Page 1 of 20 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 385
  1.    #1  
    I’ve been meaning to address this since at least Super Tuesday, if not even before.

    For more than a year Senator Hillary Clinton was the odds on favorite to both win her party’s nomination and then the Presidency.

    Before Iowa I predicted that she and McCain would be their respective party's nominees.

    According to the latest polls she is now on the verge of losing Texas and the nomination to a fine speaking, untested, ultra liberal -- a tabula rasa.

    For weeks and now finally months, I’ve watched in paralyzed silence as the seeming inevitability of her candidacy has been rocked by bad luck and an unending series of media insults and attacks. That inevitability has now been painfully dissolved.

    How has this happened ??

    She twice ran for Senator, earned an impressive reputation as an effective persuasive advocate, won over skeptical conservatives in her adopted home state.

    With a serious intellect and good instincts as a politician, she was the first woman with a genuine chance to win the Presidency.

    Appreciating the more than 2 centuries old anti-female prejustice against Presidential leadership, she consciously positioned herself as aggressive on foreign policy and military issues. She deliberately got herself appointed to the Senate Armed Services committee. She even as Senator voted to authorize junior’s implied intent to manufacture a war she no doubt opposed in order to be perceived as tough enough to be President.

    Conscious of how Kerry was smeared as a flip flopping vacillator, she was determined to never seem to show weakness-- never repeating the Kerry “mistake” of reversing and apologizing for that vote.

    She emphasized her testosterone, toughness, and reserve while minimizing her womanly sensitivity.

    She campaigned as the experienced adult who understood the world and america’s problem’s. In a lengthy series of sometimes acrimonious debates, she took on the hordes of other candidates. Despite being the focus of almost every attack, she held her own -- and continually demonstrated her mastery of detail and her quick intellect while under pressure.

    All her opponents -- Oboma included -- were seen as weak and small when compared to her.

    Her comprehensive grasp of the subtleties of complex issues, her talent for explaining in depth her plans to repair the damage done by junior, and her own ideas for the future left most everyone impressed.

    Even a press corps that loathed her could hardly conceal their grudging respect for her performances.

    As the frontrunner and presumptive nominee, she got the benefit of both establishment’s and the easy automatic money. She regularly raised more than most of her opponents combined.

    Then that November debate happened. A trick question regarding her home state governor’s plan to issue driver’s licenses to undocumented workers was seen as intentionally indecisive and ambiguous. It was repeatedly replayed and characterized as a knowing duck of a question destined to anger supporters. As being that ultimate slur: “Clintonian”.

    From seeming nowhere Obama, the object of an idolatrous press, began to catch fire.

    A week later, in another debate Obama gets asked the SAME question, answers it even more clumsily, yet is never similarly mocked in his coverage.

    His crowds grow, and a mystical phenomenon infects both Iowa and the journalists covering him.

    He wins the Iowa caucus, she comes in a crestfallen third. The press and everyone (BARYE included ) expects the same five days hence in NH. The press writes her obituary, and observe her death march with sarcastic glee.

    Under attack by polls, pontificators, and the press -- she accidentally becomes emotional, vulnerable, and self revelatory. Against all expectations she wins a decisive victory in NH against Obama and Edwards.

    She rails against a press that had wrongly prophesied her defeat -- and mocks the press for predicting the news instead of covering it.

    Wanting to leverage their NH momentum and strangle Obama in his crib before he can reignite, Hillary’s campaign pushes hard into Carolina. Bill Clinton is particularly determined to leverage the love that many Black Americans have for him, -- as well as his legion of close friendships with Black American political leaders in S Carolina.

    It is THIS race where they erred. Though not in the way that it was characterized by the press.

    Hating both Clinton’s, feeling shamed by their stupidity in NH, the press carried a barely concealed grudge with them into S. Carolina.

    Every minor and legitimate criticism spoken about Obama by Bill or Hillary became instantly warped into a message with a racist subtext. She was contesting the first legitimate Black candidate for President -- in a state where most of the voters would be African American.

