About Hillary: Women Have Seen this Movie, We Know the Drill"As I’ve always said, this election has one person running for President and everyone else running as the man who can defeat her." -- Anglachel
"All I know is if Hillary Clinton cannot win the presidency, then face it ladies, there will NEVER BE A WOMAN PRESIDENT!! I know there won't be in my lifetime for sure! If a brilliant woman who has all these qualifications cannot break the ultimate glass ceiling, then WHO CAN???" -- AlwaysforHillary
"American culture dictates that demeaning women is acceptable behavior. But by remaining silent, Obama is either knowingly profiting from the bigotry, or he is part and parcel of a cultural belief that it is acceptable to heap all manner of abuse upon women. Those are the only two alternatives, and they are both disturbing." -- Diane Elayne Dees
"We see Hillary, we see Barack, and we see our own version of hell: Here is this amazing woman, top of her class, implausible marriage to impossible man, works as hard as the day is long, masters all the forms and spreadsheets of governing, even manages to raise a pretty darn good kid -- and then along comes this guy, this groovy Obamarama, with his pleasing mien, his high style, his absolute fabulousness, and he wants the top floor, corner office that she earned. And women -- women have seen this movie, women have heard this story, women know the drill."
-- Elizabeth Wurtzel
"There is no "going back" on the deep damage inflicted by Kos, Atrios, TPM, FDL and HuffPo (to name only the most prominent) when they made opposition to the Clintons on everything the litmus test of belonging to their club. When Paul Krugman is being called names and trash-talked because he won't join in the witch hunt, you know things have become seriously unhinged. It is not going to get better after the nomination." -- Anglachel
"You know the Day the Blogosphere Died? It was when it decided to defend NBC's sexism and misogyny in order to score points against Hillary Clinton. There was a time when the Netroots agreed with me that we needed Fighting Dems, that Obama was not measuring up on that score. But the Obama Cult has taken over in its entirety. . . The Netroots are dead." -- Big Tent Democrat
"She is singularly qualified to be the person to lead us out of the wilderness of the Bush nightmare; to put the pieces of our broken, corrupt government back together and move it forward in a positive direction." -- Mike Plaisted
"For a lot of blue-collar guys over 40, Hillary Clinton is a poster child for everything about the women's movement that they don't like -- their wife going back to work, their daughters rebelling, the rise of women in the workplace." -- Gerald Austin, Ohio political strategist
"[M]ake no mistake, much of the Hillary-hatred is fueled by the zeal of Obama supporters for the one they’ve evidently been waiting for." -- Virginia Bergman
"When I think of a leader, I think of someone who is visionary, tough, savvy, intellectual, experienced, and creative. I think of someone who has proven over a period of time what her values are, and what she does to stand up for them. I think of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who–despite having been humiliated, jeered at, and treated to a misogynistic frenzy of abuse by the news media–is still standing, values and sense of humor intact. And I want her as my president." -- Diane Elayne Dees
stolen from Tennessee Guerilla Women
21 comments:
I do not disagree with much of what you have said.
However, the problem is that gender is a far more complex, far broader, far more complicated topic than race.
And there has been a greater dialogue in discourse to address the evils of racism compared to the evils of misogyny and sexism.
If you really want to see Hillary Clinton elected or better yet, want a run a woman the rest of the country would want, then you would be wise to devise a strategy about how to reframe the conventional feminist debate.
I have said before and I will say again. I would vote for a woman as President. My gender as a man has absolutely no factor in who I chose to support. It may factor in to other people, particularly those who aren't educated or just blatantly ignorant.
Explain this to me. Why do we have a Martin Luther King Jr birthday holiday, which might as well be called Civil Rights Commemoration Holiday and not a similar holiday celebrating women?
Is it because it is easier to pin down what constitutes racist (skin color) versus what is sexist? Is it that black people, regardless of their gender, were disenfranchised in at least equal numbers to women for so very many years? Is it that skin color is a very easy way to label someone as "other" and thus "not like me"?
If you want a woman President, then I encourage you to work hand in hand with the third-wave feminists (myself included) who are trying to advance the cause of women while acknowledging both the successes of women's liberation and its failings.
The Civil Rights Movement had cohesiveness straight through, while the feminist movement destroyed itself essentially because of the argument of sex-positive versus sex-negative.
That division is what caused the word feminist to be demeaned in the same way liberal is demeaned, as though all feminists automatically hate men and are resentful of them by default.
