything about Hillary.
bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 2:48 PM:Here, some reading material for those interested in her real values:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803
DonnaG wrote on December 17, 2007 2:58 PM:When Gregory interviewed Hillary for about six minutes on the Today Show this morning, he essentially asked her four different questions [one of those questions he did ask in five different ways, because she all five times refused to answer].
Hillary's answers to all four questions had her citing the Des Moines Register endorsement no less than five times!
So, I guess that endorsement is her latest firewall against tough questioning of her positions and history, and, as well, her latest change of mantra.
What was a bit bizarre was her statement to the effect that she doesn't pay attention to the media, um, I guess, she meant 'with the exception' of the Des Moines Register......
BluePuppy wrote on December 17, 2007 3:06 PM:
"I haven't seen any indication that Hillary's campaign is done falling relative to Obama."
I was pointing out that there's no evidence for that assertion. Or, at best, one or two out-lier polls with Obama slightly head.
You were the one started the "stupid" poll games. Zogby also shows the race as basically tied:
Democrats – Iowa
Dec. 1
Clinton
27%
Obama
24%
Edwards
21%
If anyone is interested, you can just look over to the right for an objective take on the state of the polling in Iowa from pollster.com.
dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 3:12 PM:bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 2:44 PM: Hillary wouldn't even have to compromise her values because she is already nicely in line with Bush's foreign policy
Dear 'bridoc': To some of us who really do know something about Hillary's foreign policy positions, you come off sounding very (I'll be nice) ill-informed and confused. Before comparing HRC's FP with the Village Idiot's, don't you think that you should first know what you're talking about? Please go to the Foreign Affairs E-magazine website and educate yourself thoroughly on what Hillary has actually said about what her views are on
Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century. It is a massive opus (8 e-pages) but give it the time so that you won't ever come here again and sound so ill-informed about Hillary's positions on national security and FP.
The disconcerting thing about Hillary's detractors is how little they actually know about her already enunciated positions on a whole host of issues!
Jan wrote on December 17, 2007 3:17 PM:Well, it's pretty obvious WHY she wasted no time getting this ad up. The ad is awesome.
Anonymous wrote on December 17, 2007 4:21 PM:@dcshungu
Well forgive me if I'd rather look at her record and previous statements and positions than take something she wrote for her presidential campaign without second thought. Maybe you should do some research of your own into what human rights organizations have said about her stands on arms sales, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the International Criminal Court, to name a few issues. For someone so "dedicated" to human rights she certainly votes and speaks strangely when it comes time to do something about these issues. For someone who wants to "look forward" and "cooperate" with the international community she could start by not supporting legislation to allow the US to invade the Netherlands if the ICC ever tried to prosecute a US soldier for war crimes. Yeah, great start. Opposing limits on the sale of cluster bombs which kill and cripple innocent civilians (especially children)? Yeah, super duper Hillary. Opposing banning landmines which also hurt and kill innocent civilians more than any other group? Yeah, thanks Hillary, way to be. Saying you were in favor of giving the weapons inspectors more time in Iraq yet when it really mattered voting to authorize Bush to invade, yeah, great call. Helping the Bush administration's drum beat for war against Iran by voting for Lieberman-Kyl amendment? Yeah, way to be progressive, way to pursue diplomacy, way to not further alienate a foreign country. Take tens of thousands of dollars from AIPAC every year and then take an obviously one sided position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just like Bush, which will NOT help solve the problem. Oh that one's priceless. No, how about you inform yourself on her positions instead of looking at her campaign's talking points and nodding like a bobblehead. Try actually looking at the whole picture and dig past her convenient rhetoric. I don't suppose you'd watch Bush's State of the Union address and clap at his rhetoric about international human rights or how we are on the leading edge of climate change accords would you? No, give me a break, that would be stupid, but it is the same thing you are doing with Hillary. It is no coincidence that many progressive organizations are supporting Obama and Edwards but NOT Hillary. Like I said, I'm not alone in actually understanding these issues. So take your own advice and go read something that isn't directly from her campaign and maybe you'll learn something. Pathetic.
bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 4:49 PM:Oh yeah, and while touting Hillary as a more progressive candidate than her competitors, lets not forget her publicly stating that her favorite presidents include Papa Bush and Reagan. Yeah, nothing says "progressive" or "liberal" like Bush and Reagan. Bravo.