    It was ground that was inherently dangerous and unfavorable. It was ground that was inherently prone to be abused by those with an interest in sowing mistrust and anger.

    They should have respectfully conceded S. Carolina to Barack, and moved on to fight in Nevada, California and the other caucuses and primaries that followed.

    They also mismanaged their resources, and misjudged how much money they’d need to raise and spend in order to contest in every caucus, and in states that followed Super Tuesday. They were also clumsy in their message spinning -- and often unprepared for their own successes (like after Super Tuesday).

    Will she win Texas and Ohio -- will she be able to stay around and fight for Pennsylvania ??

    Maybe not. But I still think she’d be the better candidate, and ultimately the better President.

    What do you all think happened to her ?? What did she do wrong -- was there anything she could have done differently, done better ??
    Last edited by BARYE; 03/05/2008 at 08:43 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. #2  
    I think the Kennedy endorsement of Obama was significant. My guess is the Democratic big-wigs believe they'll have more influence (power) in an Obama Administration than a Clinton sequel.
  3. #3  
    Not sure that she did anything WRONG. Obama is offering a promise of 'change', without being held to defining what that change is or how he will accomplish it.

    So, Hillary is being seen as the 'traditional' politician while Obama can be the 'future' of the party and the 'uniter'.

    Plus, gotta give Obama credit - he is a very charismatic speaker!

    I agree that Hillary is the better option, but think Obama is going to get it.
    (This is coming from a republican) (Me)
    RJuhl
  4. #4  
    Also coming from a conservative (and Republican, although the two don't seem synonymous anymore), I wish to point out that whether or not you agree with Pres. Bush, I figured that both parties had almost EIGHT YEARS to field some formidable candidates. Looking at what we started with and where we are now after the field has been narrowed, there's not a one that I can pull the lever for without holding my nose. How sad.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I think the Kennedy endorsement of Obama was significant. My guess is the Democratic big-wigs believe they'll have more influence (power) in an Obama Administration than a Clinton sequel.
    ya Teddy's endorsement mattered.

    It definitely gave him mainstream liberal cred.

    But nevertheless please remember that Obama lost to Hillary in Massachusetts -- even with both Teddy, Kerry, and Governor Deval Patrick working hard for him.

    In truth despite expectations and a press corps united in spinning it against her, Hillary won Super Tuesday. All the major big states -- states that democrats must win, voted for her. (They about split the delegates awarded that night.)

    Caroline's endorsement was one that arguably had more impact.

    Though Ted is kinda of an old hack -- loved by many but ignored by most -- Caroline is a direct descendant of a martyred saint. She is a princess who has regally kept her silence.

    Her anointing of a true heir has had a special resonance for many. It gave Obama the patina of Camelot.
    Last edited by BARYE; 03/03/2008 at 12:18 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by rjuhl View Post
    Not sure that she did anything WRONG. Obama is offering a promise of 'change', without being held to defining what that change is or how he will accomplish it.

    So, Hillary is being seen as the 'traditional' politician while Obama can be the 'future' of the party and the 'uniter'.

    Plus, gotta give Obama credit - he is a very charismatic speaker!

    I agree that Hillary is the better option, but think Obama is going to get it.
    (This is coming from a republican) (Me)
    "Coming from a Republican" ... I appreciate your objectivity.

    Perhaps this was intended, but your words almost remind me of junior's 2000 campaign (except no one has ever seen junior as a charismatic speaker.)

    Being a tabula rasa -- a blank slate -- is a huge advantage in the democratic primaries.

