Danielle Gutierrez's Blog
About the Author
Thoughts on the candidates, the party, the media, and all that is Election 2008!
Page 1 of 2
| Next
I need to read up on HTML, here we're go again... It really is quite simple. If Obama gets the nomination, Hillary Clinton is Vice President, and if Clinton gets the nomination, Barack Obama is the Vice President. I cannot believe I hear people in the media, and on these blogs continuously discounting a "Dream Ticket". If you are scared, don't be, and if you are offended, or do not like the other, get over it. Because, if its Obama alone, or Clinton alone, the presidency will go to McCain.
Together we stand, divided we fall, remember that? Obama has a problem with blue-collar white Americans, the so-called Reagan Democrats. So, who in the world could he put on his ticket to help him with this problem? Yes, it really is that simple!
In discussing Hillary Clinton as a Vice Presidential nominee, I heard one MSNBC analyst (Matthews) say there is no way these Reagan Democrats could vote Republican in the general, if Obama ran without Clinton. I must say, I honestly do not know what kind of vendetta Matthews has with the Clintons, but to him I would only have to say that Reagan democrats are so-called for a reason.
If anyone saw that crazy woman shouting at the committee meeting on Saturday, saying that she would vote for McCain in 08 because of what the Democratic Party did to women, let me tell you, I know at least 10 other crazies, my mother and her sisters are apart of them.
And, it is not just women. If Obama wants the Hispanic vote, I would suggest putting Clinton on the ticket as well.
The sooner Democrats realize that we can have our cake and eat it too, then maybe will stop throwing it at each other. We are the party of identity politics, in one hand we have Obama's representative identity, and in the other hand there is Clinton's representative identity. Stop trying to figure out which one is better. Instead, lets put our hands together, and finally get some work done. It really is so much easier when we can use both!
Still a Clinton 08' supporter.
Whether on top or bottom, she'll work to get the job done because she's flexible that way.
Together we stand, divided we fall, remember that? Obama has a problem with blue-collar white Americans, the so-called Reagan Democrats. So, who in the world could he put on his ticket to help him with this problem? Yes, it really is that simple!
In discussing Hillary Clinton as a Vice Presidential nominee, I heard one MSNBC analyst (Matthews) say there is no way these Reagan Democrats could vote Republican in the general, if Obama ran without Clinton. I must say, I honestly do not know what kind of vendetta Matthews has with the Clintons, but to him I would only have to say that Reagan democrats are so-called for a reason.
If anyone saw that crazy woman shouting at the committee meeting on Saturday, saying that she would vote for McCain in 08 because of what the Democratic Party did to women, let me tell you, I know at least 10 other crazies, my mother and her sisters are apart of them.
And, it is not just women. If Obama wants the Hispanic vote, I would suggest putting Clinton on the ticket as well.
The sooner Democrats realize that we can have our cake and eat it too, then maybe will stop throwing it at each other. We are the party of identity politics, in one hand we have Obama's representative identity, and in the other hand there is Clinton's representative identity. Stop trying to figure out which one is better. Instead, lets put our hands together, and finally get some work done. It really is so much easier when we can use both!
Still a Clinton 08' supporter.
Whether on top or bottom, she'll work to get the job done because she's flexible that way.
Hillary Clinton with 51%, to Barack Obama's 49%.
I don't think the gas tax thing helped Clinton. People jumped off on Obama's talking points, on the gas tax being a gimmick. People DO say she has no chance of changing the way the gas profits get distributed, and that she is pandering. But, how do they expect Obama to do anything either? In Texas, we all get a tax-free weekend on certain retail items for "back to school." I've never heard anyone complain about that, or complain that the prices where being hiked up in accordance.
What Clinton wanted to do was to give us some relief, to show us on what side our leaders are with their votes, an acknowledgement of the problem, if you will. She would then make the oil companies pay for this tax break--and, how can some of us, Democrats, think that she would be stupid enough to let them raise the prices on us in other ways. Come on people.
Clinton was hurt by her stance on the SHORT TERM gas tax holiday because no one believed in real change.
No change will occur unless we change our own attitudes on what we can be accomplished, no matter who leads us.
A win is a win, and so we keep going.
Still Clinton 08', and more importantly, a
Democrat in 08'.
I don't think the gas tax thing helped Clinton. People jumped off on Obama's talking points, on the gas tax being a gimmick. People DO say she has no chance of changing the way the gas profits get distributed, and that she is pandering. But, how do they expect Obama to do anything either? In Texas, we all get a tax-free weekend on certain retail items for "back to school." I've never heard anyone complain about that, or complain that the prices where being hiked up in accordance.
What Clinton wanted to do was to give us some relief, to show us on what side our leaders are with their votes, an acknowledgement of the problem, if you will. She would then make the oil companies pay for this tax break--and, how can some of us, Democrats, think that she would be stupid enough to let them raise the prices on us in other ways. Come on people.
Clinton was hurt by her stance on the SHORT TERM gas tax holiday because no one believed in real change.
No change will occur unless we change our own attitudes on what we can be accomplished, no matter who leads us.
A win is a win, and so we keep going.
Still Clinton 08', and more importantly, a
Democrat in 08'.
MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, and he was hammering Clinton on her windfall profit tax increase on the oil companies. All of us who are continually feeling the pain at the pump, I would imagine, think this is a good idea. However, as Matthews so put it, does she (Clinton) really think she can acheive this while in office, or is she just pandering--she must know she could never do this?
