Ellington

Since Barack Obama proved that the under-30 vote mattered in Iowa, and could well be a deciding factor in the presidential election, Hillary Clinton is adjusting her strategy to start trying to appeal to them. Does she really think that young voters are going to fall for that when it's obvious she's doing it just to get their vote? If she cared about them, she would have shown it already. This shows exactly why I'm not a Clinton fan—she is a political machine, who cares more about strategy then getting out there and really getting real with the voters. I'm fully on the Obama wagon now. This did it for me, not that I needed much of a nudge.

Read full story.

Previous Comments

ID

116155

Comment

It's all her fault. Not only does she have to try to win over young voters, but now she has to do the same for the women. Obama torched Hillary with the women vote. I look for her to get Chelsea Clinton to stomp throughout the country to court the young and women voters. After all, she is young and a woman.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-01-05T11:09:11-06:00

ID

116156

Comment

Billary's problem is she isn't geniune. She is a complete and total phony and every time the media talks about her problems with "likability" along with her attempts at reshaping her image for the voters it makes that point even more glaring. Further, Billary is paying dearly for her Iraq war vote and her subsequent defense of it until earlier this year, and since young people are the ones dying in Bush's Iraq misadventure, she will continue to have a difficult time attracting the youth vote.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-01-05T12:03:17-06:00

ID

116157

Comment

Cant add much to Jeff's post. Eloquently put. All I can say is..I was one of those adament about NOT voting for Obama simply becuase he is Black. The jury was still out even after Iowa. I held out hope that Hillary would show me SOMETHING and make this a hard decision based on issues. But this contrived, calculated, fake(and sudden) push that's gonna come from her camp to make her appear cool to young voters is the last straw for me. You totally ignore our segment of the voting block..then when Obama caters to it and whips you in Iowa NOW you wake up and say "know what?. I should actually reach out ot young voters(who are independent in a lot of cases). It just speaks to her likabilty or lack thereof. ..Its Obama for me. at least on the Democratic side.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-05T12:47:58-06:00

ID

116158

Comment

I agree with y'all. Hillart does seem to be a big phony. Even I have almost lost my barely existing taste for her. Obama is wonderful and the fact that he's unafraid to approach anyone seeking their votes is likely to help him. A great key to succeding at anything big is to not self limit yourself. I don't even think he will let the history of the south prevent him from reaching out to them. Unlike Biden, Hillary and some others though, he won't appeal to their racist instincts or their need to be placated in their denials. Instead he will appeal to their commonality to everyone and everywhere else. I'm waiting anxiously to see how he handles the race card/deck that is bound to be played against him sooner or later, whether boldly, disguised or benignly. It got played against Jessie Jackson although arguably he helped cause it. Obama will force them to search their souls for a new and better way to do it this time because it appears young folks and women aren't to be screwed with or tricked this time.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2008-01-05T12:59:18-06:00

ID

116159

Comment

I'll start by admitting that I'm an uncommitted yellow-dog Democrat. I don't know who I'll pick. I do appreciate genuineness, I am skittish about calculating tacticians. But remember that if the Shrub could convince a lot of folks in 2000 that he was sincere and genuine, then Democratic candidates can do the same thing. I care about somebody with a resume, so I can see what they have done in the past in order to judge what they might do in the future. And that quality - a strong resume of accomplishment - is in short supply for both Edwards and Obama. I like Richardson's combination of experience and genuineness, but he just doesn't arouse passion.

Author

footsy

Date

2008-01-05T18:31:11-06:00

ID

116160

Comment

.."I care about somebody with a resume" Nope Sorry..thats what's gotten us in this mess to begin with. Its 2008 Footsy..resumes are overrated generally ESPECIALLY in politics. Except in professions where specific skill sets are needed like say...astronauts, barbers, doctors, lawyers, etc...Politics is simple a game of good ole plain common sense, and a yearning to do whats right by your constituents. You see the mess its gotten the Democratic Party in in MS..Thats why there are never new fresh faces on the political landscape and thats why I feel we may screw up the chance to vote Obama in.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-05T20:20:11-06:00

ID

116161

Comment

Kamikaze: As to your first paragraph, I'm afraid that you and I will just have to disagree. I think that if people looked harder at resumes, we wouldn't have incompetent leaders. We won't resolve this difference of opinion. Doing right by your constituents was what Jesse Helms did for years, and he got re-elected every time in part because his constituents - even when they didn't like him - said he was always there to use his influence for his constituents; that was his resume. Politics is making decisions about how to get and use power. What do you want that power used for? As to your comments about "the mess" in Mississippi's Dem party, I think it's not that simple. The question of race and the political connections to Washington Republicans and lobbyists are also critical in explaining the situation in MS. Look at the structure of the legislative system. Review again the Free Press article about the crucifixion of Paul Minor; that wasn't because the Dem Party depended upon long resumes.

Author

footsy

Date

2008-01-05T21:16:26-06:00

ID

116162

Comment

I hope that the press showing how young & other minority voter blocks CAN make a difference, will actually translate to young & other minority voter blocks FEELING more that their vote can make a difference. That would be something.

Author

herman

Date

2008-01-05T23:26:59-06:00

ID

116163

Comment

i much more interested in the quality of one's resume, not so much the length. career washington politicians are gonna do what career washington politicians do, whether Dem or Rep. Hillary is as fake as her husband turned out to be. Obama's views on Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan have all proven to be correct, yet he gets attacked for lack of foreign policy experience. i'd rather have someone who's competent over experienced any day. why do you think pundits and pols keep trying to attack Obama's religion and inexperience? it's probably because he's right on most of the issues. i'm like Kaze. I wasn't ready to vote for Obama just b/c he's black, but he really has turned out to be the best candidate with a realistic shot at winning.

Author

eyerah

Date

2008-01-06T13:04:14-06:00

ID

116164

Comment

The power should be used for the people! Period. And I fail to see your argument. Most of the folks holding public office here and nationwide are folks with extensive political backgrounds. and thus the taint of politics. Those are the "incompetent folks" you're referring to right? Cheney, Rumsfield, Rove, Rice, Lott, Reeves, Barbour, The mistake of the MS democatic party is not complex either. they're guilty of parading the same folks in front of us over and over again. Even Musgrove and Shows have resurrected themselves. Booooring! Thats why Im glad that Wooten won Reeves seat. MS politics needs an enema

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-06T13:08:39-06:00

ID

116165

Comment

Kamikaze who would you and young people of your frame of mind like to see run for office, state and national? What characteristics are you young folks looking for? Apparently, you don't like any of the Democrats serving right now. I even have the impression that you're harder and more critical of Democrats than republicans as if the Democrats are to blame for letting republicans screw the country like they have. I have heard some of you independents make this screwball argument before. I argue that you so-called independents are really the ones responsible for letting the country get screwed up like this. Y'all are too chicken to vote Democrat when you should because you're an actual or wannabe republican that is too gutless to show your real hand or you have a personal or business reason to be pretend neutrality. Are you a closet republican? It's alright if you are. I have noticed for some time now that you and many other young black bloggers run or hide from discussion of race. What's up with that? Don't run and hide from answering my questions otherwise I'll just get worse.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2008-01-06T13:55:25-06:00