    McCarthy, McGovern, Dean, Brown, Hart have all had tremedous runs based on ethusiasm with little in the way of genuine knowledge of who the candidate is, or what they've done, or wish to do. (I speak as someone who worked on Hart's behalf in '84).
    Last edited by BARYE; 03/05/2008 at 08:44 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    Also coming from a conservative (and Republican, although the two don't seem synonymous anymore), I wish to point out that whether or not you agree with Pres. Bush, I figured that both parties had almost EIGHT YEARS to field some formidable candidates. Looking at what we started with and where we are now after the field has been narrowed, there's not a one that I can pull the lever for without holding my nose. How sad.
    had you your druthers -- who would you have preferred ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    had you your druthers -- who would you have preferred ??
    Are you speaking of the original primary candidates or from ANY possibility?
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    Are you speaking of the original primary candidates or from ANY possibility?

    both --

    of the original primary candidates which would you have preferred --

    and who would have been your "ideal" ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    both --

    of the original primary candidates which would you have preferred --

    and who would have been your "ideal" ...
    At first I was skeptical about Romney, but as I got to know him better (as well as anyone can get to know a candidate), I warmed up to him. He may have flip-flopped on some things (who hasn't?), but at the end of the day, I felt he was sincere and wished to be President not for the sake of being President and having that feather in his cap, but I felt he really believed he could bring skills to the table that would benefit the country. That's just my opinion and I'm not seeking to debate the merits.

    My "ideal" candidate? That's a toughie. I've always liked Colin Powell and really wish he would have considered running. He seems like a straight-talker and I could have supported him.

    Looking at the Democrat side, I have never cared for anything Clinton, but when I look at Obama, I can't for the life of me understand the hype. I've yet to hear him deliver anything substantive and, just speaking for myself, I never want to vote for someone based on what a great speaker he/she is or that he/she is promising "hope" and/or "change." My answer to that before pulling the lever is "show me the money!"
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    At first I was skeptical about Romney, but as I got to know him better (as well as anyone can get to know a candidate), I warmed up to him. He may have flip-flopped on some things (who hasn't?), but at the end of the day, I felt he was sincere and wished to be President not for the sake of being President and having that feather in his cap, but I felt he really believed he could bring skills to the table that would benefit the country. That's just my opinion and I'm not seeking to debate the merits.

    My "ideal" candidate? That's a toughie. I've always liked Colin Powell and really wish he would have considered running. He seems like a straight-talker and I could have supported him.
    I too have respect for Powell -- respect that still lingers though he wimped out when it came to opposing junior's iraq catastrophe.

    But he remains a blank slate as well. We inevitably ascribe for him views that reflect our own -- because he's said little about controversial subjects.

    I genuinely mean no disrespect, but as for Romney I've often written harshly about him. I created a nickname for him that I thinks encapsulates my feelings: "Governor Silly Puddy"...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I too have respect for Powell -- respect that still lingers though he wimped out when it came to opposing junior's iraq catastrophe.

    But he remains a blank slate as well. We inevitably ascribe for him views that reflect our own -- because he's said little about controversial subjects.

    I genuinely mean no disrespect, but as for Romney I've often written harshly about him. I created a nickname for him that I thinks encapsulates my feelings: "Governor Silly Puddy"...
    I am not offended by your comments about Romney, but in all fairness, you might take a closer look at the man himself -- he has many great qualities and, admittedly, I think he needs some additional time to cement his positions and then he may be a more viable candidate in 4 years or so.

    I agree with you about Powell -- I'd like to know more about him, but I admire his intelligence and decisiveness. But like you said, there are many unknowns about him and all of his positions.

    With respect to Obama and Clinton -- I've already said my peace about Obama, but I honestly don't see Hillary as being (much) better. I think one of her greatest blunders is attempting to tout her "30+ years" of "experience." Anyone who is critical of her or even sitting on the fence is going to pounce on that one. I realize it's her attempt to distinguish herself from Obama's candidacy, but in truth they are running campaigns with the same inherent weakness -- lack of experience -- and should both be speaking more to changes they believe will be good for our country and their exact, detailed plans for getting us there.

    McCain's weakness is pretty much the same -- experience -- but in his case, TOO MUCH experience. He's the kind of insider that the voting public is sick of. Although I prefer him over the previous two due to his more conservative positions, I can't say that I'm elated.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  13. #13  
    I think the bottom line is that she as seen as not electable, due to her husband, so people are jumping ship. While I am sure she'd be wearing the pants in the White House, many Americans are tired of the Clintons and wary of a joint presidency, as we have now. The Dems are thinking about the bigger pictue, winning the presidency. If the super delegates steal this from Obama, and Clinton loses the presidency (which she would), then the Dems (as a party) deserve what they get.

