Ignoring repeated statements making her position clear, NY Post asserted "Clinton hedged on whether Obama is a Muslim"
SUMMARY: A New York Post editorial characterized as "cheap shots and low blows" Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent comments made in response to a question about Sen. Barack Obama's religion and asserted that "Clinton hedged on whether Obama is a Muslim." In fact, during an interview on CBS' 60 Minutes, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim and likened the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her.
A March 10 editorial in the New York Post characterized as "cheap shots and low blows" Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent comments made in response to a question about Sen. Barack Obama's religion and asserted that "Clinton hedged on whether Obama is a Muslim." The Post then quoted only a portion of Clinton's response to 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" In fact, during an interview on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim and likened the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented.
From the Post:
Beyond that, there are the cheap shots and the low blows -- as, for example, when Clinton hedged on whether Obama is a Muslim, acknowledging that he isn't one "as far as I know."
Let's face it: The Hill-and-Bill machine has a record of scandal and sneakiness that runs all the way back to Arkansas. And the potential for dirty tricks is huge.
In fact, Clinton's first comment in response to Kroft's initial question on the subject -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was: "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then said, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim." Clinton answered, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft again asked, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim ... or implying, right?" did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? There's no ... No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know."
Additionally, the Post did not mention that during the exchange, Clinton equated the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."
From the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes:
KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no --
KROFT: -- or implying, right?
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
Well, not everyone who questions her sincerity in this instance hate her. Do you believe all the liberals who have voiced their opinion on this comment section hate Hillary? Or are they just fed up with her antics overall and have come to question what she says and does in light of all that?
You can victimize her and call those who question her as haters, but it's a little ridiculous.
You can victimize her and call those who question her as haters, but it's a little ridiculous.
You should refrain from putting words in people's mouths.
Nice deflection from your own words, but I have come to expect no less from you. I have already said this can be viewed either way, so I am not of the opinion that it was or was not a subtle jab at Obama, both sides make valid points - if I was a real bonafide Clinton hater, I would easily adopt the anti-Hillary opinion, so you are about as off base as talking about "my party".
The words were "Clinton Hatin' pigeon" – singular, and I clarified the words, did not deflect.
Gov.
IMHO a very weak rebuttal. You had a nice rant and interesting description for some who do not like Hillary, but I suggest you just give in and say you were over the top. You calling Tommy a Clinton hater only makes you look obstinate.
Gov, You're hysterical, you call me a Clinton hater immediately after I said both opinions on this topic are valid ones......No, you were not directing your Cinton hating pigeon comment at me or it would make no sense, given what you responded too.
Your reply wasn't even weak, it was ridiculous.
No, you were not directing your Cinton hating pigeon comment at me
I most certainly was and am directing that at you. I posted it in direct reply to you and at you, and I've twice now reaffirmed that it's you who I'm referring to.
Great job Tommy!
In only a few messages the whole thread runs away from the subject of which some portion you disagree but "maybe your not explaining your position clearly". This thread is not about who is a Hillary hater or who votes for Nader. Get a grip all of you.
The Post said Clinton "hedged". Surely no one can claim this is not misinformation. Unfortunately tens of thousands will read that and believe it's true. It's either false, or subject to dispute and should not be reported as established fact.
Gov. wrote: "I can look objectively at the interview in question and not react like some Skinnervian Clinton hatin' pigeon."
This whole conversation is as silly as your quote.
AA,
I don't have a member of the two-party horse in this race and, as such, see this "as far as I know" news nugget for what it is: Total BS designed to obfuscate real policy issues. The fact that this 60 Minutes interview is still being purported in such a willful, misinformative manner is certain proof that MSM’s purpose is to divide people, rather than report the facts.
Well, when you have many committed liberals here, who have despised everything about the past eight years under Bush, and are now faced with McCain, who will most likely continue the same Iraq policies that those very liberals loathe more than just about anything......when you have those people saying on these message boards they will never vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, it's not just a matter of "they don't support Hillary".......they find her so untenable they can't bring themselves to vote for her at all? If Hillary has managed to drive away those in her base that much, does that say more about her or those who "don't support" her?
She has major work to do, and she thought she was worried about getting Republicans and Indepedents to vote for her - work on your party, you've got them jumping ship fast.
I think to everyone else that's a win for Obama.
Personally, I think Hillary is going down in flames, and she's going to take the whole Democratic ship with her if she keeps going negative and personal on Obama.
Achris,
I mentioned this in another threat that I have a cousin who lives in Texas who is probably more conservative than me. Both he and his wife crossed over to vote for BHO because they wanted to see Hillary as history. His wife told me everyone in their neighborhood did the same. (Take that for what it's worth.) :-)
Wow...that's uhm, interesting. Though I doubt it stymied the flow of Republicans to vote for Hillary to keep her in the race. As far as I know, there were at least 1200 that said they voted for Hillary (Fox and Friends did a poll, and asked anyone who voted for Hillary because Rush told them to to call in, and they got over 1200 calls in 10 minutes.)
Hey, Obama Maniacs:
More Repubs crossed over to vote for Obama than Hillary.
according to these statistics, taken from cnn exit polls, 9 percent of the democratic primary vote in texas were republicans. the exact same proportion as ohio. of the texas republicans they voted 53-46 for obama, and in ohio they split evenly between obama and hillary.
http://logicalandtrue.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/rush-limbaugh-failed-to-get-texas-republicans-to-vote-for-clinton/
Thanks. Perhaps these exit polls are correct.
Why can't she just go away and let the party focus on November?
Why should she? She's maybe only 150 delegates behind with more primaries on the horizon. Neither she nor Obama will reach the magic # of delegates needed to sew up the nomination which is where the superdelegates come in. Why even have superdelegates unless you figure you might need them to settle this sort of thing?
With that logic, JFK should have dropped out of the race in 1960. He was behind, too.
The lack of historical knowledge you guys exhibit is exceeded only by your intolerance.
If you don't count Florida and Michican, Obama is ahead by about 600,000 popular votes. If you do count them, HRC is ahead by about 19,000 votes. There may be do overs in those states and we'll see what happens then. I do realize that Obama was not on the Michigan ballot. And Maine, Iowa, Neveda and Washington haven't released their popular vote count as of 3/8/08.
But I stand corrected. My point is still that there is no reason for HRC to capitulate when it is that close and she HAS won the big states.
