Comments on Who's Feeling, Um, Catty Now?
well if clinton gets the nomination and we lose to mccain you will
No reason to be ashamed. You're just backing the second most polarizing figure in America (after Dubya). Status Quo has nothing to do with it.
I surely cannot stand the women who are for Clinton. What a bunch of firebreathing dragons.
@2-polarizing in a bad way. polarizing in a good way-obama.
got to keep the devil way down in the hole!
"I'm not ashamed!"
ECB, do you exist outside the eyes of your (real and imagined) detractors?
Your compulsive victimization issues are getting so tired.
Didn't your dad hug you enough?
another interesting article: http://www.slate.com/id/2181460/
Hillary is a uniter...of the opposition against her.
Just say NO to legacy Presidents.
The Barack link is broken.
COMMENT DELETED: Off Topic
We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.
and let's not forget this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL&type=politics
Erica, you gotta stop troll-baiting. I understand most of the people at the Stranger are Obama supporters, but you've become so reactionary and defensive about your support for Clinton that it makes you seem like a real dickhead, pointing your finger and yelling "look! look! see?! I told you so!" Even legitimate concerns about Obama seem like childish accusations coming from you. You're not helping your cause.
Erica, you didn't just claim Dan's most fervent enemy as our ally, did you?
Clinton/Obama 2008.
There's no link for the Obama quote. It points nowhere.
Boy cats have claws too. This is not in any way a sexist statement.
Just say no to the Bush-Clinton dynasty.
And just say no to equating claws as feminine traits. Bears have claws too.
There are plenty of people who support Hillary in a mature and intelligent manner. Debating the issues would be great, but all of your "arguments" boil down to "Hope, blah, blah, blah". As a committed Obama supporter, I enjoy debating Clinton supporters on the issues, but you give them all a bad name.
Bellevue Ave @10. You sound just like Ecce homo.
Thank you Erica!
Exactly why I will not be voting for Obama! He should have resisted such a shitty remark.
Hillary all the way!! Ya!
Persecution complexes, self-pity, and blog posts fishing from sympathy are all things to be ashamed of. Whining about being beat up on the Slog after spending a year feeding trolls is not exactly something to be proud of.
But who the hell said you were supposed to be ashamed of liking Hillary? One of the pet trolls you keep around? Or a real person?
you've become so reactionary and defensive
she hasn't "become" reactionary and defensive. she's always been like this. this is just the first time that a majority of sloggers have been on the receiving end of it (as opposed to the viaduct or something else we commonly dislike).
Erica,
Hillary simply can’t win in the general due to the numbers. She’s just too divisive. A bare majority of the country, including Republicans, independents and the 10% or so of Democrats who can’t stand her or Bill Clinton will never vote for her.
And if you think that most Americans aren’t slack-jawed stupid or batshit crazy enough to vote for a McCain/Huckabee clusterfuck—thus pushing the button on their own destruction—then you’re sadly mistaken and I’ve got proof.
Exhibit A: The last 230 years.
What we need more than anything is a fresh start—America 2.0—and someone who can unify the country. Hillary Clinton cannot give us that, and it definitely won’t happen if it’s 1996 all over again. She can’t change the system because she *is* the system.
If you want to calculate your comment for maximum offense, it should read: Dare to be a fly in the ointment, and suddenly the claws come out.
I thought Kate's post was interesting. I've definitely found that it's "not cool" amongst my age group to not be 100% for Obama. Also, the whole "don't just vote for Hillary because she's a woman, use your brain" thing is kind of insulting.
So, elenchos @20, no one says, you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting Hillary (except on Slog). It's just implied. Anyone who uses their brain would be for Obama, right?
what else do you expect from The Black Candidate? you can't trust those black cocaine-dealing black muslim blacks, you know. and we all know the clintons never, EVER say anything even remotely offensive.
jesse jackson would have said the exact same thing when he won south carolina in 84 and 88 if he were running against a woman.
original andrew - take your freshness to the shower. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/07/307866.aspx
why obama is inexperienced:
There was another moment that was particularly important in terms of the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The question was whether or not each of the candidates would meet with the leaders of Syria, Iran, and other hot spots around the country as a promised meeting in the first year of their administration. Barack Obama immediately said, yes, he would be willing to meet with Syria's president, Iran's president, et cetera, because he felt that diplomacy would be necessary.
