Hillary will rise again!

anneshirley

This thread is for those of us, like Jaybird and me, and hopefully others, who enthusiastically supported Hillary Clinton for president. Some of us, foolishly no doubt, hope that the more Obama changes his positions, the super delegates may rethink their choice and decide to give Hillary the nomination in August. But if not, we have high hopes that she'll continue to represent women in our desire to break glass ceilings, in whatever position she assumes in the Party. I hope it's Veep, but probably not.

There are no restrictions as to who can post. If you think Hillary won't rise again, or prefer she not rise again, you're welcome to post. The only thing I would ask is that if you're anti-Hillary, you restrain yourself from attacks on her person. If you don't like the way she laughs, how she combs her hair, or the colors of her pants suits, post it on another thread. This thread is essentially political in nature. And facts are always welcome.

his thread is for those of us, like Jaybird and me, and hopefully others, who enthusiastically supported Hillary Clinton for president. Some of us, foolishly no doubt, hope that the more Obama changes his positions, the super delegates may rethink their choice and decide to give Hillary the nomination in August. But if not, we have high hopes that she'll continue to represent women in our desire to break glass ceilings, in whatever position she assumes in the Party. I hope it's Veep, but probably not.

There are no restrictions as to who can post. If you think Hillary won't rise again, or prefer she not rise again, you're welcome to post. The only thing I would ask is that if you're anti-Hillary, you restrain yourself from attacks on her person. If you don't like the way she laughs, how she combs her hair, or the colors of her pants suits, post it on another thread. This thread is essentially political in nature. And facts are always welcome.

Anneshirley

anneshirley

Snowy--if you can't get in, try putting "Obama and Illinois legislature" in Google.  That's how I found the article--New York Times.  Interesting article as it goes fully into Obama's career in politics.

Mke--I've actually heard some Obama supporters suggest the same, egged on by Maureen Dowd or Rush Limbaugh--strange bed fellows.  

I wonder how Hillary is reacting, privately, to some of Obama's changed positions. Is she knocking her head against a wall?  I just watched breaking news on his "refining" his Iraq positon.  There's not much more that he can refine after the last two weeks!

AnnNYC

Anneshirley -- I have to say I don't think it's the least bit sad that Alan Keyes is considered "something of a joke."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes

It may be pathetic that he is surprised at the cold shoulder he got from the Republican party, probably because, despite his Christian Dominionist beliefs and his homophobia, he is black, but...

it still doesn't make him terribly sympathetic.

You've kind of thrown me for a loop by seeming to hold Alan Keyes in higher esteem than Barack Obama!!!???  Did I misunderstand you?

HeatherBLocklear

Hi all,

I also was very disappointed to see the nomination "swiped" from Senator Clinton, so to speak. It seems as though we Democrats always manage to come up with a spoiler, someone who subverts the process the Republicans have streamlined in order to put their chosen individual in the front seat. In the past we had Perot and Nader throw monkey wrenches into the process; now we have Obama.

I have no doubt Obama is a fine man and will eventually make a great president ... when he's gotten a bit of experience under his belt. For now he has virtually no substantial political machine backing him, no support from the military, and absolutely no foreign diplomatic experience. They're wildly enthusiastic about him in Europe and beyond -- I know this better than most -- but adoration from a fan base doesn't mean he has the knowledge and connections to be an international power broker. And, after all, it's easy for countries who will not sink or swim on a politician's capabilities or lack of them to support someone. If Obama turns out to be the emperor with no clothes, all those countries need to do is sit back and snicker (yet again!) at the impossible naivete and gullibility of Americans.

Anyway, this constitutes my two cents' worth of disputable wisdom. I sure do wish Senator Obama had waited for his turn to come around. I'm worried about the implications of having someone who doesn't understand the extent of his own lack of experience as Commander-in-Chief ...not to mention his recent wafflings on several vital issues. After all, we're looking for a president, not a rock star or the next American Idol.

Peace.