Point taken. But to be realistic, Obama won Washington, Iowa, and Maine. So, the vote total is likely going to be much more than 600,000. One cannot even try to count Michigan and Florida's numbers are obsolete due to the fact that no campaigning took place and many Democrats stayed home knowing that the primary would not count.
In any event, the "big state" argument is obsolete as well IMO. Primarily due to the fact that those states will go Democratic in the general anyway except Ohio. To me the whole "big state" argument relies on the premise that only she can deliver those states in the general, therefore she is the mot viable candidate. The harsh reality is that for the first time in many years a Democrat has enough crossover appeal to bring some southern and midwestern states into play. Obama's support in many of these "red" states are similiar to those of which the Democratic govenor received. Kansas is a good example. Taking this into account along with the convential wisdom that the remaining primaries are going to be essentially reruns of past primaries then we can safely assume that Obama is going to emerge the winner in votes, states, and delegates. The handwriting is on the wall and Clinton's insistence on staying in this race only serves to divide the party to the benefit of the GOP. She needs ot put her country and party before her own ambitions and just get out.
and since when have the big states been the measuring stick, that's right, its been since Hillary said they were...she also says other states don't matter as much, and only primaries count not caucuses and then Bill kills the Mississippi vote by insulting blacks saying that that is the only reason Obama wins certain states
JJ, I love your posts but the fact is Obama is and will be ahead at convention, this is due to proportional delegation, and that is even if Florida and Michigan do count
Are you really comfortable with party insiders overturning nomination of the person who won the most delegates and the most states?
Are you really comfortable with party insiders overturning nomination of the person who won the most delegates and the most states? Eden
No! Who said anything like that. I'm making a completely different point which is why should HRC capitulate. That's all. Don't read any more into it.
it is not even close to true that floridians did not turn out for the primary. it set records over 2000 and 2004, in both parties. see link. and it is unlikely that obama could have taken the state in any scenario. if the democrats win a general election in florida, it is because of the retired new yorkers in south florida. that is hillary's target group.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18514724
Obama was at a disadvantage, he does not yet have the name recognition Clinton does
I bet half those old geezers thought they were voting Bill in again
That said, when the votes are split proportionally Obama is still ahead
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/09/america/letter.php
a taste "
Clinton, the only person whose name was on the ballot, won the Michigan primary with 55 percent of the vote; she also captured the Florida race, where no one campaigned or advertised.
These were shams. Evidence of that: Democratic turnout has soared everywhere this year - running far ahead of the other party even in Republican-leaning states. In Texas, there were almost three million Democratic voters on March 4, twice as many as the Republicans. In Michigan and Florida, the Democratic turnout was less than that of the Republicans, because voters knew the contests didn't matter.
Before the voting season began, when Clinton thought she was the all-but-certain nominee, she vowed not to participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries and agreed that they shouldn't matter.
"It's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything," she said of the Michigan contest last year in New Hampshire.
Now that she's fallen behind, she's saying these make-believe contests should be included as if she had actually scored competitive victories. "
Me
You are the laziest poster I have ever tussled with
Where did I, me personally, say anything about Obama's advertising???
Next time either try and dispute my points or keep walking, these drive by gotcha posts are getting older than McCain
I take half that back, my " was not where it was supposed to be
Your grievance is with the articles author on the ad thing, if the ad thing is true
At any rate I've not yet heard a response about the math....
stop already, read before you type
a taste "
Clinton, the o...
That " belongs here "Clinton, the o...
everything that follows ia from the linked article, if you dispute you dispute it with its author not me...my words are above the link
yep
it was placement
Why didn't Hill have ads on cable? Not being snarky, just asking if you knew. Was it pre 5million personal contribution ?
Ok Mr Snippy
I said I wasn't being snarky, figured maybe it was mentioned in the article you read about Obama having ads on...they usually do that
and possible the 5 million would be mentioned in the article
Crikey man, I didn't ask you what color bra she had on ?
ALRIGHT GENTS THIS IS A TWOFER
ME- I took half that back when I realized the placement, I still think you could address my points instead on just blowing steam at me
BRAB- Man you are like Lazarus just popping up on these dead threads, the grrr was sarcastic, it was saying your post sounded angry and about names, do you really need me to repost all of your colorful nonsense personal attacks at me? Is that really necessary?
cool, my bad on the "
I don't spell ck either ; )
and I use bad slang but I was just asking for a link that showed Obama had ads on
enjoy
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/22/State/Obama_s_CNN_ad_draws_.shtml
Thanks
again, it wasn't my argument
I appreciate the link though, it was a good read and a point I had missed about Florida
Edenscape,
I can tell you with certainty that if such a thing occurs I will not support Clinton and the party can forget ever asking me for money again. I refuse to be a part of back room deals. If she tries to pull that kind of crap in August and succeeds one can surely assume that is how she will run her administration. Secretive, conniving, back room dealing. Seems to me we've had enough of that kind of politics. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, God! The thought of more of the same makes me cringe.
JJ,
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on you, I'm not
You have always been one of my fav reads here, especially the limericks and you never call me names, like others (cough Brab cough ME)
I'm just trying to understand why you want this primary to continue if the delegate math promises a brokered convention. If we don't want it decided by party insiders than why let it get to that when proportional math already crowned Obama?
CHRIS
Me either, the supers (although that is what they were created for back in the day) hand this to Hill with less states and less delegates and I'm voting my conscience and going Communist or whoever we have on the mid card...I cannot just vote for her because she has a D after her name
I guess I am torn on that
I would hate to see voters thinking they got left out
I'm just not seeing how mathwise Clinton can take the lead with the delegates that are left
I'm also cringing at the idea of a bloody and broke Obama facing a fresh and fully funded McCain
It's not like we don't have a poor track record of winning races that seem unlosable
You may be right, I may be shaking a bit prematurely, after losing what seemed a lock in 2004 I'm admittedly gun shy.
I've enjoyed our back and forth quite a bit, you have been so much more civil than others
I do miss the ryhmes though, hopefully I won't miss them for too long
LOL I probably would vote (feeling really cold as I type this ) Nader
Anyone on the undercard as I cannot vote for Bush in a blond wig and I am McAll set with McTorture
"The thought of more of the same makes me cringe. "
That's right, all those Clinton balanced budgets, a great economy, jobs everywhere ...
