The fact of this subject Barack and Hillary basically have the same policy and yes visions.
Whitney Houston:
Classic Whitney


Consideration,
Respect, Moderation, Whitney.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Nikray |
|||
|
KC "My issue with Hillary is that I have not been able to make a connection with her policies and her direction for America, trust me if Hillary can make
me she her vision clearly for American, I wouldn't have any problem voting for her if she is the nominee... "
The fact of this subject Barack and Hillary basically have the same policy and yes visions. |
|||
KC1979 |
|||
|
if you gonna quote me make sure you quote everthing, not just part of my statement to try and prove a point, they are different that's why we have Barack
supporters and Hillary supporters
|
|||
Nikray |
|||
|
Interesting you did not post what I I left out if you felt I have left off 'part of your statement' which tried to prove my point"! I will be
waiting....
|
|||
apdominican |
|||
|
She was the front runner from the begining which is not always a good thing because you can argue the fact that she might have peaked too early.. in Ohio and
Texas she was outspent by Senator Obama 2or3-1 and some polls showed him leading in Texas. According to the polls the people that mad up there minds in the
last couple of days went with Clinton.
Obama could have rapped things up last night if he had won both Texas and Ohio or for that matter just Texas but he has had a problem closing the deal. I think the American people are taking a closer look at a man that they are not familiar with. I saw on cnn this morning that because of last night, Hillary has made herself a very strong candidate so no matter who wins the nomination that person is gona have to offer the 2nd slot to the other 1. Like they said on cnn we already know who's gona be on the democratic ticket the only thing we dont know is. is who's gona be on top.. |
|||
SubLimeSoda |
|||
|
I went to bed last night in a most foul mood -- knowing full well that today I would have to suffer all the reports of "Hillary's Comeback". It
boggles the mind.
Over the last couple of weeks I watched Hillary Clinton (and her campaign) slip into full panic mode. It was a sight to behold. She used every dirty trick in the book to distort and manipulate. She won't admit to this -- and neither will her base. They don't care -- because, afterall, they "won" a few of the recent primaries. But at what cost? Her veiled cries of sexism were laughable. But hey -- it worked. Because the media was crushed under her comfortable heel. It began with the "pimp" remark. David Schuster's unfortunate choice of words (however appropriate) opened the door for Hillary's claims of unfair treatment. She's a mother first! Then began the freakouts during the debates. An embarassing display. But you couldn't call her out on the bizarre behavior because then you're a mysogynist. Soon began her weirdo character turns. She went from cordial, to hateful, to sarcastic and rude in a span of days. And the moment her foolery was pointed out her base went on the attack. You're just saying that because she's a woman! She's a fighter! Give me a break. I guarantee you that if any man would have done any of the things Hillary has recently done -- he would have been laughed off the stage. And that is exactly why I feel the press has been more than accomodating to Mrs. Clinton. Hell, SNL has been nothing but a circle jerk in her honor. Funny...when the media works in her favor she's all for it. She even brought up her SNL fan club moment during one of the recent debates. Ohhh but if any media outlet dares to look at Hillary sideways lookout! The fact is -- these news networks know full well that it pays to have Hillary on their side. She threatened to boycott MSNBC so the network spent the next week kissing her ass. She then sent out her attack dogs (Wolfson, Penn, Mcauliffe) to spread the belief the press is unfair to Hillary...and here we are now. For she's the jolly good fellow. The one thing that pisses me off the most -- Hillary went "there". Do I think she's a racist? That's debatable. But I do know that she is not above trading in fear and race based tactics. When asked during a recent 60 minutes interview if she thought Obama was a muslim her answer was basically -- not that I know of. What about all the other times that somebody associated with the Clinton campaign tosses out some cherry bomb like -- Obama was a drug dealer. There's the leaked photo of Obama in "silly ethnic garb" that could be interpreted as terrorist costuming by the local yokels. What about the fact that she totally piggy backed onto Russert's Farrakhan jab? Reject and denounce? Child please. Of course, the Clinton campaign thinks that by shoving a buffoon like Stephanie Tubbs Jones in our faces to address the loose associations with these scandals we won't catch on. Because hey -- some of her best friends are black. What about Bill's Jesse Jackson remark? Mmm mmm mmm. Do I need to even mention the 3:00 AM phone call absurdity? A gesture stolen right out of Rove's playbook. The fact is -- she couldn't really sell herself on good character and personality. So she attacked his. She even went so far as to say that McCain is a better candidate that her fellow Democrat opponent Barack Obama. Can you imagine if Obama had said that McCain is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton? Hoooo! There would have been bras burning from here to the ends of time. I think the worst part about this is that she is still not guaranteed the nomination -- he still leads in delegates. But it doesn't matter to her...because if she doesn't win she sure as shit isn't going to make it easy for him either. I need a drink... |
|||
Rosannasfriend |
|||
|
I didn't answer BabyJames' comments about blacks choosing Obama over Hill in SC. I really think that certain comments made by the Clintons in the days
prior to the primary helped to cause several blacks to turn their backs on them there. Otherwise, the Clintons HAD the black vote. So, I don't think it was
just racism at all. Obama's race didn't matter to several blacks at first, although I guess now it does.