Well, the next person asked was Hillary Clinton, and she said, no, she wouldn't. And it ends up sort of embarrassing Obama. What Mrs. Clinton did was say that she didn't want to be used as a potential propaganda tool by despots around the world who might take advantage of that opportunity were she to agree without parameters to a such-and-such meeting. Well, it left Obama a little bit exposed, and the Clinton campaign tonight is pushing that out aggressively, showing that it illustrates her experience in leadership, as opposed to Obama's inexperience and naivete --
Please be careful with your use of "reactionary."
Hint: It has nothing to do with being quick to react.
Also, ECB is a self-exploiting troll masochist.
How is this not sexist? Maybe I'm the only one, but Obama's attitude lately has been leaving an icky taste in my mouth. I think the honeymoon is over. I hope he changes his ways soon.
ECB--did you see the cover of the Wall Street Journal today? It had a poll that said most Americans are more uncomfortable with a women president than a black president. It's a sad, sad day when Slog posters sound my Republicans in their vicious attacks. Liberals unite!
oh shizz! do you really want stevie wonder on obama's side AFTER ALL?? HILLARY IN '08! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=512208&in_page_id=1773
Just because "claws come out" is only ever used to put down women, doesn't mean it's sexist!
some clinton supporters are driving me crazy. and some obama supporters are driving me crazy.
but there certainly doesn't seem to be a shortage of either group! no one can say that they are alone or outnumbered in their support for a candidate, or have you not noticed that they are neck to neck? i went to a super tuesday party and there were people supporting both candidates.
ECB, I'm a big Hillary supporter and yet I still cringe at 80% of your posts. You don't exactly help the cause.
keep it up ECB.
electability:
Obama's negatives are going to go way up once he actually has a GOP campaign against him.
For lack of experience.
for that $300,000 slimeball gift.
For taking nuclear donations for legislative favors.
Where's his change image then??
For telling kids to smoke pot.
For saying our foreign policy should be driven by what foreigners think of us.
(explanation for clarity's sake: I agree w/ some of his positions but they are KILLERS in terms of getting those middle American votes in the purplish states after the GOP puts all this on TV and the national press goes after him.)
We have no idea whether his popularity drops 3 points or 20 points in a general election campaign. So far, he's enjoyed one story arc (newcomer rises/challenges establishment) but pretty soon the next story arc will take place (Obama stumbles under pressure)...
He couldn't win in the big states (except Ga and IL) despite more money for TV and a week of tremendous coverage -- he had a fair shot and he lost. If we had winner take all he'd be done already.
He is still afraid to debate.
He's a great guy, a great leader and a great candidate -- I am thnkful he's in this race -- but he is being vastly over-rated -- like a stock bubble -- all negative information is ignored/dismissed.
You can see this bias on Slog everyday.
Gregoire -- gets a post.
Rendell -- got no post.
If he thinks what he's faced so far is "claws come out" he's AND WE are going to get a rude awakening about October, if he's the nominee.
They will say he's for drugs, he's for surrender, he doesn't know what he's doing on the economy, and so on.
Yes! YES! YES!!!
What elenchos@20 said. This is really just getting embarrassing.
Rendel gets no post because aside from trying to eat Beowulf, what else has it ever done?
You mean this Rendell who keeps money from convicted criminals? He's as tainted as Hillary is.
On August 30, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that while Hillary Clinton and other high-profile Democratic politicians were returning contributions from tainted political fundraiser Norman Hsu, Rendell said he intended to keep the $40,000 he had received from Hsu's fund-raising network.
@34:
Negatives: so what? Do you honestly think that just because everyone already knows about Clinton cronyism and scandal that it won't make waves in the electorate? There will always, always, always be an attack campaign.
