Chink! (another crack in the armour of inevitability)
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Boy! That's gotta hurt! One person changed her mind about one of the excellent candidates. As articulate and sensible as she is, there are, most likely, others with similar views going the other way. I'd say you're over-reacting to this snippet.
According to the polls, a lot of people seem to be changing their minds. My point was (and is) that a candidate once though invincible now seems to be in a real fight.
a) There are two of us anonymouses responding b) The polls I've seen don't show any such thing (...a lot of people...changing their minds), at least not in a consistent direction in Iowa. The polls show an ever shifting fight among the top three. See http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/iowa.html. I'd say the voters are in flux. I just take issue with your interpretation of one little ole lady's spiel. c) Anonymous-2 is right. Even if Obama or Edwards win the nomination, they'll start throwing stuff around with the best of them, or, at least, their peeps will, without their acknowledgement or approval, quote/unquote. Just you wait and see 'enry 'iggens. d) My comment wasn't ad hominem as it contained a modicum of logic and reason based on my view of polls for Iowa (nationally is, admittedly, a different story), and it didn't attack you personally. It just belittled your conclusion, for you have over-reacted, probably based on your own stated leanings away from Hilary.
I agree with you that the polls show the electorate in flux, and who knows where they will end up on election day. However, there is no denying that the polls show that Obama has gained significant ground. Nor is there denying that Hillary has had several bad weeks of bad press, mostly inflicted on herself, from going after Obama for stuff from kindergarten to having to apologize for her NH chair who dredged up Obama's youthful drug use.
I actually was for a while seriously thinking of supporting her. Then I became doubtful, and Obama fanned the flames of those doubts. But I'm open enough to be swayed still. Why should I vote for her?
Oh come on! Don't be coy about your own headline. You conclude from one person's opinion that the Hilary machine is grinding to a halt. Maybe it is, but I'm just saying that, IN IOWA, it isn't that clear cut. I'm not a flag waver for Hilary. I'm just inclined to her given her background, to say nothing of having Bill, whom I admire, at her back as well as the potential experience and infrastructure pool his former presidency will undoubtedly provide. His was a very successful presidency, he is brilliant, and to think that none of that will benefit Hilary is foolish. The other demos are credible, and I would support any one of them, but she has the wind in her sails, has "the stuff (IMHO)," and, as a woman, would shift the political paradigm opening up a whole new realm of talent and thought that has been ignored since the birth of this nation. Everything else being equal (for there isn't actually a dime's worth of difference between them on the vast political scale) among the demo candidates, that last point alone, IMHO, is reason enough to support her, just as it would be if she, or let's say, John Edwards, were gay. She would bring an entirely new dimension to the office and that is worth the price of admission. If she doesn't succeed, how long will it be before another woman rises to the occasion? Who is there on the horizon? I'm far from being a feminist, trust me, but I see this as a potentially seminal event in American history that will pave the way for others of "different" bents. Barack would accomplish the same end though I see her as more gay-friendly than him, and that matters to me. Moreover, I think it is too soon for Barack. He's too inexperienced in the big league and should come back in eight years and pick up the flag. At that point he might be awesome, and I would gladly punch my chad for him.
Oh come on! Don't be coy about your own headline. You conclude from one person's opinion that the Hilary machine is grinding to a halt. Maybe it is, but I'm just saying that, IN IOWA, it isn't that clear cut.
I think you are projecting your own panic about Clinton's campaign onto me. My headline said nothing about Hillary's campaign grinding to a halt...merely making a point that there are signs (of which the video is one example) that, to use your words, things aren't that "clear cut."
And let's talk about gay rights since you bring them up. You're so impressed by Bill, etc., etc, well, need I remind you that his administration brought us the two most anti-gay federal policies: DOMA and DADT? And should I remind you that Hillary supported DOMA at the time?
But let's talk about now. You say she is more "gay friendly" than Obama...how? By what measure? Obama favors FULL repeal of DOMA; Hillary would only repeal half of it. Obama has gone on record -- several times -- that he would support legislation to provide gay couples in civil unions full access to the nearly 1,200 federal rights and benefits that married couples enjoy. Hillary has not gone that far.
You also talk about "experience." What has Hillary's so called "experience" accomplished? Give me one example where she has accomplished something significant? The one thing she was in charge of during Bill's term was health care...now that was a stunning success, wasn't it?