To Alama, I get your point about the blacks being able to vote before white women, but I still think in society overall white women have the advantage. I think it says something that alot of crimes are attributed to possibly being done by a black man, particularly when a white woman is the victim. First suspect- black man. Anyway, enough of that. If it were up to me, none of this discrimination talk would be occurring, whether its to black men or white women. I just don't think the emphasis on white women being underdogs, as if black men are top dogs, is fair. |
|||
emoryponds |
|||
|
If you read my first post in this thread (pre-South Carolina) I defended Hillary Clinton and was leaning towards supporting her, but after the campaign that
she and Bill (he has lost the status Toni Morrison tried to elevate him to) has run I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic Party nominee
and I am very active within the party in my state. I will proudly vote for John McCain unless Hillary can somehow beg Obama to be so kind and grace the ticket
with his presence.
|
|||
apdominican |
|||
|
Ofcourse Obama wouldnt turn down an opportunity to VP, thats just a step closer for him to run again in the future.. neither candidate would turn down that
position if offered..
|
|||
Nikray |
|||
|
I find it funny some people who are upset with the fact that Obama has lost a few states after the campaign he has run, when all along many of the same posters
were saying the contest would go on for months. It's pure silly now be crying about the state of this race when a year ago the prediction was that Obama
would have a hard time staying in a race were money would be a huge problem.
This is like watching a sporting event, when you win you think it's because of your skills, but when you loss it's because of the referees, fans, the coaches, cheating, etc... Some simple facts: Hillary was expected to win every state she won yesterday, months ago, polls were showing until the last few weeks that she was way ahead in both Texas and Ohio. She won those states done. Hillary's campaign has made a boat load of mistakes in Feburary their stategery regarding the states were just bad in many cases. They had planned to win the big key states and let the others follow...Obama's team knew that play book and has won everything else. Obama has done an amazing job overall he is still ahead and has shown greater skills than most felt he had. But Obama's campaign team has made some stupid mistake recently if Hillary gained in this recent week or so it's because those mistakes. What mistakes you ask, the secret meetings with Canadian officials and the nut runs his mouth in a letter and in an interview. When Obama's team was asked about this meeting from a reporter, they first denied it have happened, leaving Obama with egg on his face in the state of Ohio when the truth came out. This is after on the heels of the recent debate saying he would get rid of NAFTA, the Canadian officials saying Obama did not mean what he claimed he would do from the debate. Now again this is Ohio who hates this treaty!!! Front page/national television news do you think that made any differences in a state he was already trailing even after his more recent success? Hillary Clinton is still leading in the latino vote, wake up latinos are a huge asset and (older loyal) they love the Clintons, Obama has made some gains among young latinos. Look at the states Hillary has won older people, women, latinos, and some undecided. Obama's campaign is talking tough today, but I just don't think that is smart approach....they shot themselves in the foot and are now talking about what Hillary threw at them. Blame your opponent and their tactics; I will not even touch some of the other things that were not even a issue a week ago before or after the debate, the truth is Obama did very well in the debate, he spent tons of money outspent the Clinton campaign by more than 2 to 1 and some are saying 4 to 1 never the less the race goes on and I am loving it. While Obama and Hillary are fighting it out does anyone even know or care that McCain won? |
|||
qtsurvivor78 |
Heilemann: Clinton Fights Tooth and Nail to Raise Just Enough Doubt About Obama | ||
Heilemann: Clinton Fights Tooth and Nail to Raise Just Enough Doubt About Obama