ID

116166

Comment

Furthermore, Kamikaze and you other so-called independents, what are y'all independent of besides: making up your minds, choosing a side, choosing a firm position, stating a firm position, helping run away trash that in office and injuring us, having the guts to be one or the other, et al. What is an independent anyway? Is it a person who's on record as too scared to choose a side or is it a big ball of confusion! I'm an announced Democrat who votes for whomever I like. I'll even vote for a republican in the unlikely event I find one worth voting for. This doesn't make me independent or does it? I aver most of us are independents in the true since of the word. How many of us true Americans let others tell us who to vote for. I don't recall ever letting anyone else make up my mind for me. He who who sits on the fence has a sore behind and injured limbs becuase they are pulled every which a way and torn in the middle. Furthermore, they often don't know whether to chimmy or hold it.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2008-01-06T14:17:38-06:00

ID

116167

Comment

It is obvious that many of you have fallen for the political, hate-filled spin (against Hillary) that is coming from the mainstream media talking heads. Both Hillary and Obama are excellent choices, and I can see either of them as president and leading this country come November '08. Use your own heads guys to make your choice and not those powerfully persuasive tactics of political pundits who want nothing more than for you and the entire universe to hate Hillary Clinton. Don't fall for the spin. Continue to listen and evaluate Obama, Clinton, and all of the candidates (with an open mind) as they head into New Hampshire and beyond, because the buck does not stop in Iowa. Baby, this race has just begun!!!

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2008-01-06T15:53:06-06:00

ID

116168

Comment

Hate-filled rhetoric against Hillary? Where? The last I saw, the Washington Post was depicting her in glowing terms as the "scrappy underdog" against front-runner Obama.

Author

tombarnes

Date

2008-01-06T17:09:23-06:00

ID

116169

Comment

Tombarnes, did you see Meet The Press this morning? There were two strategists on to discuss the Democratic political candidates--one Republican, one Democrat. Both attacked Hillary---continuously. That didn't just happen. That was planned. The media's strategy is to say nothing good about her all day long, all the time, and to SPIN everything she does or says and use it to bash her with it. By doing this 24/7, they hope to destroy her chances within her party of becoming the Democratic nominee while at the same time hoping to influence voters to write her off as unelectable. Have and open mind and listen. Watch the news tomorrow (if you have time) and keep track of how many times her name crosses their lips while everyone else gets a free pass.

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2008-01-06T23:45:21-06:00

ID

116170

Comment

I actually don't have a television at home, but I'll try to see what coverage is on tomorrow evening while I am at work. I will keep an open mind, but I still think she has been given a free ride by most of the media thus far. I'll check the Washington Post again right now to see if they have moderated their adulation.

Author

tombarnes

Date

2008-01-07T01:11:17-06:00

ID

116171

Comment

Perhaps the Washington Post is jumping off the faltering Hillary bandwagon after all... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/01/07/VI2008010700846.html?hpid=topnews

Author

tombarnes

Date

2008-01-07T09:27:23-06:00

ID

116172

Comment

Ray, you're gonna blow a gasket LOL.. Cute how you try to bait folks back into debate with ya by bashing independent voters. Hell, all you had to do was ask :-)... ..Anyway, an independent in my opinion is someone who doesnt vote based on party affiliation but by whothey think best does the job. Actually its a trend that Im seeing more of. Ive long since stopped blindly voting Democrat. I did that from the ages of 18 till about 25 when I found out that we both parties were equally tainted. Though I still side mostly with Dems, I do as I do with my music. Im harder on myself than anyone else will be. Its the way that I hold myself to a certain standard. And Im no quicker to criticize Dems than I am Republicans but Id say Im harder on Dems because I know they can do a much better job of reaching my demo than they are doing. Folks like Obama and Adrienne Wooten are a breath of fresh air for the Dems. Hell, the Republicans could use a cleansing as well. Because their guard looks more like a viagra commercial than anything else. See...I dont subscribe to the thought that because Im Black I must vote Democrat..and I definitely dont subscribe to the fact that is solely or mostly the fault of Republicans for the mess we're in. They both play a part. Both parties are chocked full of lifetime politicians. And Id say Id hold Dems more accountable for LETTING repubs do what they've done and not having the backbone to take a stance on A-NY-THING! And Ill have to correct ya..Ive been starting race discussion on this site looong before you posted the FIRST time. so Im not running just giving other folks a chance to be heard:-)

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-07T11:19:43-06:00

ID

116173

Comment

Blu? who HASNT listened? and who HASNT kept an open mind. I sure have. In fact, as I said previously I held out making a choice because I WANTED to see all the issues. I didnt want to just jump on the Obama bandwagon because everyone else was. I think by this time folks have at least an idea of whats going on. She's trying but no...one...seems...to...like..her. Period. She's not coming across as sincere. Shes coming across as contrived and programmed. Her personality just isnt as inviting as some voters want. For me, her "sudden" push to reach out to young voters was the biggest piece of theatre Ive seen in ages. Obama was the only candidate to even give a damn about young voters. He was the only one who openly reached out to them. Upon seeing THAT success NOW all of a sudden she launches into this big "youth" campaign? C'mon. She didnt give a rats patootie about young folks before..and neither did anyone else on BOTH sides. But I bet they will now!Blu..that move and that move alone sealed my support for Obama. Even you cant deny that fact.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-07T11:27:18-06:00

ID

116174

Comment

..Anyway, an independent in my opinion is someone who doesnt vote based on party affiliation but by whothey think best does the job. That's my definition of it, and that's what I am. I hate labels, and I hate being boxed in. I don't anyone to assume anything about me because of what I call myself. Shoot, that's even why I go to a nondenominational church. Don't fence me in... I was going back and forth between Obama and Clinton until I heard Clinton's speech after the Iowa caucus. If I heard the word "Democrat" one more time...AAAAAAAH! I don't dislike her, but I just don't see her as the "change" candidate right now. As much as I would loooove to see a woman president in my lifetime, I don't want it to just be any woman, and if it is her one day, she needs to get it together.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-01-07T12:16:18-06:00

ID

116175

Comment

Right L.W. it almost sounded like a "victory" speech..And if I didnt know any better it WAS at least her version of a victory speech. Uh...ma'am..you just got your lunch handed to ya. How about saying.."I lost, we pledge to do better" or something along those lines. just reaked of "politics as usual" that speech ceratinly didnt scream "change" candidate to me. I liked Hillary as a candidate if for nothing more than a chance to have Bill as First Husband..but she's got that taint that I speak of on those life-long political folks. Obama's the candidate right now.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-07T12:30:29-06:00

ID

116176

Comment

I actually don't have a television at home -- tombarns Man!!! You're smart!!! I wish I had the willpower to toss mine out the window.

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2008-01-07T20:34:45-06:00

ID

116177

Comment

Kamikazi, your posts drip with such venom against that poor woman, Hillary. I like Obama too!!! I like them both, but when it comes to experience, Hillary comes with double force. Hillary is concerned about all people of this nation---not just the younger crowd. The SPIN agents have planted that seed and the idea of CHANGE without experience, and I am sad to say it seems to be sticking in the brains of some. Just listen to her. Visit hillaryhub.com. She didn't just start talking about youth. Think about it. When Hillary is elected President of the US, she will have one of the best, and most experienced advisors ever---Bill Clinton. Yes, of course, he committed a major flaw while in office, but we cannot overlook the fact that while the man was in office, this country experienced tremendous economic prosperity. She has experience as well, and with the two of them working together, I think that this country will once again get back on the right track.

