Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This is different.....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:05 PM
Original message
This is different.....
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 08:33 PM by Flabbergasted
99% of the arguments for or against one or the other remaining candidates has not swayed me much. This is, after all, politics where near anything goes.

In the beginning I was a die hard Kucinich fan. I defended him even when he went on fox news and said they were "a legitimate news source", something I knew was wrong at the time. But I had my candidate, and I had decided to stick with him until the end.

The end, for me, turned out to be between April and June when I gradually took a moderate position to Edwards, a change I never regretted. When Kucinich said he would consider Paul as a VP I was glad I had changed my mind.

After New Hampshire I could see the writing on the wall. Edwards was not going to be able to pull it off, so I rethought my position and supported Obama, a candidate I feel no passion for. However I dislike Hillary and that made my decision easier.

The last few months I have maintained a comparatively unbiased and objective view of the two candidates in terms of tactics and policy. The two campaign's tactics have been fascinating to watch. But, I reiterate, 99% of the arguments here for or against one or the other candidate has not swayed me much either way.

Race baiting...blah blah blah.
Bill's in the race...ofcourse he is.
Plaigarism...sucks but it's a tactic.
Surrogate attacks...ok seen that before.
Going negative...Yes that's fair play in a campaign.
Red Phone...Ha Ha Ha
Law suits...
Trying to seat MI FL

etc etc etc.


But one tactic is different and we all know it.

Our candidates should not be strengthening the opposition against the other candidate with direct rhetoric.

This is a tactic that is off limits. Not Done; Ever.

This is one tactic that we should all agree is flat out wrong.

Why?

Because it's not a tactic at all. It's pure unbridled partisan destruction. She is risking the election over it; She also risks damaging the party.

Many people her are so entrenched in their belief in Clinton that they cannot possibly see this objectively, much like when I defended Kucinich for saying "fox news was a legitimate news source".

McCain is not a legitimate candidate.

This is not something we as a party can afford to defend. It must be condemned.

I call on Clinton to apologize for her remarks comparing Obama to McCain and herself.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Clintons NEVER apologize....so don't hold your breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. And that's another thing they have in common with the Bushes. eom
bushclintonbushclinton :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LulaMay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. ABC & NBC: Hillary Now Leads Obama in Popular Vote, and Dem Vote.

New Network Estimates: Hillary Now Leads Sen. Obama in Popular Vote

ABC & NBC reporting that Hillarys received thousands more votes than Sen. Obama in this years contests

Hillary Clinton has received more votes than anyone else running for President this year, Democrat or Republican, according to new estimates from ABC and NBC News. The new numbers -- bolstered by decisive wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island. Following are the latest estimates from the networks:

ABC: Hillary Clinton has received 13,568,891 votes so far in primaries and caucuses while Sen. Obama has received 13,565,339.

NBC/MSNBC: Hillary Clinton has received 13,521,832 votes so far in primaries and caucuses while Sen. Obama has received 13,497,175.

In addition to the overall lead in votes, Hillary holds a significant lead in votes among Democrats. Hillary has received nearly 10.3 million votes among Democrats so far while Sen. Obama has received 9.2 million.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jillian Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I think it's time for Obama to drop out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Link?....or are you pulling the numbers out of your butt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Yes, please provide links
I haven't seen this posted previously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemGa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. Wow, over ONE MILLION more Dems for Hillary
You gettin' this Obamas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
25. Link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. HOLY S--T! no kidding, i just looked it up, and although i got slightly...
different numbers, she is only 3% under Barack. this is awesome. :D. (i can't believe people are suggesting she drop out, that's really scary that people think barack she just be handed the nomination).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. You might die of old age waiting for her
to apologize. She isn't going to do it because she thinks she did the right thing or she wouldn't have done it. She is in a "take no prisoners" race no matter how much damage she does to the party. Also called a scorched earth policy..at one time leaders like that even salted the earth on conquered areas so nothing would grow there again. She is angry because she saw the presidency as her "right" so she will flail around doing as much damage to the party that let her down as she can before she is gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Which is why I think the party needs to call on her to apologize and
retract her remarks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. I agree that if that is what she means it is way out of bounds
the first time, I interpreted it to be that she was saying muckain would use his purported experience in campaigning against Obama - not that he WAS better because of it, but that he could USE it to point out Obama's lack thereof. In other words "I can go toe-to-toe with muckain on that point and BHO can't, so I am the stronger candidate against muckain.

OK, that was the first time. Then she did it again, but the second time instead of saying muckain can claim experience, I think it was worded more positively - like he has valid experience which better qualifies him - not that he can CLAIM it better qualifies him but that it DOES.