Since when did standing up for doing the right thing always have to be pointed to pandering? Since when is doing the right thing viewed as impossible because we cannot see a change or are affraid to be told no; especially in a country where impossibles are made possible? Clinton may not be able to do a "presto-change-o," but at least I know she'll keep trying despite the odds.
Ready for the fight,
Still Clinton 08'
Since when did standing up for doing the right thing always have to be pointed to pandering? Since when is doing the right thing viewed as impossible because we cannot see a change or are affraid to be told no; especially in a country where impossibles are made possible? Clinton may not be able to do a "presto-change-o," but at least I know she'll keep trying despite the odds.
Ready for the fight,
Still Clinton 08'
I actually wrote this sometime ago on Hillary Clinton's website on Jan. 7, 2008, just wanted to post it here too, again.
I have been paying more attention to the coverage of these primary elections a lot more since my vacation break from college. About a year ago, until these past few weeks, Hillary Clinton was certainly perceived as the inevitable democratic candidate, but we all hopefully now know, "there ain't no such thing."
I look at a candidate like Barack Obama and he truly embodies everything a democrat could possibly want in their president--except one, experience. We all know our country is in desperate need of restoration, abroad and here at home--especially restoration in the politics of government. With that being said then, Obama is right, we must believe in, and demand change. However, my gut feeling tells me the person with the capability to deliver on that change, in Washington and around the World, yes, on day one, is no doubt Hillary Clinton. Why her?
America has always seemed to move toward the mentality of always being on the hunt for the bigger, better deal. Sometimes it works, and sometimes the risk bites us in the "you know where." (i.e. Iraq, dependency on foreign oil, our reluctance to help those countries that cannot provide us with incentive to do so) What happened to the right and best resolution, with a more definite and certain outcome for the future? Experience does matter--a lot! Would you take any great sports legend's first career season starts, or their remaining legacies?
Obama has made himself known to the American public, and his time will most certainly come, but this time calls for Hillary.
With the political media coverage all but betting the farm on Hillary being dead in the water, I believe it is imperative that she acknowledge the force with which the Obama campaign has struck its chord. There is no need to attack that which should be accepted. We have found in Barack Obama our country's inspiration point, a change, a message of hope, and a motivational movement toward new beginnings. However, there invade real and pressing problems to our country at this very moment. It is not scare tactics, it is unfortunately the reality that we have been led into by the Bush administration's destruction and lack of production. While Senator Obama has invoked, provoked, and demaded the people's motivation toward a "change we can believe in," the difference we all must recognize and realize is, the presidency does not stop with inspiration and motivation. We must--we must, elect a president that can produce our inspiration's and our motivation's demanded outcome. This is change realized and change justified.
Experience does matter, and hopefully Senator Barack Obama's candidacy this time around will remind us so. I believe Hillary Clinton's fight is strong and steadfast, and the kids that need to "comeback" are us.
And still,
Clinton 08'
I have been paying more attention to the coverage of these primary elections a lot more since my vacation break from college. About a year ago, until these past few weeks, Hillary Clinton was certainly perceived as the inevitable democratic candidate, but we all hopefully now know, "there ain't no such thing."
I look at a candidate like Barack Obama and he truly embodies everything a democrat could possibly want in their president--except one, experience. We all know our country is in desperate need of restoration, abroad and here at home--especially restoration in the politics of government. With that being said then, Obama is right, we must believe in, and demand change. However, my gut feeling tells me the person with the capability to deliver on that change, in Washington and around the World, yes, on day one, is no doubt Hillary Clinton. Why her?
America has always seemed to move toward the mentality of always being on the hunt for the bigger, better deal. Sometimes it works, and sometimes the risk bites us in the "you know where." (i.e. Iraq, dependency on foreign oil, our reluctance to help those countries that cannot provide us with incentive to do so) What happened to the right and best resolution, with a more definite and certain outcome for the future? Experience does matter--a lot! Would you take any great sports legend's first career season starts, or their remaining legacies?
Obama has made himself known to the American public, and his time will most certainly come, but this time calls for Hillary.
With the political media coverage all but betting the farm on Hillary being dead in the water, I believe it is imperative that she acknowledge the force with which the Obama campaign has struck its chord. There is no need to attack that which should be accepted. We have found in Barack Obama our country's inspiration point, a change, a message of hope, and a motivational movement toward new beginnings. However, there invade real and pressing problems to our country at this very moment. It is not scare tactics, it is unfortunately the reality that we have been led into by the Bush administration's destruction and lack of production. While Senator Obama has invoked, provoked, and demaded the people's motivation toward a "change we can believe in," the difference we all must recognize and realize is, the presidency does not stop with inspiration and motivation. We must--we must, elect a president that can produce our inspiration's and our motivation's demanded outcome. This is change realized and change justified.
Experience does matter, and hopefully Senator Barack Obama's candidacy this time around will remind us so. I believe Hillary Clinton's fight is strong and steadfast, and the kids that need to "comeback" are us.
And still,
Clinton 08'
Remember back when we were all wondering who would run against George W. in 2004? Other than Kerry and Edwards, and the usual gang, I remember how a lot of democrats actually marveled at the idea of Hillary Clinton. Well, as we all know, she said no. Maybe it was too soon, maybe she was too divisive, or maybe she just wasn’t ready. So, we said, all right Kerry/Edwards it is, and now, so much for that. So what do we suppose Sen. Clinton has been doing since 2004? I would say she has been positioning herself as president this whole time; not just president of the democrats, but she has moved herself toward the middle of partisan politics to become president of all America.
