MERGED--> Face the facts Hillary + Desperate Clinton Danger to Party

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
harry

I realize you are very pro Obama


and very anti Hillary


and the article you posted is from the Chicago Tribune. Obama's hometown.

It does say Hillary is "down for the count."


it also praises her

I don't mean this as any criticism of cats or the Clintons, but as a compliment to the Clinton tenacity and toughness. And though many of us can't stand her First Laddie, you can't help but admire how she knocked back those Crown Royal shots to show she's not elitist and how she changed personalities, repeatedly redefining herself, refusing to quit, trying to cut down Barack Obama.

Though the Clintons are despised by many Democrats—and obviously feared by the Democratic beefeaters in Illinois and Massachusetts—there's more grit to Hillary Clinton than in our gentle Mr. Tumnus from Chicago.

Send her into a dark alley alone with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and slip a paring knife into her hand, and Hillary is the one who comes out five minutes later, smiling.



and is not very flattering at all to Obama





She can't stop Obama, the gentle faunof American politics, supported for years by a compliant, yearning media eager to portray him as a reformer and by the Chicago Democratic machine that has nurtured and protected him for years.

Obama is the fellow who stumbled and revealed he had two left political feet, one named Jeremiah Wright, the other named William Ayers, and still he'll be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee in the fall.

"Thank you North Carolina," Obama said precisely at 8:13 p.m. Chicago time, effectively embarking on the general election phase of his campaign. "Thank you so very much. I love you back. I surely do."

With soaring, highly emotional flourishes, Obama congratulated Clinton, said she won in Indiana, although precinct workers shipped over the border from Chicago would have other ideas.

"Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided," Obama said. "Well, I am here tonight to tell you I don't believe it."

He was doing fine up until the time he told the North Carolinians he went on food stamps as a child so that he and his sister could go to the best schools in the nation. It was an awkward bit, slightly scary and glassy-eyed, like a Peter Sellers moment in a Stanley Kubrick film. But Obama deserves some slack today, so let's cut him some.
 
Just that if you are advocating for Obama articles that say he is weak, undeserving , and hooked up with corrupt machine politics
> are not the way to do it.


Even if they say, "Hillary is down."
 
Some reporter said Clinton reminded him of Monty Python's Black Night :lol:

BlackKnight.jpg


I dunno, I admire people who fight on until the bitter end, but at one point she just has to be realistic. Difficult to say whether that time is now.
 
DrTeeth said:

I dunno, I admire people who fight on until the bitter end, but at one point she just has to be realistic. Difficult to say whether that time is now.


The time is not now.

Even Obama knows it.
 
Every politician has some sleaze factor - this has nothing to do with the fact that they'd be a good President or a bad President. I've never been one who thought Obama was some kind of messiah figure...I just think he's interesting and could probably change alot of policies for the better...if given the chance. Oh, and another obsession of mine is to NOT continue the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton twenty year Whitehouse occupation. This is one of the most ridiculous things ever and CANNOT and WILL NOT be allowed to continue.
 
Harry Vest said:
Oh, and another obsession of mine is to NOT continue the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton twenty year Whitehouse occupation. This is one of the most ridiculous things ever and CANNOT and WILL NOT be allowed to continue.


It may be an obsession

but it is nonsense


when Obama gets the nomination

hopefully he will stop lying

and say something like

"We need change!

Change from Bush/ Cheney - the worst Presidency in our history.

Back to a Presidency like the Clinton. Administration
When the U S had good international relations and respected treaties and agreements. When Americans were welcomed abroad and the dollar had value. "
 
deep said:



It may be an obsession

but it is nonsense


when Obama gets the nomination

hopefully he will stop lying

and say something like

"We need change!

Change from Bush/ Cheney - the worst Presidency in our history.

Back to a Presidency like the Clinton. Administration
When the U S had good international relations and respected treaties and agreements. When Americans were welcomed abroad and the dollar had value. "

And hundreds of thousands died in Rwanda and Clinton did FUCK ALL about it. Great President alright. When "Three Strikes and Your Out" reared it's ugly head...when Welfare Reform sunk even more people into the gutter...look, I actually used to like Clinton and I loved the 90's - it was a better time and he was a better President than George Bush - no doubt about it...but I cannot overlook the negative aspects either.
 
Harry Vest said:


And hundreds of thousands died in Rwanda and Clinton did FUCK ALL about it. Great President alright. When "Three Strikes and Your Out" reared it's ugly head...when Welfare Reform sunk even more people into the gutter...look, I actually used to like Clinton and I loved the 90's - it was a better time and he was a better President than George Bush - no doubt about it...but I cannot overlook the negative aspects either.
So do you think that American Imperialism would be justified for such interventions?
 
A_Wanderer said:
So do you think that American Imperialism would be justified for such interventions?

It's a valid question, in my opinion the stark answer - unpalatable to interventionists of either a leftist or neo-conservative streak - is that African tribal conflict has nothing got to do with America, and no good results could have come from a US-sponsored military intervention.
 
A_Wanderer said:
So do you think that American Imperialism would be justified for such interventions?

No, the UN should have gone in to help stop the genocide - where Clinton failed miserably is in even making a valid attempt at convincing the UN to do anything. The U.S. carries alot of weight with the UN and could have convinced them to do much more than what was done. Even he's admitted that it was one of the worst moments of his Presidency.
 
When you say this

" I loved the 90's -
it was a better time and he was a better President than George Bush - no doubt about it..."






You make sense

anyone who lived through the 90s and Ws term would have to be ignorant or just plain bias not to admit this.

Harry Vest said:


And hundreds of thousands died in Rwanda and Clinton did FUCK ALL about it.

When "Three Strikes and Your Out" reared it's ugly head...when Welfare Reform sunk even more people into the gutter...look,

I actually used to like Clinton and I loved the 90's - it was a better time and he was a better President than George Bush - no doubt about it...but I cannot overlook the negative aspects either.


If you do remember the 90s you may recall Clinton was having to navigate a full on frontal assault from GOP controlled congress and an independent council with unlimited funds chasing bogus charges

still the 90s were a good time

Three strikes?

Those were state laws passed by state legislators.

Welfare reform, was going to happen
> with the GOP controlling congress and the public overwhelmingly supporting it.

Having a veto over-written just makes a President a lame duck

The better approach is to try and influence it so it is more palatable and does the least harm possible.
 
Hillary is tough and won't give up without a fight or until the bitter end. I say good for her. Obama scares me. I'd vote for Hillary before I'd even so much as consider McCain. Decisions...decisions.....
 
Obama may very likely be the least experienced/ qualified candidate to get the nomination from one of the two major parties.

that being said my concerns are:

Are the things about a McCain presidency that I have concerns about more worrisome

than the unknowns and the mistakes that Obama has attached to him?
 
Last edited:
Earnie Shavers said:


No, no, your sliding dollar is great. Please keep it up till early next year at least.

Regards,

Incoming Tourist.

Later this year for me. :)

It's only €1 to $1,5344 today. :(
 
deep said:
Obama may very likely be the least experienced/ qualified candidate to get the nomination from one of the two major parties.

Lincoln had about the same experience as Obama. I think experience is one of the most overrated qualities for a President.

If you look at our greatest Presidents, what qualities did they have? From Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Reagan, more than anything else, all were inspiring figures with great leadership and communication skills.

We have a man running this year with similar skills. But I seriously question—in this day of gotcha politics—whether this country has the wisdom to select him.
 
LPU2 said:


Lincoln had about the same experience as Obama. I think experience is one of the most overrated qualities for a President.

Because of the context

this comparison is silly

why not use a contemporary comparison ?

W is very, very low on the experience chart, he is the best comparison

and look at what that got us




and, also during the 2000 campaign he was said to have a "real connection" with American people because of his plain speaking style


From Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Reagan, more than anything else, all were inspiring figures with great leadership and communication skills.

We have a man running this year with similar skills.

I did post that Obama gave a damn good speech in NC Tuesday evening
I have no problem admitting that Obama is a good speaker and can be inspiring :shrug:

But on your list, Why do you leave off Bill Clinton?
He certainly belongs on that list.

He killed in just about all of his State of the Union addresses, the GOP would have to stand and applaud

and can you admit that Hillary has those same qualities, also

She is top tier


We do have a woman running this year with similar skills and great understanding of what it would mean to be a President for ALL the people. But I seriously question—in this day of sexist politics—whether Democates have the wisdom to give her a fair shot.
 
deep said:
We do have a woman running this year with similar skills and great understanding of what it would mean to be a President for ALL the people.



what on earth does this mean?
 
All these comparisons don't really work. You can neither compare Obama with Lincoln or Roosevelt, nor with Bush, simply on one or two similarities.

To say Bush is like that, so Obama has to be like that ignores so many differences, it just doesn't work out.
One of the key differences between the both just kills any comparison: Obama is way more intelligent than Bush could ever be.

Additionally, I don't think Obama would be such a marionette Bush is.
 
deep said:


Because of the context

this comparison is silly

why not use a contemporary comparison ?

W is very, very low on the experience chart, he is the best comparison

and look at what that got us




and, also during the 2000 campaign he was said to have a "real connection" with American people because of his plain speaking style




I did post that Obama gave a damn good speech in NC Tuesday evening
I have no problem admitting that Obama is a good speaker and can be inspiring :shrug:

But on your list, Why do you leave off Bill Clinton?
He certainly belongs on that list.

He killed in just about all of his State of the Union addresses, the GOP would have to stand and applaud

and can you admit that Hillary has those same qualities, also

She is top tier


We do have a woman running this year with similar skills and great understanding of what it would mean to be a President for ALL the people. But I seriously question—in this day of sexist politics—whether Democates have the wisdom to give her a fair shot.

I'm never exactly sure what experience Hillary is meant to have. She a second term junior Senator from New York, who has relatively few legislative success of any substance in her time in the Senate. At best her hands-on experience in the White House of matters of any real substance is patchy...i.e. her self inflicted torpedoing of her health care task force.

And she has run what will probably go down as one of the most tactical inept political campaigns in history; squandering a 100 superdelegate lead, 100% name recognition and a record amount of cash on hand.

Not particularly an Obama fan, but a campaign is often described as a microcosm of how a politician will perform in office, and frankly Hillary has been poor.
 
Vincent Vega said:
Obama is way more intelligent than Bush could ever be.

I 100% agree with this
Bush' mind in anything but agile.

Vincent Vega said:
Additionally, I don't think Obama would be such a marionette Bush is.

I do have some concerns here
he got Wright 100% wrong

his "great speech on race" now needs to evaporate, because he wrapped it around Wright and allowed Wright to pull his strings until it became intolerable
 
deep said:



I do have some concerns here
he got Wright 100% wrong

his "great speech on race" now needs to evaporate, because he wrapped it around Wright and allowed Wright to pull his strings until it became intolerable

I'm sure the "debacle" with Wright will stick to him for longer, though I hope in the long-run it will not hurt him too much.
But what I meant with marionette is that Obama rather will not be that kind of person that just represents higher business interests and he won't be steered by those or his Vice President. From what I've gathered he is much more capable of pursuing politics that are closer to his heart, which again are closer to what helps the country as a whole. And he seems to be strong enough not to be lead, but to lead himself.
At the moment people often say Bush is not the one who is in power, but it's Cheney and the big interests of the oil companies and the military industrial complex. I don't think people could as easily say that about Obama.
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:


I'm curious as well, Carek. Why does he scare you?

What scares me and is currently preventing me from casting a vote his way is that he just doesn't seem to have the complete "walk the walk talk the talk" in Experience, not as much as I feel Hillary has. Not meaning to start a huge debate here, just my opinions. Obama is a great motivational speaker, don't get me wrong. He can move people and bring them together. He is very intelligent. I just feel he falls short in the experience category. He doesn't have enough political experience under his belt. Maybe I would not feel so scared if I knew who his running mate/VP would be. I just feel the position of the President of the USA requires someone who can do more than talk his/her way through issues & motivate people with great speeches and promising great ideas.

On the flip side I have my reservations about Hillary also. But she's been in the political arena for many more years than Barrack albeit mostly support or back-ground positions, like First Lady. But she's lived in the White House, she's lived in a Governor's mansion as well. And she has her own legal and political career under her belt. Again, I'd like to know who her running mate/VP would be. I think Hillary is very tough and she's got Bill who I think despite his personal embarrassment while in office, by her side is a great asset.

No way will I vote for McCain.

That's my dilemma.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
it's been over for a month now... why should that stop her now? she's gonna hang around until either a) obama goes spitzer on us, or b) she does enough damage to obama's campaign that mccain wins, thus setting it up for hill hill to run again in 2012.

ain't that the truth? mccain, guys. get ready for it. :laugh:
 
Back
Top Bottom