Annie

Beesie

"I'm worried about the implications of having someone who doesn't understand the extent of his own lack of experience as Commander-in-Chief "  Yes, exactly.  Well said.  

Obama should have waited his turn, if only because that it have given him the experience he needs.  The fact that he didn't wait his turn says a lot about him, and what it says frightens me.  He thinks way too highly of himself and of what he (and only he) can do for the country. There does not appear to be a humble bone in his body.

I do hope that Hillary will rise again although I just can't see that happening. I think the only hope is if Obama somehow implodes, and does it soon.  By the time of the election, I'm sure that Obama will be battered and bruised and the shine will be off, but it won't happen before the convention.  At this point, the Republicans want Obama to be the Democratic nominee.  They won't start their real attacks until after the convention.  And if they have anything on him that's not public knowledge yet, they will hold it until after the convention.  That's their winning hand and they are smart enough to not play it too soon.

anneshirley

Beesie--hope springs eternal, but then I still think I'll win the lottery some day.  Yes, Obama does seem to lack humility, a lot like Bush in that respect.  They both appear to have a sense of entitlement, although to give it to Obama, at least he's intelligent and doesn't go around bragging about his C minus grades. 

Annie--your take was mine when I first learned of Obama in 2004.  I thought, great, he'll make a good candidate in the future.  That he refused to wait and get experience, and knowledge, strikes me as it does many others as arrogant.  And I for one have had enough of arrogance in the White House.   

My hope is that with each new change, none of which have been subtle, some of the super delegates, those to the left of most of the Party, will start to resent him.  None of us know for sure, but I suspect there was lots of arm twisting by folks like Pelosi and Kennedy to declare after the last primary.  I'm sure that some of the super delegates are angry at these changes in position and feel betrayed.  If one or two were to change and announce for Hillary, it might start a trend. Or perhaps Kennedy will find his conscience and declare for Hillary--that's the biggest sretch of my imagination!  Beesie, I don't remember if you agree with me on the war--I think you did--but for many of us the single aspect of Obama that we were able to live with was his stand on the war.  If people think he's twisting on that one, it might make the difference.   

About Hillary.  I gave to her campaign a number of times during the campaign--money I really couldn't afford, and now I'm getting emails asking me to help pay down her debt.  As much as I would like to see her President, I'm a bit annoyed about these solicitations.  I suppose I'm an idealist, but if I had her money I'd pay down my own debt.  What do they need all that money for?   

Paulette531

Anneshirley...what do they need all that money for? The rich get richer or stay rich and the rest...well we know the story! What you wrote really struck a nerve, how dare they appeal to the loyal followers to pay down the debt, where do these people get off thinking that even has a modicum of decorum? Oy...I am really angry now!

anneshirley

Paulette--I wasn't trying to put your BP up, just thought it interesting that Clinton would expect people like me to pay down her debt.  All politicians, just by virtue of their decision to be politicians, have huge egos.  Look at Obama.  Now he's talking about holding the last night of the Convention at a ball park so he can have another 50,000 cheering him on.  I suppose I shouldn't tell you that, as that will really send your BP up.  

If I weren't so passionate about getting rid of the death penalty, guns in the home, getting out of Iraq, insuring our privacy from government spying (FISA)--I'm speaking of all the reversals to the right by Obama--I would be sitting back as an observer and find it amusing (like a Barbara Pym novel) that so many people who claim to be liberals don't mind in the least that Obama and Scalia are death penalty mates.  Hard to believe!  

Anyway, I know you don't agree with me on the above, so back to your point.  Remember that it's exactly the same with the Republicans as far as money goes.  Politicians are greedy by nature; they think they're special so don't hesitate to ask from us what they would never do themselves.  I don't think, for example, that Hillary knows it's not about her but about her as a woman. I've had only two pols that I started out respecting and still respect--Jimmy Carter and Mario Cuomo (he gave up running for President so he could stick with his stand against the death penalty). And now I wait for the brickbats.

Hey all, have a great 4th.  It's a beautiful day here in Maine, one of the few in the last couple of weeks, and we're going to see the fireworks tonight and tomorrow outside dancing in the parking lot of our local supermarket.  Real country doings.