It's all about reframing the debate and putting it in a context that suits these changing times. He is not entirely to be credited for his success, but he did run at the right time and have a lot of luck in the process.
You can lament your failings, but I would rather work hand in hand with you and other Hillary supporters and rest assured if a candidate we can get behind runs, she will get my support until she proves otherwise. She will get the benefit of the doubt and I will be her champion until she proves herself unfit to govern, same as I would any politician of any gender or any race.
"All I know is if Hillary Clinton cannot win the presidency, then face it ladies, there will NEVER BE A WOMAN PRESIDENT!!" Do you think so little of your gender that the best, from now until the end of human history, female candidate for president is Hillary Clinton?! No offense to her, but that is an insult to woman-kind. I can think of probably half a dozen strong female leaders that, imo, would be better candidates today than she is.
I do not read Kos, et. al. because they are full of trash on both sides, and so I cannot speak to what they have said. But speaking for myself, the blogs I read, and what I have heard from Obama, we are not anti-feminist; in fact many of us are strong feminists. You know this as I have stood by you in criticizing Matthews's and others' idiotic comments. We just believe that a different person will take this country in the direction it needs to go.
You create a false dichotomy when you say vote for Clinton or you hate women. You do the same when you equate bad things said about Clinton as being directed to all women. Sen. Clinton, largely due to Republican attacks during Bill's presidency, is characterized nationally as a divisive figure but she has now embraced that and is running her campaign that same way.
"When I think of a leader, I think of someone who is visionary, tough, savvy, intellectual, experienced, and creative. I think of someone who has proven over a period of time what [their] values are, and what [they] does to stand up for them." This is true of both candidates; Obama's vision has just, to this point, resonated with more voters because his message is untarnished with the divisive language that Clinton has been using since she started Iowa cast their votes.
If you think getting elected to high federal office is hard for a woman, think a minute about these numbers: 16 women are Senators (35 total historically), 1 is black (5 fotal historically). 216 women have been members of the House of Representatives, 117 have been black. 32 women, internationally, have been elected as heads of state, outside of Africa I am unable to find any blacks. 8 Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs, there is only 1 black in that group.
Is there a glass ceiling? Yes, without a doubt. Is that why Clinton is currently trailing Obama for the Democratic nomination? I do not believe so.
@Anonymous: Grow up. We need every vote we can possibly get if we are to have any hope of either of these candidates beating McCain in the fall. What we do not need is divisiveness like you are attempting to spread.
please pardon my typos. It's getting late. :/
"Explain this to me. Why do we have a Martin Luther King Jr birthday holiday, which might as well be called Civil Rights Commemoration Holiday and not a similar holiday celebrating women?"
Because the people with the power to make something like this happen are men.
"Is it because it is easier to pin down what constitutes racist (skin color) versus what is sexist? Is it that black people, regardless of their gender, were disenfranchised in at least equal numbers to women for so very many years? Is it that skin color is a very easy way to label someone as "other" and thus "not like me"?
Because the people with the power to make change are men. Men control government and business, the two most powerful entities in this country. White men are a minority of the population, but they control a majority of the resources.
Do you know who publishes school text books? Corporations controlled by men -- that is why you have such a skewed knowledge of civil rights and women's history. It wasn't "smooth sailing" for the Black civil rights movement. And what you probably DON'T know is that it was women who made that movement happen, as the men fought to be in front of the microphones.
Trillions of dollars have been spent brainwashing young women to believe that women need to look a certain way, believe certain things, and reject others. Think about it for just a moment ... why is "feminist" a word so many young women reject? Could it have anything to do with powerful media voices like Rush Limbaugh convincing men, and some women, that women who stand up for their civil rights are 'feminazi's'?
"He is not entirely to be credited for his success, but he did run at the right time and have a lot of luck in the process."
He was not challenged by the media in the same way Hillary was. The good old boy network shielded him. No one SHOULD be able to make a racist comment, it's socially unacceptable. However, it is COMPLETELY acceptable to make a sexist comment. The fact that you cannot SEE this makes you part of the problem, not the solution.
"You can lament your failings, but I would rather work hand in hand with you and other Hillary supporters and rest assured if a candidate we can get behind runs, she will get my support until she proves otherwise. She will get the benefit of the doubt and I will be her champion until she proves herself unfit to govern, same as I would any politician of any gender or any race."