    Ask most Reps who they would like to see win the Dem nomination and they'll tell you Clinton. Obviously they want Clinton because they know she'll be easier to beat and not because she might be a better candidate.
  14. #14  
    I think all the “triangulation” may have caught up with her/them. Two examples come to mind. Miscalculating the fervor people feel about drivers licenses for illegal aliens.....oh excuse me I mean people who are undocumented. She comes across as not always being truthful, where as Obama does...even if it’s an answer you don’t agree with.

    Miscalculating the fervor and sentiment Black people have for being marginalized. Bill didn’t have to try and marginalize Obama up to and during Super Tuesday in order to score points with would be white supporters. In so doing he marginalized a whole race. He has done it before, except this time there is a viable alternative candidate. I think Obama’s support would have no doubt risen, but there’s noting like an insult to drive away support. It looks like “the end” is about to be written on Hillary’s “fairytale.”

    With that being said, I still think Hillary is the stronger candidate, despite what Republicans say. Bush has so thoroughly screwed up things to the point that it doesn’t matter what “conservatives” think, or how pissed off they get because Hillary’s got the nomination. There isn’t much to mobilize if people are walking away from your party. People are just fed up. Yes Obama is smart (Did you see how he defused the Farrakhan controversy during the debate? That was smooth.) But it makes me a little suspicious whenever I see people like Bill Bennett, Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan say complimentary things about Obama. I guess the question is do they really hate the Clintons that much? Or do they want to see the weaker candidate prevail, so that they might prevail in the fall? Hmmm.

    I just hope the Republicans and their supporters don’t sat this country back a hundred years. But I already see it coming. In the last two months, I’ve seen more news stories on Kenya then in the previous 5 years. The media seems to be gently kneading the American psyche......stirring the pot......sprinkling in heaping of salt.....then letting it marinate. I’ve seen news footage showing desperate looking people rioting, burning....etc.....then cut to a story about Obama....then back to more desperate looking people .......then cut to Obama in traditional African clothing etc. I’m sure In the months to come we will see more kneading....stirring......more marinading......remember the pot is always simmering, then around October....Surprise!.......... BOO!!
    Last edited by Iago; 03/03/2008 at 02:09 PM.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  15. #15  
    I think there are two things that worked against her. First is that she was the early frontrunner. This has nearly always worked to the Democratic candidates' disadvantage. I can't recall the last time an early front-runner wound up with the nomination. It's usually the second guy or a dark horse that winds up with it (like her husband).

    Second is that it has been 20 years since someone without the name Bush or Clinton was in the White House. If Hillary made it, that would potentially make it 28. I think that many people are just tired of both the Bushes and the Clintons and the political climate they create/inspire. I'm certainly one.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I think there are two things that worked against her. First is that she was the early frontrunner. This has nearly always worked to the Democratic candidates' disadvantage. I can't recall the last time an early front-runner wound up with the nomination. It's usually the second guy or a dark horse that winds up with it (like her husband).

    Second is that it has been 20 years since someone without the name Bush or Clinton was in the White House. If Hillary made it, that would potentially make it 28. I think that many people are just tired of both the Bushes and the Clintons and the political climate they create/inspire. I'm certainly one.
    I'm with you on this one. Her last name is "Clinton". Nuff' said. Right or wrong, she'd never get elected...and as it turns out, won't even get nominated.
  17.    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    ...Miscalculating the fervor and sentiment Black people have for being marginalized. Bill didn’t have to try and marginalize Obama up to and during Super Tuesday in order to score points with would be white supporters. In so doing he marginalized a whole race. He has done it before, except this time there is a viable alternative candidate. I think Obama’s support would have no doubt risen, but there’s noting like an insult to drive away support. It looks like “the end” is about to be written on Hillary’s “fairytale.”