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2008-01-07T21:28:15-06:00

ID

116178

Comment

When Hillary is elected President of the US, she will have one of the best, and most experienced advisors ever---Bill Clinton. Yes, of course, he committed a major flaw while in office, but we cannot overlook the fact that while the man was in office, this country experienced tremendous economic prosperity. She has experience as well, and with the two of them working together, I think that this country will once again get back on the right track. I understand your perspective, but as much as I really like her husband BJ, I really don't want a semi-monarchy running the country. We had GHW Bush in the White House for a total of 12 years as a VP and POTUS, BJ Clinton as POTUS for 8 years, GW Bush as POTUS for 8 years, and now we could have another Clinton as POTUS (with BJ in a support role) for 4 or possibly 8 years? That's 32-36 years of two families influencing and controlling the Executive Branch in this country. Hell, I fear if Jeb Bush decides to run for POTUS in 4 or 8 years the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate him, and they may be able to convince enough sheeple that it's a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of America breaking from England to get away from being led exclusively by a ruling class? And while you are dismissive of BJ's indiscretions, I think they would be a huge distraction for a Hillary administration and I'm not interested in going thru 4 years of the media focusing more on the nature of their marriage and Bill's place in her life when we have serious issues facing our country. I'm want some new blood along with new ideas and a different philosophy, and I think the country as a whole is ready for this also which is why Obama and Huckabee are getting massive amounts of attention and support right now. I think people are deciding that having a long political resume and experience doesn't always guarantee an effective leader. The way a President expresses himself/herself, their core political philosophy and the people they choose as advisors and policymakers under their administration are what really matter. If experience were the biggest consideration, Biden or Dodd would be the frontrunners right now. Obama doesn't have a long political resume, and he readily admits his experience is less than most of the others running. While at times I worry about his readiness to deal with the complex geo-political landscape in the wake of 9/11 and the War on Terror, I'm not convinced Billary is any better suited to face those challenges, and I have a serious distrust of her. I like Obama because he is both charismatic (unlike Billary) and highly intelligent, and more importantly he has integrity, strong values and good judgment, and I think the American people are starving for that kind of leadership. He truly inspires people, especially young people, into believing in this country again, and if he were President I think he could translate that faith in America onto the world stage.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-01-08T09:15:54-06:00

ID

116179

Comment

WOW Jeff..you pretty much summed up what would have been my response. In short, I like Hillary..truly do. Gave her every opportunity to win my vote. Love Bill. Would love to see him as "first husband"..but she has proven that she is old guard. She's the same professional politician that I hate seeing re-elected time and time again. No spin agent could do to Hillary what she's done to herself. Her moves have been calculated and you can almost set your watch to em. Ive watched her turn around and suddenly reach out to young voters after she saw the strategy work for Obama. She heard the pundits say she was stiff and robotic. And then..almost on cue..she cries oon camera at a stop in New Hampshire. Im just not stupid enough to see it for anything but what it is...strategy. People are much more astute than that blu. there's no venom in that...just calling em like I see em. Ive heard folks rambling all day about Obama's record and his "experience". And that is now incidentally Hillary's new attack on him. But let me restate blu..Patooey on experience..simply not necessary in politics. Mobilizing, energizing, and bring hope to a hopeless people is what politics is about. Politics is about people. And you simply cannot discredit the effect Obama has on people. they believe in him. Point blank and thats what a leader needs. Even Bill O'Reilly said he was awed by what he say at Obama's event the other day. the man is simply a phenomenon. and in this hour THAT is what America needs "...I think people are deciding that having a long political resume and experience doesn't always guarantee an effective leader. The way a President expresses himself/herself, their core political philosophy and the people they choose as advisors and policymakers under their administration are what really matter." Jeff..'nuff said. that cinches it.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-08T10:50:03-06:00

ID

116180

Comment

Also, what exactly is Clinton's "experience"??? She's been in the Senate for a few years, and voted *for* the Iraqi mess, even though the WMD evidence wasn't there, andd it should have been clear that the neo-cons were leading us into one of the biggest foreign-policy flubs in recent years. She and her husband also completely screwed up an opportunity to reform health care -- partly because she couldn't deliver it without pissing everyone off. She certainly has "experience" enabling a husband who isn't above using highway patrol officers to lock himself and a harassment victim in a hotel room. Let's see ... She has experience pusing the goals of the Democratic Leadership Council. She has experience selling out to corporations left and right, including Wal-Mart, and of figuing out interesting ways to put the bacon on the table while her husband build his political career. IF she's talking about Bill's political experience, it doesn't count. She doesn't get the consolation prize of the presidency just because her husband had the job for a while (and screwed it up royally because he was too weak to keep his pants zipped in the Oval Office, and too weak to admit it when he got caught, and too cowardly to go have an affair with a fully formed (mentally and otherwise) woman outside the White House whom he couldn't treat as a young piece of meat when he got caught (not that I support that, either, mind you, but it would have been a more Kennedy-esque and manly thing to do). Hillary is a political animal, too. Now, suddenly, her voice is breaking and she's getting all teary-eyed BECAUSE the emotion of Obama is winning voters. Oh, and by the way, where is the "Rodham" in her name that she took back just after her husband won the presidency? Mothballed again because it's not politically expedient? I'd love a woman in the White House, but not this one. And certainly not her baggage, personal or otherwise.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T11:17:49-06:00

ID

116181

Comment

Oh, and lest we forget, even though things were going well under Clinton's administration (some of which he was responsible for), he put the country and his party on his line with his ON-THE-JOB shenanigans and then his attempts to cover it up. That idiot George Bush would never have been elected in such a razor-thin election had Clinton been able to keep his teeny-bopper fantasies out of the Oval Office. He was not a victim; he is responsible for everything that he did, and everything that transpired politically. Perhaps we shouldn't hold that against the wife who enabled him politically, but it sure doesn't she should get some sympathy vote from women OR that we should let that man anywhere near the White House again. It's a recipe for disasater.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T11:21:32-06:00

ID

116182

Comment

Now now Donna as much as I agree with your points about Hillary. Id have to say Bill Clinton is one of two things..either a GREAT president of the GREATEST president to ever serve. The economy DID boom under his watch. There was a renewed since of Prosperity that abounded when he was in office. To squash that based on that affair isnt really fair in the totality of the issue. He DID have a successful presidency and was well liked on both sides of the aisle. as we saw, a great deal of Americans had no issue with the affair and didnt feel like it affected his job as President. I don't. Infact, one had nothing to do with the other in my opinion. now we can disagree on THAT.. but it just speaks to the fact that Hillary simply does not posess her husband's charm. ..And I dont think Bush getting elected had anything to do with clinton's affair as much as Gore's shunning of Clinton did. Gore at the time(before his big hollywood transformation) was as stiff as week old bread. He would have been well served to have embraced Bill and used his popularity to help him get those votes. THAT's why he lost or at least a key reason. Clinton..if legally possible could have won a third term easliy. Even after monica-gate. and still today outpolls most Republican candidates head to head. You cant buy that kind of force.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-08T11:56:38-06:00