Jan wrote on December 17, 2007 4:58 PM:re: "It is no coincidence that many progressive organizations are supporting Obama and Edwards but NOT Hillary."
It is also no coincidence that liberals haven't won an election in... how long has it been?
Ever?????
Do any of you "progressives" ever realize that you probably make up no more than 50% of the Democratic Party (and maybe 20% -- at the most -- of the general electorate)?
Why in the world do you all appear to believe that you can win elections without the rest of us?
Vote for Obama! Vote for Edwards!
But I'm supporting Hillary Clinton.
I hope I have the permission of PROGRESSIVES to vote for a DEMOCRAT.
Haha, you act like we are advocating voting for Kucinich. Give me a break, neither Obama nor Edwards are prohibitively liberal that they can't win a general election. You might keep in mind that there are also moderates in the Republican party, and then there are the fundamentalists and the neocons. Look who won that election (I use the term "won" here loosely mind you), not the more moderate McCain, no it was their radical Dubya, and he took our country on a rollercoaster ride for 8 years. Now what you do want liberals to do? Advocate for the moderate Clintons to get back into office? How can we avoid sliding backwards if the Right throws us backwards everytime they are in power, and then the Left tiptoes a few feet forward with a moderate candidate. Yeah, that is a GREAT idea! Hell, if your only consideration in voting is voting for someone not quite as conservative as Bush, then you are in the wrong party, so quit whining. We aren't pushing for Kucinich, or Gravel...we know they are too far from mainstream to get elected, we aren't stupid. Don't act like we are nominating Karl Marx when people support Obama or Edwards, it is ridiculousness. I apologize if me wanting to CHANGE the course of this country is getting in the way of your voting for a candidate who is saturated in Washington scum, money and cynicism. But the fact that Hillary supporters think Obama and Edwards are radical by any means just further convinces me that she is definitely not what this country needs, and isn't worthy of a progressive's vote.
dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 5:19 PM:Anonymous wrote on December 17, 2007 4:21 PM:@dcshungu
Well forgive me if I'd rather look at her record and previous statements and positions than take something she wrote for her presidential campaign without second thought.
"Interesting" notion, to say the least... While someone's past positions, record and statements would provide a fractured glimpse into some of their thinking, they could not be a substitute for a position paper that incorporates past views and positions into a coherent philosophical manifesto or governing policies. At least, that is how most academic and policy developers would go about it. Hillary's own 1994 health plan debacle is a case in point. She tried, failed, learned from her mistakes and then just proposed a widely lauded plan. Her FA position paper, developed to convey how she'd approach FP as POTUS takes into account what did or did not work, not just for her but also for past administrations, and is thus much more comprehensive and coherent.
Also, if you are an Obama supporter, then good luck finding anything consistent if all you'd like to base your evaluation on is what he'd done in the past. He's been all over the lot on just about every issue.
The Foreign Affairs piece is Clinton's proposed approach to FP after she is elected POTUS. If you are going to dismiss it because it does not conform to your narrow view of how policies are supposed to be developed, then your mind is just as narrow and I would be wasting my time...