Photo: Getty There are many explanations for what occurred yesterday, but let's start by giving credit where it's due. The Clinton campaign earned these victories. They fought tooth and nail for them, and almost entirely according to Hoyle. Say what you will about her people's "kitchen sink" strategy, how they'll "do anything to win." The attacks they launched against, and questions they raised about, Obama seemed to me legit: on Rezko, on NAFTA-Canuck-gate, on his qualifications to be commander-in-chief. (By legit, I don't mean that the Clintonites were right on the merits; I mean that the broadsides were within the bounds of acceptable political combat.) And, more than that, they allowed HRC, for the first time in a long time, to seize control of the agenda and put Obama on the defensive. But it wasn't just the Clinton campaign that had the hopemonger ducking and weaving. After months of treating Obama with kid gloves, the press - perhaps goaded into action by Hillary's designated media mau-mauer, Howard Wolfson, perhaps shamed by the scamps at SNL - finally began to treat him for what he was (and still is): the front-runner. His response and that of his campaign were fairly underwhelming. On Rezko, the beginning of whose trial this week guaranteed a new round of grilling, their answers were pat and obfuscatory. On the NAFTA-Canada imbroglio, their explanations were misleading. And when the going got a little tough at a press avail in San Antonio, Obama turned whiny. "C'mon guys," he moaned as he tried to flee the scene. "I just answered, like, eight questions." How much did all this hurt Obama? Hard to say, precisely. But the exit polls suggest that Clinton won handily in both Ohio and Texas among those voters who made up their minds in the last three days - when her attacks were hitting him the hardest. They also suggest, perhaps more worryingly for Obama, that Clinton made headway in reassembling the electoral coalition that had held firm for her through Super-Duper Tuesday. She won solidly in both places among blue-collar workers, those without a college education, women, and the elderly. And in Texas, once again, she kicked his ass among Hispanics, 67-31. The Obama campaign will say - is already saying, in fact - that all of this matters naught. That the only thing that matters now is delegates. And in a sense, of course, they are correct, as even the Clintonites admit. And here it appears that HRC has done little to dent Obama's formidable advantage. By the time the counting is over in Texas - which, heaven help us, may not be for another few days - Clinton may only have netted a handful of delegates for all the shouting about her latest shock-the-world comeback. But as my friend John Dickerson over at Slate observes, "The Democratic race has now come down to a contest of numbers versus narrative." The Clinton narrative revolves, most obviously, around the fact that Hillary has won all of the biggest and most important states apart from Illinois, Obama's home. And her team will employ this narrative vociferously in the days ahead to try to keep the 500 or so as yet undecided superdelegates - a portion of which either side will need to reach the magic 2,025 delegates required to nail down the nomination - from siding with their foe. On a deeper level, however, the Clinton narrative boils down to a blunter, more primal claim: that, in the end, Obama can't win when it counts. As a senior Clinton official put it to me in an e-mail very late last night, "Here's the deal on BHO - no one is ever going to have a better month than his February. If you can't close the deal after that, when can you?" The argument is patently, glaringly, ostentatiously, unrepentantly self-serving. But for Democrats who want above all a candidate who can indeed close the deal that matters most - the deal that will go down in November - there's still a chance, however small, that it's an argument that could cut ice. Especially if, six weeks hence, Clinton wins again in Pennsylvania. -John Heilemann http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/heilemann_clinton_seeds_just_e.html
|
|||
Phizzo |
|||
|
"Interesting you did not post what I I left out if you felt I have left off 'part of your statement' which tried to prove my point"! I will
be waiting...."