ID

116183

Comment

Yes, Clinton was charming, and is a great example—along with Melton here—why charm can be so deceptive. And Gore isn't all that different than he ever was; the media coverage is. He also stayed the course, did what was right and to the public's knowledge, never stuck a cigar you-know-where with an intern under his employ in a publicly funded office while talking the country's business with a legislator on the phone. Or whatever order all that happened in. It wasn't just "an affair" as Democrats like to brush it away as; it was yet another example of a man willing to abuse his immense power over people in his employ in one way or another. In corporate America, it would have gotten him fired. Then the way he dealt with it afterward took away any remaining respect I had from him. At that point, he was just another good ole boy saying and doing anything he could to blame the target of his affections for his actions. There is no integrity in that. Gore will be remembered as one of the greatest almost-presidents we ever had. Why? Because he did the right thing and waited. He wasn't so self-centered that he was willing to sacrifice the welfare of the entire country for a momentary high. There is nothing "great" about being so self-focused that you can see beyond the next cigar. It's not Hillary's lack of charm that should worry you. It's her cold, calculating belief that she deserves the White House by any means necessary that should raise alarms. The economy did boom under Clinton, and he helped make some of that happen (including with some pretty disturbing capitulations to the GOP). I give him credit for what he did well. But don't miss the part where the fact that he sacrificed the well-being of the country for his sophomoric antics is one of the reasons that he will not be remembered as a great president, and certainly not the greatest. In other words, he blew it. Tragically. Now, now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T12:06:26-06:00

ID

116184

Comment

Well, Looking at it from a woman's perspective. I see your disgust, distrust, and disappointment for his "whatever ya call it". I feel you...But to me and a lot of folks..it just wasnt that important. As I said to Laurel on the show..and I think maybe Ronni kind of agreed with me.. cant speak for her though. We have extreeeeemely skewed views of sex in this country..What Bill did wouldnt have been a blip on the radar in other places. dont get me wrong..the Oval Office was perhaps not the place..but it in no way affected how he operated as Chief Executive of the US. He did a stand up job. What he did with Monica, Paula, and Lord-knows-who-else had nothing to do with what he did on the job. In fact, I want the man that has his finger on the button to be as relaxed as possible LOL. I dont disagree that to some point to be President you have to be calculating. I think thats a strong point for her. and she's one of the best campaigners I ve ever witnessed. She has it down to a science. But THAT is not what we want anymore...I simply have to LIKE you first of all to even loof deeper. And thats what most folks want. She's may make my list of non-electables or the league of robotic gentlemen and ladies along with Gore, Kerry, and Harvey Johnson. Loosen up for Christ's sakes

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-08T12:24:18-06:00

ID

116185

Comment

.it just wasnt that important. As I said to Laurel on the show..and I think maybe Ronni kind of agreed with me.. cant speak for her though. We have extreeeeemely skewed views of sex in this country I guess you're not getting what I'm saying. I'm not talking about sex; I'm talking about honesty, integrity and respect for other human beings. I'm talking about leaders who don't use their power over others in the ways that Clinton has done repeatedly, even as Democrats (and even some feminists) try to excuse it away as just "sex." And I'm not talking about this as a woman. I'm saying this as a human being and a voter who expects better out of leaders. And for the record, listening to Democrats try to excuse away Clinton's actions, cover-up, and tarring and feathering of his young mistress to try to shift blame from himself, was when I first decided that I could not in good conscience be a Democrat. It was the moment when I realized that, for many people, being a loyal partisan is the most important thing. It's not for me. More recently, I showed that I believe in integrity over partisanship when I withdrew out endorsement of David Blount for playing the xenophobic card. His campaign guy accused me of "eating our own" here on our site. "Our own"? Wow. Loyalty first, eh? I was supposed to be silent and obedient, it seems, because, you know, Democrats are SO much better than Republicans. My answer: Then prove it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T12:46:57-06:00

ID

116186

Comment

He did a stand up job. What he did with Monica, Paula, and Lord-knows-who-else had nothing to do with what he did on the job. Actually, you are dramatically wrong about that. These incidents were indeed ON THE JOB—to the point of happening while he was doing the country's business on the phone while Lewinsky serviced him under the desk. Or using highway patrolmen to guard while he harassed Paula Jones. Or what he did to that woman in the White House whose husband died. Oh, and let's not forget what he did later—the obstruction of justice part—in order to cover his lying, scheming, power-hungry and probably self-loathing self. He needed a psychiatrist, not an intern to order around as he would. Kamikaze, being charmed by a candidate should not blind one to what they do wrong. You are making excuses for him that are incorrect at best.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T12:49:36-06:00

ID

116187

Comment

Did anyone hear about hear about a guy who held up a sign saying "IRON MY SHIRTS" during one of Hillary Clinton's press conferences? That was dumb.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-01-08T13:34:14-06:00

ID

116188

Comment

well honestly we have to admit that two adults consented...lewinsky was legal...it doesnt matter...bill clinton signed nafta...bill also signed off on these drug sentencing guidelines that are being used to railroad black men off to prison...greatest is a stretch...good...for what black folks have gotten from the white house yeah... i dont buy the whole change for the sake of change thing that accompanies obama...i dont believe him...to go from community organizer to senator to president in six years is a stretch...where did this guy come from... he has said all the right things…so did melton…he has great ideas…so do i…he appears to be sincere…so did melton…i just cannot ride with the dude cause I don't trust him…at all…i think we are being blinded by the light…the light of hope and what we aren't doing is truly being as critical of obama as i think we should…great sound bites and no expressed plan of how to accomplish those sound bites…does that sound familiar??? im not a fan of mrs. rodham clinton, neither am i a fan of the other candidates…i rated closely to the guy from AK, mike gravel…i like him according to what ive read and been told by the news… until somebody with student loans runs for office i cant say that one is better than the other…rodclint made some serious over-estimations of her last name…however, i think we all should wonder who wins this election…cause now it is the lesser of 12 evils

Author

skipp

Date

2008-01-08T13:34:25-06:00

ID

116189

Comment

Skipp, you too are missing the point. It wasn't about two adults consenting, and although she may have acted rashly, she wasn't on the public's time clock when it happened. This is about him, and the decisions he made, and the power he continually tried to have on women *without the same level of power that he had* and who were in his employ in one way or the other—and whom he tried to destroy once his actions were discovered. That is sexual harassment at its worst. And once he was caught, he did break laws. Impeachable ones. He's lucky he wasn't removed from office. Otherwise, you make very good points. Clinton was simply not all that, policy-wise, whether NAFTA devotion, the welfare compromise, the sentencing guideliens, the zero tolerance policy, suing to enforce the unconstitutional CDA ... and this doesn't even get into his foreign-policy decisions, and that one very-possible "wagging the dog" incident in the middle of his Lewinsky obstruction-of-justice campaign. Put another way, Clinton's legacy has as many holes as that fake dot-com bubble that helped him look so great domestically.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T13:45:21-06:00

ID

116190

Comment

Bill Clinton was a flawed man, that is obvious. I personally am not going to say how flawed because I do not know the truth about every allegation made against him. It is just hard for me to jump on a guy about everything that is out there when we do not always know what the situation was. People lie. Men and women. I am sure not going to call this man a rapist without him being convicted of something like that or unless I witnessed it. It would have to be more than just he said, she said kind of stuff. I have lived in the athletic world, the fraternity world and been in other setting where a person's story changed depending on the circumstances. It is just hard from me to believe some of these women that talk about Clinton because you only hear from them during election time and others are trying to get paid. Maybe Clinton did everything that he has been accused of, but there has got to be some agreed upon standard that we go by other than an accusation.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2008-01-08T13:50:27-06:00