The rest of your screed is just as narrow-minded.
dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 5:29 PM:bridoc on December 17, 2007 5:11 PM:
FYI: Obama wants to "fix" social security, just like Bush. Obama's health care plan would leave some 15 million Americans uninsured largely because he, like those in the other party, thinks that mandates are a no-no, while everyone knows that universal health care would be virtually impossible without some kind of mandate. Obama has a problem with the UN, just like Bush and George will. If you wish to vote for an ideologically "pure" progressive (read: a liberal), then Kucinich is your man, but be prepared for a landslide loss similar to the losses suffered by every "progressive" nominee in last 50 years.
bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 5:36 PM:Hey, if you want to brush off all the facts I just threw at you, and say "her manifesto is more important and academics would agree" (which they wouldn't), then go right ahead. A person's record is more telling than what the say during a campaign. If they really believe in something, they will fight for it. Also, the large amounts of money from foreign policy special interests that "inform" her positions that go against international human rights laws and standards is also a bit more telling than the campaign literature of someone who wants to get elected president. But hey, if you want to brush all those annoying little "facts" off and just call me narrow minded you just go right ahead. I have better things to do than try to educate the unwilling. Obviously you aren't going to change your Hillary views, and I sure as hell can't overlook her record and her dirty tactics and vote for her. I really see no point in arguing back and forth though, because it will accomplish nothing. I suggest if people reading this back and forth want to find out the truth, they ought to actually research it instead of reading campaign promises and then burying their heads in the dirt and refusing to look farther.
bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 5:44 PM:PS: Once again, you are getting your talking points and facts all straight from Hillary's campaign. Common sense might serve you better though, mandating insurance is naive. Car insurance is mandated you might recall, wanna guess how many uninsured drivers there are out there? Yeah, so much for universal. And seriously, don't even try to say that Obama is more hostile to the UN than Clinton. It is pointless to talk to someone who refuses to acknowledge facts. It is tiresome.
And yes, I want the most progressive candidate that can be elected. Kucinich is the most progressive, yes, but obviously he can't get elected, so why would I go from him to Hillary if I wanted a progressive? It is WIDELY acknowledged that both Edwards and Obama are more progressive than Hillary, even the MSM plainly says this, it isn't a secret, so why would I go from Kucinich to Hillary? And that is the whole point of all of this...my original point was that Obama and Edwards are more progressive than Hillary, and that isn't even up for debate here. So this is pointless....I'm tired of this....we all know where the candidates stand...I'd still rather have Hillary than a Republican, but I'd rather have a lot of Democrats before her. That...is...my...point!
CalD wrote on December 17, 2007 6:23 PM:Jan,
Not to worry. Clinton does fine with progressives/liberals (whatever) in most polls I've seen. And I'm a self-confessed poll junkie. I spend an inordinate amount of time picking through political polls.
Donald from Hawaii wrote on December 17, 2007 6:29 PM:I wish the Democrats here would just take a deep breath, and agree to support their respective candidate in the primaries without feeling compelled to simultaneously trash the other Democratic candidates in the race.
Right now, I'm supporting John Edwards. However, I find the sheer amount of undeserved personal invective directed toward Sen. Clinton to be rather appalling. It's especially distressing when it comes from Democrats who, while professing to support the one candidate who says he wants to dial down the partisan tone, dutifully recite like trained parrots all the shopworn GOP talking points about the Clintons.
bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 6:51 PM:Clinton supporters throw the same crap at Obama, there are just more Obama supporters. For example, I'll point you toward the nice person who likes to spam comment boards on here that America isn't ready for a Muslim president, so go Hillary! That, is distressing, and very GOP. I don't think the majority of the comments against Clinton are from the GOP playbook as Clinton likes to profess. Generally, conservatives hold Hillary up as the ultra-liberal anti-Christ, whose healthcare proposals summon the spirit of Karl Marx. I think the exact opposite is true for people on here, who instead generally maintain that she is more moderate than the other frontrunners.
