I KNOW I'm going to regret posting this here, but WTF?
Sounds like an endorsement. Via Hoffmania:
"Now, I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth an [anti-war] speech he made in 2002."My Hillary hate can hardly be suppressed any more. Following her experienced and leadership, Pretzeldunce Von Chimpenfurerher has also Endorsed McCain Too.
-Hillary Clinton
"That's what you say when you want to be John McCain's vice-presidential choice. That's NOT what you say when you're trying to become the Democratic nominee for President."
-Rachel Maddow just now on MSNBC's Countdown
Note to the Obama campaign: You should be pounding this theme relentlessly. You're welcome.
Let me have it, but try to be gentle, K?
14 comments:
Maru and Bartcop are my two favorite political websites. I went from here directly to him, where the same issue came up. Bart's response:
Maybe her bigger point is:
Where was Obama's big anti-war speech in 2003?
Where was Obama's big anti-war speech in 2004, at Kerry's convention?
Where was Obama's big anti-war speech in 2005?
Where was Obama's big anti-war speech in 2006?
Where was Obama's anti-war filibuster in 2007?
Was stopping the war worth standing up, Barack?
Perhaps She was asking, "If he's got more than a 2002 speech - where is it?"
Really, Maru, I lovelovelove your blog and read it every day; please don't tell me you've jumped on the HillaryHate bandwagon! Read what she said: "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience." How does that translate into an endorsement? Just because Rachel Maddow has drunk the Obama kewl-aid, please say you haven't!
Not to open a can of worms, but her lack of opposition to the war is well documented.
And actually, the point of the post is that Dems shouldn't be eating their own, by implying that a Republican is better.
Speeches won't stop or prevent needless wars, but Senate votes can.
Let the flaming/healthy debate begin....I KNEW I'd regret this.
I'm with you, UL. Funny how the person who actually voted for this misbegotten disaster in Iraq is being portrayed by her supporters as an innocent bystander, who now can't be blamed for any of it.
CatStaff
What CatStaff said. And the NAFTA Queen gets morphed into The Working Stiffs' Pal. And it worked, sort of, except for those pesky delegate totals, but that can all be triangulated among friends, eh?
Okay, let's not act like rethugs, aka the party of hate, greed, lies and oppression. Otherwise, those of us who desperately want change (no matter if you prefer Hillary or Obama) will begin splintering. I think I can hear Karl Rove laughing with distorted glee at the idea.
It's just healthy debate.....for now.
"Speeches won't stop or prevent needless wars, but Senate votes can." So let's see some citations of all the major speeches that Obama gave against war funding, the excesses of BushCo, and that time he really tore into Bush and the war at the 2004 convention...oh wait; you say he didn't do that in his speech at the 2004 convention? And those votes to fund King George's War, let's see, hmmm:
Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/
What's good for the proverbial goose...
And I'm having a really hard time getting an endorsement out of her statement about McCain's experience, the scales obviously not having been lifted from my eyes. Let's see, on the one hand you have St. John of the Camps, Naval Academy, war hero, been in the Senate since Jeezus was on the cross, on the other, Illinois state senator who was 6 years old when St. John was shot down, but who made a speech in 2002. If someone asked me *I'd* say that McCain has more experience.
It's going to the convention in Denver because it's not about what's best for the country or what's best for the party, but because she is owed this nomination. Owed it for being a woman, for the crap her husband put her through, for whatever reason. She will not go away until she has her way.
As for her comments that Obama could be her VP, I think the old insult "That's mighty White of you" could apply here only directed at HRC.
Obama was not my first choice in this election nor were any of the party's nominees in all elections since 1984. However, I voted for and supported all of the nominees in those general elections. I can't do that with HRC. And it's not because she's a woman, either. I supported Geraldine Ferraro for VP and later got the chance to march in DC next to her and her husband. Very nice people and she would have been a great President, had something happened to Mondale. I've voted for a lot of women and served under them in the Army without a problem. It's HRC herself that turns me off totally.
I'm partially with you UL regarding HRC, as best expressed by articles like this *, written by a hard-core progressive. (And I don't want someone calling the HRC WH at 3 AM and getting Monica on a sleep-over). However, I can't get much excited about Obama either, especially when I read things like this ** He seems too much like 'the sizzle' and not much steak -- at least yet.
IF either one gets elected, I wouldn't expect much more than status-quo/Rockefeller Republicanism, because they're both historically about that. I would bet money that we'll STILL be in Iraq in a SIGNIFICANT fashion on 1/20/13. I can just hear President HRC or Obama -- much less McCain -- saying that 'things have changed-we can't leave yet'/national security/protect budding democracy/etc etc yadda-yadda-yadda. I saw Lyndon Johnson do that, only to have the US sheeple elect a BIGGER war-monger asshole in Dick Nixon.
(* http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/Sickenme_Flimflam_Clinton.html)
(** http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/15765)
I agree with Big Em. I've seen the same things and the pattern has stayed true for decades if not centuries. The government is in control of the wealthy. The Democrats are not seriously trying to democratize the nation, either. Clinton and Obama are fully invested in the status quo.
Until we have real reform, get the money out of politics, get the lobbyists out of the hall of power, nothing will be changed in a fundamental way. War profiteering is a powerful interest and I agree that they'll see to it that the occupation of Iraq continues.
I'm sorry folks, I just don't see anything Clinton has done as all that nasty. Seriously. In the quote she is just saying she thinks she matches up better against McCain. What is so nasty about that? Any time in this campaign that Clinton dares to say she would be better than Obama, the Obama fans howl like that is soooo nasty and unfair! If that is what they think down and dirty is, they really are naive. Believe me I think Obama will probably get the nomination but this time where Clinton is running against him is probably just shortening the time that the Rs go off on him in a MUCH worse fashion. And this thing about how she thinks she is owed the nomination or whatever, like it is horrible for her to be ambitious?!?! Anyone who runs for president has to be ambitious and want it bad! What, you think Obama isn't ambitious? What kind of person writes a memoir right after they get out of law school anyway? Not that I blame him for wanting it bad but Clinton is not unique in being relentless in wanting to be pres. For most people - MEN anyway - that is seen as being positive. Let's just chill and enjoy the show, OK? The world is not ending because the nomination fight goes on.
I don't trust Clinton. Period. Too many lobby ties, too much time dealing in WashDC. I don't know, like everyone else, what Obama would do, but I'm damned sure I know what Clinton will do. I had JUST resigned myself to voting for her if she gets the nomination (2 days ago). Then yesterday I read a hint of, and today got the info on THIS:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/21311/85811/447/468408
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/3/5/131156/5021/51#c51
and that tore it. If she's the nominee, I'm staying home. I will NOT vote for a pol thug no matter WHO'S party they're in. Many of us didn't live through the current one, and I'm NOT getting rid of THAT and voting for another one!
Enough is enough.
She is using Bush/Rove campaign tactics against her own party and it's sickening and destructive. I'm shocked at how low she's gone. I didn't care much for her to begin with, but she's really pushed me over the edge by now.
siri
To Rdale:
"Obama defends votes in favor of Iraq funding"
Sen. Obama voted to provide funding to the troops because they did not have sufficient equipment - something that SHOULD HAVE been provided since they were sent off into this senseless war.
And to all those who say HRC's comments weren't bad - read them again. What happens if she doesn't get the nomination? The Republicans will now have a soundbite to play showing that even the Dems think McCain is more suited for the presidency. She'd rather have McCain win than Obama - what type of party loyalty is that?
Post a Comment