Basically, your argument boils down to: vote for Hillary -- she's a woman and she's married to Bill.
Pretty thin reasons to vote for a president, if you ask me.
The presidency should not be given to Hillary so that Bill can be "elected" for a third term. Hillary should stand on her own without the help of Bill. And I mean without Bill anywhere near her campaign stops. I like the guy too. I even admire him. But Hillary needs to show that she can stand on her own, and that she can stand up against Obama and Edwards. I'm not saying she can, I'm not saying she can't. I just feel that people should start looking at her candidacy as her own.
The New York Times recently found that just about as many people attend Hillary campaign stops to see Hillary as they do to see Bill.
"Forty-four percent of Democratic voters say Mr. Clinton's involvement will make them more likely to support her. In fact, about as many of Mrs. Clinton's backers say they are supporting her because of her husband as say they are supporting her because of her own experience."
That's not a good thing for a candidate who wants to go up against the Republicans at the end of next year. As is, if she wins the nomination and people start seeing her instead of her and her husband, she'll be toast.
I'm okay with what she has achieved in her time in the Senate. What has Obama achieved that's so much better? Sure Hillary supported DOMA, but hell, a lot of people did. The alternative was a constitutional amendment being rammed down America's throat. I'd rather have the slightly offensive law than a bigoted amendment. The former is easier to overturn when the time's right. As is DADT.
I also think that it was unfair to Scott to lay unwarranted charges over his post title. A chink in armor doesn't mean that it's coming apart at the seams or "grinding to a halt." And I suspect Anonymous knows that but just brought it up to add fuel to this already dying and inane fire.
DOMA wasn't passed or supported in the 90s as an alternative to a marriage amendment. That came later.
I repeat: Obama was against DOMA then, Hillary supported it, her husband signed it. Obama wants FULL repeal now, Hillary wants half repealed. Obama wants legislation that would grant the federal rights and benefits of marriage to couples in civil unions. Hillary is unclear. Who is better on gay issues? You do the math.
10 comments:
Boy! That's gotta hurt! One person changed her mind about one of the excellent candidates. As articulate and sensible as she is, there are, most likely, others with similar views going the other way. I'd say you're over-reacting to this snippet.
According to the polls, a lot of people seem to be changing their minds. My point was (and is) that a candidate once though invincible now seems to be in a real fight.
She's shocked and surprised there's negative stuff between candidates? Come on.
Probably just looking for something different.
Whoever you are...make your case for Hillary if that's who you're for. You've accused me of over-reacting, and this woman of naiveté. Other than ad-hominem attacks, what have you got?
a) There are two of us anonymouses responding
b) The polls I've seen don't show any such thing (...a lot of people...changing their minds), at least not in a consistent direction in Iowa. The polls show an ever shifting fight among the top three. See
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/iowa.html. I'd say the voters are in flux. I just take issue with your interpretation of one little ole lady's spiel.
c) Anonymous-2 is right. Even if Obama or Edwards win the nomination, they'll start throwing stuff around with the best of them, or, at least, their peeps will, without their acknowledgement or approval, quote/unquote. Just you wait and see 'enry 'iggens.
d) My comment wasn't ad hominem as it contained a modicum of logic and reason based on my view of polls for Iowa (nationally is, admittedly, a different story), and it didn't attack you personally. It just belittled your conclusion, for you have over-reacted, probably based on your own stated leanings away from Hilary.
And what exactly do you think my "conclusion" is?
I agree with you that the polls show the electorate in flux, and who knows where they will end up on election day. However, there is no denying that the polls show that Obama has gained significant ground. Nor is there denying that Hillary has had several bad weeks of bad press, mostly inflicted on herself, from going after Obama for stuff from kindergarten to having to apologize for her NH chair who dredged up Obama's youthful drug use.
I actually was for a while seriously thinking of supporting her. Then I became doubtful, and Obama fanned the flames of those doubts. But I'm open enough to be swayed still. Why should I vote for her?