This is complete and utter bullshit. And what is so completely sad is that you cannot even see it. Hillary Clinton is more qualified that Barack Obama to be president, and is at least AS qualified as John McCain -- though I would argue she is more qualified than McCain.
Imagine for a second that Barack Obama was Brenda Obama. With the EXACT SAME BACKGROUND as Barack. "Brenda" would not be getting a second look. You know it, John knows it ... hell, EVERYONE KNOWS IT.
Did you give Hillary the benefit of the doubt? No. Did it even occur to you that much of the negatives Hillary is dealing with come from the nearly $400 million dollar campaign waged to make her look bad? Do you have ANY IDEA just how powerful advertising is? The more than $300 campaign waged against her by the health care industry in the 90's, coupled with the more than $70 million spent against both Hillary and Bill in the late 90's worked! That you don't know this or understand it is part of the problem.
So please go ahead and delude yourself into thinking that you are a feminist, and that you are working to advance women's civil rights ... but every time you buy into this shit you are simply perpetuating the problem.
BAC
John -- read the above comment to Kevin, because much of it applies to the drivel you have posted here. Sexism is so ingrained in both of you that you cannot even see it.
BAC
My favorite quote, from a Latina Clinton supporter in New Mexico:
"Good 'ol boys come in all colors."
John and Kevin, it is so incredibly frustrating to have men such as yourselves proclaim to be open to a woman president, and then watch you fall right in line with the "I just don't like her" crowd. You (and others) say she uses "divisive language" but how is anything she says different than what the other candidates are saying? Is she not supposed to play hardball because, you know, she's a girl?
As BAC said, take gender out of the picture, and Clinton's qualifications are head and shoulders above Obama's. So excuse us for thinking there's some misogyny at play, but we have before us an extraordinarily intelligent, experienced, and dedicated candidate and you won't support her because .... why was that again?
If Barack Obama was a black woman, no she would not be elected in my estimation. However, if Sen. Clinton were a black man with her exact same credentials and history, neither would he.
Again I ask you, if a black man running with the exact same history of divisiveness with 8 years of elected experience were running against a white woman able to inspire across every demographic with 12 years of elected experience, who do you think would get elected? Judging by the statistics I quoted earlier, the black man would have no chance.
I did take into account the negative campaigns run against her in the past. It became clear, though, that the lesson she (and Bill) took from that time was not that you have to rise above such attacks and speak directly to the people, but that you have to turn around and attack with the same tactics. Obama has done the opposite at almost every stage of this campaign.
It has been her actions, not the words of others against her, that have most influenced voters. You can see that in Lessig's two videos on the subject and in blogs everywhere. Every left or progressive blog that I have read speaking out against Clinton do not say "Don't vote for her, she's a weak woman," they talk about the things she has done. They talk about Iraq and Iran, they talk about lobbyists, they talk about her "I will win or noone will" political tactics, they talk about her general divisiveness.
Just being a woman is not qualification for my vote for president. Telling me that because I did not vote for a woman makes me anti-feminist will only perpetuate the radical anti-feminist views of those working for women's rights.
If all things had been equal, Clinton would be the leader now, but Obama has shown an ability to inspire people to follow his vision, something no president in the past 20 (really 44) years has been able to do. This ability to lead is critical in a president if we are going to actually get anything done in Washington. Sen. Clinton has shown the ability to inspire those who would fight against us like no one else except her husband. Our country cannot survive 4 or 8 more years of these partisan, win at all costs politics.
Again, I have to ask: is Hillary Clinton the absolute best woman that will ever run for president from now until the end of time? I really don't think you think so little of your gender.
John J, I still have a major problem with this kind of argument: you use "the ability to inspire" and "the ability to lead" as if they are interchangeable. The man can get a crowd to its feet -- there's no doubt. That does not mean, however, that he can get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, provide health care for everyone, repair our damaged school systems, pull us out of a recession, and fix all of the myriad problems the next president will face.
I don't think Hillary Clinton is necessarily "the best woman that will ever run for president from now until the end of time," but I do think she's the best person running right now.
I do not doubt for a second that a woman will be President in our lifetimes. I hope that woman is a Democrat but wouldn't be surprised if she hails from the GOP.
A Democratic woman would be President today if congress would do their damn jobs. (Nancy Pelosi)
I am interested in what kind of a Senator Clinton will be when she's not running for President. I'm curious as to whether some of her more hawkish votes on foreign policy were entirely based around election posturing or whether she truly believes we ought to keep giving the hand-grenade to the monkey out of principal.