For me, if I come off as bitchy, it is because I'm frustrated with politics in general. It was Hillary, not Obama (as she likes to say), who started the negative attacks when she called a very thoughtful foreign policy position from Obama "naive", and thus started the "experience" campaign and with it the negativity on the Democratic side. I think Obama/Edwards supporters are fighting "conventional wisdom" when refuting this, which leads to a exasperating uphill battle. She fluffs her record and rides on Bill's coattails and then accuses other very fine candidates of being naive and inexperienced and unable to "lead from day one", which is a ridiculous assertion. It pisses people off, it pisses me off. I feel that most everything negative (or unfavorable comparisons) coming from her side is so disingenuous that they get people heated, especially when people buy into it without really looking at the records. Every time she gets an endorsement and they say "Hillary Clinton can lead from day one" "Hillary Clinton has been vetted and is tried and true" or whichever other verbatim campaign talking point they rattle off it just screams for its lack of independent analysis.
Anyway, my point is, it is frustrating, and bidirectional. It does suck that this primary has gotten so nasty, and it sucks that the supporters have come to this (a lot nastier than the candidates themselves for the most part). Heh, I guess at least it is a good sign that people are taking politics more seriously than just 7 or 8 years ago. Hell, in 2000 half the people thought there were no measurable differences between Gore and Bush, and 7 years later both sides are tearing each other apart for much smaller differences during their own primaries. I guess Bush showed us all that who is president makes a HUGE difference, and I think we all know we have a HUGE opportunity here to make a much needed course change...and so tensions are high...all sides think they can do it best, and so much is at stake, so we fight. It does suck, but I unfortunately can't stand by when I read misstatements against Obama, I have to push back. The other side does the same. Heh, so much for "passive" liberal eh?
Anyway, I can't wait til this primary shit is OVER.
dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 6:53 PM:bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 5:36 PM:Hey, if you want to brush off all the facts I just threw at you, and say "her manifesto is more important and academics would agree" (which they wouldn't), then go right ahead. A person's record is more telling than what the say during a campaign.
I will ignore you because you clearly are too simple-minded. Why aren't you supporting Richardson, if a record ist alles? We want to see the "vision thing." What is someone proposing for the country. Where is that person going to take the country. How is the person going to address issues of great national or global importance? The record, experience or leadership factor as well as how a person has handled things in the past are important but primarily because they tell is something about how that person would be able to implement his or her vision for the country. However, as important as they, past accomplishments are not a substitute for comprehensive position papers that bring together a candidate's past experience, record, accomplishments, and vision into a single comprehensive and coherent governing philosophy blueprint.
Unless you grasp this simple fact, we are done.
DonnaG wrote on December 17, 2007 6:54 PM:Donald from Hawaii,
Here's a hint, okay? Not all talking points about the Clinton's are GOP talking points. There are some very valid talking points about the Clintons arising from a considerable number of Democrats.
I really appreciate your comment about 'undeserved personal invective' in terms of an overall standard to live by.
In my instance, I have spent many many hours studying the candidates' records, and have found that, in spite of the fluff from Senator Clinton's web sites, there's not a whole lot of substance to her record in the Senate. I am also disturbed with the amount of secrecy surrounding the Clintons which non-disclosure sort of leaves me in a position Bush himself required folks to accept--'trust me'.
Jan was very confused when she said: "But I'm supporting Hillary Clinton. I hope I have the permission of PROGRESSIVES to vote for a DEMOCRAT."
With logic like that, no wonder the nation is in trouble.
bridoc wrote on December 17, 2007 7:22 PM:@dcshungu
That is funny coming from a supporter of the very candidate who is always accusing Obama of having too much vision and too little experience. You are a huge hypocrite and you speak nonsense. You continue to ignore the fact that pretty campaign promises don't change all of the FACTS that I've provided about her flawed policies. But, if you want to play that game, Obama also has great policy statements just like Hillary has, so instead of assuming that your candidate is the only one who has written about their dreams for the future, how about you actually look up what the others have read.