I think it’s funny how I hear a lot of people, who vote against Hillary Clinton, say that she’s been in Washington for 16 years but has accomplished virtually nothing, so we need a change, we need a new kind of politics, we need hope, and so, we need Sen. Obama! I wonder if these people ever listened to what Sen. Clinton’s colleagues have had to say about her ability to work against divisive partisan lines in the Senate, I wonder if these people were just as negative toward Sen. Clinton when the possibility of her running in 2004 came up, I wonder if these people ever did like Sen. Clinton or all the Clintons at all, and I wonder if these people were even paying any attention until now.
But please don’t get me wrong; I think the fact that Sen. Obama has brought in millions of new voters to this process is indeed, absolutely amazing. But, I cannot help but wonder where the heck these people were for the past eight years. Some will say they needed to be inspired, and that they were too cynical and sick and tired of the “usual” Washington politics. And, Sen. Obama brought them a new sense of hope that did motivate then into the political process. To these people I can only and simply say, good for you.
Because in my mind, Clinton does not equal Bush, we were better off during the Clinton administration than we have been in a long time, Bill Clinton’s indiscretion had nothing to do with his capability (or Hillary’s) in running the country, it was always going to be harder for Hillary Clinton to be taken seriously in her run for the presidency, I do believe Hillary Clinton to be incredibly brilliant, and call me crazy, but I do believe Sen. Clinton to be sincere in her quest to work for me.
Because, in my humble opinion, I would say that Sen. Obama would have benefited greatly if he had watched a bit of Sen. Clinton’s dance moves, before he decided he wanted to cut in.
It isn’t entitlement that I am pointing to with Sen. Clinton, but it is more about loyalty and blessed assurance. Which is something I think people will seek in Sen. McCain if Sen. Clinton is not nominated.
If Sen. Obama brought you here, by all means dance with him, but until our swan song officially ends, I’ll be dancing the political night away, with a Clinton.
Sincerely,
Still Clinton 08’ Read More »
I think it’s funny how I hear a lot of people, who vote against Hillary Clinton, say that she’s been in Washington for 16 years but has accomplished virtually nothing, so we need a change, we need a new kind of politics, we need hope, and so, we need Sen. Obama! I wonder if these people ever listened to what Sen. Clinton’s colleagues have had to say about her ability to work against divisive partisan lines in the Senate, I wonder if these people were just as negative toward Sen. Clinton when the possibility of her running in 2004 came up, I wonder if these people ever did like Sen. Clinton or all the Clintons at all, and I wonder if these people were even paying any attention until now.
But please don’t get me wrong; I think the fact that Sen. Obama has brought in millions of new voters to this process is indeed, absolutely amazing. But, I cannot help but wonder where the heck these people were for the past eight years. Some will say they needed to be inspired, and that they were too cynical and sick and tired of the “usual” Washington politics. And, Sen. Obama brought them a new sense of hope that did motivate then into the political process. To these people I can only and simply say, good for you.
Because in my mind, Clinton does not equal Bush, we were better off during the Clinton administration than we have been in a long time, Bill Clinton’s indiscretion had nothing to do with his capability (or Hillary’s) in running the country, it was always going to be harder for Hillary Clinton to be taken seriously in her run for the presidency, I do believe Hillary Clinton to be incredibly brilliant, and call me crazy, but I do believe Sen. Clinton to be sincere in her quest to work for me.
Because, in my humble opinion, I would say that Sen. Obama would have benefited greatly if he had watched a bit of Sen. Clinton’s dance moves, before he decided he wanted to cut in.
It isn’t entitlement that I am pointing to with Sen. Clinton, but it is more about loyalty and blessed assurance. Which is something I think people will seek in Sen. McCain if Sen. Clinton is not nominated.
If Sen. Obama brought you here, by all means dance with him, but until our swan song officially ends, I’ll be dancing the political night away, with a Clinton.
Sincerely,
Still Clinton 08’ Read More »
The capability of substance and body will always out weigh the popularity of rhetoric and face.
Who is stronger on foreign policy?
As far as foreign policy experience and know-how is concerned, I believe Iraq needs a partner in a commander in chief who is skilled in democratic policy and history. Because if we want to pull our troops out immediately, our commander in chief is going to have to give special and extra attention to this love child. I think we will need our commander in chief to be like a PARENT that pushes his or her child to become more successful. The two democratic presidential candidates credentials and potentials on foreign policy are close in my mind, only due to Obama’s outspoken ness against the war, initially. Sen. Obama is a very good candidate for the nomination, but I must insist that Sen. Clinton’s overall record in dealing with adverse situations, trumps Obama’s perceived potential at this moment. Why? Read More »
Who is stronger on foreign policy?
As far as foreign policy experience and know-how is concerned, I believe Iraq needs a partner in a commander in chief who is skilled in democratic policy and history. Because if we want to pull our troops out immediately, our commander in chief is going to have to give special and extra attention to this love child. I think we will need our commander in chief to be like a PARENT that pushes his or her child to become more successful. The two democratic presidential candidates credentials and potentials on foreign policy are close in my mind, only due to Obama’s outspoken ness against the war, initially. Sen. Obama is a very good candidate for the nomination, but I must insist that Sen. Clinton’s overall record in dealing with adverse situations, trumps Obama’s perceived potential at this moment. Why? Read More »
Wants to hear OUR voices, wants us to get passed OUR divisions and find common ground, and who wants to be an advocate for OUR rights and needs--is still out there.
Because, the candidate who made a speech to the American people, pleading with us to get past our own stereotypes, just made the most hypocritical stereotype of all.
But, this candidate is not to be criticized, due to the "fact" that some of us just do not get how "in touch" this candidate really is.
