Here is what Ms. Thomas has to say about the Democratic contest:
Hillary Clinton should hang in there and run a good race.
And she has vowed to do so.
Clinton has been under unprecedented pressure to bow out of the divisive Democratic primary and to clear the field for her opponent -- Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
Among those who want her to throw in the towel are, of course, Obama's supporters. But many other Democrats are trying to push her out of the contest on the ground that a contentious race can hurt the party and could help their Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Clinton also has been deserted by some fair-weather friends such as New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson, who held two Cabinet appointments during her husband's presidency. [...]
Obama has captivated the enthusiastic support of America's youth and ignited their interest in presidential politics. His eloquent speeches are designed for the bully pulpit. But does a good speech make a good president?Obama stresses he was against the invasion of Iraq, but he doesn't say he was not in the Senate when it was initiated. Since become a senator, he has twice voted to fund the war.
I am still trying to find the key that has made Obama a prime candidate for the presidency, and to understand what he has done for the country beyond his middle-of-the-road political moves to make his name known and to steer clear of hot-button issues.
The Rev. Martin Luther King had a dream, too. But he acted on it. He went to jail, he marched, he led. [...]
A Feb. 20-24 New York Times-CBS poll found that 48 percent of respondents said the news media were tougher on Clinton compared with 43 percent, who thought the media were tougher on Obama.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the major newspaper columnists are giving Obama a free ride, while trashing Clinton. Likeability undoubtedly goes a long way with them, and he has mesmerized the media.
Clinton, on the other hand, has left herself open to criticism for dubious involvement in foreign policy decisions in the Clinton years. But one can't deny that she was there and that her opinion was respected.
Obama can be forgiven for acting like a front-runner, but not for his patronizing remarks such as: "My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants."
Even Clinton has the audacity of hope -- and why not?
12 comments:
I just want this to be over with. I hate seeing Dems trash each other instead of Grampa McCain.
I agree. I hope the event went well on Saturday! Wish I could have been there.
BAC
"Hillary Clinton should ... run a good race." If I trusted her to do that and not continue her divisive politicking, absolutely.
"Clinton has been under unprecedented pressure to bow out of the divisive Democratic primary" Not exactly unprecedented, but there is a reason for it - no party has ever fought the nomination to the convention floor and gone on to win the general.
"Clinton also has been deserted by some fair-weather friends" When during the campaign were these people supporting Clinton? Richardson made it a point to NOT endorse either for a long time.
"[U]nderstand what he has done for the country beyond ... steer clear of hot-button issues." Name one "hot-button" issue he has been less vocal on than Clinton, I can do the inverse.
"The Rev. Martin Luther King had a dream, too. But he acted on it." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a couple decades of public service, including his organizing work and civil rights defense work, not to mention state and national senate, and then running for president "acting on it"?
"patronizing remarks such as: 'My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants.'" How should he have answered the question?
My whole view, as it has been for the past several weeks, is summed up in the first response, but please answer those other questions and see who is being unfair in this opinion piece. Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for Helen Thomas, but there is clear bias in this that she accuses the media of doing to her own candidate.
John -- Helen has written the truth and her integrity is without question. You, on the other hand, are simply repeating the same drivel you've been posting for months now. But your standing as an Obama apologist is intact.
BAC
If I am not writing the truth, answer my questions:
When during the campaign were these people supporting Clinton?
Name one "hot-button" issue he has been less vocal on than Clinton.
Isn't a couple decades of public service, including his organizing work and civil rights defense work, not to mention state and national senate, and then running for president "acting on it"?
How should he have answered the question?
These are nice, simple questions Hellen raises in this opinion piece. Answer these honestly with facts and you have debunked me. Instead you call it drivel and ignore it.
Because that's what it is. Read the article, John. Richardson, for example, was part of Bill Clinton's Cabinet. He cozied up to Sen. Clinton throughout the primary season. He said Obama wasn't ready to be president, and then in the 11th hour endorsed him. THAT is a fair-weather friend.
Abortion and LGBT civil rights for starters.
No. When he HAD the power to make a difference, he sat on the sidelines. Hell, he didn't even show up to vote on the legislation dealing with Iran, and then has the nerve to be critical of Sen. Clinton!
That Sen. Clinton has every right to be in this race.
Now, stop bothering me with your Obama apologist drivel.
BAC
1) He was running against BOTH of them. He never endorsed either candidate. In fact, he chose not to endorse before Texas out of respect for the Clintons.
2) What has Clinton done on those two issues that Obama hasn't?
3) On Iran, his vote wouldn't have made a difference. He wasn't absent, he chose not to vote on it. He did, however, speak out against it on the floor that day. He also immediately proposed legislation restricting any military action based on the Iran legislation.
Also, how does this tie into what King did?
4) How is that any different than what he said? (also, in other quotes, he has said exactly that)
John, John, John ... 1) that you fail to see the obvious is amazing to me. 2) the better question to ask is why is Obama afraid to be seen in public with gay people, and why has he refused to take a stand on important reproductive health issues. Clinton's record on both of these issues is far and away stronger than Obama. Were you not an Obama apologist, you would be able to see it. 3) He took the coward's way out ... and THAT is not leadership. King NEVER backed down from addressing a tough issue head on. Obama does. He didn't vote on Iran, he voted "present" hundreds of times in the IL legislature instead of going on the record taking a position. He is NOT a leader. 4) That you cannot see this is further example of your blind sexism tied to your blind support for Obama.
BAC
1) Don't just throw ad-hominems against me.
2) You yell again and again for Obama supporters to give details, do the same yourself.
3) He did not actively vote against it, no. I think he should have, but in weighing his decision he comes out on the plus side against both the other candidates. He did, however, take a leadership position in speaking out against this bill before the vote and in pushing for legislation restricting military action.
4) Again with the ad-hominems. Any answer he would have given to that question you would have treated as sexist. You had already made your decision long before words were ever said.
1) not ad-hominem, it's the truth.
2) Clinton has been very public in her support for reproductive rights and LGBT civil rights. Speaking at abortion rights rallies, marching in Pride parades, speaking at an annual gay rights dinner. Where was Obama? Hiding in the closet?
3) Not exactly in the King style Helen was talking about. Thanks for making her point.
4) Wrong, John, I gave you the answer he could have given but YOU have chosen to not hear it. So, why don't you take your Obama apologist comments and go home.
BAC
Tried to leave a comment earlier, but for some reason, it disappeared.
I too am a huge Helen Thomas fan (and have also met her a few times). In fact, if anything could, her column makes me rethink my view of Hillary Clinton dropping out of the race.
My concern has been that the longer the contest continues, the more that McCain benefits and, based upon all that I've read, Clinton can't end up with the nomination, so she should do what's best for the party overall.
Each candidate, in my view, has his or her pros and cons, but the truth of the matter is that neither is quite as progressive as I would like. Although I have moved into the Obama column at this point, my mind is still open (at least until the April 22nd primary in PA).
Judiphilly - the bottom line is that NEITHER candidate can get enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. BOTH will need superdelegates in order to win.
If you include the votes from FL and MI, Sen. Clinton is actually within 15 pledged delegates of Sen. Obama. What this says to me is that they are dead even, so why should SHE drop out? I think we must allow the remainings states to have their say -- and FL and MI must count.
BAC
Post a Comment