AChrisPage, you really are kind of a moron, aren't you?
Those aren't merely the effects of the Clinton White House, those are the inevitable outcome of principled progressive leadership.
Prudent budgets, infrastructure investment and mutual responsibility are the liberal way.
"Are you really comfortable with party insiders overturning nomination of the person who won the most delegates and the most states?"
What "nomination" is being "overturned?"
Do you people have any idea how primaries work? There's no moral imperative that the top vote getter should automatically receive the nomination.
"The harsh reality is that for the first time in many years a Democrat has enough crossover appeal to bring some southern and midwestern states into play."
That's nonsense. Obama did well in college town red states because that's where his constituency is. But those Dems are not representative of the stae's voters at large.He will lose mightily in those red states.
CARLIL
Chris has posted plenty all over this thread and his points are all well made, go for a quick spin, digest it all, take off your Clinton goggles and start with the issues. I'm getting a little sick of the bashing from so called Libs that turn a blind eye as Hillary campaigns dirty and then ya'll have the grapes to snipe at us when we post about it being the antithesis of what we stand for in this party, what change stands for
Change is not doing the same BS the other side does just because it works
and if you want to argue the continuation of this primary then break out your math
I meant delegate of course.
Hello my sweet Lady Julia :-)
I believe Chris & Lynn are correct on the popular vote, but my point, & I'll guess you'd agree is that this primary process should be allowed to play out naturally despite the media & Obama supporters desire to end it as of now.
Stranger things have happened in politics, & there is always the chance Hillary can close the gap enough to make a decision by the super delegates a possibility.
Now I'm not gonna lie & say that this fighting between the two camps isn't a tad amusing. But it would be a lot more fun [for me] if I had a Republican candidate I was backing., heck I'd be rolling around on the floor laughing ;-)
Personally I'm quite content to have the race between Hillary & Obama continue so I can learn more about what they plan on doing if elected...and it's also a great peek into each of their characters.
" The transparency of this woman is so obvious. She really puts meaning into the phrase "say and do anything to get elected.""
That's just completely nuts. You Obama supporters are not only crazy, but you're going to destroy the Dems chances this November.
I bet you think that with more states and more delegates Obama should just stand down and take the number two spot ?
So with the amount of delegates and states left, the fact they are awarded proportionally and the fact Obama has the lead and will have the lead come the convention...how do you suggest this get settled CLINTON SUPPORTER? what do you think? Michigan counts and Florida counts and we're still UP in OBAMAVILLE and then what???
You want party insiders and fat cats to make the call?
Really and we're f'n things up Bollocks!
I never said they were jumping to McCain, I said they wouldn't vote for Hillary, which is exactly what many here have said.......so the grip being lost must be yours, JJ.
This election should be a slam dunk for the Democrats, and it very well may be......but there shouldn't be one Democrat who votes that shouldn't be energized beyond belief to get Bush out and keep anyone he supports out as well, which means voting for the Democrat, no brainer......if she is losing some in her own party, which she is through her machinations in this campaign, perhaps there is no implosion, but it's not good news for the party.
But Chris, you are just a Clinton hater, so any wisdom you display, or support you exhibit for Obama, while denouncing her campaign tactics just reveals more hate, and your intelligence has been duped by all this internal hate you have for Hillary........and your life is essentially, invalid.
No other explanation.
Governor, If getting from point A to point B requires baby steps, perhaps that would be your best route.
Considering the Clintons are masterful when it comes to doublespeak and unintentional intentional vagueness and is "is" meanings and all of that, this exchange with Kroft is just more of all of that, combine that with the sleazy campaigning she has been engaged in lately, from complimenting the Republican nominee at her Democratic opponent's expense, to Rovian fear-mongering commercials........the questioning of her motives with regard to Obama being a Muslim fits perfectly with her style.
I'm sorry, perhaps if she and her husband didn't have such a storied past, they wouldn't be under the parsing microscope now.......nobody's fault but theirs.
Yes, politicians parse, but it's the Media's parsing on this that's the issue for me.
"the questioning of her motives with regard to Obama being a Muslim fits perfectly with her style."
Yeah, just look at her squirm...
KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no --
KROFT: -- or implying, right?
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.that's why people who insist she was ambiguous leave out everything but as far as i know. they ignore her very clear statements on the subject, or they do what tommy does and insist because of her "record", nothing she said or can say matters.
Anybody who puts their country ahead of their own personal feelings WILL suck it up and vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.
That being said, Hillary has won most of the big states, is ahead in popular votes, so she must be turning somebody on besides Bill on ;-)
"Anybody who puts their country ahead of their own personal feelings WILL suck it up and vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination."
"That being said, Hillary has won most of the big states, is ahead in popular votes, so she must be turning somebody on besides Bill on" ;-)
Why then would Hillary essentially endorse McCain as the next best thing thing to her? Obviously, she has no problem with someone voting for McCain if she is not the nominee. I have put my country ahead of myself plenty of times and I will not vote for Hillary. Indicating that someone who does not "suck it up" and vote for Hillary or they are not putting their country first is absurd.
The only big states she has won with a clear majority is California and Ohio. She has essentially split the delegates in the "big states" so the "big state" argument is a non argument. Sorry, but Hillary is not ahead in the popular vote. Obama has 13,025,003 and Clinton has 12,421,116. If you count Florida he still has the lead with 13,601,217 to Clinton's 13,292,302. If you count Michigan she has the lead but you must remember Obama was not even on the ballot there. The reality is that Obama has more popular votes. He has won more states, and he has more delegates and if that holds true, which barring a meltdown it will, he has earned the nomination and she needs to get out. For the good of the country of course. We wouldn't want anyone putting their own ambitions ahead of the country.
Well said Chris, it is and always has been about them, the Clintons. Putting country above all else is not an argument Clinton supporters want to get into, they will never win on that angle.
People are tired of the Clintonian style of slash and burn politics, that is hardly putting country ahead of everything else and voting for her, in fact it is just the opposite.
Lynn, I am not pushing Hillary. I like both her and Obama. I have said as much in many posts. There have been a lot of threads about HRC being attacked unfairly and I will weigh in about that. At this point I do not have a clear favorite between Obama and Hillary.
Now that being said, please reread my statement as it responds to Tommy. IF and that's a big IF it's between HRC and McSame, yes I do think it's in the best interest of the country to not have a Bush clone in the WH. So if it's between her and McSame, are you going to vote for for him? Or are you going to stay home? I would hope not.
And I think Obama probably will get the nomination but I don't think HRC has to drop out just because the media is getting people into a lather. Let the stinkin' people vote and make it fair.
God bless America this thread is about HRC. When Obama gets attacked, I weigh in. I am very open at this point and don't have the same personal antipathy toward either one as some who post here.
Julia,
I too have weighed in when I thought HC was being bashed unfairly. But I'm going to honestly weigh in when she's the basher as well. I've been dissapointed in HC and I do find that the Clintons are let's say integrity challenged. I know there is a lot at stake here. I wrote a pretty lengthy statement about my feelings on this in a previous thread. Maybe I can find it and maybe you will undersatnd better what my issues are with HC and why I don't feel real good about her.
Julia,
With due respect, you'd better be pushing Hillary. Because if Obama wins, how many times will it take for an independent, or a moderate Republican or Democrat, to see the McCain campaign commercial showing Hillary touting McCain and slamming Obama as not being up to the job, before it raises considerable doubt? You think it may be neglible, or oh it's all primary politics, but I think it will have a very serious impact on fence-sitters who may just swing over to McCain when they enter that voting booth out of fear alone........and if they get to see her 3 am commercial too, they may think again - and vote for McCain.
As long as Hillary doesn't get the nomination, do you honestly think she cares? By the looks of it, I don't.
I could never in good conscious vote for McCain. I've never actually voted for a Republican candidate before in my life; but my conscious may keep me from marking the box for Clinton. The truth is if there was a more reasonable moderate Republican candidate running against her like a Christy Todd Whitman or Colin Powell I could vote for them over HC; although I believe those two wouldn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of ever winning a Republican presidential primary.
Tommy and Lynn, I understand you both have your points of view and feelings about HRC. That's all well and good. But as I said elsewhere and I am agreeing with Jeter, let the thing play out. This thread was about the canard in the Post btw. That's where my head is. I don't wring my hands over stuff I have no control of and I don't have a big favorite. If Hillary wins the nomination and has Obama as the running mate, will you vote for that ticket? Just wonderin'. That question was to Lynn.
If Obama wins, my wish would be for his mate to be Russ Feingold. I do agree that if HRC wins, she will not do as well without Obama on the ticket. And since I do not want McSame to win I will bless whatever ticket the Dems come up with.
JJ,
I have never advocated for Hillary to pull out, it's up to the voters and the Democratic party. It isn't my place to call for that, that is not what bothers me at all.....let it play out, it's still early in the process.
I cannot imagine Obama accepting any VP slot, just as he says now, essentially why he is qualified for that when Hillary says he isn't ready to be president, that makes no sense and would really be exploited by the Republicans should that become reality.
Basically, Hillary is doing everything she can think of to screw it up for Obama if she loses to him. There is no other way to view her actions, not now anyway.
Anybody who puts their country ahead of their own personal feelings WILL suck it up and vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.
Sorry Juliajayne I will not vote for Hillary period, I love my country.
Car
Whaaaa Whaaaaaa Whaaaaaaaa
Stop all the "they hate Hillary" crying and "Hillary haters"whining, you do on each and every thread where someone criticizes Hillary. Wipe the tears from your eyes, wipe the snot off your nose and try to have an adult conversation! That means you can have a different opinion and you don't have to turn into an a$$ when someone disagrees!
Chris, no problem.
I don't know it you remember that video of the guy who was a fan of Brittney Spears? He was crying and screaming....That's how I picture Car crying and screaming, "Leave Hillary aloneeeee". It helps me tolerate his immunity.
Of course not. It's actually a duplicate of the one you responded too. I posted this one first but when whatever the hell it was that happened to the font happened I enlarged the print and re-posted it and I flagged this one for deletion as a duplicate.
I thought ya'll ladies was just speaking in private
Hi Lynn
In the end you will vote your conscience either by staying home or voting the undercard, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have read your posts and I share your opinions on Senator Clinton's lack of campaign ethic to put it mildly. If it comes down to it I'll loan you a sweater so you're not cold when you vote Nader, I may have to break out the Parka myself
the Republican advantage
Mary as one of those "stay at home" I considered that. I ask myself, do I want to do as Hillary has done, give the advantage to Republicans? Hillary had no problem telling Americans "if you don't vote for me you should vote for McCain". Why can't I tell Hillary buy not voting for her, that I don't like her or her campaign tactics. I don't approve how she gave Republicans the advantage with one of the important campaign issues, Natl. Security. I don't like how Hillary hand delivered the Republicans a perfect commercial to run in the fall against Obama or even Hillary herself. Did she think that if she gets the nomination McCain won't run the ad with Hillary voice telling American how ready McCain is to be commander in chief? She can't be that dumb can she? Hillary seems to have no problem telling Americans they should either vote for her or vote for McCain. I want to tell Hillary, and I don't think I will be alone, I don't approve of your tactics and I don't think you should be rewarded for your tacky dirsty behavior, therefore I will don't vote for you. That's what my staying at home means, kind of like Hillary telling Americans they should not vote for her fellow Democratic Obama, they should vote for the Republican, McCain. I'm sick of Hillary lying and her "I don't care who I have to run over, I will do anything to win" mentality. She does not get my vote.
T
that's Edenscape, Ed to friends so you can just keep on calling me Edenscape with that capital E
I'd say more but Tommy covered it, besides I like chewing on steak that has a little more meat and a lot less bone, but keep it up and maybe I'll settle on marrow.....To quote the great Shawn Michaels "If you're gonna try and use me as a stepping stone, son, you better step hard."
T-Bone, where you at
Tommy done scared you off, I changed my mind, I may want steak after all
Julia,
This thread is for all those who didn't get enough of this in the other threads the past few days over the same subject.
I'll wager K.O. making someone the WPITW over this and MMFA will dutifully repeat this thread yet again.
(If I am not mistaken, this is the third time in three days.)
But isn't that the whole point, AA? The message is out there, the story is repeated, the person doing the repeating willfully ignores the context...BINGO, conservative disinformation!
I'm just wondering when we'll get the substantive discussion of the Dem contender's views on something with some context from policy wonks and professots. Instead we get dueling talking heads with their pet body language experts spewing babble.