ID

116191

Comment

but there has got to be some agreed upon standard that we go by other than an accusation. Right. And there is. The problem with Clinton is that the people who like him just refuse believe the mountains of evidence against him. Don't cry for him; he's a very lucky man. He wasn't removed from office; most people don't bother to remember the actual details of his transgressions; and many people write off what he did as just a little elicit "sex." Oh, and he may get to return to the White House, although that looks less likely than a week ago. I cannot tell you how much it would thrill me for independent voters to sway this election away from the royal families and heir apparents to the White House. Maybe Democrats would finally start listening to suggestions that they do something, anything to appeal to new/unhappy voters.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T13:56:20-06:00

ID

116192

Comment

Ladd, but at the same time, the standard you speak of is not applied to Jefferson who is looked at as great, inspite of Sally Hemmings. Kennedy was looked as great, inspite of affairs. I am not trying to defend anyone that did anything wrong, it is just that there is never a consistent standard that we evaluate these guys. You are a female and are more likely to believe the Clinton accusers than some males. I would hope that people do not like Clinton so much that they would excuse away crimes. Personally, I thought Bill Clinton was a good President. Great would require a particular circumstance like Lincoln, etc.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2008-01-08T14:11:09-06:00

ID

116193

Comment

i guess...ms. ladd... i really do believe that you give men too much credit...i dont think what he did while he was on our dime with his penis is important...i dont buy his legacy...he was the president...so was kennedy...i think if there had been an internet kennedy would have been in media hell... great men are still men...martin, kennedy clinton...the only man that i believe was what he was at all times was malcolm x... i just dont know how well i feel knowing that people are voting for obama and not voting against the dems or reps...this election is very interesting and suprising...we are living in scary times...very scary times.

Author

skipp

Date

2008-01-08T14:11:52-06:00

ID

116194

Comment

So, Golden, we're supposed to apply the same standards that were applied back in slave days to the white leaders who had their way with their slaves!?! I don't think Jefferson was great because he *owned* slaves, not only because he had sex and children with one. The latter part was part of the deal for those privileged white guys if they wanted to sleep with their slaves. Who was going to stop them? And Skipp, I don't see you giving men enough credit. For one thing, like many, you don't seem to be able or willing to separate out the circumstances in which men choose to philander—it seems to be all the same to you, regardless of location, timing, the power held over the woman, what he did next, whether his daughter was in the same building, whether he posted cops outside the door to watch for him, and so on. This wasn't just about him, say, jerking off (which, in effect, was what it was if you read the Starr Report) in the Oval Office. This was about what he was willing to do, KNOWING DAMN WELL how it could (and did) hurt the country, not to mention the young woman in the employ of the White House at the time. One can say she was stupid; but he was irresponsible, and as president of the United States and in effect her boss there, was in the position to restrain his desires and direct them in a different fashion. I know Martin and JFK weren't perfect, either. But to my knowledge, neither was accused of such blatant harassment of employees (repeatedly); Martin didn't have a church worker doing him under the pulpit while he preached; and JFK tended to have affairs with women somewhere near his own age. And I'm sure neither one of them went around talking about women's rights a whole lot, rendering themselves into immediate hyprocrites. That said, nothing anyone else ever did or society's acceptance of it—from Jefferson to MLK—has diddley squat to do with what Bill Clinton did. And had Clinton been a Republican and done the very same thing, Democrats would have been trying to string him up. Remember when Packwood harassed his employee? Remember the feminist/progressive outcry about that? Sex is sex, and boys will be boys, eh? Personally, I don't believe that men have to live by such a self-loathing and belittling stereotype. Such a belief is a real insult to men. And I find it very scary how many people are not willing to hold men to a standard higher than the level of their penis—and even admire that they use their power in such destructive ways. Humanity still has some evolution ahead of us—and just imagine what that will do to Clinton's legacy.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T14:24:34-06:00

ID

116195

Comment

Oh, and yes, Malcolm X was in a class of his own. It is memorable and notable that a major reason that he turned on Elijah Muhammed was because the leader of the Nation of Islam was a horrendous philanderer, which was directly against NOI (not to mention traditional Muslim) teachings. I admire Malcolm so much because he lived his principles, was willing to die for his cause (which included speaking out against Muhammed's hypocrisy) and because he was willing to evolve and change as he became more educated. I so wish we'd gotten at least another five years out of him; this country might well be very different today if so. All that said, why is it that Malcolm should be considered noble because he DID NOT cheat on his wife and follow manly whims regardless of the consequences? We should not consider that part "great"; it should simply be the basic standard for being labeled "great." That is, you can be a great policy-maker, orator and political leader, but there is nothing "great" about you if you treat your family shabbily or the women (or men) in your employ. I think of it as Greatness 101.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T14:30:20-06:00

ID

116196

Comment

Ladd, you lost me on that one. I would say that the standard should be comparable. All white men did not own slaves and all slave owners did not sleep with the slaves they had. If that is your standard, Clinton has to be excused because a lot of men today cheat on their wives. As for the allegations, there have been a lot of men on death row because there was "evidence" against them that turned out to be false. I take all the allegations agains Clinton seriously, but at the same time, they warrant being proved before I pass judgement on him. You believe the allegations, I would just need more than what I have seen to put the label of rapist on anyone. When we get to the point that an accusation(s) is all it takes for a person to be guilty of something, we all are in trouble. It also has nothing to do with him being a Democrat. You seem to think it is a new phenomenon when this type of thing has gone on since the days of King David. That does not make it right, but it does put it in perspective. Christians value King David as a leader inspite of him having an affair and causing the woman's husband to be killed. I would say that those are some pretty serious infractions, but it did not completely destroy his political achievements. My problem with things like this is more of the hypocritical positions people will take. The same people that lambasted Clinton for his escapades want to elect Rudy Guilianni and excuse his. My thing is if adultery is a disqualifier for you, the candidate's party affiliation should not matter. You and I differ in that I require some concrete proof on something before I go calling people murderers, rapists, etc. I respect your view, I just think if you applied it historically in the same manner to situations we know to be true, you would disqualify some people that rank pretty high as leaders.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2008-01-08T14:46:24-06:00

ID

116197

Comment

It's not Hillary's lack of charm that should worry you. It's her cold, calculating belief that she deserves the White House by any means necessary that should raise alarms. It raises my alarm, and has for a while. There's something almost...Nixonian about her. Kinda eerie given her small but important role in the Nixon impeachment. That's the source of distrust issue with her.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-01-08T14:46:53-06:00

ID

116198

Comment

it does not make him great... his character in those times is what makes him great... malcolm was handsome and powerful and strong and im sure their were women who wanted "red" well im sure that he was a man and had needs and wants and desires but he did not act on them...acknowledging that does equal applause for what he should have done... the thing is, that if i as a handsome rapper is out on the road, while my lovely wife is at home and some woman says hey skipper you really float my boat...i smile and raise my mast...im wrong...but guess what she went into this situation knowing and wanting that...i didnt hang a letter of reccomendation over her head...neither did i push the issue it came and so did i...it does not make me right but it does not make me a criminal...immoral but not illegal i cant say that i find women in "positions" of authority a little more appealing...clive davis spoke about janis joplin wanting to have her way with him before she would sign...he laughed...he had power and so did she... sorry but i love it when older women approach me it makes me feel sexy...how can anyone judge her because i enjoy her approach and chose to disrespect my wife and act on those urges...ms ladd im sure that you have had a writer who would have loved nothing more than to be called into your office and told that he would have to pull an all nighter...we cant say that he is a victim if he willingly goes along...honestly women like sex too and the control that it gives them...i was told that by a woman