Should she return to her roots and become once again the progressive leader we all assume she is I wouldn't discount the chance that she will be sworn in as President someday. Some of that depends on what happens in the next few weeks, of course.
Please take that all as coming from someone who initially didn't want to see either Clinton or Obama as the candidate as both were a little too establishment for my tastes but is now getting incredibly excited at the prospects of seeing both of them on stage at the convention focusing their combined attention on the bastards that have done so much to screw up this country and the world.
Change is the air. I don't mean the Obama catch-phrase change either. I mean the forces that push our culture in one direction or the other are definetly flowing left. Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the rest of the Demcocratic leaders are going to be part of that tidal wave.
Well said, Dean Wormer.
They are not equal, but they are comparable. You can lead through force, that is a valid way to lead. You can lead through fear. Machiavelli has spoken very powerfully for both of these. But in my opinion the best way to lead is to get the people to want what you want. Obama, throughout this campaign and his time in state and national legislature, has shown that he has this last ability. Clinton has shown that she probably will use the first, but I'm not sure that will be enough. McCain, following Bush's lead, seems to want to go for the second. This has worked so far, but it can only work for so long.
Neither Clinton nor Obama have shown actively that they can get us out of Iraq (neither I nor any of the candidates have said they want to pull out of Afghanistan, we never should have left there for Iraq). Any president can get us out of Iraq, it is a matter of wanting to, and both Democratic candidates fit that. However, Sen. Clinton has proven in her votes to be very hawkish, as Dean points out, but Obama has been very outspoken against "stupid wars."
Both candidates have shown they can provide health care. Unfortunately, both candidates current health plans fall woefully short of what we really need.
Both candidates have good plans for school system changes.
Obama has shown foresight on the economic front by pushing (although it hasn't been passed) the STOP FRAUD act starting two years ago to prevent the mortgage fraud issues that have led to this current recession. Clinton on the other hand is pushing for actions that would technically be unconstitutional - you can't change contracts that already exist with a law, only the parties that entered into the contract can do it.
I appreciate your view on who is the better candidate. Both of these have strong qualifications or they wouldn't be here now. What BAC and the people she has quoted are trying to argue is that Clinton losing would be a step back for women to the point where no other woman will ever be able to be president and so a vote for anyone else is a vote against all women. This is the false dichotomy that I am arguing against.
BAC: Correct me if I'm wrong and this is not a political comment at all, just a point of information, with no polemical point:
Wasn't David Axelrod the protege of Gerry Austin?
"What BAC and the people she has quoted are trying to argue is that Clinton losing would be a step back for women to the point where no other woman will ever be able to be president and so a vote for anyone else is a vote against all women."
John, you missed the point again. It's not that there will NEVER be a women president -- hopefully at some point in time there WILL be a woman elected to the highest office in the land. The point is that Hillary Clinton is overqualified, compaired to her opponent, and yet she is likely not going to be the candidate. The last time a woman was even on the ticket for national office -- not as president but vice president -- was 1984. A span of 24 years.
There is not another woman on the horizon right now. If it takes another 24 years to for a woman to emerge, I will very likely be dead. People in my family don't usually live past 70. I would have to make it to 79 to see this happen.
The frustration you see in some of the comments above is that we have waited long enough, we have a candidate that is more qualified than her opponent, yet an American Idol population is going to toss her aside for someone who is more talk than substance.
BAC
I respect Hillary Clinton a great deal and if she wins the nomination I will support her with no reservations. The reason I am supporting Obama is that I think he can win in November. I don't think she can. And I'm not saying it's fair. I'm not saying it's right. But she is polarizing, and so far Obama seems more able to pull in independents and even Republicans, whereas Hillary, for reasons I don't even understand, seems able to mobilize the right wing and causes them to froth at the mouth. And independents don't seem to go for her either.
Another issue I see is that if Hillary becomes President, we end up having the same family back in the White House again, and we've had Bushes or Clintons in the White House for the past umpteen years. I know it's not fair to do this to her, but let's face it, her husband was President for eight years. And I wasn't even all that nuts about him. So if a vote for Hillary is also a vote for Bill, I'm not keen on that either. I know some would be thrilled to have Bill back in the White House, but not me.
I feel he never lived up to his promise (for instance, it was because of him we ended up with "don't ask, don't tell" in the military - why didn't he just pass an executive order to allow gays to serve openly? Isn't that how Truman desegregated the armed forces?). And his little faux-pas with Monica was the downfall of his whole second term - a waste of an opportunity to get important things done.