Nikray it's ok to let this go now...notice how he avoided revealing his true feelings by hiding behind rhetorics, but that's ok...lol |
|||
SubLimeSoda |
|||
What mistakes you ask, the secret meetings with Canadian officials and the nut runs his mouth in a letter and in an interview. When Obama's team was asked about this meeting from a reporter, they first denied it have happened, leaving Obama with egg on his face in the state of Ohio when the truth came out. This is after on the heels of the recent debate saying he would get rid of NAFTA, the Canadian officials saying Obama did not mean what he claimed he would do from the debate. Now again this is Ohio who hates this treaty!!! Front page/national television news do you think that made any differences in a state he was already trailing even after his more recent success?You do realize that Georges Rioux (Consulate General of Canada in Chicago) released a statement saying that the Obama campaign was certainly NOT participating in double speak? The statement can be found here. Austan Goolsbee (Obama senior economic advisor) was interviewed by Rioux regarding NAFTA. Later Joseph DeMora, a consulate staff member, would distort Goolsbee's interview in a memo handed over to Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson. The distortion being that Obama was just claiming a desire to get rid of NAFTA for votes and that Canada could rest easy. Bullshit. This was never said. HOWEVER -- DeMora's memo was spread throughout the Canadian government and eventually leaked to the Associated Press. Now there's accusations that the Canadian Prime Minister's office may be directly involved: here. This wasn't a secret meeting -- it was just that -- a meeting to reiterate Obama's stance. There's also this lil tidbit: "The CTV exclusive also reported that sources said the Clinton campaign has made indirect contact with the Canadian government, trying to reassure Ottawa of their support despite Clinton's words. The Clinton camp denied the claim." Of course the truth of the matter goes unnoticed because the damage is done. The one candidate who supports NAFTA reform (if not abolishment) is being made out to be a liar. Meanwhile, the candidate who recently claimed the successes of NAFTA (until it was politically inconvenient for her) appears like the savior of the poor and downtrodden. A cosmic joke... |
|||
BABYJAMES2002 |
|||
Rosannasfriend wrote:Bill Clinton's comments didn't make the blacks loose love for Hillary, that would have happened anyway. Black people wanted a black President and once they seen that one had a chance they decided to get behind him. |
|||
Phizzo |
|||
|
Also comic that she was asking for NAFTA to be reformed way before Obama did. MSNBC (for better or worse) did a report on this over the week-end.
And while we're on this subject...what about those Obama fliers misrepresenting (some might say attacking) her Health Care plan. How wasn't that seen as being a bit negative or going against his preachings? This actually started after the debate before Super Tuesday and was barely covered in the news. How's that for double standards. Karl Rove must be kicking himself silly right now for being so popular with Dems. I'm sure somebody can post both the Clinton add, and the Obama fliers so cooler heads can judge for themselves. Huh? |
|||
KC1979 |
|||
Phizzo wrote: I'm not hiding from anything I posted, everything I've said today is already on display, it's not my job to go back through my postings to find my statements and quote myself... If you noticed I let that person have the last word and let this go earlier.... Here's your chance to do the same, have the last word, this still doesn't change the fact that I will not be voting for Hillary if she's the nominee |
|||
Phizzo |
|||
KC1979 wrote: Oh, now I get it! lol
|
|||
DionneR |
Do-over in Michigan and Florida? | ||
|
Do-over in Michigan and Florida?
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign. The Michigan governor, along with top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and Florida's state party chair, are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how the their delegates are allocated. Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless because the elections violated national party rules. The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of all their delegates for holding the primaries too early, and all Democratic candidates - including Clinton and rival Barack Obama - agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot. Florida and Michigan moved up their dates to protest the party's decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, followed by South Carolina and Nevada, giving them a disproportionate influence on the presidential selection process. But no one predicted the race would still be very close this late in the year. Ironically, Michigan and Florida could have held crucial primaries if they had stayed with their traditional later dates. They may yet do so if they decide to hold new contests as Clinton and Obama compete to the wire. Clinton has been insisting that the desires of more than 2 million people who cast Democratic ballots in the two states should be reflected at the convention, which would help her catch up to Obama in the race for convention delegates. Obama has said he wants to see the delegates from the two critical swing states participate, too, but not if Clinton is rewarded for victories in boycotted primaries. Now the Clinton campaign has begun expressing openness to a do-over. "Let's let all of the voters go again if they are willing to do it," Clinton adviser Terry McAuliffe said Tuesday night on MSNBC. "Whatever we have to do to get people in the system, let's do it." The new contests could be part of a strategy for Clinton to come back in the race and attract votes from superdelegates who are not bound by any primary or caucus votes, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told the network. "Let's assume for the moment Hillary Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, she wins Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan have primaries in June, she wins both of those," said Rendell, who has endorsed Clinton. "Then, can the superdelegates look at that and say, `Gosh, she's won the last five big primaries in a row. She's won almost every big primary since we began.'" Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Clinton supporter, told the Detroit Free Press that Clinton's victory in Ohio changes "the landscape a bit." She said it could open the door to a caucus, if it can be privately funded and both candidates agree. Granholm, a Democrat, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican, issued a joint statement Wednesday demanding that their states' delegates be seated. "We each will call upon our respective state and national party chairs to resolve this matter and to ensure that the voters of Michigan and Florida are full participants in the formal selection of their parties' nominees," the statement said. Crist told reporters at a news conference Tuesday that he does not support having another primary at taxpayer expense. He said he discussed the option with Sen. Bill Nelson, the state's senior Democrat. "He said the only way to consider the possibility of that is to have the Democratic National Committee pay for it," Crist said. The Florida Democratic Party said the state estimates the cost would be $25 million. Getting funding from the national committee might be difficult when the party has a general election to wage. Last August, the DNC offered to spend $800,000 for a later caucus, but the Florida state party rejected the idea because the amount would have only been enough to set up 150 caucus sites for the state's 4.1 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer. It just wasn't. It was not something anybody could agree to with a straight face," said state party spokesman Mark Bubriski. DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued a statement Wednesday that seemed to leave the matter for the states to resolve. Dean said Michigan and Florida have two options: either submit a new plan for a process for choosing their convention delegates, or appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee, which resolves issues about the seating of delegates. "The Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with party rules, and out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game," he said. Michigan Democrats are discussing holding a "firehouse" contest in May or June that would be an alternative to a traditional primary or caucus and run by the state party, said a Democratic Party official who has been part of the discussions. "Firehouse" contests usually have fewer polling places and shorter voting hours than traditional state-run primary elections. The party official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are private, said there was general consensus that it could not be held at taxpayers' expense and would attempt to generate participation from about 1 million state Democrats. House and Senate Democrats from Florida and Michigan planned to meet Wednesday night on Capitol Hill to discuss ways of getting their state's delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in late August, Democratic aides said. Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said the party is open to another vote, as long as it meets three criteria. Both candidates would have to fully participate, a source of funding would have to be provided and it would have to allow all the state's Democrats to participate, including those serving in the military overseas. So far, she said, no suggested alternative has met those requirements. "It is very possible that no satisfactory alternative plan will emerge, in which case Florida Democrats will remain committed to seating the delegates allocated by the January 29th primary," Thurman said in a statement. Obama's campaign says whether to have a repeat contest is up to the national committee, but has signaled a willingness to participate. "We're going to abide by their rules as they exist now and whatever happens in the future," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Wednesday. "I don't think it's for our campaign or her campaign - we're in a heated contest here - to have to be the facilitators here,"
Plouffe said. "This is between the DNC and those state parties."
|
|||
DionneR |
Mich., Fla. governors renew calls to seat states' delegates | ||
|
WASHINGTON - Michigan's Democratic governor and her Republican counterpart in Florida today called on the national committees for their respective parties to seat all of their states' delegates for this summer's nominating convention. In so doing, the two - Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist - are fueling a fire that could lead to do-over elections or caucuses in the two delegate-rich states. The drum beat for such a second chance got new life last night when Hillary Clinton took Ohio and Texas.
Both Florida and Michigan were stripped of all their delegates to next summer's Democratic National Convention by that party after the states moved
their primaries up too early - in violation of party rules.
(Republicans, by the way, stripped both states of half of their delegates.)
Clinton beat Barack Obama in both Michigan, where Obama's name did not appear on the ballot (he took it off in protest of the early election), and in
Florida, where his name was on the ballot (to take it off he would have had to say he wasn't running nationally for president).
Now trailing Obama in the national delegate count but with neither likely to get enough to win the nomination outright given the contests that remain,
Clinton would sorely like to seat the delegates she won from Florida and Michigan. Obama's camp won't go along with that - and neither with the
Democratic National Committee for now - but there could be room for a do-over, particularly if it were a caucus.
Granholm, who is a Clinton supporter, told the Free Press last night a publicly financed second primary is out of the question: The first one cost $10
million.
Crist has said he's supportive of a do-over election if it means seating the state's delegates.
David Axelrod, a key strategist for Obama, said Wednesday their campaign is open to seating the states' delegates if a fair way of doing so is reached -
meaning not simply giving Clinton delegates from the disallowed primaries.
"I'm not going to get into modes of resolution to this," he said. "This is the hands of the chairman of the party and the DNC and we will
work with whatever they work out."
|
|||
OliverGoodies |
|||
|
See, it's as I said, I knew he wouldn't carry Texas. I just moved from there to Illinois and the mindset of those people would not allow it. Probably
the only ones that voted for him were people who were not originally from down there.
Oliver |
|||
KC1979 |
|||
|
the race in Texas was so close, it could have went either way.... just remember he wasn't expected to do well in Texas and Ohio, but he was able to break
into her lead, remember Barack was down by 20 points weeks before the primaries in Texas and Ohio, he lost and Hillary won, a win is a win, but just like
Hillary would say don't count me out.... Barack is not out, not by a long shot
|
|||