Author

skipp

Date

2008-01-08T14:47:24-06:00

ID

116199

Comment

I think people are deciding that having a long political resume and experience doesn't always guarantee an effective leader. True, Mr. Lucas. but what is the first thing potential employers expect from all job applicants? When did experience become a dirty word, and why toss out a leader(regardless of years served) if he/she is doing a good job? And: The way a President expresses himself/herself, their core political philosophy and the people they choose as advisors and policymakers under their administration are what really matter. You are absolutely correct Mr. Lucas, and Bill would be an excellent advisor/policymaker under Hillary's administration.

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2008-01-08T14:48:50-06:00

ID

116200

Comment

i can say that i find women in positions of authority more appealing

Author

skipp

Date

2008-01-08T14:49:41-06:00

ID

116201

Comment

I'd love a woman in the White House, but not this one. And certainly not her baggage, personal or otherwise. --- ladd It's amazing that amid all that political baggage, Mr. Clinton left the White House with a 60%+approval rating. Simply AMAZING!!!

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2008-01-08T15:01:49-06:00

ID

116202

Comment

The economy DID boom under his[Clinton] watch. There was a renewed since of Prosperity that abounded when he was in office. To squash that based on that affair isnt really fair in the totality of the issue. He DID have a successful presidency and was well liked on both sides of the aisle. as we saw, a great deal of Americans had no issue with the affair and didnt feel like it affected his job as President. I don't. Infact, one had nothing to do with the other in my opinion. now we can disagree on THAT.. but it just speaks to the fact that Hillary simply does not posess her husband's charm. ..And I dont think Bush getting elected had anything to do with clinton's affair as much as Gore's shunning of Clinton did. Gore at the time(before his big hollywood transformation) was as stiff as week old bread. He would have been well served to have embraced Bill and used his popularity to help him get those votes. THAT's why he lost or at least a key reason. Clinton..if legally possible could have won a third term easliy. Even after monica-gate. and still today outpolls most Republican candidates head to head. You cant buy that kind of force. Eloquently said, Kamikaze. And let the church say, AMEN!!!

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2008-01-08T15:13:39-06:00

ID

116203

Comment

Gore had to shun Clinton. It's remarkable to diss Gore for something Clinton created. No, it's not amazing that he left the White House with a high approval rating. Integrity isn't always popular; I mean, witness comments on this thread. And Kaze, I know that the economy boomed during the Clinton administration. I haven't said differently. But you should do some homework on WHY. It didn't happen just because Clinton was a "great" man and president. In fact, I suspect some of the reasons would offend you. i can say that i find women in positions of authority more appealing Good to hear you say that, Skipp. I would say that real men sincere in their own worth are more likely to say that, so it's a compliment to you. The other side of it, though, is that Clinton tended to target women who did not have much of any power, much less any real power. That is a classic thing to do for a rapist or harasser—target someone who won't be believed, or who you don't believe can "beat" you at the game. The most disturbing thing about Clinton is the pattern of sexual power plays over women, and then the lies he told to wiggle out of it. I'm ashamed to say that I turned my head on very good evidence and voted for Clinton. In so doing, I betrayed my ideals, both as an American and as a feminist. I will try not to be make that same mistake again. Some loyal Democrats may say that is "eating our own" or some such bullsh!t, but I have to live with myself first and foremost. And Kamikaze, it's absurd to even type that Clinton's actions didn't affect his ability to be president. He knew the consequences of such actions, and he was tied up in the scandal for many, many months. In fact, nonpartisan reports show now that his actions and inactions on the threat of terrorism contributed to 911. So what happens when Clinton decides to re-sow his oats in the White House with some or another powerless intern; the media find out; and a new Clinton presidency gets tied up in scandal in a tragic deja vu all over again!?! It's not worth the risk. This couple took their turn. It's time for CHANGE. We're READY.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T15:25:23-06:00

ID

116204

Comment

If that is your standard, Clinton has to be excused because a lot of men today cheat on their wives Golden, I think you need to read closer. I haven't said anyone should be excused for mistreatment of women, slaves or any other human being. Please don't put words in my mouth, especially incorrect ones. Thanks.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T15:34:12-06:00

ID

116205

Comment

Also, Golden, are you familiar with the evidence against Clinton in the various cases, or are you assuming that it was so little? Democrats complain a lot today, and rightly, about people with real information about Republicans being "Swiftboated." But they forget that the tactic was perfected on the Clintonian watch as their crew destroyed and discredited women one by one who stepped up to tell the truth about him. Maybe you think that's just "sex," but I will choose to differ. And I also would guess that the problem of so many different women, of different political persuasions, accusing him of trying to have his way with them regardless of their preferences would not make you question whether or not his power was allowing him to get away with stuff that other men wouldn't have? You seem to be assuming that they all must have been lying. I'm sorry to tell you, but that's a typical response from apologists for sexual harassment and abuse in its various forms. So is not actually looking at the evidence that the woman provided because, well, you don't want it to be true. I, on the other hand, believe that Clinton probably should have served time by now for some of his behavior. Because he's powerful, he's managed to evade it, and now he wants to create his powerful Camelot by getting his wife into office. I find it all disgusting.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T15:39:00-06:00

ID

116206

Comment

You know, I was reading a story recenty that goes like this: There was a man (who should have been at battle with the rest of his men) who rose from off his bed and took a stroll upon his roof-top. To his surprise, he saw a woman bathing in the distance, and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. The man sent messengers, and took the woman; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her, and she returned unto her house. We later learn the woman conceived; and sent and told the man that she was with child. The man, thinking he could get out of this dastardly deed, immediately brought the woman's husband home from war, plied him with food and drink, and granted the husband a conjugal vistit with his wife. The husband, being an honorable man, could not bring himself to go in and enjoy intimacy with his wife while his men were yet fighting, suffering and dying on the battlefield. So he refused to go to her. Realizing his sneaky plan had failed, the man then sent the woman's husband back into battle and ordered him to be placed in the heat of battle, ensuring his immediate and untimely death. After having the woman's husband murdered by war, the man then brought the woman back into his house and made her his wife. We all know this story and its outcome. (Read it in 2 Samuel Chapter 11). If ever a man were flawed to the core, King David was at the bottom of the barrel. I know (with this post) I have opened the flood-gates of criticism, but before you rip me to bits on this, let' try to remember the message in this particular narrative --- FORGIVENESS.