So I turn it to you my simple-minded, confused and self-contradictory pal, why don't Hillary supporters support Richardson if experience is what she says is the most important thing? Not to say Obama or others don't have more than enough experience to lead, but Richardson has the longer resume, much longer than Hillary's. But hell, why both even trying to show you how backwards you are, obviously it will not get through to you. So you can stay in your little world where you can think that you have showed me up with your superior intellect (and please do because this conversation has went from tiresome to laughable after that last message), but I'm quite content knowing that the majority of the people reading your tirades know you are talking out your ass.
And yes, we are done here.
@DonnaG
I agree with your fluff assessment, and I also agree that the secrecy is very disconcerting, especially given two terms of Cheney-brand shadow governance. We need to restore the checks and balances of the Constitution (which is partly why I heart Obama and his over ten years of teaching constitutional law), and greatly increase governmental transparency. Obviously Hillary isn't the one for the job, since she won't even let her records as First Lady be seen by the public, what do you think she is going to do if she gets to be president? Yeah, not pretty. Hellloo secrecy.
i remember reading about her favorite past presidents in one of her endorsements a few days ago. frankly i agree that voting for a democrat whose favorite presidents included bush sr. and ronald reagan doesn't make any sense. haven't the last few decades taught us nothing, these people shouldn't be heroes! we need to move on already! somehow i can't imagine barack obama or john edwards saying bush or reagan were their favorite presidents. my vote is with them.
dcshungu wrote on December 17, 2007 9:33 PM:That is funny coming from a supporter of the very candidate who is always accusing Obama of having too much vision and too little experience. You are a huge hypocrite and you speak nonsense. You continue to ignore the fact that pretty campaign promises don't change all of the FACTS that I've provided about her flawed policies.
Like I said, you are too simple-minded to debate with. "Vision" and "experience" are NOT mutually exclusive, which was my point. You can have a wonderful "vision" but if you have no experience to turn that vision into reality it is a moot point. That is the problem with Obama. He spews sophomoric platitudes about how he would bring people together (to a chorus of "Amens" from his supporters) but does not tell us exactly how he would manage to do that in DC, especially in view of his total lack of real political experience. He is a best naive, at worst delusional. Read Paul Krugman's oped piece today in the NYT and see what I mean. Obama will never get the GOP to roll and play dead just because he to play nice. Any Dem who is elected POTUS had better be prepared to take on the GOP head on if s/he wants to get anything done in DC. That is a fact.
So, let me make this as simple as I can: Position papers provide a vision, while experience and leadership is what would be required to go from vision to reality. Clinton's position papers frame her governing philosophy. Her experience and leadership would help her govern and implement her vision. Got it now?
As for your so-called "facts" that I am ignoring, I do not think that you are sufficiently equipped "upstairs" to discuss anything with...really. Peddle your "facts" elsewhere, which I am sure you got as "faxes" from the campaign headquarters of whoever you are supporting...LOL. Come to think of it, they probably told you that they were sending you "faxes" but you misinterpreted them as saying "facts."
You seem to be supporting Obama, which is not surprising since you fit the profile... a starry-eyed idealist with a very limited capability for critical analysis [a long-winded way to just say: "naive".]
votenic wrote on December 17, 2007 9:43 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Once again, you rattle your "mouth" off without making a single useful point. Also, unlike you, I don't need to get my information directly from a campaign's talking points because I'm actually educated and know what I'm talking about. Once again, you avoid my point which is that Hillary has many flawed policies and her past votes and comments back that up. All you can say is "oh but her campaign literature says something else so it is true and you are simple minded because you use facts lalalalalalalalala I'm not listening anymore." Yeah, give me a break. You can try to discount me as simple minded or an idiot, but the fact remains, you are out of your league and you just need to stick with what you "know", which is apparently whatever Hillary tells you to "know".