Paulette531

Anneshirley...I was agreeing with you! It just struck a nerve...and I agree all politicians are about the same where ego is concerned!

It doesn't surprise me where BO is concerned and the stadium effect! I also read today once he visits Iraq he will have a more clear view of what is going on over there and may change his mind on where he stands. I can tell you where he stands, he stands left, he stands right, he stands in the middle, the front of the line, the back of the line and just about everywhere else at the moment he stands! 

Jaybird627

I, too, gave to Hillary money that I didn't really have to spare and now have received the <paraphrased> "thanks for your support, blah, blah, blah, and how about giving more money..." e-mail which infuriates me. I suppose some will give and those of us who can't will just have to lend our further support in other ways.

Saw a blurb on the tv today about Obama being in the Midwest somewhere opening a parade. I wasn't impressed. Maybe I was too jet-lagged to comprehend what he was saying, but it didn't seem like he was saying anything!

I'm too tired to be articulate so ciao from Milano!

anneshirley

Beesie--this is for you.  It's begun! 

The New York Times endorsed Hillary before the New York primary and then moved distinctly to Obama's side after that, to the point that many of its readers accused it of sexism.  Subsequently, it had its public editor write two articles defending its coverage.  HA!.  Now, it's taking a second look--or perhaps it's "prejudging" Obama!.   This is the Times 4th of July editorial. 

And, believe it or not, just now I heard MSNBC's Chuck Todd, creator of the Obama channel, saying Obama's move to the right has been so clinical, it's hard not to be cynical.  No kidding.

New and Not Improved

Published: July 4, 2008

Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

if (acm.rc) acm.rc.write();

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

anneshirley

And here's another (Associated Press) on his recent comments regarding abortion.  Roe vs. Wade supporters--heads up!

Obama: Mental distress can't justify late abortion

By JIM KUHNHENN – 3 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

The health care exception is crucial to abortion rights advocates and is considered a legal loophole by abortion opponents. By limiting the health exception to a "serious physical issue," Obama set himself apart from other abortion rights proponents.

The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: "A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family."

The 1973 landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, established a right to an abortion, and a concurrent case, Doe v. Bolton, established that medical judgments about the need for an abortion could include physical, emotional and psychological health factors.

"Senator Obama has consistently maintained that laws restricting abortions must contain exceptions for the health and life of the mother," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday. "Obviously, as he stated in the interview, he has consistently believed those exceptions should be clear and limited enough to ensure that they don't undermine the prohibition on late-term abortions."

Obama's position is similar to that taken by a bipartisan group of senators in 1998 who tried to counter efforts to ban certain late-term abortions with their own legislation. That proposal, which failed, would have banned all late-term abortions except for those that are necessary to protect the physical health of the mother.

In a statement, NARAL Pro-Choice said Obama's magazine interview is consistent with Roe v. Wade.

"Sen. Obama has consistently said he supports the tenets set forth by Roe, and has made strong statements against President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban, which does not have an exception to protect a woman's health," the organization's statement said.

A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights.

David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about."

"You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," O'Steen said.

In the interview with Relevant, conducted on Tuesday, Obama also defended his opposition to restrictions on induced abortions where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods. Obama voted against such a bill when he was in the Illinois Senate. He has said he supported a federal version of the law that contained more specific language because he feared the Illinois proposal would have applied to all abortions.

"There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the 'Born Alive' bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill," Obama said Tuesday. "The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster."

Me Again: The Times' editorial, in my earlier post, is longer than usual, so I assume it didn't have any room left to comment on Obama's other, very telling reversal:  his recent comments to evangelicals on late-term abortions.  Whether you agree or not with  those of us who are pro-choice, most women know that "mental distress" is the major reason for the vast majority of abortions, whether early or late, and that once you make exceptions in Roe vs Wade, to not permit "mental stress" as a reason for abortion, the slide has begun. What's left for Obama to stiff?  Not much, but he's got four more months and considering the reversals he's managed in a few short weeks, I can only assume women will be back wearing gingham and baking bread by the time November rolls around. 

anneshirley

For all of those panting to scream for Obama at the convention, please read the following.  Apparently, I am the first to know of this opportunity!!  How delightful.  Can't say I'm too happy with Hillary Clinton giving my name to the Obama campaign. 