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2008-01-08T16:29:16-06:00

ID

116207

Comment

The only thing I will say, blu, is that we can forgive without being stupid. What Clinton did on the public's dime is now between him, his family, his God and his conscience—until and unless the family comes back into the White House and he becomes the co-president (which I have to assume is the basis of her "experience" mantra—his, not hers). Then it's all of our concern, as it is now during the campaign for them to get there. Put another way, I forgave a man who abused me in my past, and am now friends with him. However, there is no way in hell I'd ever live with him again. I have compassion, and I pray that he has cast away his own demons, but I would never trust my life with him again. People get in trouble all the time because we not only forgive, which we need to do, but we forget and overlook the dangers of the same thing happening again.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T16:38:11-06:00

ID

116208

Comment

More news: By a vote of 72-48, J P Compretta was re-elected Speaker Pro Tempore over Robert Johnson.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T16:53:27-06:00

ID

116209

Comment

I forgave a man who abused me in my past, and am now friends with him. However, there is no way in hell I'd ever live with him again. I have compassion, and I pray that he has cast away his own demons, but I would never trust my life with him again. Wow! Donna, I'm touched. It appears your mistrust of Mr. Clinton goes a bit deeper than just his misfortunate dalliances in the White House. I don't think anyone ever truly heals from abuse. Be well, and be strong.

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2008-01-08T17:05:09-06:00

ID

116210

Comment

Y'all were brillant in this exchange. I'll vote for any of you. I can't even think of anything funny, amusing or smart to add. I did notice that a lone soldiers apparently, took on, beat up, defeated or held at bay an army of men on the Bill Clinton tip. Randall Robinson, formerly of TransAfrica, et al, recently noted the unending love and great respect many people, especially black men and women, have toward Billl Clinton and quipped I understand the existence of such respect, but I can't stop wondering "what for." In other words, what of any great substance, noticeable effect and endurance did he do for us black folks beyond a few key appointments.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2008-01-08T17:25:33-06:00

ID

116211

Comment

Blu, I appreciate that, but don't misplace my intentions here. I know myself well enough to know that I would have felt the same way before I had that experience. My 10th-grade world history teahcer used to swear to me that I would be a very different person by the time I was 40 when I would challenge. I'm not, at least in the ways that she meant. (Other ways, yes, thankfully.) Am I that lone solider, Ray? ;-) I also understand why black people like Clinton—isn't it sad that he is perceived as the only national figure who "gets it" when it comes to African American issues? But the "what for" is very relevant; just because he likes and respects black people does not mean that he has done right by them. Same for women. We've really, really got to get beyond charm here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T17:52:42-06:00

ID

116212

Comment

Of course.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2008-01-08T17:55:50-06:00

ID

116213

Comment

Thanks, Ray. I love it when I know you're just sitting back and observing. It's hard to leave you speechless. ;-) And Golden, I missed this statement of yours earlier: The same people that lambasted Clinton for his escapades want to elect Rudy Guilianni and excuse his. Nope, that's a vast generalization and false. *I* lambasted Clinton for his escapades and have done the same thing to Rudy. I also suspect that many people feel it in their hearts, and it's a major factor that the lamestream media overlooked until the Iowa outcome last week. The pundits were talking about the Clinton baggage as if it was a new idea. I've always believed it would hurt Hillary's chances. Is that fair to her? It's hard to say, but she is clearly some enabler as long as she gets her end of the bargain. And staying with and supporting a man who did the things he is accused of is hard to swallow. Doesn't exactly make her a Friend of Women, either. (FOW?)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-01-08T18:47:13-06:00

ID

116214

Comment

she is clearly some enabler as long as she gets her end of the bargain. And staying with and supporting a man who did the things he is accused of is hard to swallow. ---ladd Could it be that they simply love eachother? Why should we disparage the woman if she chooses to forgive and stay with her husband? After all, isn't that what marriage is all about---love, forgiveness, working out difficulties TOGETHER, to make the marriage work? Oh, by the way, Hillary won New Hampshire tonight.

Author

blu_n_a_redstate

Date

2008-01-08T23:33:17-06:00

ID

116215

Comment

Ladd, I will make this my last post on the subject because it seems to be a testy subject for you. My intention was not to put words in your mouth and I never implied that it was "just sex". I feel that I am fairly knowledgable about the allegations made of Clinton and have listened to the women making the allegations. I only said from my own personal experience, I know how a female can lie about that type of thing. Because of that, I am not quick to believe every allegation like that. But it really goes for any thing with me, I truly believe in the ideal of being innocent until proven quilty. Proven guilty does not require a court of law to me, but it does require more than a he said, she said type of situation. I would be the last person to take up for a criminal, but I have standards that I try to adhere to, that is just me. You have different standards, I respect you for that. We will just have to agree to disagree on the situation. I am not all omniscient and omnipresent, I try to deal with what I know. We all know Clinton cheated on his wife and lied under oath. He will never get a defense from me on those things. They both represent that he has character issues. But at the same time,I wont automatically make the leap that because I know those things to be truth that all I have heard about him must be true. When I spoke of people that lambasted him but accept Guilianni, I was not referring to you. It is a legitimate disqualifier to some that Clinton committed adultery, that is fine, but I feel it is hypocritical for those same people to be Guilianni supporters. I never thought you were one of those people. What you may not understand about the affection the black community has for Bill Clinton is that even if he did not deliver as you say, he sure came across as caring more than any other politician in my lifetime. That just goes to show you that the African American community has not had many politicians to latch on to. The reason that I will not go after people without a certain trigger is because it is contagious. I saw that you mentioned Hilliary being an enabler. That would only be true if she was aware of Bill's actions and that those actions were true. It is quite possible that you could be wrong, then what? "I am sorry" would not quite get it. So, I handle that by reframing from going to the extent of accusing anyone of things I am not 90 percent certain of. For example, I have heard 20-30 unrelated people make the very same allegation against Mayor Melton. I do not care for Mayor Melton's style of leadership. Mayor Melton has done a lot of suspect things that are in the public domain. But I refuse to spread this allegation that I hear over and over because I do not know it to be true.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2008-01-08T23:40:28-06:00

ID

116216

Comment

I have no insight into the Bill Hillary wedlock. It could be 1. Political marriage. I know of many. This family marries this family, it is damn near a pre arranged deal. Or, male (or female) politician who is gay, marries well for connections and stays "married" for them. Wife/husband reaps the economic or social rewards. Both sleep with who they want discretely. { My personal favorite is a former U.S. Senator, who is gay and was married to a woman, from a "newly" wealthy family who was a lesbian. they have had a long relationship, that still continues, based on a "deal". Both had lovers, both hid it from their families and both gained what they wanted. Political power, money and social stature}. Or one marries into a family for money and the other gets the social or political acceptance. 2. Everything was a lie... OK fairy tail 3. Hilary is that forgiving. I doubt this. My wife would forgive me, I would just live in HELL for about 3 decades, and she has told me she would work through it with me, and it would be long, painful and expensive on every imaginable level, for YEARS. I would guess Hillary is LESS forgiving than my patient wonderful wife. 4. It is a bizarre love hate relationship that is so white trash it needs to be taken to a trailer with a meth lab inside of it and 8 divorces between the 2 by 32 with at least 2 being to the same people/couple Those are my guesses or it could be something all stranger and I don't want to think about

Author

AGamm627

Date

2008-01-09T00:05:50-06:00

ID

116217

Comment

Hillary won NH by a narrow margin last night. Maybe Obama should cry a little before the SC primary to be sure to get a win (nah). While the pundits were surprised, I wasn't. Despite my growing admiration of and preference for Obama, I still believe Clinton is going to get the nomination and I'm waiting to be proven wrong. The Dems like Obama and may even believe he's the better candidate in terms of honesty, charisma and substance, but I think deep down they don't really believe that he's electable. I'm just glad to see that this is a real race and not a frakking coronation. And on the Republican side, how about McCain? He may end up deserving the title "Comeback Kid" in this race.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-01-09T08:33:57-06:00

ID

116218

Comment

I thought Hillary outperformed Obama and Edwards in the debates last Saturday night. She said more of real substance & actual plans for her ideas than either of them did. They mostly said generic things - are we going to elect a president who won't be able to work things through with congress? This strikes me as a potential problem with both Obama and Edwards. And I do think she had some very concrete things to say, which I appreciated. I'd be interested to know what others thought of the debates.