I know it's not Hillary's fault, but she is married to the man. And I feel as if there is a lot of baggage there. And a lot of things the Republicans can go after during the campaign leading up to November.
So, I'm supporting Obama. They'll find things to criticize about him too - Lord knows Hillary is trying her hardest - but he just doesn't inspire the hatred in his opponents that Hillary does and I think he has a better chance.
Kelso - I don't know.
BAC
Mauigirl - with all due respect, please repeat after me ...
Hillary is not Bill
Hillary is not Bill
Hillary is not Bill
Okay, now repeat that a few more times on your own.
Hillary is the candidate, not Bill, and she has made it very clear that SHE will be the president.
Hillary is also just as likely to defeat McCain as Obama -- actually, probably more so as she is seen as having more experience.
This has been one of the most civil primary contests I've seen, so no one knows how Obama will fair if he is truly challenged.
We KNOW that Hillary can withstand the arrows that will be shot at her, she's proven that already!
BAC
The reason I am supporting Obama is that I think he can win in November. I don't think she can.
This seems really dubious to me. I don't give much weight to the current polls on Clinton-McCain and Obama-McCain matchups -- the election is still over eight months away.
Remember, she's "pre-swiftboated" and he isn't -- the right has treated her like the Second Coming of Satan for so many years that every scrap of mud they could possibly find to throw is already out there and is reflected in her poll standings. They've barely started on Obama.
And from the viewpoint of practical politics, his supporters on average are quite a bit younger than hers. Older people have a much higher turnout rate in elections. That is, we can count on Clinton's supporters to show up in force in November, but I'm not so sure about Obama's.
How has she proven that she can win against the Republicans?
She already has 1/3 of the electorate dead set against her, and another 1/6 - 1/3 dubious of her. However, in almost all the states he has won, Obama has won by nearly 25-50% over the entire Republican party (although I expect counting this in primaries since the "Potomac Primaries" is dubious since fewer Republicans are going to show up in a pre-decided race). He has also shown - based on surveys and call ins to various shows discussing this topic - that 1/6 of the country is dead set against him (just because of his party), 1/6 is dubious (for the same reason), another 1/6 is torn between him and McCain and the other half supports him.
She has already been swift boated, but to my knowledge, the attacks have stuck in people's minds, she hasn't gotten past it. This means she has an enormous hill to overcome right out of the gate. Obama hasn't yet and so has the chance to get ahead of it, as he has done with a number of Clinton's attacks.
Judging by the last 36 or so primaries/caucuses, there can be little doubt that Obama's supporters will turn out for him come November.
I haven't missed the point BAC, I listened to the words. The quote I take the most umbrage to is the "then face it ladies, there will NEVER BE A WOMAN PRESIDENT!!" That is a very clear never, not "not in 24 years." You may not envision another woman potential in at least 24 years, but 20 years ago, people didn't see another reasonable black candidate. Obama was unknown on the national political stage until 4 years ago. Don't give up! I can name a number of women on the political stage right now that I would vote for over Clinton in a heartbeat.
As far as qualifications, as far as I can see Clinton is equal to him on the elected stage: he has 12 years of elected experience under his belt, 6 on a state level, she has 8. Both are from strongly "blue" states and so faced minimal opposition in acquiring those seats. She has met with a number of (mostly former) world leaders - he has had years of living in foreign countries, not exactly the same, but it gives him a more global perspective, imo, than just meeting with the people in charge. They have both fought as civil rights lawyers. He though, brings three things that she doesn't: years of working on the street side by side with people who have lost jobs, live in crappy housing and that couldn't get health care; he was a professor in constitutional law; he is an orator the like of which we haven't seen in decades, able to inspire people who disagree with him to work with him.
If you are going to vote based only on experience, then you need to vote for McCain - no one on the field has more experience than him. Presidential campaigns aren't about who's "turn" it is.
He has also shown that he wants to end the partisan divide that faces our country right now, something that Clinton has done the opposite of, even among fellow Democrats during this campaign. This, more than anything, is why I have chosen Obama over Clinton. I am tired of not being able to criticize someone I support because I could be labeled "traitor." I am tired of not being able to say something positive about an opponent for the same reason. I am tired of nothing happening in Washington because if anything happened the other party might benefit. Obama has been able to rise above this, both in his time in Congress and during this campaign.
John - I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but they are meaningless in a general election. The general election is a whole new ballgame.
And how can you say she hasn't "gotten past it"?? She is still in this race, with only 100 delegates less than Obama, for goodness sake. And what you call "Clinton attacks" is child’s play compared to what he will face against the Republican slime machine. There are already stories surfacing that will cause him trouble in a contest against McCain.
And the point about Clinton, John, is that she is the most qualified of ALL the candidates running -- and is the ONLY one who has faced almost daily attacks due to her GENDER. You can't hear them because of the male privilege you've had your entire life.
Obama is now parroting Clinton's foreign policy points. She's teaching him about foreign policy during this primary season -- just as women have been teaching/training younger males for DECADES to prepare them to be "the boss." There is no area where he is superior to her.
We've suffered through 7 years of an inexperienced leader. I would think that should be enough for anyone! Clearly you don't agree. Presidential campaigns are about "who is best for the job" ... and the "best" person running is Hillary Clinton.
Your final paragraph demonstrates your naïveté about politics and how it works. Or have you forgotten that our current president ran as "the uniter"??? And in votes cast by DEMOCRATS in this primary, Hillary Clinton is leading. So your comment that "Clinton has done the opposite of, even among fellow Democrats" is simply not true. Obama hasn't risen above anything!! If he had, there should have been more legislation passed in the Senate and less filibustering! I guess he didn't decide to be Mr. Hope until he hit the campaign trail, huh.
BAC
The numbers I gave are the general break down of voters - 1/3 Republican, 1/3 independent, 1/3 Democrat. Clinton, by all accounts and polls, unifies the Republicans and is weak with independents. Obama has won over some Republicans and is strong among independents. Yes, the numbers can change, but thats a toss of the dice (and not in the top 5 reasons I voted for him).
You can keep repeating that she is the "most qualified" but your numbers don't add up against McCain's record. It's simple math, but again, not a major reason to vote for someone.
Clinton hasn't gotten past it because half the country has a negative opinion of her, before she has even begun running a national campaign. The reason she is doing well now in the DEMOCRATIC primaries is because she is doing well (or had been) among the establishment Democrats.
If Clinton's attacks are "child's play" compared to the Republicans, she doesn't stand a chance either, unless you want to claim she's saving up her strength for the general or something.
As for foreign policy, it seems to me his is diametrically different from hers. He wants to meet with foreign leaders that we don't agree with. She wants to snub them until they give in to her demands (sounds strangely like someone else's plans...).
We have suffered through seven years of an inexperienced leader. But it wasn't his inexperience that brought us to this. It was his HORRIBLE judgment and a lot of experienced people around him saying "thats a good idea." Washington had no experience - he was a great president. Lincoln had no experience - he was a great president. FDR didn't have much experience - he was a great president. Bill Clinton had no experience - he was a decent president. These people had good judgment. Obama has shown, in votes, speeches, and his writings, that he too has good judgment.
Attacking things that have happened in the recent past with "that won't hold in the general election" and "nothing can really change" will only keep things from changing.
As for why Washington hasn't changed yet, Obama is a junior senator from Illinois, not a god. He has gotten some difficult legislation passed - most notably the lobbying reform package. In Illinois he, as Comrade Kevin noted in a previous post, won a unanimous vote on legislation most people in the state legislature were dead-set against. That was a pretty long time before the campaign trail.
Don't treat me like a child. I have done my research on these things. I'm not asking that you agree with me, but that you treat me with respect as I have tried to treat you.
John - how can you continue to post such nonsense and expect me NOT to react? It’s been demonstrated already that polling numbers in the 2008 election are pretty meaningless. You simply can’t project what will happen in the general election until we get past the primary season.
If you would like for Clinton to go after Obama with full force, I would certainly be willing to advocate for her to do so. Obama doesn’t have a CLUE what ATTACKS are. The Clinton campaign has gone much easier on him than I would like, but that’s their call.
And Obama STILL doesn’t get how foreign policy works. Your spin that Hillary wants to “snub” foreign leaders is not only complete bullshit, it’s a lie. But that seems to be the norm for Obama supporters these days.
Saying one thing, while doing another, is not in my opinion “good judgment.” It’s “change” I just can’t believe in.
Obama’s not “God” … gee, don’t tell the rest of his followers.
John, you come into “my home” with your misleading accusations against Hillary Clinton, and you expect me not to react?
BAC
Post a Comment