At least have the guts to say it to their faces, because, at least, that would be more in line with the "new" politics this candidate has been touting.
This candidate should have simply apologized; a clean cut that would either be accepted or not. What some of us will not do is to continue dancing with this candidate on his own advantageous, speaking terms.
I thought about not commenting on this issue, but call me hard headed, I just do not like be told what I can and cannot understand.
Shame on whom? That is for us to decide, not you Sen. Obama.
“Don’t tell me” . . . what I don’t and/or cannot understand.
Proud to be supporting,
Still Clinton 08’
Because, the candidate who made a speech to the American people, pleading with us to get past our own stereotypes, just made the most hypocritical stereotype of all.
But, this candidate is not to be criticized, due to the "fact" that some of us just do not get how "in touch" this candidate really is.
At least have the guts to say it to their faces, because, at least, that would be more in line with the "new" politics this candidate has been touting.
This candidate should have simply apologized; a clean cut that would either be accepted or not. What some of us will not do is to continue dancing with this candidate on his own advantageous, speaking terms.
I thought about not commenting on this issue, but call me hard headed, I just do not like be told what I can and cannot understand.
Shame on whom? That is for us to decide, not you Sen. Obama.
“Don’t tell me” . . . what I don’t and/or cannot understand.
Proud to be supporting,
Still Clinton 08’
"Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more, and understand the world better than Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain" --Barack Obama
My opinion:
It's statements like these that make me confident that I have chosen wisely in Sen. Clinton. It is truly remarkable how we always and only question her ambition, even to the point where you have Obama saying on the campaign trail that he's not running because of some long held ambition (as Clinton). Give me a break! --B/C Sen. Clinton sure ain't getting one.
Still Clinton 08'
My opinion:
It's statements like these that make me confident that I have chosen wisely in Sen. Clinton. It is truly remarkable how we always and only question her ambition, even to the point where you have Obama saying on the campaign trail that he's not running because of some long held ambition (as Clinton). Give me a break! --B/C Sen. Clinton sure ain't getting one.
Still Clinton 08'
If Chris Mathews asked Sen. Obama on his college tour, why he voted for the Dick Cheney Energy bill, the one that gave tax breaks to oil companies? I only saw exerts from the interview.
Just curious.
Just curious.
On Jim Cramer's show Mad Money on CNBC? If not, you really should, I didn't understand a word she said (I'm like McCain in that way), but I was fixated by her quick and percise answers to Cramer's questions. The economy's an extremely important issue, so this might be something you guys want to check out.
Still Clinton 08'
Still Clinton 08'
We know the country needs a leader who will provide oversight in all areas.
Between John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, who do you think meets that qualification?
Sen. Obama said that he would be a more, hands off-type leader. I, like many, do prefer hands off type leaders, but these leaders are usually not very effective when things are quite fragile, and in need careful attention. These types of leaders are usually very well liked. Though, I think we can all admit that when it comes to playing nice and feeling friendly with co-workers and bosses, we tend to be less critical and scrutinizing of each other. I am saying Sen. Obama is not the most qualified, and that he needs more time. But, compared to John McCain, and anybody else, I would pick Obama any day of the week. As I feel he is No. 2, in line behind Hillary Clinton.
As for Hillary . . .
Sen. Clinton will be, as some say, "all up in" everyone's business. She will hold you accountable, she will be on your ass, and if you can't do the job effectively and efficiently, she will, because she has that "anything you can do, I can do better spirit," and because, well, she has no friends. J/K, I think? And, before those of you start with how “awful” she lead on healthcare, I do think she learned a lesson from the way she bravely pushed healthcare in the 90s, so you can just chalk that up within the experience factor. And please, let’s remember, the Clinton’s are not the Bush’s, I cannot believe how ofen I see that reference cited as a reason for dismissing Hillary Clinton. And, while I do realize that Sen. Clinton seems like she could be super stubborn, I would hope people would realize and remember that she IS a populist, and that she DOES often seem to be ahead of the curve among our political leaders.
With Sen. Obama . . .
Barack Obama says that he wants to fix Washington, change the way politics is done, and unite the country. I really believe that Obama can do that, but I see his attitude really being effective only after Hillary helps out first. I think she would be more effective in rebuilding and setting up a framework necessary for the kind of action we all want to see concretely seep in�"this is where Sen. Obama steps in an American President.
Folks, Hillary Clinton has been in the trench warfare of Washington, and many of us hold it against her. But, imagine what she really could do for us if she were President�"you CAN be practical AND dream big too!
Oversight by the people?
As far as oversight by the American people over who is President goes, I think we will ALL be more judgmental, critical, and scrutinizing of Hillary Clinton by far. Hillary is like that person we all know who keeps on saying that they know the correct answer, over and over and over again, and then when he/she is finally given the chance to prove it, we all secretly route to find something wrong, because the truth is, you just don’t like her. How many times have you wanted to prove your parents wrong, and how often have you succeeded? Imagine that parent being Hillary Clinton in the White House. The pressure on her would be greater because of her claims on being right, and her air of being the best. But, the good thing is, the Hillary Clinton we love to hate and hate to love, eats, sleeps, and drinks on criticism, scrutiny, and pressure.
A sum up of how I see these candidates:
Sen. McCain is the highly Honorable American, but he is not in touch with our voices. Barack Obama is The Rookie Sensation, who shouldn't bite off more than he can chew--let's not forget about Sen. Obama's ambition too. And Hillary Clinton is what I would call Primetime!
A Comeback Kid is a Comeback Kid!
And don't forget that you too can comeback Kids, back to . . .