Oh come on! Don't be coy about your own headline. You conclude from one person's opinion that the Hilary machine is grinding to a halt. Maybe it is, but I'm just saying that, IN IOWA, it isn't that clear cut. I'm not a flag waver for Hilary. I'm just inclined to her given her background, to say nothing of having Bill, whom I admire, at her back as well as the potential experience and infrastructure pool his former presidency will undoubtedly provide. His was a very successful presidency, he is brilliant, and to think that none of that will benefit Hilary is foolish. The other demos are credible, and I would support any one of them, but she has the wind in her sails, has "the stuff (IMHO)," and, as a woman, would shift the political paradigm opening up a whole new realm of talent and thought that has been ignored since the birth of this nation. Everything else being equal (for there isn't actually a dime's worth of difference between them on the vast political scale) among the demo candidates, that last point alone, IMHO, is reason enough to support her, just as it would be if she, or let's say, John Edwards, were gay. She would bring an entirely new dimension to the office and that is worth the price of admission. If she doesn't succeed, how long will it be before another woman rises to the occasion? Who is there on the horizon? I'm far from being a feminist, trust me, but I see this as a potentially seminal event in American history that will pave the way for others of "different" bents. Barack would accomplish the same end though I see her as more gay-friendly than him, and that matters to me. Moreover, I think it is too soon for Barack. He's too inexperienced in the big league and should come back in eight years and pick up the flag. At that point he might be awesome, and I would gladly punch my chad for him.
Don't get hysterical. You say:
Oh come on! Don't be coy about your own headline. You conclude from one person's opinion that the Hilary machine is grinding to a halt. Maybe it is, but I'm just saying that, IN IOWA, it isn't that clear cut.
I think you are projecting your own panic about Clinton's campaign onto me. My headline said nothing about Hillary's campaign grinding to a halt...merely making a point that there are signs (of which the video is one example) that, to use your words, things aren't that "clear cut."
And let's talk about gay rights since you bring them up. You're so impressed by Bill, etc., etc, well, need I remind you that his administration brought us the two most anti-gay federal policies: DOMA and DADT? And should I remind you that Hillary supported DOMA at the time?
But let's talk about now. You say she is more "gay friendly" than Obama...how? By what measure? Obama favors FULL repeal of DOMA; Hillary would only repeal half of it. Obama has gone on record -- several times -- that he would support legislation to provide gay couples in civil unions full access to the nearly 1,200 federal rights and benefits that married couples enjoy. Hillary has not gone that far.
You also talk about "experience." What has Hillary's so called "experience" accomplished? Give me one example where she has accomplished something significant? The one thing she was in charge of during Bill's term was health care...now that was a stunning success, wasn't it?
Basically, your argument boils down to: vote for Hillary -- she's a woman and she's married to Bill.
Pretty thin reasons to vote for a president, if you ask me.
The presidency should not be given to Hillary so that Bill can be "elected" for a third term. Hillary should stand on her own without the help of Bill. And I mean without Bill anywhere near her campaign stops. I like the guy too. I even admire him. But Hillary needs to show that she can stand on her own, and that she can stand up against Obama and Edwards. I'm not saying she can, I'm not saying she can't. I just feel that people should start looking at her candidacy as her own.
The New York Times recently found that just about as many people attend Hillary campaign stops to see Hillary as they do to see Bill.
"Forty-four percent of Democratic voters say Mr. Clinton's involvement will make them more likely to support her. In fact, about as many of Mrs. Clinton's backers say they are supporting her because of her husband as say they are supporting her because of her own experience."
That's not a good thing for a candidate who wants to go up against the Republicans at the end of next year. As is, if she wins the nomination and people start seeing her instead of her and her husband, she'll be toast.
I'm okay with what she has achieved in her time in the Senate. What has Obama achieved that's so much better? Sure Hillary supported DOMA, but hell, a lot of people did. The alternative was a constitutional amendment being rammed down America's throat. I'd rather have the slightly offensive law than a bigoted amendment. The former is easier to overturn when the time's right. As is DADT.
I also think that it was unfair to Scott to lay unwarranted charges over his post title. A chink in armor doesn't mean that it's coming apart at the seams or "grinding to a halt." And I suspect Anonymous knows that but just brought it up to add fuel to this already dying and inane fire.
DOMA wasn't passed or supported in the 90s as an alternative to a marriage amendment. That came later.
I repeat: Obama was against DOMA then, Hillary supported it, her husband signed it. Obama wants FULL repeal now, Hillary wants half repealed. Obama wants legislation that would grant the federal rights and benefits of marriage to couples in civil unions. Hillary is unclear. Who is better on gay issues? You do the math.
Post a Comment