Either she really garbled what she meant to say, or she is batshit crazy. I am beginning to lean toward the latter. I think the stress of having it supposedly in the grasp and then slip away is just sending her 'round the bend. And of course, that means she is most assuredly not qualified and somebody needs to be Barry Goldwater.

Disclaimer: All of this is personal speculation based on fragmentary, probably distorted factoids filtered through the media, so it is as likely to be 180 degrees from the truth as not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
24. did you say frogmentary?
(sorry, it's late)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaurenG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
9. Kucinich never said he'd consider Ron Paul
his wife did and he said he would not. I never heard he thought Fox was credible though!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Ok...
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 08:34 PM by Flabbergasted
thanks for the correction but he did say Fox was a legitimate news source.


Remember when the candidates were saying they would not accept a FOX News moderated debate.

He said it then. I'm not sure if the link is still available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaurenG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yikes, I'm glad I didn't hear that.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Actually here's one link from DU....
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 08:32 PM by Flabbergasted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaurenG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Oh well... ah.. that ...was...
diplomatic of him??? I really wish he hadn't said that. x( Thank you for the link and information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
11. That was the last straw.
I was never a big Clinton fan, but only because I was bothered by her IWR vote and her connection with the DLC, and because I don't like the idea of family dynasties in general. She was always my last choice, but even Obama was far from my first. But a few months ago, when it looked like she was the likely nominee, I thought I'd better try to give her the benefit of the doubt and consider her as fairly and objectively as I could. After the candidates I actually preferred dropped out I decided to vote for Obama in my state's caucus -- not because I was so excited by him but because I thought he'd have a better chance of winning the general election. I wasn't rabidly enthusiastic about him but a lot of other people are, which means a lot of new voters and young voters will turn out. But even so, I wasn't hating Hillary and from time to time, when overly-zealous Obama supporters went too far and trashed her, I defended her. I'd always said I'd enthusiastically vote for the Dem nominee, whoever that might be.

But after she implicitly endorsed McCain over Obama -- saying no less than four times that the Republican candidate would be better than a fellow Democrat -- I kinda lost it. I wasn't an Obama partisan at all, but that's rapidly changing. Hillary has demonstrated that she cares more about her own ambition than the success of the party. She'll run the risk of a McCain victory in order to be sure someone else doesn't get the nomination she apparently think she deserves. This is an unforgivable betrayal, and I'm done defending someone who would cross that line.

I'm not sure what I'll do in November if she's the nominee. I've always been a yellow dog Democrat, so chances are I'll hold my nose and vote for her, if only to keep the Supreme Court from going all the way to the loony right. But I won't like it, and I will call it a terrible shame if Hillary's ambition destroys the hopes of all those enthusiastic new Democrats and turns them into bitter cynics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Olney Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. ocelot, thank you for this well-written, honest post
I am worried about our party, too. :-( I hope this all gets resolved soon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
14. Why should she apologize for 'comparing Obama to McCain and herself'?
Obama's made the contrast, asserting that he's better to run against McCain than Clinton and that she's some kind of trigger-happy warmonger because of the ONE Iraq vote. He should apologize first, since he's been spreading this all throughout the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Because in this case, when she did it, she was telling people that
McCain, a Republican, would be a better choice than Obama, a Democrat. That was completely hitting below the belt, and something I and many people find unacceptable.

If Hilary had said, as she has at other times, that SHE would be the better choice because of this, that, and the other thing, and she has it, and Obama doesn't, THAT would have been fair game. But to praise another party's candidate and saying he is more prepared than another candidate in your own party is just flat wrong. She should apologize, not only to Obama, but to the Democratic party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaurenG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. : )
:* :hi: :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Hey you!
:hi: :* :hug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Omega3 Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
15. "Going negative... yes that's fair play in a campaign" you are contradicting yourself, you know
that right?

how long have you been following politics? Canidates in a hard fought primary will occationally say negative things about one another, that's life, it's happened before and will happen again, on both sides of the aisle.

If the repuke contest was still going on and was hard fought it would be the same thing, Huckabee was way behind and was playing to the righties and a spot on the ticket to shore up the base. that's the only difference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. That's what I said: Going negative is fair play in a campaign. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
27. It doesn't matter how long you have been following politics
You will not find another example of a Democratic Presidential Candidate bolstering the opposition Nominee at the expense of a fellow Democrat.

This is a new low.
Leave it to the Clintons to get us there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
28.  I mean in theory that will be her opponent how that convinces superdelegates I'll never know..
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 01:50 AM by cooolandrew
... Barack is good for the party's future without him it clearly will be a shell of itself, Most superdlegates will see in just this instance that Barack is ready for th fight.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
istopforcookies Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. The Clintons?
Nope.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is running.

Try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 24th 2014, 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC