Irvine511 said:
1. calling Obama "kid"
2. claiming that Obama was injecting "race" into the campaign when it was the Clintons who did first
3. the wild distortion of Obama's comments on Reagan
4. the wild distortion of Obama's non-comments on Clinton
5. the wild distortion of what 100 "present" votes in the IL senate means out of over 4,000 cast
6. the use of a former president as a political hit man and his going far above and beyond the role of a political spouse
do you want more?
Well, let's talk about these issues. I want to know how you and others ended up where you ended up. I'll admit, I'm puzzled.
I think if there were ever an issue of hyper-sensitive "sacred cow" phenomenon, it would be with #1. Are you serious, Irvine? C'mon, that's pretty flimsy right there. Grasping on this one...
race into the campaign, where is the actual starting point of which you speak? Is it the Clintons talking about civil rights legislation actually having to be ushered in by a lawmaker and not a civil rights advocate? Is that not factual? Perhaps you mean a different starting point.
The Reagan comments were distorted but I don't take issue with Bill Clinton taking on his inclusion in them. It doesn't bother me that he'd defend himself. Especially if the implication is that Hillary wouldn't be able to unite the country because Bill didn't. It's good to see some balls from the Dems. What common thread do McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all have ? No balls. Almost gutless. I think it's going to take more toughness to battle Republicans than Obama is displaying. It's almost as if he and his supporters are begging for kid gloves.
The "present" votes stem from the argument about Iraq, IMO. Obama is out proclaiming himself an authority based on a speech he made in 2002. Fine, I give him credit for being right at the time. They were trying to show that more than a few times he decided to pass on a hard stance on a few important issues. So his speech is fair display but his votes are not? Are we supposed to just give him a pass. John Edwards took issue with this as well.
He's voted lock step with Hillary on the war since arriving in the Senate, so we're supposed to ignore that as well, and just give him his bye and laud his 5 year old speech. Just saying it's fair game. It's not a big deal to me, the issue, but it is fair game.
What difference does it make that he's the spouse? Did you outwardly decry the Clinton involvement in the Kerry campaign? What is the role of a "poltical spouse"? I think you've raised some interesting issues and things to talk more about but it's something like this that makes me shake my head.
You want him to just go away and let Obama win?
What's the difference between David Axelrod and Bill Clinton if they are both doing essentially the same thing? Is it unfair that Obama gets to utilize Oprah and Kerry etc. but if HIllary uses her husband, for goodness sake, it's over the line? Let's just admit something here, it's his status that bothers you. It's the weight of the attacks, not the attack, not the method.
I hope we can talk further about these issues because I'm just not seeing the big deal yet.