AA, when the media stops perpetuating the falsehood, I'm sure you'll hear no more about it from MMfA.
Of course, you already know that.
DB, You should know the difference between interpreting Hillary's words and claiming those interpretations are falsehoods.
It is obvious that some believe Hillary let that ending statement, "...as far as I know." float out there because she wants to subtly add fuel to the fire. Just as there are some who believe she answered the statement forcefully and unequivocally.
One can accept or reject either interpretations. So your claim that this the media is furthering a falsehood is only based on your defense of Hillary. One could say you are also perpetuating a falsehood by saying Hillary did not equivocate.
Personally I think MMFA keeps putting up these threads for the purpose of keeping Hillary a victim and also the "Obama is Muslim" story alive.
But there's one key difference in why I believe she was forceful in her answer. Kroft asked the question at least 3 times, right in a row. The first time she said "of course not" while going on about how he said he's not, so she takes him at his word. He asked if she believes him when he says he's not a muslim, and she said "right, right." And if that wasn't enough, Clinton was asked it a third time, where the "as far as I know" came about.
Now I have to ask you, do you believe that she wanted to plant the seeds of doubt based on how the questions were asked? I mean, if she did want to do that, if that was her intention, wouldn't she have said "as far as I know" the first time it was asked?
That, to me, proves its a non-issue and something the media is doing to portray Hillary as the attacker on this. And it should prove it to anyone.
BTW, I'm not defending Hillary. I'm for Obama, but I still believe that everyone is making this out to be something it's not. So your "defense of Hillary" argument falls flat, because I really don't want her as the Dem nominee.
DB,
I apologize for thinking you were defending Clinton when you want BHO as your President.
My point was simply that opinion is different than falsehood. I don't think there is falsehood involved here, only opinion.
Frankly I agree with you that I doubt Hillary was purposefully trying to raise doubts about Obama's religious views.
"this is the third time in three days" that it has been propagated by the media.
I have no doubt the media revels in the conflict between Obama and Hillary.
They want McCain to be elected.
But Hillary has given lots of ammunition to both the media and the Republicans by her kamikaze war on Obama.
Werner,
Did you see the latest with Hillary and Bill saying Obama would be a great VP on her ticket? Tim Russert raked them over the coals this morning on the Today Show for that bit of political legerdemain.
Ya gotta hand it to the Clintons. They got chutzpah.
Yes I do know that they want Obama as their VP. That's all I know.
But I didn't see them raked over the coals.
I do think that the media doesn't like Obama or Hillary. And they like McCain. But I get the feeling Hillary(and maybe Bill?)prefers McCain to Obama also. Or maybe just sees him more as a threat at the moment.
I know Time magazine seems to have it out for Obama, and from this I'm assuming Halperin is a Clintonite. Because the sheer stupidity of that photoshopped picture is off the charts.
And isn't Carville in the Clinton camp? absolutely astounding.
DB,
Last week I heard some reference to a picture where Obama's skin color was purposely darkened. Did you hear or see anything about that?
OMG, is that the best Photochop work that Time can afford?
Hello. It's just me jumping in again at 65 posts. Nothing in here yet about the subject of this thread. Was this open topic or do you all just blather on any thread you happen to be reading?
I read a lot of sites but post on only few because only a few like MMFA have intelligent, coherent commentary. But not on this thread.
Middle,
This is at least the third thread on this topic. I think we've beaten this horse to death. You might find what you are looking for on one of the others.
This is at least the third thread on this topic. I think we've beaten this horse to death.
Just because a lie has been debunked twice it doesn't mean the media get a free pass to continue repeating it. We may have beaten the topic to death, but the media is still swinging. Sorry if that's problem for you. If you are not interested in the subject, please find another thread. Thanks.
"Hello. It's just me jumping in again at 65 posts. Nothing in here yet about the subject of this thread. Was this open topic or do you all just blather on any thread you happen to be reading?"
Middleleft, you are totally right.
What's happened is that the Obama-maniacs and Hillary-haters have regrouped after last week's trouncing, and they're in overdrive today with their insane hatred of the Clintons.
Ya gotta hand it to the Clintons. They got chutzpah. AA
Hillary said this: [Obama's] candidacy ... is very much about him and his personality and his presentation. [That] oversimplifies the complexity of the problems we face, the challenges of navigating our country through some difficult uncharted waters. We are a nation at war. That seems to be forgotten.
Hillary also mocks Obama: "I could stand up here and say 'Let's just get everybody together, let's get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect,' " she said
Hillary also says: “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
BUT Hillary and Bill want Obama to be her VP. What? Is she crazy? You demean, degrade and belittle Obama and yet you want him as your VP. What? He's ahead in the delegate count, he has won more states, he has more votes and Hillary thinks he should "get behind her and take the second place slot". He not ready but he would do just fine as your VP. Sorry but the more Hillary speaks the less guilt I feel about staying at home and not voting for her if she gets the nomination.
Amen Pearlene
I am aghast at some of the mud Hill is throwing and I'm equally aghast at some of the so called Libs around here that are looking the other damn way
Note I said some, others have made good points, but many are just lashing out at anyone who questions the Queen, Christ TEX called me a damn concern troll and I'm still waiting for him to fire one of his advisors over that slur on my character
Hey Pearlene:
You've got a problem: everything Hillary is saying is true!
Everything ? Everything ? All of it ? Every lil bit ?
Wow, ok, you got me Hillary/Nader 08 sign me up
"NO, AND STOP ASKING ME THAT BULLSH*T QUESTION!!!" she yells, and hangs up.
Next day on every cable channel: "Hillary loses her icy control, is shrill, and spoke harshly. Can she lead us snively little whiners to absolute safety in this post 9/11 world?"
DB,
I think Mary needs to send residuals to SNL as they did that parody last weekend. :-)
"Think: who benefits when the Democrats savage each other?"
Excellent point History. I think we all should e-mail that statement to Hillary Clinton.
Well I guess the media isn't gonna let this non-controversy rest. As I wrote on one of the first threads regarding this subject, Hillary said no every which way she could, and her adding the rejoinder as far as I know doesn't change anything.
I am more interested on why Kroft asked [grilled] her on this topic in the first place. This Obama is a Muslim nonsense is being circulated on e-mail for months. I've received it at least a dozen times. I have not passed it on.
Now let me just add, with a bit of an impish grin & a chuckle...watching the Clintonites & Obamabots fighting like bratty kids is rather amusing. Add today's revelation about Democratic New York Governor Eliot Spitzer & the prostitution ring & it's definitely time to make some popcorn, put my feet up, & crack open a brew ;-)
I think I agree, Jeter2! 300,000,000 people and we can't find a percent of a percent with some brains, some wisdom, and no skeletons in their closets to elect? Scary stuff.
And I want to know who is going to pay $5,500 an hour! For me that'll be a waste of $5,408. And yes, I'm giving myself 45 seconds extra...:)
Well, I am kind of enjoying it myself, Jeter. Since HRC and Obama either one were not my first choice, I am still very open to both. But you can't say anything to defend one camp without the other camp getting all up in your face. At least I'm finding that out today ;-)
But I'm not a wilting flower and don't take these things personally. I just think it's great that we have two qualified candidates. I just wish people could objectively see what the media is doing with these non issue issues. I'm chagrined that people are still taken in by all the false narratives set up by the media. That's the most disturbing thing of all.
The media didn't suggest Hillary and McCain were more qualified than Obama
The media didn't run a 3am style fear ad
The media didn't try, with less votes and less states, to give the frontrunner the number two position
The media didn't say that some states would go to Obama just because of blacks
The media didn't call Obama the next Ken Starr
The media didn't have aides on cable questioning if Obama sold drugs
Hillary has made a bed, I'm not suggesting you aren't, but I'm not letting her sleep in any other than the one she made
Whatever, you two. You obviously have your opinion and I have mine. I do think the media is pushing a narrative. That's why I don't watch so that I can be more objective. Our media is in a sad state of affairs and I don't want them telling people how to vote and creating false narratives whether it's about Obama or Hillary. And I will defend either one. I guess tommorrow when Obama gets attacked and I'm defending him, some Clinton supporter will get on me just for defending him against the press like I'm doing for HRC today. I look forward to it.
Why say whatever ?
Look at what I put above, are you dismissing all of that ?
Hillary is doing things that we all would rightly criticize Republicans for, there is nothing wrong with me taking her to task for it.
Posters like Lynn and Pearl and Round and others have defended Hill here for years, it is our conscience that does not allow us to do so now
I'm not saying you should join us in this, I'm just saying that when you look at my list above do you see strategies that mesh with you beliefs or do you think the list consititutes politics that we are all better than ?
Thanks Chris, I appreciate that, its been a tough few days posting here
Its difficult to get the dialogue on this going sometime when its not quite on message, or even semi-OT but if you read what a lot of posters are saying here, this is a conversation a lot of us want to engage in
We cannot be the party of high standards, if we don't practice what we preach
It's been a tough few days posting because your Obama has been exposed as a pretty empty suit, that's why!
I love how Hillary is never, ever allowed to campaign against him, or say a discouraging word about the guy.
You Obama folks have very thin skins. And you get incredibly outraged and intolerant, too, when his slip starts to show.
You again, shoo, get outta here kid ya bother me
Come back with links, facts and quotation marks
I'm not taking anything you say at face value
Many of what you listed are your impressions. I do not have the same impressions. You are very passionate, I am somewhat dispassionate. I am very circu mspect. I want the best person for the job. I want the voters, Obama and HRC to feel like this was given a fair shot. You dislike Hillary, I see her more as a politician doing what they do. I see Obama the same way. You see the party being torn apart. I see a process that I do not feel should be truncated. You see a brokered convention. I see resolution.
And when I see either HRC or Obama getting the business from the press, I will defend them. I defended HRC today. I will defend Obama in the future. Like I said previosly, I do not wring my hands over things I have no control over.
But we do have that power JJ
It may sound corny but look around, read the posts, the arguments are all there, people we have known for a while as posters
Most people do not follow this the way we do and we talk to our friends and they talk to theirs...we are the beginners of rumor, innuendo, commonly held belief and truth, even if only a microcosm
I believe we have a responsiblity not just to protect our candidates from the slings and arrows of the Right Wing Media machine...but also to CROW at the top of our lungs whenever one of our candidates starts acting cross
We are the people, we grant the power and our words escape this vacuum and add to many other such thought enclaves and reach the ears of our candidates...we cannot continue to allow them to believe they are in charge and doing what everyone else is doing
or we could end up like this cat
Clinton haters can't be reasoned with. And the make up their own facts.
Thanks for the chat JJ, I do appreciate your view and civility and I still could use a limerick, it is almost St. Pats after all
You're going to a much loftier place than I am. I simply meant that I can't get worked up over what happens as far as the Dem nomination. If that's in somebody's control, please contact Howard Dean (or whoever). I'm sure he/they would be glad to know ;-)
Absolutely. This election isn't merely about winning over the American people, this election is about winning the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.
Earth to Jeter2.... Let's see now, Hillary has known Obama for at least the last four years, if not longer..... They're both from the Chicago area, she's in the Senate with him and h'mmmm.... there are only about 50 or so Democratic members of the Senate.... she sees him every day for the last two years.... she's debated him 20 times... she's got a campaign with at least 170 full time staff (look it up) who could have at least checked... if the subject needed to be checked... and gee.... wouldn't you have thought it would have been something she would have wanted to find out about... since ... (news flash) this whole BS smear has been out their on the internet for months... and, by the way.... I wonder who put it out there??.... No.... certainly not her!!! And she has to hem and haw around .... and conclude her mealy mouthing by saying.... "as far as I know". No... you're right... how could I be so stupid.... she obviously made herself perfectly clear.... didn't she???
What if Kroft had been interviewing her about whether Russia intended to put missiles in Cuba.... or whether they were already there...( to take a real 3a.m. .... crisis issue). Do you think her response would have been .... "well ... I'm sure they're not there.... as far as I know"
Earth to Jim:she was asked if she believed that he was Muslim, and she said no. Saying that there is no reason to believe it as far as she knows is completely consistent with that. She did not hem and haw whatsoever.
Nobody has been able to point out how she implied any doubt about her views, or how she suggested that thinking he is a Muslim is reasonable at all. She said they were ridiculous rumors.
If you can make an argument that nobody else has been able to, I'll be impressed.
I see you made it over here too.