Clinton 08'
I’d say she is a smarty-pants, but nobody likes those people; I’d say she’s been working “diligently” on that issue.
Between John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, who do you think meets that qualification?
Sen. Obama said that he would be a more, hands off-type leader. I, like many, do prefer hands off type leaders, but these leaders are usually not very effective when things are quite fragile, and in need careful attention. These types of leaders are usually very well liked. Though, I think we can all admit that when it comes to playing nice and feeling friendly with co-workers and bosses, we tend to be less critical and scrutinizing of each other. I am saying Sen. Obama is not the most qualified, and that he needs more time. But, compared to John McCain, and anybody else, I would pick Obama any day of the week. As I feel he is No. 2, in line behind Hillary Clinton.
As for Hillary . . .
Sen. Clinton will be, as some say, "all up in" everyone's business. She will hold you accountable, she will be on your ass, and if you can't do the job effectively and efficiently, she will, because she has that "anything you can do, I can do better spirit," and because, well, she has no friends. J/K, I think? And, before those of you start with how “awful” she lead on healthcare, I do think she learned a lesson from the way she bravely pushed healthcare in the 90s, so you can just chalk that up within the experience factor. And please, let’s remember, the Clinton’s are not the Bush’s, I cannot believe how ofen I see that reference cited as a reason for dismissing Hillary Clinton. And, while I do realize that Sen. Clinton seems like she could be super stubborn, I would hope people would realize and remember that she IS a populist, and that she DOES often seem to be ahead of the curve among our political leaders.
With Sen. Obama . . .
Barack Obama says that he wants to fix Washington, change the way politics is done, and unite the country. I really believe that Obama can do that, but I see his attitude really being effective only after Hillary helps out first. I think she would be more effective in rebuilding and setting up a framework necessary for the kind of action we all want to see concretely seep in�"this is where Sen. Obama steps in an American President.
Folks, Hillary Clinton has been in the trench warfare of Washington, and many of us hold it against her. But, imagine what she really could do for us if she were President�"you CAN be practical AND dream big too!
Oversight by the people?
As far as oversight by the American people over who is President goes, I think we will ALL be more judgmental, critical, and scrutinizing of Hillary Clinton by far. Hillary is like that person we all know who keeps on saying that they know the correct answer, over and over and over again, and then when he/she is finally given the chance to prove it, we all secretly route to find something wrong, because the truth is, you just don’t like her. How many times have you wanted to prove your parents wrong, and how often have you succeeded? Imagine that parent being Hillary Clinton in the White House. The pressure on her would be greater because of her claims on being right, and her air of being the best. But, the good thing is, the Hillary Clinton we love to hate and hate to love, eats, sleeps, and drinks on criticism, scrutiny, and pressure.
A sum up of how I see these candidates:
Sen. McCain is the highly Honorable American, but he is not in touch with our voices. Barack Obama is The Rookie Sensation, who shouldn't bite off more than he can chew--let's not forget about Sen. Obama's ambition too. And Hillary Clinton is what I would call Primetime!
A Comeback Kid is a Comeback Kid!
And don't forget that you too can comeback Kids, back to . . .
Clinton 08'
I’d say she is a smarty-pants, but nobody likes those people; I’d say she’s been working “diligently” on that issue.
If the Democratic Race kept going. Would you blame Hillary if she kept going and Sen. Barack Obama lost, while Sen. Hillary Clinton turns out to win the popular vote, and Sen. Obama then wins in pledged delegates by about a 100 or less. Meanwhile, the remaining uncommitted 250 super delegates or so, that haven't committed by July 1st, eventually break in favor of Sen. Clinton 65/35, due to her having done overwhelmingly well in the remaining contests.
To Clinton Supporters I would then say:
Would you call the outcome of the Dem. primary a stolen election if a lot of the state caucuses that went in favor of Sen. Obama chose John McCain as president in the General Election? Sen. McCain would have the potential to become president by winning Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, and maybe Pennsylvania, not needing all I think. Could your candidate then, Clinton, have an argument that she could have won those states?
Let lying DOGS "lie", if they want to. I still want more of the truth from all these candidates running in this most important election.
At this moment I adamantly support Sen. Clinton, but to add, I am trying to decipher through the possibilities. I want us to be fair, thorough, and sure as hell, not blindsidedly stupid.
Forever, however, I am
Still Hillary Clinton 08'
To Clinton Supporters I would then say:
Would you call the outcome of the Dem. primary a stolen election if a lot of the state caucuses that went in favor of Sen. Obama chose John McCain as president in the General Election? Sen. McCain would have the potential to become president by winning Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, and maybe Pennsylvania, not needing all I think. Could your candidate then, Clinton, have an argument that she could have won those states?
Let lying DOGS "lie", if they want to. I still want more of the truth from all these candidates running in this most important election.
At this moment I adamantly support Sen. Clinton, but to add, I am trying to decipher through the possibilities. I want us to be fair, thorough, and sure as hell, not blindsidedly stupid.
Forever, however, I am
Still Hillary Clinton 08'
Is she? BY THE , well you deicide if you so choose to agree. I would not want to influence opinion on any aspect. My question is as follows . . .
Is Hillary Clinton getting swiftboated?
She may be a smarty pants, but I'd say, she's been working diligently on this issue.
You must know,
Still Clinton 08'
Is Hillary Clinton getting swiftboated?
She may be a smarty pants, but I'd say, she's been working diligently on this issue.
You must know,
Still Clinton 08'
What does it mean when the other competitor's supporters want you to quit? A true leader will be more resilient, and better prepared for the championship contest, having gone through a rigorous preliminary test. I'd rather play a good opponent that gives it all he/she's got, rather than play someone who gives up when there really is no need to.
To those of us who follow sporting competitions . . .
What would you do if your sports team forfeited because the other was tired or injured? To many of us, we couldn't even conceive of that, you find a weakness and you exploit it.
How many big games have you seen go to the wire? And, in those games, if you won or lost, did you not feel only admiration and respect for the other side's effort? Does a victory in such a game not taste sweeter, more satisfying, and more legitimate in the end?
I must continue by remarking that it is usually the team that claims victory too prematurely that winds up being blindsided. Coming to mind: Pats v. Giants, G.W. on Iraq--Mission Accomplished, Michigan v. North Carolina, Duke v. Kentucky, The Boston Red Sox's World Series, The Play--Cal v. Stanford, and, lest we forget, the Clinton camp in 2007.
If one of these candidates comes to the nomination through a full contest, formidable opponent against formidable opponent, then we can rest assured we have nominated the right choice. I also feel that either side will be more willing to support the other without the prior reservations that come with ending a contest too soon. What's there to be scared of, certainly not Senator John McCain’s platform, right?
Don’t be scared, be prepared.
Still Clinton 08’
To those of us who follow sporting competitions . . .
What would you do if your sports team forfeited because the other was tired or injured? To many of us, we couldn't even conceive of that, you find a weakness and you exploit it.
How many big games have you seen go to the wire? And, in those games, if you won or lost, did you not feel only admiration and respect for the other side's effort? Does a victory in such a game not taste sweeter, more satisfying, and more legitimate in the end?
I must continue by remarking that it is usually the team that claims victory too prematurely that winds up being blindsided. Coming to mind: Pats v. Giants, G.W. on Iraq--Mission Accomplished, Michigan v. North Carolina, Duke v. Kentucky, The Boston Red Sox's World Series, The Play--Cal v. Stanford, and, lest we forget, the Clinton camp in 2007.
If one of these candidates comes to the nomination through a full contest, formidable opponent against formidable opponent, then we can rest assured we have nominated the right choice. I also feel that either side will be more willing to support the other without the prior reservations that come with ending a contest too soon. What's there to be scared of, certainly not Senator John McCain’s platform, right?
Don’t be scared, be prepared.
Still Clinton 08’
In what you have seen and heard lately, what does that say about them? A difference in their FUND-amentals? Or should it be about how WE DECIDE between those two: Clinton v. Obama What is Unity?
The question is ours, and in math, theirs as well. (Totally not dissing the superdelagates;)
A: Who would you commit to? Is it about loyalty or certainty?
Though, at this time, I must commit to Hillary, I find it hard to commit to Barack. We all know Barack wouldn’t pick Hillary. Right? Thank you very much; Nancy Pelosi. & for Florida and Michigan too. I suppose Hillary Clinton's not young enough either?
It's about the PEOPLE, and why shouldn't we think so!
IS IT THAT Serious, I think, not really? But, another question, . . . .
I am still, Clinton 08'. Though, we could possibly have 16 years of good leadership!.
But, things don't work out like that do they?
The question is ours, and in math, theirs as well. (Totally not dissing the superdelagates;)
A: Who would you commit to? Is it about loyalty or certainty?
Though, at this time, I must commit to Hillary, I find it hard to commit to Barack. We all know Barack wouldn’t pick Hillary. Right? Thank you very much; Nancy Pelosi. & for Florida and Michigan too. I suppose Hillary Clinton's not young enough either?
It's about the PEOPLE, and why shouldn't we think so!
IS IT THAT Serious, I think, not really? But, another question, . . . .
I am still, Clinton 08'. Though, we could possibly have 16 years of good leadership!.
But, things don't work out like that do they?
Senator Barack Obama=Opportunist. Governor Bill Richardson=Opportunist. All the democratic presidential candidates=Opportunists. But, Senator Hillary Clinton=monster who will do anything to win because she is so rightfully entitled. Could somebody please explain this point of view to me?
The Clinton's provided our country and some individuals with great opportunities, is it truly that inconceivable that they would expect a bit of loyalty?
I am biased, but how come it's called entitlement when she likens herself as the best candidate for the job. Would you sell yourself short in a job interview, would you give up because people are worried the sky is falling and can't handle their emotions, would you deny yourself the opportunity of a lifetime? It isn't just her; people do support Senator Clinton as well.
The democrats do need to be unified against a strong John McCain, but leaving Florida and Michigan out--no matter whom it benefits--is simply naive. Why not let it play out, we may just come to find out more about each of our candidates, in what he or she would do for our country, something I think we the people, are indeed, rightfully entitled to knowing. And gee, what a problem that would be?
If this is truly a democratic year, then why are we so scared? If Senator Obama is the nominee, I will support him, but if it comes at the expense of having voters disenfranchised in two states of our union, I will write in Senator Clinton's name. Not having Florida and Michigan weigh in is not a problem that voters are simply going to forget about, as some in the media have pushed--are they worried too? I think if we let the process proceed we will come to elect our nominee in a more respectful, accurate, and perhaps, liberating manner.
My loyalty to Senator Clinton is not blind, it is just. She seemed like the best candidate for the job in 2004, and she has only come to strengthen my assessment of her with her time in the Senate, as well as with her candidacy. Each one of us has room for improvement because as we should know, nobody's perfect, though in Senator Clinton's case, I would suggest some of us are more perfectly prepared.
Still Clinton 08'
The Clinton's provided our country and some individuals with great opportunities, is it truly that inconceivable that they would expect a bit of loyalty?