Lack of experience: I'll defer here to Michael Chabon:
"It is through our fear of falling prey to the calamity and misadventure from which the media promise faithlessly to protect us -- a fear manufactured and sold by the media themselves -- that we accept without question the media-borne canard (tainted, in my view, by a racism as insidious as any that hides behind the curtains of voting booths) that Barack Obama, a seasoned and successful 46-year-old husband and father of two, a man sweeping into the prime of his life with all his sails and flags unfurled, is too young and inexperienced for a job that demands vitality and flexibility and that, furthermore, has made nonsense of glittering resumes, laughingstocks of practiced old hands and, in a reverse of Popeye's old trick, ravenous alligators out of years of accumulated baggage."
He's signed up for two debates. What could you possibly want with 4? What would that honestly teach you that you don't already believe?
And why are you voting based on what *they* would say? Where are your priorities in a democracy?
Oh, bullshit, Erica.
You're not fighting a losing battle. This thing is far from over. Pretending that Clinton is the oppressed underdog, something that people might be "ashamed" of, is just ridiculous.
Neither defeatism or victim complexes are attractive in any way, and just serve to turn people off. If you have valuable stuff to add about how great Clinton is -- and I know you do, because you've posted it before -- fine, but if you're just going to swan around dramatically, you're going to attract a lot of well-deserved criticism.
I'm not terribly offended by the "claws coming out" comment (and lord knows, I think the fact that HRC is running has highlighted the degree of sexism that still remains in our country).
Now, if he had made that "Rrroooaww" noise and a scratching motion with his hand... that would be a different story, my friends.
re: "I am not ashamed"
One of the unfortunate things about "not being ashamed", which I consider to be an extension of the whole "speak truth to power" shtick, is that it encourages anyone who holds an unpopular opinion to be proud of expressing it under any and all circumstances: White Supremacists suing for their right to march in downtown Seattle can claim to be speaking truth to power. They can shout, "I am not ashamed!" and pat themselves on the back for "daring" to express their opinion in public, when what they're really doing is annoying people by expressing an opinion that has already been weighed and rejected by 99% of the onlookers.
Not agreeing with you is not the same thing as not hearing you, Erica. We heard you, we thought about what you had to say, and we came to a conclusion. You can stop now.
ECB: I hope you read this. I'm not sure you are helping Clinton. Your posts seem to turn off people -- but they might have been turned off already. Some of the negative comments, however, so seem to rile up support for Clinton amongst women who see, and are tired of, as blatant sexism. I can understand this.
Kate Harding's article was amazing. I like to think that's what you feel but can not articulate as well as she did. I really don't mean that as in insult, Harding's writing is quite good in my opinion.
Her writing puts the feelings you have into a perspective I can understand and relate to. You often just sound like you are playing a victim or whining about unimportant "issues".
I'm glad Harding feels comfortable saying there is something awesome about a woman president. Even as a man, I agree. But I honestly think some of the shaming comes not from men or from sexism, but from the idea that we know we shouldn't vote for someone just because they are a woman, or just because they are black.
In my opinion, we have already seen that the candidates are qualified for the position -- and we are only arguing over who is more qualified (which is clearly quite debatable).
That means being a woman, or being a an African-American is a valid voting issue. I believe it will be better for our country to have a non-white-male president because we value equality (but have yet to achieve it). There is nothing wrong with thinking that.
There are valid reasons to support Clinton because she's a woman that do not include you feeling alone and gang-up on -- a victim in these slog posts. Using that language is a bad as saying the claws are coming out, because both bring sexist images to mind. I hope you can support voting for a woman because she's a woman without the unnecessary low-blows, and without ignoring the strong justification for such a position.
And trust me on this, the stupid, sexist comments will still appear. You will post valid reasons for your choice, not be ashamed of it, and still get a long string of follow-up posts.
But as a white male, I am stuck in a difficult position. For it is unfair to say I'm sexist if I do not vote for Hillary or racist if I do not vote for Obama. I hope you can understand this sensitive predicament.