Grace --

I wanted you to be the first to hear the news.

At the Democratic National Convention next month, we're going to kick off the general election with an event that opens up the political process the same way we've opened it up throughout this campaign.

Barack has made it clear that this is your convention, not his.

On Thursday, August 28th, he's scheduled to formally accept the Democratic nomination in a speech at the convention hall in front of the assembled delegates.

Instead, the convention will move to an outdoor stadium where Barack will join more than 75,000 people for a huge, free, open-air event and deliver his acceptance speech to the American people.

It's going to be an amazing event, and Barack would like you to join him. Free tickets will become available as the date approaches, but we've reserved a special place for a few of the people who brought us this far and who continue to drive this campaign.

If you make a donation of $5 or more between now and midnight on July 31st, you could be one of 10 supporters chosen to fly to Denver and spend two days and nights at the convention, meet Barack backstage, and watch his acceptance speech in person. Each of the ten supporters who are selected will be able to bring one guest to join them.

Make a donation now and you could have a front row seat to history:

We'll follow up with more details on this and other convention activities as we get closer, but please take a moment and pass this note to someone you know who might like to be there.

It will be an event you'll never forget.

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

ME: It's my convention if I donate $5.00. Even Hillary's emails weren't this obsequious!

anneshirley

 

The following article is particularly interesting with respect to our elections.  The question is, does it help either candidate over the other?  It could help both equally, I think.  McCain can use it as a way of backing down from his 25-50-100 year commitment speeches, and use Iraqi's own demands as a way of conceding that we must leave.

Obama can use it to stick with his 16 months and stop refining and spinning. 

But it really helps all of us.  If Iraq insists we leave, it's rather difficult for this administration or any other to claim we're there to help!!!  I hope they demand sufficient money to rebuilt their country, though.

Iraq insists on U.S. withdrawal timetable: official

Tue Jul 8, 2008 11:21am EDT

 

Lower oil prices today and a stronger dollar, so lots of good news.

02 Jul 2008  

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq will not accept any security agreement with the United States unless it includes dates for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the government's national security adviser said on Tuesday.

The comments by Mowaffaq al-Rubaie underscore the U.S.-backed government's hardening stance toward a deal with Washington that will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to operate when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

On Monday, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appeared to catch Washington off-guard by suggesting for the first time that a timetable be set for the departure of U.S. forces under the deal being negotiated, which he called a memorandum of understanding.

Rubaie said Iraq was waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves Iraq".

"We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure," Rubaie said in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.

He was speaking to reporters after meeting Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Rubaie said he spoke to Sistani about the U.S. talks, but did not say if the cleric had an opinion on the negotiations. The revered cleric is routinely briefed on key national issues.

"I informed the (clerical leaders) about some of the advances in the talks. There are real problems and difficulties, and we have many roadblocks ahead. There is a big difference in outlook between us and the Americans," Rubaie said. <sorry, too difficult to post entire article..

anneshirley

As some of you may know I was kicked off the Obama thread because I dared to post articles,  by liberals no less, who dared to criticize Obama for his lurch to the right.  Here's the latest, from Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist--more interested in truth than in getting Obama elected.  Until today, Herbert was a huge supporter of Obama.  Anyone, who believes in integrity and principle might want to read Herbert's article.  

Lurching With Abandon

 

By BOB HERBERT

Published: July 8, 2008

In one of the numbers from “Fiddler on the Roof,” Tevye sings, with a mixture of emotions: “We haven’t got the man ... we had when we began.”

Skip to next paragraph

 

Go to Columnist Page »

Back in January when Barack Obama pulled off his stunning win in the Iowa caucuses, and people were lining up in the cold and snow for hours just to get a glimpse of him, there was a wide and growing belief — encouraged to the max by the candidate — that something new in American politics had arrived.

His brilliant, nationally televised victory speech in Des Moines sent a shiver of hope through much of the electorate. “The time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face,” said Senator Obama, “who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.”

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is.

This is why so many of Senator Obama’s strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer.

One issue or another might not have made much difference. Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies in a campaign, and lord knows the Democrats need to expand their coalition.

But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.

So there he was in Zanesville, Ohio, pandering to evangelicals by promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it. Separation of church and state? Forget about it.

And there he was, in the midst of an election campaign in which the makeup of the Supreme Court is as important as it has ever been, agreeing with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that the death penalty could be imposed for crimes other than murder. What was the man thinking?

Thankfully, a majority on the court left the barbaric Scalia-Thomas-Obama (and John McCain) reasoning behind and held that capital punishment would apply only to homicides.

“What’s he doing?” is the most common question heard recently from Obama supporters.

For one thing, he’s taking his base for granted, apparently believing that such stalwart supporters as blacks, progressives and pumped-up younger voters will be with him no matter what. A taste of the backlash this can produce erupted on the candidate’s own Web site.

Thousands of Obama supporters flooded the site with protests over his decision to support an electronic surveillance bill that gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The senator had previously promised to filibuster the bill if it contained the immunity clause.

There has been a reluctance among blacks to openly criticize Senator Obama, the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency. But behind the scenes, there is discontent among African-Americans, as well, over Mr. Obama’s move away from progressive issues, including his support of the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.

There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. But the senator denied that any significant change should be inferred from his comment that he would “continue to refine” his policy on the war.

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Time flies and the Iowa caucuses seem a very long time ago.

Me:  A very long way, indeed!

anneshirley

Interesting!  On the "Positive" Obama thread Grace suggests that if she expresses a different opinion from mine on the Hillary thread, she might get her head chopped off.   

Grace, isn't that both unfair and disingenuous?  The only head chopping done on any of these threads was done on the Obama thread.  Mine was one of those chopped, but happily it's reattached and still liberal.  On this thread, liberals very much dislike guns in the home, the death penalty, permitting  telecoms to invade our privacy, threats to nuke other countries, support of religious groups by our government, and so forth.  I can only suppose that East Coast liberals are different from those on the West Coast, as shown by Bob Herbert's column today, Frank Rich's recent comments, and the New York Times 4th of July editorial.  Perhaps the disgust so many liberals on the East Coast are now expressing will work its way west faster than the wagon trains did, hopefully in time for a change of heart at the convention.  If some of you on the Obama thread would stop focussing on fashion and refocus on the issues that challenge this country and the world, we might again have an interesting political discussion.  

Grace, if you want to assist in paying off Clinton's debt, feel free. It's your money and you're free to do with it as you wish.  You're also free to post here without fear of being told to go away. There are no restrictions on this thread, and no head chopping, at least not with respect to political discussion.  My preference, though, is that it stay political and that posters avoid personal attacks, whether on Hillary, Nader, Obama, or McCain, or their families, and focus on their positions.  There's a sufficiency of personal attacks elsewhere.  

Speaking of positions, I would have thought McCain would have used Iraq's insistence on a time table for departure of U.S. forces as a cover for changing his current position.  He had the perfect opportunity since he himself said in 2004 that if Iraq asked us to leave, we should leave.  He's well positioned for the general election with his current stand on off-shore drilling, which apparently a majority of Americans support, and he could have easily flipped his position on Iraq without criticism if he had used today's announcement to his advantage.  Instead, he's dug himself in again, and I have to wonder about his judgment and that of his advisors.  It was a gift and he threw it away. 

Rosemary44

'I hope they demand sufficient money to rebuilt their country, though." 

Who should they demand it from?  Us?  They're an oil producing nation. They'll be able to buy and sell us as soon as they get back to oil producing speed.   We did them a favor, they have their country back without a dictator and yesterday they said al Qaeda is gone, or so decimated, what was left of them, ran their tails back to Iran.