I am biased, but how come it's called entitlement when she likens herself as the best candidate for the job. Would you sell yourself short in a job interview, would you give up because people are worried the sky is falling and can't handle their emotions, would you deny yourself the opportunity of a lifetime? It isn't just her; people do support Senator Clinton as well.
The democrats do need to be unified against a strong John McCain, but leaving Florida and Michigan out--no matter whom it benefits--is simply naive. Why not let it play out, we may just come to find out more about each of our candidates, in what he or she would do for our country, something I think we the people, are indeed, rightfully entitled to knowing. And gee, what a problem that would be?
If this is truly a democratic year, then why are we so scared? If Senator Obama is the nominee, I will support him, but if it comes at the expense of having voters disenfranchised in two states of our union, I will write in Senator Clinton's name. Not having Florida and Michigan weigh in is not a problem that voters are simply going to forget about, as some in the media have pushed--are they worried too? I think if we let the process proceed we will come to elect our nominee in a more respectful, accurate, and perhaps, liberating manner.
My loyalty to Senator Clinton is not blind, it is just. She seemed like the best candidate for the job in 2004, and she has only come to strengthen my assessment of her with her time in the Senate, as well as with her candidacy. Each one of us has room for improvement because as we should know, nobody's perfect, though in Senator Clinton's case, I would suggest some of us are more perfectly prepared.
Still Clinton 08'
The sky is falling Ladies and Gentlemen, unless you wake up and realize that YOU decide your future. Hillary Clinton can't do it alone, and neither can Barack Obama. Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are not prominent enough voices, in my mind, to weigh in on this contest--they've done nothing for Florida and Michigan. Vote your conscience now, whom ever you choose, and will be cool later.
Still Clinton 08'
I say she is smarter, but no one likes a smarty-pants. I'd say she's been working diligently on that issue.
Still Clinton 08'
I say she is smarter, but no one likes a smarty-pants. I'd say she's been working diligently on that issue.
My father is a Methodist minister in Fort Worth, TX. I remember when I was younger we went to a dying church that had an all white congregation of about 50 people. This church was situated in a heavily growing Latino community. My father was brought to the church to see what he could do to reach out and get the community involved. He worked tirelessly, setting up English as second language classes, tutoring programs within the church, and he even began preaching a bilingual sermon. Along with these things, at every turn, he encouraged the established white members to get involved in their community as well. Some did enthusiastically, some needed provoking and inspiration, and some could not accept an encroaching culture.
In particular, I recall the first time my father implemented the Spanish language into the church service. After the English sermon was over, my Dad began the Spanish version. Not a couple of minutes later, I saw an older white couple, who I had fond relations with, get up in disgust, and walk right out of that church, as my father continued his sermon in Spanish.
Now, by that couple walking out of that church, that was their prerogative. Was it in part racist, and discriminatory, or unwilling? Absolutely. In my opinion I would have to say that that couple's familiarity of life was being challenged, and one, I think, could grasp onto an understanding of their struggle to evolve. In as much as the Rev. Wright, racism was embedded into their lives. And, it is up to us, as a people, to influence them in the ways of tolerance and of love. However, the difference is, this couple did not claim to be a moral authority to a congregation. They did not preach their hate, or political views (who can tell the difference) from behind the pulpit, they did not use derogatory language from behind the pulpit, they did not make derogatory gestures from behind the pulpit, and they did not put forth their views for 20 years onto the life of a presidential candidate.
Here's my point about all of this. When a person is true to his or herself, and whether that self is good or bad, these kinds of people speak up. And, yesterday as I watched Senator Obama deliver his speech, the one part that stood glaringly out to me, was the part where he said he had heard the Rev. make comments in church before that he did not agree with. As well, that he was sure that many of us in the community of the United States of America had heard our pastors and spiritual leaders express similar unagreeable statements before. To this, I must emphatically say no I have not, and I must assuredly declare that if I had I would have heard such statements, not only would I have walked out of the church, but I would have made my voice known to the pastor as well as, to the congregation. This is the part of Senator Obama's story that I believe will not ring true with these so-called "blue-collar" workers, and in my opinion should readily be question by every who supports Senator Obama. There is nothing wrong with getting to the real truth. It doesn't mean Senator Obama has to through his minister, or that we have to throw Senator Obama under the bus, over the bus, or through it. By demanding the ultimate insight into why Senator Obama did not speak up to his long-time spiritual leader, we are then blocking the political curtain from being drawn right before our eyes.
Senator Obama’s speech has been touted as the most important speech given by a politician in 50 years. His speech is seen as a necessary discussion on race, and for that, I will blatantly give my support. Though, the one admiration of Senator Obama’s speech that I cannot condone is that this speech took great courage and guts for him to deliver. The only reason this speech was given was because he got into trouble over damning remarks made by a confidant. I would be giving him all the accolades in the world had this speech come sooner, or had this speech been spawned out of a selfless cause. This speech was necessary in so much as to keep Senator Obama’s campaign afloat. Therefore I still await a true “sermon” on race in this country, by someone who has nothing to benefit from it, but one, whose intentions only serve to move our country towards being a more accepting and tolerable society.
Senator Obama needs to really hit home that he had poor judgment, and was not a leader when it counted. And yes, this one counted. The voters who have felt the need to take a step back from Senator Obama because of the issue should not be seen as racists if they decide to vote for someone else. Senator Obama has tried to do a political dance in my eyes, something in which people tend not to appreciate. In an election between to viable democratic candidates, who are virtually the same on all the major issues, many people will look to the character of the human being. Well, I must say, I’m not exactly enamored with what I see.