Author

Izzy

Date

2008-01-09T08:48:54-06:00

ID

116219

Comment

Hmmm, I missed the debates. Can you give some examples, Izzy?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-01-09T09:28:17-06:00

ID

116220

Comment

On the Democrat side, I'll vote for Richardson because of his soberness and experience, even if that's a lost cause. Among the highest vote-getters, I say Obama despite that I generally distrust charismatic politicians (which is another reason my vote goes to Richardson as long as he's in the race). Dynastic politics is an even bigger turnoff, so Clinton automatically does NOT get my vote. On the Republican side, I'll have to go for McCain. He doesn't seem too beholden to the Religious Right, plus he has a record of honest reform attempts - not to mention a willingness to be bipartisan (McCain-Feingold covers BOTH counts). I'd rather have Romney than Huckabee, if only because he seemed pro-gay rights (although this may be because he's from Massachusetts. I don't know how conservative he'd be when a national politician though). In my dream world, it'd be a Richardson / McCain general election. But as for most hopeful and probable outcomes...I'm hoping for Obama / McCain. If the latter can get extra gas on Super Tuesday, then I might actually consider voting Republican for the first time in...what...a dozen years?

Author

Philip

Date

2008-01-09T10:25:07-06:00

ID

116221

Comment

.."And staying with and supporting a man who did the things he is accused of is hard to swallow." Cmon Donna Im surprised!.. YOU are actually in that group of women who hold a slight grudge with Hillary for staying with Bill? I spoke about them on Radio JFP with Laurel and Ronni. I know that contingent existed. But I think thats a shallow pool to wade in. Dont think it does women a disservice at all that she chose to stay with her husband..even if it was for political reasons. In which case SHE'D be using HIM. that in no way speaks for all women.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-09T10:38:47-06:00

ID

116222

Comment

..And Ive got to call it like it is. As much as I hate to say it. Hillary proved to be the more savvy campaigner last night. She proved more strategic and more resilient than Obama who I think kind of rested on the assumption of victory. Like a great championship coach whose team played a horrible first half. Hillary watched the game tape, made adjustments, learned from her mistakes and mounted a winning run in NH. Her "breakdown" in the coffee shop was like running a trick play on fourth down. It could kill ya or change the face of the game..and it changed the face of the game. My hats off to her. Obama and Edwards have to be careful not to appear to gang up on Hillary as they did in Saturday's debate. Edwards clearly has a personal grudge against the Clintons and it shows by him immediately getting buddy buddy with Obama on the stage. the media played a part by over-hyping the Obama phenomenon and when Bill pointed it out this past weekend, I think folks took notice. Obama's people should have tried to quell that. It made him appear cocky to older folks.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-09T10:46:46-06:00

ID

116223

Comment

Amen, Kaze I said to The Man last night...."Jesus, that woman lost in Iowa because she was too mechanical, she then proceeds to CRY the day before the NH primary and WIN. She knows what she's doing. She is a MACHINE". Hats off to Hillary finding her "voice", but she'll never be as powerful of a speaker as Obama. I just don't see it. McCain looked half-dead during his speech and Romney and Edwards are both in that "my hair is too perfect for Lori to vote for me" Club. I can't handle their hair. I just will NOT vote for a man who's hair looks better than mine on most days. There's something wrong with that. So far, I'm still with Obama. He has no hair to speak of. This helps. :)

Author

Lori G

Date

2008-01-09T11:55:09-06:00

ID

116224

Comment

Obama is a SPEAKER Lori, Hillary is a READER..Obama makes consistent eye contact..Hillary looks down consistently. If ya cant just get up and speak from the heart then I dont think I can be sold wholly on the machine..Maybe if she squeeks out the nomination. and btw..McCain IS half-dead.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-09T12:02:15-06:00

ID

116225

Comment

McCain's reading is what got to me last night. He was obviously reading a speech he hadn't written and it looked as if he hasn't even perused the damn thing before he started. It was sad. You are right. It definitely makes a different when someone is speaking from the heart from when they are reading a prepared speech. Although I don't particularly like Hillary, I will admit she pulled last night out of thin air and its totally due to her emotional breakdown the day before and the speech she gave last night. The Clinton is strong in that one.

Author

Lori G

Date

2008-01-09T12:14:53-06:00

ID

116226

Comment

When did Obama ever become the front runner? Did anyone think that he was going to win all of the primaries/caucuses and Hilliary would not be able to compete? I never thought that. There are things I see conservatives trying to do with this situation. They are trying to make it seem like Hilliary and Bill will get racist if they have to. I am an Obama supporter and I did not see them do or say anything about Obama that they would not have done or said about Edwards. Rush was talking about code words that the Clinton's were using, I missed them. I think a lot of us want Obama to win so badly that we are open to the idea that if he doesnt, it was racism. And it may be, but I do not plan on thinking that until I see something like the ad that ran against Harold Ford. I think Hilliary really wants to win and she plans to fight for it. I do not blame her. Obama is going to win in one way or another. I think he is establishing himself as the only V.P. choice if he does not win. As for speeches these days, I do not respect the people giving them any more. If you can not write your own speech and speak from the heart, why should I believe in you or have faith that you are capable of doing anything. Obama seems to have that. If speeching is no big deal and it only represents a shallow quality, all the candidates should be able to do it as well as write their own speeches. It is sad that people's opinions can be swayed so easily. Because a candidate cracks a joke or has a good one liner, their position in the polls can change dramatically. That represents a sad state of affairs. We do not look for depth. We change or minds with the wind.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2008-01-09T12:33:00-06:00

ID

116227

Comment

naw..the Clintons wont go "racial" but did use the term "fairytale" to describe Obama's meteoric rise..And I DO have a problem with that. Its that damn "experience" b.s. again. And that's the card the Clinton machine is prepared to use.

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-01-09T12:48:49-06:00

ID

116228

Comment

Kaze: Do you blame them? Do you play to your opponent's strengths or weaknesses? If Obama succeeds, it will be a fairytale of sorts.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2008-01-09T13:10:25-06:00

ID

116229

Comment

On the Democrat side, I'll vote for Richardson because of his soberness and experience, even if that's a lost cause. Among the highest vote-getters, I say Obama despite that I generally distrust charismatic politicians (which is another reason my vote goes to Richardson as long as he's in the race). Richardson just dropped out.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-01-09T18:53:17-06:00

ID

116230

Comment

and btw..McCain IS half-dead. I'm pretty sure McCain has a strong pulse, unlike Fred Thompson.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-01-09T21:13:07-06:00

ID

116231

Comment

Thought you guys would like to read this one: Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-01-09T22:35:59-06:00