I think their 5 year plan helps McCain moreso.  What did McCain say yesterday?  I can't find it in print.  I'm sure I'll hear all about it.

anneshirley

Rosemary, I find it difficult to believe you're serious, that we did the Iraqis a favor!  Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed--large numbers of Iranians still only have electricity for parts of the day, well more than 100,000 Iranians are dead, far more are seriously injured, and millions more are without homes. Iraqis don't consider it a favor (and neither do most of the world's population).  I'm sure if you lost a member of your family or had to leave your home forever because some country decided to invade us, you wouldn't view it as a favor.  I've never been an advocate of our leaving Iraq because it's costing us billions, which seems to be the view of so many.  It's not about cost;  it's about an illegal war waged by this country against an innocent people.  We have a moral obligation to spend whatever it takes to fix what we broke.

For the record, Saddam and Al Qaeda were sworn enemies; Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we brought them in.  So, hooray if they're gone, but remember they only arrived after we did.

Instead of grabbing a great opportunity to put his foolish 100-year comment behind him (I know he didn't mean 100 years in the way many Democrats suggest, but it was still foolish, or at least impolitic), McCain said something yesterday along the lines that he would not support timelines. (Perhaps he's on automatic pilot and just says this stuff without thinking of its implications.)  I don't know his exact words, although I did read them previously, but I'm sure they will be discussed on most news reports today.  I don't understand why McCain, who in the past expressed views that were both honorable and likely to attract centrist Democrats and independents, has changed. I don't see how these changes can possibly win him the votes he needs in the general election.  Very puzzling to me.  You have a different frame of reference, so perhaps you understand?

anneshirley

Paulette--if I'm going to make this Mount Everest, I'll have to post all my comments and responses here, and not on the thread where they're raised. 

The point of my post regarding Obama's recent comments on partial-birth abortion was not to support the procedure (I don't believe I do support it, as I think abortion should be legal but rare, but then who am I to decide for another woman or for her to decide for me).  My concern was that Obama did support it, and refused to vote against it, and that his recent comments are a change, again, in his views.  But my real concern was the way in which he finessed the change, stating that mental distress was not a valid reason.  It's not that far to move from mental distress not being a valid reason for a late abortion, to mental distress not being a valid reason for an early abortion.  I thought I should clarify my reason for the post.

I know your "Hill soon to be a mountain" refers to word count, but I prefer to see it as a metaphor for Hillary and her future, so thanks.   

 

AlaskaDeb

<-------> Now for a short commercial break!

This is NOT a political comment.  I am a republican, and would not have voted for Hillary even if she had been the nominee, BUT I have to chime in with a little funny....

Every time I see the name of this thread I think of those old black and white Zombie movies, and I envision Hillary breaking out of a grave, covered with moss and dirt and walking through a crowd of screaming people in that classic arms out, stiff legged zombie walk.   LOLOL

Thanks for the laughs.

<-------I now return you to your regularly scheduled political conversation.

Deb C

Beesie

You've got to love it.  Criticism of something Obama did and WHAM!, faster than a speeding bullet, a change in how he feels.  This time, it's about his daughters and their exposure to the press. 

It's not that I disagree with his new position, but do you mean to tell me that as a parent of two young children, he & Michele didn't sit down before all this started and decide how they would handle these types of situations?  Or maybe they did and he was just opportunistic in using his kids.  Either way, it says something about his judgement and how much forethought he gives to things.  Throw Grandma under the bus (in his Rev. Wright speech) and use the kids in the media.  Gotta love the guy. 

Obama calls ‘Access Hollywood' interview a mistake  

By Mike Celizic TODAYShow.com contributor updated 9:56 a.m. ET, Wed., July. 9, 2008

Barack Obama said it was a mistake to allow his daughters to be interviewed extensively by "Access Hollywood," and he will not allow it to happen again.

"I think that we got carried away in the moment," the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told TODAY's Matt Lauer Wednesday. "We were having a birthday party, and everybody was laughing. And suddenly this thing cropped up. I didn't catch it quickly enough. I was surprised by the attention it received."

The interview, which is being aired in four parts this week on "Access Hollywood," took place last week in Butte, Mont. In it, Obama and his wife, Michelle, sit down with their daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, to talk about family life and what it's like to be the daughters of a presidential candidate.

The interview, conducted by Maria Menounos, prompted criticism of the candidate, who had said that he wanted to keep his family life private, but now seemed to be using his family to advance his candidacy.

On Wednesday's "Verdict with Dan Abrams" on MSNBC, Menounos explained how Obama's daughters wound up in the interview along with their parents. "The interview originally was just supposed to be the senator and his wife," she said. "We get there and it was the Fourth of July, it was Malia's birthday - the circumstances surrounding that day I think kind of lended themselves to a more comfortable atmosphere for the girls."

On TODAY, Lauer asked Obama if the family would do similar sessions in the future.

"We wouldn't do it again, and we won't be doing it again," the candidate said flatly.

mke

Why is anyone surprised by this?  Obama was from the first a man of pretty words.  When the former pretty words don't work, he will find some other ones.  Why did everyone think "change" was good without asking what the change would be?

Anonymous

At least we learned SOMETHING about him...he doesn't like bubble gum.   Of course he could change his mind.

Rosemary44

Anne,

I am serious.  We've never lived in fear of our leaders.  Never had to wonder if anyone in our family who didn't come home one night is out in a hastily dug grave somewhere out in the desert. They just found another such grave site only 3 weeks ago.   Nor have we ever been visited by a death squad, nor lived in a town that was gassed.  Anytime we can take out a murdering tyrant, I'm for it. I just wish it didn't have to come with a war and innocents get killed along with the deserving. 

I only wish there was just one French hero who had a well-sighted rifle who could have taken the life of Hitler while he strolled around the Champs Ellysee.  I understand that Hitler was there twice.  Buildings mean nothing.  The Iraqi's now have a future that they didn't have before.  It's finally up to THEM to decide how to live and without fear of a Saddam.  What a relief that must be, to one day be dictated to and now they can become a democracy with input into their government. 

anneshirley

Roesemary--We have no right whatsoever to decide which heads of government we don't like and proceed to destroy a nation--one far older than ours, and one which started far fewer wars than ours. 

There are dictators all over the world, killing their citizens as I write (you can read about them every day in any reputable newspaper), and we don't go in and take them out; but then a number of them are in African countries which offer little in the way of natural resources that Americans can use--oil being primary.  And we have on many occasions supported nations headed by dictators who murdered their citizens--many in South American as well as Saddam in the late 80's and early 90's, with money, weapons, and diplomatic cover.  In fact, it was our tacit support of Saddam in his war against Iran, where the Iranians say 1,000,000 of their people were killed, that gave Saddam the idea he could invade Kuwait with impunity. We also supported the Taliban with weapons and money (in case you've forgotten) when it was of benefit to us.  We were well aware of the treatment of women by the Taliban but we were  involved in a cold war with Russia and looked the other way.  So Bush's Iraq war had nothing to do with us trying to save the Iraqi people from  a dictator. FDR, speaking of one of our coddled dictators, called him an SOB but added he's our SOB.  Trust me, the Iraqis are not happy that we destroyed their nation.  But then they're the ones who lost the innocent lives.  

Shirley--glad to see you're still around.  I was wondering what had happened to you.   

Hanna60978

.    

anneshirley

Hanna, welcome to Politicis 101, or perhaps it's 102 since we're now discussing the general election.  Why trouble?  I thought your comment about the dog (and parrot) was funny.

Rosemary44

Anne,

And now there is one less murdering dictator.  I wish there was one less Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo before their time.  But it wasn't meant to be.  We had to wait till the last of their citizens and millions of others died before they were gone. 