In particular, I recall the first time my father implemented the Spanish language into the church service. After the English sermon was over, my Dad began the Spanish version. Not a couple of minutes later, I saw an older white couple, who I had fond relations with, get up in disgust, and walk right out of that church, as my father continued his sermon in Spanish.
Now, by that couple walking out of that church, that was their prerogative. Was it in part racist, and discriminatory, or unwilling? Absolutely. In my opinion I would have to say that that couple's familiarity of life was being challenged, and one, I think, could grasp onto an understanding of their struggle to evolve. In as much as the Rev. Wright, racism was embedded into their lives. And, it is up to us, as a people, to influence them in the ways of tolerance and of love. However, the difference is, this couple did not claim to be a moral authority to a congregation. They did not preach their hate, or political views (who can tell the difference) from behind the pulpit, they did not use derogatory language from behind the pulpit, they did not make derogatory gestures from behind the pulpit, and they did not put forth their views for 20 years onto the life of a presidential candidate.
Here's my point about all of this. When a person is true to his or herself, and whether that self is good or bad, these kinds of people speak up. And, yesterday as I watched Senator Obama deliver his speech, the one part that stood glaringly out to me, was the part where he said he had heard the Rev. make comments in church before that he did not agree with. As well, that he was sure that many of us in the community of the United States of America had heard our pastors and spiritual leaders express similar unagreeable statements before. To this, I must emphatically say no I have not, and I must assuredly declare that if I had I would have heard such statements, not only would I have walked out of the church, but I would have made my voice known to the pastor as well as, to the congregation. This is the part of Senator Obama's story that I believe will not ring true with these so-called "blue-collar" workers, and in my opinion should readily be question by every who supports Senator Obama. There is nothing wrong with getting to the real truth. It doesn't mean Senator Obama has to through his minister, or that we have to throw Senator Obama under the bus, over the bus, or through it. By demanding the ultimate insight into why Senator Obama did not speak up to his long-time spiritual leader, we are then blocking the political curtain from being drawn right before our eyes.
Senator Obama’s speech has been touted as the most important speech given by a politician in 50 years. His speech is seen as a necessary discussion on race, and for that, I will blatantly give my support. Though, the one admiration of Senator Obama’s speech that I cannot condone is that this speech took great courage and guts for him to deliver. The only reason this speech was given was because he got into trouble over damning remarks made by a confidant. I would be giving him all the accolades in the world had this speech come sooner, or had this speech been spawned out of a selfless cause. This speech was necessary in so much as to keep Senator Obama’s campaign afloat. Therefore I still await a true “sermon” on race in this country, by someone who has nothing to benefit from it, but one, whose intentions only serve to move our country towards being a more accepting and tolerable society.
Senator Obama needs to really hit home that he had poor judgment, and was not a leader when it counted. And yes, this one counted. The voters who have felt the need to take a step back from Senator Obama because of the issue should not be seen as racists if they decide to vote for someone else. Senator Obama has tried to do a political dance in my eyes, something in which people tend not to appreciate. In an election between to viable democratic candidates, who are virtually the same on all the major issues, many people will look to the character of the human being. Well, I must say, I’m not exactly enamored with what I see.
MSNBC Report of NY Times article about Senator Clinton trying to get Florida and Michigan seated.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697622
Shouldn't the Obama campaign be working with the Clinton campaign to get Florida and Michigan worked out as soon as possible? Having a redo may benefit the Clinton campaign in the end, but there is no question in my mind that there is only one right solution to this mess. Florida and Michigan are considered more independent, "swing type" states, therefore wouldn't it be beneficial to determine the outcome of such a close race by including the common people of our country, as well as its super delegates. The Obama campaign accuses the Clinton campaign of doing anything necessary to win, but it seems the other way around at this moment. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot? I bet the naysayers would be pleading a different toon. Funny thing is, their reasons would be the same, and the people are right. If the voices of Florida and Michigan's peoples are not heard, rest assured, it was for political reasons.
Still Clinton 08'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697622
Shouldn't the Obama campaign be working with the Clinton campaign to get Florida and Michigan worked out as soon as possible? Having a redo may benefit the Clinton campaign in the end, but there is no question in my mind that there is only one right solution to this mess. Florida and Michigan are considered more independent, "swing type" states, therefore wouldn't it be beneficial to determine the outcome of such a close race by including the common people of our country, as well as its super delegates. The Obama campaign accuses the Clinton campaign of doing anything necessary to win, but it seems the other way around at this moment. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot? I bet the naysayers would be pleading a different toon. Funny thing is, their reasons would be the same, and the people are right. If the voices of Florida and Michigan's peoples are not heard, rest assured, it was for political reasons.
Still Clinton 08'
Question: Does anyone find it stupid that Senator Clinton made a very important speech on her stance on the Iraq War yesterday, and it has received very little coverage on the news? Meanwhile, Senator Obama will be broadcasting loudly and clearly this morning from every news network on television about his pastor as well as race, albeit with “criticism” afterword? I wonder if, sometime in the future, the news networks would be so inclined to carry a speech that has nothing to do with trying to get someone out of political hot water?
If Obama interjects a message that expands onto the populist one of both these candidates, if he does not precisely and solely address race and his pastor, then I think Senator Clinton deserves a chance to make a speech and have her candidacy heard too.
Compare.
http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/03/17/143633
If Obama interjects a message that expands onto the populist one of both these candidates, if he does not precisely and solely address race and his pastor, then I think Senator Clinton deserves a chance to make a speech and have her candidacy heard too.
Compare.
http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/03/17/143633
Page 1 of 2
| Next
Posts By Month
Posts