    With that being said, I still think Hillary is the stronger candidate, despite what Republicans say. Bush has so thoroughly screwed up things to the point that it doesn’t matter what “conservatives” think, or how pissed off they get because Hillary’s got the nomination. There isn’t much to mobilize if people are walking away from your party. People are just fed up. Yes Obama is smart (Did you see how he defused the Farrakhan controversy during the debate? That was smooth.) But it makes me a little suspicious whenever I see people like Bill Bennett, Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan say complimentary things about Obama. I guess the question is do they really hate the Clintons that much? Or do they want to see the weaker candidate prevail, so that they might prevail in the fall? Hmmm.

    I just hope the Republicans and their supporters don’t sat this country back a hundred years. But I already see it coming. In the last two months, I’ve seen more news stories on Kenya then in the previous 5 years. The media seems to be gently kneading the American psyche......stirring the pot......sprinkling in heaping of salt.....then letting it marinate. I’ve seen news footage showing desperate looking people rioting, burning....etc.....then cut to a story about Obama....then back to more desperate looking people .......then cut to Obama in traditional African clothing etc. I’m sure In the months to come we will see more kneading....stirring......more marinading......remember the pot is always simmering, then around October....Surprise!.......... BOO!!
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    ...Wanting to leverage their NH momentum and strangle Obama in his crib before he can reignite, Hillary’s campaign pushes hard into Carolina. Bill Clinton is particularly determined to leverage the love that many Black Americans have for him, -- as well as his legion of close friendships with Black American political leaders in S Carolina.

    It is THIS race where they erred. Though not in the way that it was characterized by the press.

    Hating both Clinton’s, feeling shamed by their stupidity in NH, the press carried a barely concealed grudge with them into S. Carolina.

    Every minor and legitimate criticism spoken about Obama by Bill or Hillary became instantly warped into a message with a racist subtext. She was contesting the first legitimate Black candidate for President -- in a state where most of the voters would be African American.

    It was ground that was inherently dangerous and unfavorable. It was ground that was inherently prone to be abused by those with an interest in sowing mistrust and anger.

    They should have respectfully conceded S. Carolina to Barack, and moved on to fight in Nevada, California and the other caucuses and primaries that followed.
    though like most here, I'm reluctant to agree with that pompous monkey BARYE, I think at least on this point there may be some truth to what he's saying.

    If we remember what was ACTUALLY said by Bill and Hillary (as opposed to how it was reported and then recharacterized), it is hard to glean any racist agenda or subtext.

    It was politically fair game to attack Obama's Iraq pose. It was entirely legitimate to question a candidacy predicated on a single speech made when he was without responsibility or national exposure.

    To describe that pose as a "fairly tale" was neither unreasonable or personally insulting. What is normal give and take between competing campaigns became some form of backhanded innuendo that disrespected a Black man. This was an infuriatingly phoney charge -- a view that Juan Willams (of NPR) strongly affirmed (while on Faux news Sunday). The press overall did EVERYTHING they could to gin up and create that false slander.

    The ONLY statement that could possibly be construed as having a "racial" tint was one Bill made on election day (after the campaign had finished) in which he attempted to prospectively minimize the importance of Hillary's imminent loss by recalling how well Jesse had done in S. Carolina years earlier.

    Bill was only attemptings to lessen her damage, but given the context of things it came off badly.
    Last edited by BARYE; 03/03/2008 at 05:26 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    It was entirely legitimate to question a candidacy predicated on a single speech made when he was without responsibility or national exposure.
    What does Obama being “without responsibility” (whatever that means) have to do with him having exercised good judgement? So are you inferring that had he been “with responsibility” he may have looked to see which way the wind was blowing first, then flew along with all the other lemmings? Hillary’s camp has used that argument, and to me it doesn’t say much for her. To me she’s admitting “I am a lemming.”

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    To describe that pose as a "fairly tale" was neither unreasonable or insulting.
    The fairy tale comment could be taken either way. But when you couple that with Bill’s comment comparing him to Jesse Jackson......well what is they say a perceptions?