The Taliban wouldn't have happened had we stayed in Afganistan to help them create a government.  No we cannot protect the world from murdering dictators, but when another one is gone, I'm not upset with the outcome.  They'll hopefully put themselves back together again and form a lasting democratic government. 

anneshirley

Rosemary--ah, but you were suggesting initially that Bush went into Iraq to get rid of a dictator.  He didn't and we didn't, as is obvious from all the other dictators that are out there, and many with our support.  I hate it when the our government pretends to do bad things for good reasons.  Same reason, I suppose, why I started this thread.  Can't stand listening to "Obama the Beautiful" while watching the hopes of so many who feel like me fall apart.

I didn't hear what Jesse Jackson said about Obama and I'm sorry it was full of vulgarities, as then the vulgarities become the news and not the sentiments behind the words. But he was expressing the feelings of so many on the left (although I realize now that there are few of us left) as they watch Obama throw liberalism under the bus.  It's getting mighty crowded under there.

But to that same point.  Shouldn't a lot of you who lean right be delighted with Obama now. He's doing this for your guys, certainly not for the likes of me. Many of the positions he took are to the right of Hillary Clinton and everyone else who ran for the Democratic nomination.  For example, Hillary voted against Bush on FISA.  And it will be impossible for him to move back to the left if he gets elected.  He would be caricatured by everyone, so even if you don't like him you'll be getting a government far more to the right than you had expected.  And isn't that what it's all about for those of you on the right.  Curious why you're not celebrating more.

New slogan for Obama:

 "As for his changes in position, maybe that's the "change" he was talking about all along?"

I don't think the Republicans who post will like the name Hillary's former supporters (and now waiting for a viable third party candidate) have given Obama, but it's:

                                                          BUSH 3
 

Rosemary44

How can we be thrilled about a guy without substance going right?  He's pandering, and who knows anything about his real feelings about anything?  He says one thing, then votes the other way.  He's only doing the expedient right now.  Who knows what he'll do next?   No one seems to know what his core values/policies are, or will he stay with them in another 2 days from now.

Jesse is totally unhappy with Obama, that goes without saying.  I wish they'd let the rest of that tape out.  I love self-inflicted firestorms.  Of course, we know this will all be forgotten shortly, afterall this is Obama we're talking about.   

anneshirley

Rosemary, you said, "Who knows what he'll do next?"  I agree that no one knows if he has any core values, particularly after threatening to filibuster FISA and then voting with Bush, but my point, with respect to your above question, is this.  Now that Obama has put out two totally different views, the right view being the last, for him to go back to the left is almost impossible, even for him.

Can you imagine if, after getting elected, he suggests that the free distribution of guns is not a good idea, or that the government shouldn't support religious groups, or that the death penalty is wrong, after his sharp move to the right.  Even those who refuse to acknowledge his swing at the moment, afraid they might give away some of his votes, would find it impossible not to comment if he did it again.  And he would also be looking at the next election, so would never go back to his original left stance.  We know now that being president is what drives him, not a core set of values that he wants implemented. So, you folks on the right are the winners in this.  Of course, you prefer McCain, but think of poor me, I get "right" whichever way the election goes.

About Jesse, even Al Sharpton is giving him hell, but I wonder what Sharpton is saying in private?  I remember clearly during the Clarence Thomas hearings that a majority of African Americans wanted Clarence on the Supreme Court and Anita Hill was accused by many of trying to ruin his chances.  And in the end, he was appointed and has been a great enemy to everything liberal, and in particular to black causes. Thomas only got into Yale because of Affirmative Action (he had, as I remember, a 500 on his law boards, when a high 700 is average).  Yet he came out against Affirmative Action for others in the African American community.  And this is similar to what Barack Obama is doing now.  He believes there's nothing too negative he can say and lose their votes, so he throws them under the bus (which is now the size of the Concorde).  

And further to Obama's ego, he went to a joint fund raiser for Clinton yesterday and forgot to mention her. I guess the applause went to his head.  He actually had to return, stop the band (I assume after being reminded that he was also there for Hillary) and make his request.   

'