And have you noticed the same think I have? That with all the stürm und drang that's been going on, nobody appears to have put much more than a toe in the water on a policy issue.
Not that the MMFA post at the head of this thread was highlighting a particular policy issue. But there are an awful lot of folks here whose posts would seem to indicate that they have essentially said, "Policy be damned, I'm voting on what I perceive to be the overriding personality and [so-called] character issues in this campaign!"
And some have even allowed that they would rate McCain ahead of Clinton according to these criteria.
With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans!
"But Hillary is being divisive and providing the Republicans with sound bites against Obama in the general."
Oh. Like that is not what Obama was doing with his Harry and Louise redux ads, his on TV statement about healthcare insurance mandates being like requiring a homeless person to buy a house, Social Security being "in crisis," and Ronald Reagan being the sort of change agent he admired.
I'll assume no one here needs links on these already well-known gifts from Obama to the Republicans in the general.
No, two wrongs don't make a right. But let's get a grip and realize that "politics ain't beanbag."
BTW, do you think it would help if I point out to Jim that Clinton effectively said "no" to the truth of the rumor about Obama 13 times in 45 seconds? That, given this more or less blue streak denial of the rumor, his definition of hemming and hawing is a bit outré – to put it mildly? Do you think I should maybe refer him to our discussion of the issue over at the Herbert thread?
Nah, you can tell from the "junk" words and phrases in Jim's own post that he'd probably not one to let facts get in the way of his own evidence free narratives. He is someone who could probably look at the video which shows Clinton almost continuously shaking her head "no" while punctuating those negative shakes of the head with negative denials and come back insouciantly with: "Aw, she's just a damned good actor when she's dissimulating – which is, of course, all the time."
With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans!
I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.
“I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” Clinton was referring to Obama’s anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate.
off topic:
ALBANY - Gov. Eliot Spitzer has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a person briefed on the federal investigation.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/78185/?comments=view&cID=847203&pID=846656And they latest news is that Gov. Spitzer may have arranged to meet with one of these escorts on Feb 13...happy Valentine's Day! :)
Nice message to his three daughters, too.
Dem, Rep, doesn't matter...this is hypocrisy first and foremost.
Too bad this is all OT...:)
As far as I know, (I love saying that) the prostitute in this case was a live woman.
So what, you give passes for politicians who get caught in bed with dead boys?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist ;))
Not at all, he was a bad boy and now has to hang out with sleazy Republicans like David Vitter and Larry Craig
Dazed,
Unfortunately it is not a private matter as he is an elected official. Spitzer is accused of committing a federal crime not to mention breaking state laws.
Federal prosecutors rarely charge clients in prostitution cases, which are generally seen as state crimes. But the Mann Act, passed by Congress in 1910 to address prostitution, human trafficking and what was viewed at the time as immorality in general, makes it a crime to transport someone between states for the purpose of prostitution. The four defendants charged in the case unsealed last week were all charged with that crime, along with several others.AA,
Private matter or not, and he will no doubt face the penalties for his "crimes", it is absolute idiotic "crime" to begin with. Prostitution. If one legal consenting adult pays for sex with another legal consenting adult, it is nobody's damn business but the two people involved, and their families, I suppose.
The fact that we waste resources and law enforcement's time on this is preposterous. For me, it's between Spitzer and his family.
Unfortunately Tommy we cannot pick and choose which laws we have to follow. I suggest if you strongly feel the way you do, you organize and try to have these laws removed from the books.
I think you ignore the point that there are victims here. Not the least of which are the 19 million or so who live in N.Y.
Who knows if Spitzer might not have been blackmailed? Did you not see Godfather II? :-) Do we have to wait until something like that happens for you to believe this matter goes beyond Spitzer and his family?
ps. I wonder what all our friends here who have beat the drum repeatedly regarding G.O.P. officials who have been caught, think of this? Will they make excuses or admit that this type of lascivious behavior happens to both Democrats and Republicans? My guess is it will depend on what the definition of "is" is. :-)
I don't remember anyone yelling about Republicans caught in heterosexual scandals.
I could be wrong.
AA, It was only an editorial comment from me on the worthlessness of a law against prostitution. I am not advocating Spitzer get a pass just because I don't like the law, if you thought that was what I was saying, I was not.
As for the victims, I am not sure how the 19 million NY'ers are any sort of victim here. If this was unrelated to his job, then they are not a victim of anything.
AA,
There's really no need to speculate on how certain people might comment on your off-topic posts. My only observation would be to note that you have plagiarized the NY Times for no other reason than to appear well-informed on prostitution laws.
plagarized? Funny.
I correctly assumed, at least in your case, that you and others knew where the paragraph came from.
However it was a simple oversight. As you can see I posted the link earlier. But if you didn't realize the connection and wasted your time doing a search simply to point that out, thanks a million. You can forget the lawsuit. I'll gladly take any profits resulting from my nefarious neglect of and gladly send them to you.
ps. I just had another post in the PAA thread removed for posting a cut and paste of most of an article along with the link. Some days you're darned if you do and darned if you don't. :-)
Thanks to all for the discussions!
oops. My apologies regarding my spelling of plagiarized. I meant to correct that before posting. I must be tired from all the snow shoveling I had to do this weekend. :-)
ps. For the record, I cut and pasted it from the Gov.s post. :-)
GOV thats BS
Off topic or not Spitzer just gave us a black eye, brought us to the level of Vitter and Craig, whom AA was silent on ahem!
This OT shelter is getting thin...we need to be the party of conscience, the other side sure ain't
There's really no need to speculate on how certain people might comment on your off-topic posts.
I'm not saying AA isn't trolling on this thread with that Spitzer nonsense, I'm not even saying he isn't a hypocrite for coming out now after silence on Vitter and Craig, what I'm saying is the Well, yeah, but its OT crap is nonsense and lazy.
Spitzer may have saved the day by getting the medias attention off the internal combustion of my Democratic party but to just say OT without admitting Spitzer did wrong is BS
We cannot be the party of high standards if we only preach and don't practice
Does that mean you are for double standards or against them?
And if so, which one were you for first ?
No, not necessarily
Craig and Vitter are wrong because they preach otherwise.
I myself have no issue with legalized prostitution, politically.
Now when you represent the good guys, its double bad to get caught F'n up in public office, you let the whole team down and give the Rethugs another club to bash with on the so called Lib media.
Eden,
I had to leave but did not feel that the Vitter or Craig needed any further discussion. I realize Vitter was creepy, but I my memory of the situation is made overtures. Was there anything else? As for Craig, was he attempting gay sex in men's room? He says no after pleading guilty. You can be the judge about either of them. I personally am glad Vitters resigned and Craig is on his way out. In my mind they broke the public trust.
My original comment simply wondered if those of you who continually equate Republicans as hypocrites can admit that unfortunate and equally immoral sexual behaviors like this exist on both sides of the aisle. Not surprising, it seems to me some are having difficulty accepting that and instead are somehow trying to reverse the situation by accusing me of some sort of hypocrisy. I hope I have cleared away any doubts you may have.
AA
Vitter is still in office, he was caught with his personal info in the possession of a DC Madam and her prostitutes, he all but said he was guilty but that it was a family matter, he is still in office, his Republican collegues gave him a round of applause when he returned
Craig got no such applause but is still seated though admonished
Now back then you were not interested, now that its a Dem you are ?
I was just calling it convenient
I was also calling Govs foul for not at least admitting what Spitzer did is wrong and not beneficial to the party, I thought it was warranted more than the OT shield
Wrong is wrong, these cats should be ashamed, all 3 of them
Lynn,
Hahaha.. Kudos for expressing yourself so elegantly. :-) And to think he paid over $4,000 to ruin his life for a moment or two of pleasure. He's not only stupid but very stupid.
I do feel sorry for his wife and children. I sort of wished his wife would have sucker punched him while he was giving his "I'm caught so I will try to make the best of it and use my wife as prop by my side even though I've humiliated her completely" speech.
I do feel sorry for his wife and children. I sort of wished his wife would have sucker punched him while he was giving his "I'm caught so I will try to make the best of it and use my wife as prop by my side even though I've humiliated her completely" speech.
Men who can't keep it in their pants have less power than you think.
"The fact that we waste resources and law enforcement's time on this is preposterous."
No kidding. You can't legislate a morally pure society. That, combined with the fact that morality is subjective makes this type of law completely worthless. Most people seem to realize that we won't outlaw premarital sex and pornography, but outlawing prostitution somehow makes sense. It's a woman's body, she can do what she chooses to do, you can make all the moral judgments you like, but making it a law enforcement issue is utterly pointless.
Brab,
It seems to me that your comment is terribly sexist. Paying women for sex debases them and reduces them to objects. Not very pc my friend.
Actually, AA, you telling women( and men) what they can or can't voluntarily do with their bodies not only reduces them to objects, but infringes on their rights.
As usual, you're absolutely clueless, over your head, and in the woods. Entertaining, though!
I didn't say anything sexist, as far as I see. The dynamic is that women control sex. That's a significant difference. There's a reason that there are a hell of a lot more prostitutes than gigolos, and I think we both know that it's not because men aren't interested in sex. In any event prostitution is really capitalism in it's purest form, there's a built-in supply and demand, so outlawing it doesn't do any good. It's the same thing with alcohol, people have always wanted it, and they always will.
Of course it debases women. I didn't say otherwise. I think drugs should be legal too, because that's a health concern as opposed to a legal one (and there are obviously a lot of health concerns as well as moral ones with prostitution!). I'll make those arguments whether they're politically correct or not, obviously you're more concerned about that than I am.
Once you're an adult you make your own decisions, whether they're stupid or immoral or whatever. Some people are into fetishes, should that be illegal because they're debasing to one party or another? If you want to do something to or with your own body, then the government should be in no position to legislate otherwise, as long as we're talking about consenting adults. That's what I'm saying.
Just because you want something to be legal doesn't mean you approve of it. When you legalize it you're able to regulate it, have health checks, drug counseling, and work to eliminate abusive pimps. It's still a negative thing, but you can deal with it in a more intelligent manner.
That's all quite a shift in perception from "you think women should be objects!", isn't it?
Here, AA, you forgot these:
" "
I can assure you that it don't have to end there:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803090001?f=h_latest
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803060012?f=s_search
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803060002?f=s_search
and again, just because its funny to call red red
Clinton haters can't be reasoned with. And the make up their own facts.
Carlileb, buddy, I gotta ask...are you ok?
For you then, a last note, cribbed from the original Batman movie
"And now, folks, it's time for "Who do you trust!" Hubba, hubba, hubba! Money, money, money! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Who do you trust? Me? I'm giving away free money. And where is McCain? He's at home, washin' his tights! safe and sound watching me tear down the Obama wave"
"Now comes the part where I relieve you, the simple voters, the NON SUPERDELEGATES of the burden of your failed and useless lives. But, as my plastic surgeon always said: if you gotta go, CARLIL GO WITH A SMILE!"
cus I'm jus better n this
One thing I am getting tired of is the constant sniping back and forth between HRC supporters and BO supporters, it's doing us no good.
I started out in this election cycle supporting Edwards and when he dropped out I switched to Obama for the simple reason that he views conform more to Edwards' views than Hillary's in my opinion. I'm not totally happy with Obama's version of healthcare but I'm happier with it than Hillary's version. To me neither one comes close to Edwards' version of universal healthcare so I'm not happy with either one.
My underlying point is we can have divergent views of both candidate without resorting to name calling like the republicans do on these threads. We are democrats we are above that type of childish behavior. The people on here who choose to name call other dems are only furthering the repub agenda which is to get McCain elected in November.
I'm not happy with some statements made by both campaigns but to throw terms like hater's at one candidate's supporters just because they differ from your view is to me childish and petty.
All the above having been said I will say this last thing about the election in November. While I would rather that Obama get the nod if Hillary does get the nod I will vote for her in November, if for no other reason than to avoid the repubs having another 4 yrs in the white house. If she does get elected I hope that we don't go through another 4 to 8 yrs of the kind of press crap we went through when Bill was in office, but I think that sadly we will because of the ones out there who literally hate the Clinton's even though they can't give you a valid reason why.
For those who are going to claim I'm nothing but a Hillary hater no I'm not. I've never met the woman or had a conversation with her so I have no reason to hate her. Heck I don't even hate Bush as I feel that hate is a wasted emotion. When you hate someone they don't care because they don't know it and it only degrades you emotionally in the long run.
Remember Thomas Jefferson said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." All we have here is some dissent so I guess we are all pretty patriotic.