People who support Obama understand, he has more vision and charisma than Hillary could ever dream of having, and he actually does have impressive experience and has had policy successes. Hillary just has her fluffed First Lady greeting world leaders and their wives resume and stories of how she couldn't get health care passed in the 90s. WOW, yeah, I'm impressed. Obama was passing legislation long before Hillary was, because he actually had a real political life before the Senate, unlike Hillary. He also worked his ass off to get where he is against all odds, while Hillary rode her husband's coattails all the way. I'm sure you'll want to argue that as well, but save yourself the time and look at the polls which show more of her supporters support her because she is married to Bill than because of her "experience". (Oh, in case you were wondering, "Vision" wasn't a popular answer in the survey). Also, nearly half of Democrats view her more favorably because of Bill. In short, she would be nothing without him. I have great respect for Obama because all he has achieved ON HIS OWN MERIT.
Whatever, I don't even know why I'm doing this, because obviously you are too stubborn and set in your ways to actually pay attention to what I'm saying or even research something on your own. So you can come back with your "oh you are too simple minded for my blah blah blah" crap, but you aren't impressing me and I have a feeling you aren't impressing anyone else. The fact is nothing you can say will change her being bought by the AIPAC lobby, or her supporting selling civilian-killing weaponry to parties in war zones, or her being more willing to have the US launch a strike on a European ally than to allow international law to try war criminals, or her stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being virtually the same as Bush's. These are just a few highlights, which can be verified by light research on the part of anyone who actually values "facts" over rhetoric. The fact is, we need better, and we should expect better from a Democrat.
So please, if you can't debate something on the facts, you have no place in a debate. I am obviously not simple minded, nor am I impressed with your pathetic attempts at trying to sound intelligent. Your utter ignorance of reality and the ineptitude of your logic shines like a spotlight on your real cognitive abilities, you are fooling no one, least of all me.
"But you are simple minded and words mean more than blah blah blah waaaaahhhh" Yeah, enough.
suspira82 wrote on December 17, 2007 10:07 PM:Man, dcshungu, you need to get your facts straight, you are sounding like an idiot. Now I'm a Dodd supporter, but really, you need to give it up already. I think you need to get to know your candidate when you get a chance.
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on December 17, 2007 10:16 PM:suspira,
seconded and passed
dcshungu wrote on December 18, 2007 12:26 AM:bridoc on December 17, 2007 10:01 PMrant...rant...rant...sophomoric rant...
You sound just like Obama: Sophomoric. There is nothing in your long rant that has not been advanced in these forums,in one form or another and ad nauseam. All I did was direct you to a comprehensive position paper that details Hillary's proposed approach to FP, and you dismissed it as meaningless compared to past statement, record, experience. Well, none of these candidates has ever been POTUS, which means that their past experience does not include the presidency. THEREFORE, THEY OWE IT TO THE ELECTORATE TO TELL US WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO ONCE ELECTED. Their past experience does not tell us anything about WHAT they would try to do as president. It might tell HOW they might do things but it tells nothing about WHAT they would do. Position papers provide a roadmap, whereas experience/record tells us that a candidate has been on similar roads before and thus might be able to take us from here to their. Why is this so difficult to understand?
I ain't got the time for you. You simply do not have the equipment "upstairs" to debate with. Go away...
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 7:48 AM:Hehe, wow, you are naive. You don't know crap about politics or reality. I've studied these things in college (oh, and I've taken years of Latin, so don't think I'm impressed). Anyway, I'm done with you because you are hopelessly ignorant. Obviously others tend to agree.
whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on December 18, 2007 9:08 AM:I don't think dcshungu is going to get the point anytime soon. Obviously s/he values campaign talking points over what can actually be determined from Clinton's record. I agree that that is naive, and from years of working in DC I know that talk is cheap and records (and you are right, the money trail) is much more important than campaign promises.
I for one think we should start placing bets on how many times s/he can fit the word "sophomoric" into one message board, I'm going for...ten total. Someone is trying too hard to sound smart by picking "big" words and phrases that are only actually big to grade school students. You can't help but chuckle.