Obama said recently that Clinton's supporters would vote for him, but his supporters wouldn't vote for her. He said it like he thought it was a good thing, but its really not. Obama has the mob vote, and mobs are never good.
unPC - please, keep your paranoia to yourself. middle american vote "killers?" then why did he beat hillary by TWO TO ONE MARGINS in all those red states?
and i'll see your tony rezko and raise you norman hsu [sketchy clinton donor extraordinaire], rep. alcee hastings [clinton's "black friend" she was photographed with after her florida "victory"; impeached for bribery and perjury in 1981], and her chinatown donor debacle. and these are just from the past few months.
the clintons have pulled no punches in their attempts to take obama down. and what happens? he's become MORE popular, not less. his momentum is building, while hers is fading fast.
what the clintons and their supporters fail to recongize is that when you are honest about your shortcomings, you are more resilient against any attacks, not more vulnerable. it's when you - *AHEM* - lie about things that you get yourself into trouble.
My God, the self pity! You and Hillary were made for each other.
And what have you got against Maureen Dowd, other than the fact that she dares to implicitly support Obama?
Who as a board member of Wal-Mart did nothing to curtail union busting?
Romney?
Huckabee?
Ron Paul?
Nope.
Clinton.
This is why Hillary is such shit at caucuses. It would be so much easier to just fill in a bubble next to her name; the thought of publicly supporting her in this climate of if you're for Hillary you're necessarily against hope and change and the 21st century and etc. is daunting. I have my reasons and I'm sick of apologizing for them. See you at the caucus.
Clinton/Obama 2008.
i guess what i'm trying to say is this:
there are some of us commenting here who want to have a meaningful conversation with you.
can you pay a little more attention to us, and a little less attention to those only interested in insults?
@44,
No. He's saying that he attracts moderates who aren't going to vote for her.
And yet ... Obama's right.
As we all know, the beltway has always backed Guiliani and Clinton.
@18, maybe I AM ecce homo
Obama/Clinton 2008
@48,
Maybe the problem is that many people don't have their reasons. For all the complaining on Hillary's side about how Obamatrons don't know anything about our candidate, there are reams of Hillary supporters (check out #26, #27, #30, and everything else that commenter has written on Slog) who know nothing about Hillary or Obama and just parrot Clinton talking points. They make demonstrably false statements like: Obama has never done anything for gay people, Obama has never done anything for HIV/AIDS research, Obama has never done anything for the poor, all he does is vote present, Obama can't be bothered to support abortion rights, Obama doesn't have any experience. Blah. Blah. Blah.
Although the kicker is when they say something truly laughable such as claiming that Hillary is a champion of the working class.
Obama/Richardson 2008 - It's time for America to move forwards, not backwards.
@53. Whatever gets you the most attention is, I'm sure, fine by you.
@55
I'm just saying that it's never enough to say you're voting for Hillary-- you are definitely expected to explain how you could possibly support her instead of the beacon of light and hope that is Obama. I'm so over all of that. He is running for president, not his speechwriters!
Judah, "I'm not ashamed" here is intended to suggest that people have in fact tried to shame Clinton supporters. It's a victimizing tactic, whereby they claim victim status, and thus survivor status, and thus pride, even if no one has any idea what they're talking about.
Clinton is a candidate for President. She's not a proud warrior against centuries of discrimination, fighting against superhuman odds to claim her birthright. She's a candidate for President.
Some idiots on Slog have in fact attacked people -- both Clinton and Erica -- in appalling, offensive and stupid language, just for the simple fact of being or supporting Clinton. But far more common is people responding viscerally to that bogus victimhood -- "I'm proud to support her, choking back tears". That's what's offensive, not Clinton's candidacy.
You should be ashamed, though. Your candidate voted for the war, and voted against the banning of cluster bombs. Your candidate has done fuck-all about the insane war on drugs.
Your candidate sucks bag.
Bellevue Ave #10 is one of the yuckiest creeps around. Here's hoping that his comment gets pulled. 86 that looser. Please.
@ Fnarf, I think ECB would agree that in the country, there are plenty of people who support Clinton. But on the internet, and more specifically on Slog, we are a minority. Among friends in our younger age set, we are a minority. Kate's post really resonated with me for that reason. I'm tired of telling my friends I'm supporting Clinton and getting a derisive, "You are? Why?"
We're all perfectly aware that we're not some opressed minority, but on the internet world, Obama is the CLEAR frontrunner, and frankly in real life, Obama is also now the clear frontrunner. He's 95% going to win the nomination, guys. You're going to get your candidate. Cut Erica some slack.
keshmeshi--you are one of the worst commentors on the Slog. You constantly spread Obama lies and are completely dishonest in your Pro-Obama posts. I like Obama, but you have consistently made false statements and your word means shit here. I could list off the long litany of reasons Obama is not so hot, but I'm tired of negativity.
ECB posts about Clinton.
ECB gets slammed in the comments for supporting Clinton.
ECB acknowledges that she gets slammed when posting about Clinton by saying "I know I'm fighting a losing battle, especially here on Slog".
ECB gets slammed for playing the "victim".
Did any of you actually read the article she linked? It makes an assertion that, when he made that quote, it was presumably directed at Hillary. Her name isn't in the quote - it's nowhere near the quote. That's an assumption that the author of the article made and that ECB swallowed without question, based on her clear and acknowledged Hillary bias.
As a matter of fact, when talking about attacking the status quo (what he was talking about in that quote) he could have been as easily referring to Bush or the GOP or the status quo anywhere else. Again, maybe he meant Hillary - but maybe he didn't. Nothing in the article makes that clear and ECB is jumping on it as her continued last-ditch efforts to help Hillary. It's sad really - a journalist should have recognized the lack of clarity in that story and the reporter's assumption.
#15: you're a cool drink in the bullshit desert, and i thank you.
...this whole thread reminds me of mudede's post about the playing cards...
@59 +1!
Nail on the head. It implies people are shaming Clinton supporters. And just people someone likes Obama, or Obama is popular, that's doesn't mean it's shameful to vote for Clinton. You feel the need to explain because you recognize your position isn't popular.
@63,
Name one lie I've written about Obama.
@64
You skipped the first part, where ECB wrote two phony articles pretending to mull over whether or not to support Hillary on her merits or just because she was a woman. You also skipped the part where ECB said "Screw it: if it's female, I'm voting for it."
Then she got slammed. And of course her little stable of pet trolls came after her. The reason she has a stable of pet trolls is that she fed them, pampered them, even elevated them to the status of celebrities. And then played the victim because her pet trolls are mean to her.
The reason why Sullivan (a tool, BTW), and I, and others often call ECB and Kate Harding phony feminists is that they are working out their personal problems in public while pretending they are acting as champions of women everywhere. Harding isn't getting along with her boyfriend. Erica is getting a lot of criticism on a blog. So sad, but are these feminist issues?
Phony feminists try to siphon resources from the real feminist movement to help them out with their personal problem. The belittle the feminist movement, making it into nothing more than a mutual aid society for helpless girls to lean on.
Stop asking what feminism can do for you. Ask what you can do for feminism. Do that, and you'd get respect.
It is really sad that the stranger staff and slog commentors cannot see that both candidates are great and that it is a huge benefit to the country to have them both in public service and running for president. Hillary and Obama are both miles away from where our current administration stands and anyone that can't appreciate that is surely mired in anger and prejudice and is simply looking for a fight on slog. I'm thrilled to vote for either in the general election. They both deserve props for coming this far, and any postings about who is the better candidate should be more respectful and civilized. This liberal infighting shrouded in race and gender issues is ridiculous and a waste of time. Not that I expect anything better from this sorry excuse of a paper.
itsME@48 is just hoping that ECB will make his/her comment the subject of another new post designed to reinflate ECB's ego again.
ECB likes playing the victim, pulling comments etc. for two reasons:
1: She has sand in her vagina
2: no self respecting penis will touch her.
No matter what her protestations are, she needs a man, and if she did this self victimization troll baiting BS would stop.
No one deserves 'props' for voting for the Iraq war. She refuses to apologize for it too. Her hands are covered in blood and oil.
The only thing this post proves is that ECB is a masochistic genius. Bravo ECB, bravo.
Lloyd and Kehmeshi--would this be the same blood and oil on Obama's hands who has voted 97% the same on Iraq? Their one difference? When Hillary voted against giving the architect of the war a promotion while Obama voted for it. Or maybe we could talk about how on TWO different ocassions Obama said he would have voted for the war if he were in the US senate at the time. But, please continue to spread untruths. If we were talking about Gravel or Kucinich I would be right there with you, but Obama's shit is just stank.
They are both wonderful kittens....
Action speak louder then words
PLEASE GO CAUCUS TOMORROW
Kyle
Hillary 08
#64, no one slams ECB for supporting Clinton. That's ridiculous. ECB gets slammed for parroting stupid assumptions as if they were self evident truths, like the assumption that 'the claws come out' is a sexist phrase. Yeah, maybe if you're a woman with a victimization complex. For the rest of the world it's a figure of speech.
It's sort of like this post,
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/goodbye_to_all_that_again
wherein a Hillary supporting essayist fancies herself some kind of alternate reality political analyst?
"When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor."
"If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.”"
The elevation of pure speculation to self evident truth really makes me want to hurl. What, did she verify this in her alternate reality simulation chamber?
ECB also gets slammed for being a petulant ass. She can't even stop being a snarky bitch when her candidate *wins* a state. Being a sore loser is one thing, but gloating to prove how right you were?
Is there any Obama supporter on Slog acting like this?
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/so_that_ted_kennedy_endorsement
ECB is ripe for a "proved fucking right" moment.
Lloyd and kehmishi--would this be the same blood and oil on Obama's hands? The same Obama that shares a 97% voting record with Hillary on the Iraqi War? Their one difference? Hillary voted against giving the architect of the war a promotion while Obama voted for it. Or perhaps we should look at the fact that Obama stated on TWO different occassions that he would have voted for the war if he were in the US senate at the time. But, you can continue to ignore those facts because they interfere with your silly arguments. If we were talking about Gravel or Kucinich I would be right there with you, but Obama's shit is just as stank.
@62 -
and frankly in real life, Obama is also now the clear frontrunner. He's 95% going to win the nomination, guys.
Huh? It really looks about 50-50 right now, and Clinton probably wins a tie. (Which is a little scary, IMHO - I'd almost prefer Clinton get the nom peacefully than a bloody, prolonged feud over MI and FL and a dozen superdelegates tear the party apart at a time like this.)
@75,
There are only two points I have made about Obama vs. Hillary on the Iraq war. One is that it's bullshit to give Hillary a pass on her vote because she was lied to. She had more access to intelligence than the public and she should know better. To say that she isn't to blame is to say that she's easily fooled. I don't want a president who is easily fooled.
The second point that I have made (and I'm fairly certain I've never stated this on Slog) is that it's ridiculous for Hillary supporters to ding Obama for voting for funding of the Iraq war. Voting against funding, i.e. voting against our troops, is political suicide.
Many Hillary supporters (not all, many) fault Obama for not doing more to get us out of Iraq, as if he's some sort of dynamo who can usurp the power of the president and pull the troops out all on his lonesome. In this case, it's those Hillary supporters who are being dishonest.
You took his quote out of context, and it was the reporter who "decided" that he has referring to Clinton. Obama had previously been making comments about Republicans.
This is such a BS non-story. When Hillary people react this way it is thoroughly obnoxious.
Excuse, but you think ECB jumped to the conclusion that this was about Hillary? Yeah, because NO ONE ELSE is in the fucking race, you morons. Of course he's talking about Hillary. You can debate whether it's sexist or not, but it is obviously an attack on Hillary.
@80 so it's okay for Obama to avoid political suicide by funding the war, but it makes Hillary evil for being the NEW YORK senator who (against better judgement) trusted Bush, to avoid her own political suicide? You honestly don't see the double standard?
And you still never answered the questions about Obama stating he would have voted for the war even after the security reports were public knowledge.
Heck, not one of these comments has changed who I'm voting for, how I feel about it, or ECB. Go figure.
Although I think I prefer Obama at this point, I would support Hillary if she's nominated, and do not want any comments I may make now, or in the future, to be interpreted as casting aspersions upon her, or her supporters.
That said, if people are going to vote with their vaginas, I absolutely do not want touch-screen voting. Ever.
Since when was Barack Obama supposed to act inoffensively milquetoast? Of course he's gonna point the finger and get in her face. He'd BETTER.
Double standards are awesome.
@83,
You're accusing me of dishonesty?
He said that he might have given into the pressure at the time, assuming that at the time he hadn't seen the security reports.
And when have I condemned Hillary for making a political calculation in voting for the Iraq war? I've condemned her supporters for not acknowledging the fact that Obama can't vote against funding for our troops, particularly when they turn around and make excuses for Hillary voting for the war in the first place. I have also criticized the excuses that they have made for Hillary. Their arguments usually boil down to: she was too stupid to figure out that Bush was lying or she was too cowardly to vote against him.
For my part, I think she made a political calculation. She knew she was going to run for President and, in the event that the war was successful, she didn't want to take shit for being on the wrong side of it. But maybe I'm giving her too much credit. Maybe she really is a stupid coward.
unPC @ 34
He's a great guy, a great leader and a great candidate -- I am thnkful he's in this race -- but he is being vastly over-rated -- like a stock bubble -- all negative information is ignored/dismissed.
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee then John McCain will own her on the experience and corruption issues. McCain's spent 25 years in office as compared to Hillary's 7. Before that he spent 22 years in the Navy, and while Hillary Clinton was going to law school he was being tortured by the North Vietnamese. And on corruption and scandals? Let's see, you have Hillary Clinton, who's been involved with people who are every bit as sleazy and disreputable as anyone that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are versus John McCain, who worked on getting an anti-corruption measure, McCain-Feingold, passed for years, and took hits from his own party to do so. What has Hillary Clinton done that even compares?
So unPC, go read these two articles
After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton
and then come back and tell us how bad Obama's involvement with Exelon and Tony Rezko really is.
Dude, we need nuclear power in this country. 100% true.
At least Obama has experience in the matter.
keshmeshi--which makes Obama a coward or stupid as well. I never supported the war, but I also understand why things happened they way they happened. Democrats felt that it was time to turn a new chapter in American politics and support the president in a time of great turmoil. Hillary had not read the additional security reports because she, like so many others, assumed that the president was being genuine. Obama stated, BEFORE he started running against Hillary, that he agreed with her votes and stands completely. Your post simply strenghted and proved my point.
I am simply trying to state that Obama and Hillary are in the same damn boat, so let's not pretend otherwise. I'm not concerned with rehashing this debate. At the time 80% of Americans agreed with Bush, so until you talk about punishing all of those people, including Mr. Savage, let's be more concerned about the future and who is going to fix the mess.
Mr. Coyote--
Spend a little time reading about McCain's involvement as one of the Keating Five, and you'll see he can more than give Hillary a run for her money in the Corruption Department.
Oh, I forgot all about the Keating Five. Can't wait!
McCain didn't read the Iraq NIE, either.
@91,
And you're using my handle because...?
You seem to have massive reading comprehension problems (I'm assuming that you're group therapy). Until you brought up Iraq, I didn't mention it once in this thread. I usually don't, except as I've stated ad nauseam when Hillary supporters get up in Obama's bidness for not being pure enough on the issue. I mean, she is?
Both Hillary and Obama are going to work hard to get us out of Iraq, compared to the war mongering McCain. That fact is why I rarely bring up Iraq at all. Why try to make distinctions when the outcome will be the same?
However, this statement is ridiculous.
Democrats felt that it was time to turn a new chapter in American politics and support the president in a time of great turmoil. Hillary had not read the additional security reports because she, like so many others, assumed that the president was being genuine.
Come on. The Dems followed Bush out of political necessity and no other reason. And I think that's what Obama has been admitting to with his most recent statements on how he would have voted in the Senate. As an Illinois State Senator, he knew going into Iraq was a dumb idea and said so publicly. As a U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois, he knows now that he wouldn't have had a choice but to go along, because of politics, not because he's dumb enough to believe the Liar in Chief.
Oh wait, nevermind, it's sally was a girl and please no more lies who have lousy reading comprehension and accused me of bringing up Iraq in my comment @ 55.
Going back to the original issue here. I've had to justify my support for Obama constantly, and no I don't just bring up hope and change, in fact, that's usually the last thing I bring up. Why is it that asking Hillary supporters to explain the reasons for their support such a terrible burden on them?
Wile-
How about when ECB brings up Obama's Exelon and Rezko scandals? Obamatons ignore. Or his voting of 'present' for several controversial issues. Ignored. His complete lack of experience. He was a comunity organizer? Give me a break. Worked at a law firm, hmmmm...sounds familiar. Ignored. Nothing for gay rights. Ignored. He is completely ignorant of foreign policy. Ignored. He has lied repeatedly during this campaign. Ignored. Taken money from lobbyists and corporations. Ignored. Has an inferior health care plan. Ignored. Has done little to nothing for union support. Ignored. No economic background, when that will be the MAIN concern of upcomning year. Ignored. Supports the war on drugs, even though he is a former coke head. Ignored. Shall I continue? Or are you just going to bring up Hillary and ignore Obama's very real faults?
keshmeshi @94... so, if Obama knows he would have had to go along because of politics, and, um, Hillary went along because of politics... what's the big deal, then?
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think it was the wrong decision, but, I do understand why those who voted for the war did so from a political standpoint (if Iraq really had nuclear weapons and really wanted to use them against the US, having voted against the war would have been political suicide).
I guess that's why, for me, having voted for the war is not an absolute "I cannot vote for this candidate" issue. Certainly a check in the negative column, but not a total no go.
@97 are you kidding me!?!? that stuff is not ignored -- it's often answered. and you are just proving the point that it's not just clinton supports who have to, you know, support their candidate.
not only that, but nice to bring up the abortion "present" issue again -- which is a completely underhanded accusation to lay on obama. nice.
@94 My apologies for the handle thing, I was multi-tasking.
I feel like you keep proving my point about the Iraq War thing and the candidates so I'm not really sure where the argument is going...
I read Erica's post about not being ashamed, and I am not ashamed.
Anywho, all this spittley blather about who's for whom, who doesn't like whom and who is a bigger more likeable celebrity is just so much overdramatized nonsense.
This isn't seventh grade and we're not electing our new bestest friend or our favoritest band in the whole wide world.
We're electing the chief executive of the nation's largest and most important bureaucracy. The person needs to have a abilities, aptitude and a track record of accomplishment. They should be able to display a thorough understanding of policies and issues and demonstrate how they have successfully put policy into place. Preferably the person you vote for shares some of your views on the issues, but will be able to reasonably explain their views either way.
If any of that bores you or somehow fails to meet your recommended daily allowance of "excitement" or once-in-a-generationness then you don't need to be participating in an presidential election. I'm sure there's a theatre in your vicinity. Go there and watch a movie instead.
Cheap entertainment has a much greater track record of uniting the nation anyway.
@99 I wasn't referring to the abortion vote, but many other times where he voted present on certain issues. Sounds like you don't know your candidate very well. One of the big political blogs just did a piece on it. I'll look for it and post the link.
You know, I really have to stop reading these Hillary vs. Obama threads. I think both are excellent candidates -- I am excited and inspried by both and will throw my support (money, time, etc.) behind whoever gets the nomination.
I hope others will do the same, but I think the further we sink into this "your candidate sucks, only a moron would vote for him/her" thing, the less likely that is to happen.
Both candidates have negatives, for sure (and both have positives as well), and we could dissect them 24/7 (and, we do, here on Slog anyways). But, in the end, in my opinion anyways, both are strong candidates.
yes -- i clearly don't know "my" candidate very well because i've had to, on multiple occasions -- refute the present vote that was most highlighted. but i'm not ashamed to support obama! not matter what you say about him or me! i'm not ashamed!!!!
you are probably right, julie. it's just so irksome when a slog staffer makes a troll-like post an appealing emotional argument justified by a straw man.
@97,
You are ignoring the fact that he has done plenty for gays. Probably more than Hillary.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, a majority of Clinton supporters want Obama as the Veep nominee AND VICE VERSA.
Clinton/Obama 2008!
We now return you your regularly scheduled ad-hominems and recycled campaign memes...
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).