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    -- a view that Juan Willams (of NPR) strong affirms.
    Juan Willams?.....Juan Williams?!......Are you referring to the sacrificial liberal/moderate Black man that regularly appears on Faux News? Come on now. He’s hardly someone I would point to as speaking for anyone but himself. Just look at who’s signing his checks. Barye you surprise me. Hahaha
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  19.    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    What does Obama being “without responsibility” (whatever that means) have to do with him having exercised good judgement? So are you inferring that had he been “with responsibility” he may have looked to see which way the wind was blowing first, then flew along with all the other lemmings?...
    Its been pointed out by others that Obama has had a history of voting "present" on controversial issues.

    That rather than actively working to end the war after becoming a Senator he supported its continued funding.

    There may have been reasons beyond simple accomodation for this -- perhaps he was attempting to preserve his political viability. Whatever the case, most politicians act more nobly when they have nothing at risk.


    ...The fairy tale comment could be taken either way. But when you couple that with Bill’s comment comparing him to Jesse Jackson......well what is they say a perceptions?


    The fairy tale comment -- when heard in its entirety was as I described it: directed at the idea that he was the only one who had foreseen the Iraq catastrophe and was in effect alone in having spoken out against it, irrespective of consequences.

    The Jess comment was disconnected from anything other than showing a context (an arguably irrelevant one) that in some way could mitigate the impact of Hillary's prospective defeat in Carolina. (a battle I suspect he felt responsible for having waged.)

    Juan Willams?.....Juan Williams?!......Are you referring to the sacrificial liberal/moderate Black man that regularly appears on Faux News? Come on now. He’s hardly someone I would point to as speaking for anyone but himself. Just look at who’s signing his checks. Barye you surprise me. Hahaha
    Yes Iago -- THAT Juan Williams, from THAT Faux news (you've got me on that one...)

    FWIW (and I may have the video if you're interested) he was alone in vigorously defending Hillary against the neocons in his panel discussion. They all were attacking Hillary and Bill while pretending to be "outraged". He point by point explained that everything said (this was I think prior to the Jesse comment) was a standard part of normal competitive political discourse.

    (BTW, Iago -- we cross posted simultaneously as I was correcting and clarifying some of what you've called me on.)

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    though like most here, I'm reluctant to agree with that pompous monkey BARYE, I think at least on this point there may be some truth to what he's saying.

    If we remember what was ACTUALLY said by Bill and Hillary (as opposed to how it was reported and then recharacterized), it is hard to glean any racist agenda or subtext.

    It was politically fair game to attack Obama's Iraq pose. It was entirely legitimate to question a candidacy predicated on a single speech made when he was without responsibility or national exposure.

    To describe that pose as a "fairly tale" was neither unreasonable or personally insulting. What is normal give and take between competing campaigns became some form of backhanded innuendo that disrespected a Black man. This was an infuriatingly phoney charge -- a view that Juan Willams (of NPR) strongly affirmed (while on Faux news Sunday). The press overall did EVERYTHING they could to gin up and create that false slander.

    The ONLY statement that could possibly be construed as having a "racial" tint was one Bill made on election day (after the campaign had finished) in which he attempted to prospectively minimize the importance of Hillary's imminent loss by recalling how well Jesse had done in S. Carolina years earlier.

    Bill was only attemptings to lessen her damage, but given the context of things it came off badly.
    Last edited by BARYE; 03/03/2008 at 07:46 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. #20  
    Hillary has run a terrible campaign. She put all her eggs in the primary basket, neglecting the caucus states. Her organization lacks the grass-roots level intensity that Obama's has. Hillary's campaign had no plans for states after Super Tuesday. They did not even file all the delegates for the Pennsylvania primary in advance.

    Obama's campaign made the best of what they have .. youth, oratory skills and improved, while Hillary lost momentum as she tried to re-invent herself (experience, change, ready on day 1 etc).

    My view: Hillary will make a better President but Obama is more electable.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
Page 1 of 20 12345611 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions