Subscribe by RSSWith PA Win, Clinton Argues For Nomination
As if the Pennsylvania primary offered reason to hand one candidate the nomination, Hillary Clinton is talking and acting as if she’s going to be the nominee. Now arguing that wins in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas prove she can deliver for the Democrats come November.
A report on it from USAToday:
One day after soundly defeating Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Hillary Rodham Clinton pressed her case anew Wednesday that she is the candidate most capable of defeating Republican John McCain in the fall.
“I won that double-digit victory that everybody on TV said I had to win, and the voters of Pennsylvania clearly made their views known — that they think I would be the best president and the better candidate to go against Senator McCain,” Clinton said Wednesday morning in a CNN interview.
She also said she would “stay in it until the nominee is selected,” and pressed the case the delegates she picked up in wins in the Michigan and Florida primaries — two elections held on dates opposed by the national Democratic Party, which so far has refused to recognize the results — should be seated at the party convention.
Clinton soundly defeated Obama in the Pennsylvania primary, a victory that keeps her uphill nomination bid alive as their battle heads into the final six weeks of contests.
Her win only nicks Obama’s lead in pledged delegates, but it does reinforce questions she has raised about whether the Illinois senator can appeal to white working-class voters and carry the big industrial states on which Democrats rely in general elections.
“You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people — well, the American people don’t quit, and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit, either,” she told cheering supporters in Philadelphia. “Because of you, the tide is turning.”
Here she is this morning on Fox & Friends arguing that she voters want her to continue toward the nomination:
Here she was also on Good Morning America earlier:
Finally, she was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe as well:
Last night it sounded to me like if she talks like the nominee, acts like the nominee, perhaps she’s hoping she’ll eventually become the nominee. The Clinton campaign is not letting this go down without a fight, and I don’t blame her, there is still a chance she could get it depending on how the superdelegates sway the process.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
Not everybody say Obama is willing to do anything? Well, it caught my attention that he has certainly decided no to use this agianst her: http://www.paulvclinton.com/
Michel, neither has anyone else. Can you say “internet scam”? Please don’t tell me you sent him a “donation” for a copy of the DVDs he’s touting. Compare this to the websites claiming Obama is muslin, ok? They rank about the same. If there was any validity to this, don’t you think every news media AND Obama AND McCain would keep it on the front page?
Did I say it was true? I’m just comparing it to the well remembered photograph of Obama in muslims costumes.
Or the supposed connection to Ayers.
Or the flag pin.
I’ll let you tell me the equivalents from Obama’s camp, if you don’t mind.
No Michel, you didn’t compare it to any photo, you threw it up as a propagranda tool to promote Obama on any thread available on this site. This is not even on topic with the article posted. There are a lot of Obama supporters on this site who represent him well, using facts and relevant opinion without trying to incite arguments or personally attack people here who do not support Obama.
Let me ask you a question. Have you voted in your state primary yet? And if not, when will you be voting?
Believe me, that wasn’t trying to talk about Obama. That was trying to talk about Clinton. I was just trying to make a point: both candidates have dirt on their camp, real or faked… but Clinton keeps talking about Obama’s and such things like the one form the link doesn’t come out from Obama’s words. Yet it’s not reciprocate. It seems that McCain will be a more ethical candidate.
If I was plain ineloquent and didn’t try to explain was my position was, I’m sorry. Once again, my position is nothing here. You posted a link to a incoherent article from the Washington Post, drawing conclusions from facts that contradicts them. And that doesn’t speak of you. It speaks of the W. Post journalist and editors, that’s all.
I live in Florida and voted for Obama. Many people I know that vote here didn’t vote for him because he was black and they believed he was a muslim.
And many other ones didn’t vote for neither candidate because they say they would rather be dead before voting for a Democrat.
Me and my family voted for Obama, but there are lots of people who vote for the wrong reasons. Sadly, the same thing repeated in many votes in Pennsylania, as the exit polls show. What is your opinion on that? And what do you think of the Pennsylvania governor stating that no white people in his state would vote for a black man?
And of course, I’d like to ask you also about your votes and your state.
Aren’t you angry, then, that your vote doesn’t count at this time and may not count at all? And haven’t you seen that the only one attempting to make your vote count is Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama? Does that not affect your feelings on Obama?
There may be a lot of people who vote for the wrong reason in your opinion or in mine. They may feel you vote for the wrong reason as well. That’s the thing about America, everyone is free to vote for who they wish to for whatever reason they choose without any backlash from anyone else. That’s our right, our freedom.
My opinion on the exit polls in Penn. is the same as the polls prior to the election. I put virtually no stock in them. I only put stock in the final vote count, and in Penn. Clinton won. Good for her. I haven’t heard a thing about the governor there saying no white people in his state would vote for a black man. When was this said? Show me.
Everyone on this site knows I voted for McCain, and knows why. If you’d like to know, feel free to read my commentary on the subject posted here on this site:
http://www.youdecide2008......-maverick/
Yes, I’m angry… at our party officials, wanting to attract the electionbefore its time to bring more money here to Florida. But I’m acostumed to it, since the majority of the state is Republican. I did have to listen to McCain, and Giuliani, in its right moment, and I was repulsed by some of their stances, specially in foreign politics. But I red Barack Obama’s take instead, and found it wonderfully great that he is willing to talk to governments like Cuba and is open to dialogue and is willing to raise the restrictions on the travels and the money sent to the siland by their cuban relatives. His speech did talk to the worries of younger generations, it was a speech of unity and good intentions, and not of hate. And his suggestions of lifting the Cuba embargo was approved by a 40% in poll in Miami Dale, which is a thing a though I’never see here.
On the other, Clinton’s speech was the exact stances of the Republicans congreesmen, and she was arguing (not anymore) for HER votes to be seated. She was willing to break party rules only to gather support from the status quo, and she made his opinions clearly after the status quo. Therefore I’m not for a redo. So, I express my opinion in this blog as a way to replace the lack of my vote. Obama didn’t strip me of it. People’s reasons to vote ARE important things. It’s for people like the ones who voted for a Bush reelection that we have so many problems still in our country. It’s because of disinformation and prejudice that people voted for Bush here, even after seen a documentary like Fahrenheit 911. And he still got reelected.
And I tell you, if you voted for a Bush reelection, just for him being a Republican (and Cheney, and Rove)… then Babs, you have blood in your hands.
People reasons for voting DO COUNT.
I just read your post about McCain, and would like to quote just two phrases….
“My country is about our husbands and sons voluntarily shipping overseas to war with a distinct possibility of not coming back home… it’s about my government spending more money than I can make for ridiculous causes like studying the DNA of bears because someone slipped a check into the right hands on the senate floor.”
Mmm, McCain voted for the bear DNA thing, and McCain is the only candidate left who didn’t pronounce for a sure ending to the war. Then why the hell did you votye for him? Naiveness? Lack of information? His age? Him being the underdog?
I must say I respect very much McCain the person. But I don’t respect McCain the politician. Some of his comments make me think he is a very ethical person, but really out of touch.
Ah, I see. You voted for Obama because of his Cuban embargo stance, and you’re Cuban, aren’t you? So maybe you’ll find you voted for the wrong reason if Obama doesn’t keep his promise to you, no?
Preach it to someone else, Michel. I support McCain, and you’re not going to convince me otherwise with your ranting or your attacks. Blood on my hands? Get real.
This 10 point win was good for her, she has a right to be proud. But 10 point wins like this are not going to get her the nomination, and she knows it.
If the superdelegates take this process out of the hands of the voters, it will be very good for McCain. I’ll vote for either dem who wins through legitimate means, but that is not a legitimate way to win. If she hijacks democracy in the primaries, she can go one without my vote in the general election - that’s how that works.
Her speech was pretty good last night though, talking of change, a “more perfect union” and chanting “Yes we will”. She sounded positively inspired! I wonder who inspired her?
Imitation is the highest form of flattery you know.
There you go… you think I voted only for that? That’s sad.
But then, with your vote you wanted to contribute to the fixing of the economy, the end of the Iraq war, and the foolishness of some of the Congrees bills (DNA bear)?
Well, you voted for the worst possible people. I don’t know if Obama will fix the problems I want fixed, but at least my candidate acknowledge them.
And if McCain, against all odds, is still elected president of USA… it will be because of people like you.
Thank you very much. The dead boyfriend of my neighbor also thanks you. He died in Iraq wanting to war for 100 years if he had to, just to secure oil and “safety” for his beloved country.
Get real, please.
I don’t think so either, Indi, the Superdelegates are all she has left to pin her hopes on. I don’t know how good her argument is, either. You know some of the states both of them won in are Rupublican states, aren’t they? One of the commentaries last night on a news channel mentioned that, saying no matter who took some of the states come November the Democratic nominee will be left saying “Where did everyone go?” I wonder if you subtracted those states from both of them, who would really be ahead?
It was a good win for her but I’m getting a little bit tired of the ‘no quitter’ talk. Both of them are fighting, it takes two to tango.
And acting like the nominee seems funny to me since she is still in second place in this contest. She isn’t even close to Barack. I don’t like her style.
The rules are simple and by these rules Obama should be the nominee (if she doesn’t close the gap).
Babs, you said:
“I haven’t heard a thing about the governor there saying no white people in his state would vote for a black man. When was this said? Show me.”
Here you are:
http://www.redstate.com/s.....cal_racism
http://www.thedailybackgr.....black-man/
You’re welcome.
I wonder… if Hillary’s no quitter, then why she quitted on her efforts to make american health care universal, just after she was under heavy attacks from the Republicans, and she became the second largest recipient in the Senate of health care industries “contributions”. She was only Democrat in the top ten list of recipients, with 854,462 dollars.
She says she’s no quitter, and she can’t be intimidated by the Republicans. Well, I won’t be polite here: She’s a big fat liar.
I think there has been too much focus on electing the candidate who is the most electable. There are democratic voters in red and blue states and they’ve always had a say in electing their party’s representative in the past. By the arguments I’ve heard recently, it’s as if some people feel that certain states shouldn’t even be allowed to hold democratic primaries.
I say let the people vote, count the delegates, and you’ve got a pretty straightforward way to measure who ought to be the winner. These rules and measurements aren’t too difficult, they just don’t suit certain candidates.
Let’s put it all in perspective now. Hillary takes a firm stance on terrorism by saying that an attack by Iran upon Israel would incur massive retaliation by the U.S. And Obama backs down from a North Carolina debate like a cockroach scurrying into the corner. If I were Obama right now, I’d feel less than a man, and that’s an understatement!
“…like a cockroach scurrying into the corner”
That’s perspective? Was that objective? Do you realize that North Carolina is an Obama stronghold and he doesn’t need any kind of debate because he is in the lead and the last one wasn’t a debate but an obvious effort to damage his image by whatever means necessary.
Clinton is firm concerning terrorism, yeah… she wouldn’t go to war, nor any of his friends or relatives. You know who took another very firm stance on terrorism? George W. Bush. No more comments
Everyone
Lose the bias views for a minute. Stay on topic and put in your 2 cents here.
We all know that the popular vote does not matter in the general election in November. That said my question is….
Although Obama has the popular vote, how can the superdelagates deny Clinton of the nomination knowing that all they really want is a democrat in the White House?
The reason that I ask is because Clinton has carried all of the BIG Electoral Vote states over Obama and the big payoff states are what gets the win.
Since the superdelagates just want the White House seat in November then it seems to be a hands down Clinton win for them.
How can Obama supporters argue this? He has the popular vote but they come from the smaal payday states that McCain would be glad to let Obama or Hillary have.
What say you?
That’s a very good statement Dem’08, but it’s also true that Obama has a greater appeal to a wider range of voters than Clinton, and they need that to beat McCain. Obama also has borught a lot of people to the electoral world, and larger quantites of voters participated in the Democratic race, compared to the Republicans. If they choose Clinton, they are also choosing the one with less appeal to the masses of voters, and is harder to make a case for her campaign because the differences between her and McCain are less obvious, and she’s still a woman talking about having strong traits that a veteran military man have in stronger ways.
Clinton may win big states against Obama (Michigan and Florida doesn’t count) but would she win against McCain?
And Obama has more money. Let the superdelegates decide.
Michel,
the money doesnt mean anything, if it did he would’ve secured pennsylvania. He outspent her 3-1 and still lost.
Dem 08 brought up excellent q’s and all you did was talk out of your ass. seriously, stop attacking people and the end of your argument doesn’t make sense.
They both can win against McCain.
I have to side with Obama’s “silly season” remark here with the current political meanderings. Obama is ahead 10 points nationally, according to the RCP. He has the pledged delegate count settled and down.
No one actually argued that Obama was going to take Pennsylvania. Clinton was always slated to win this state, and she was carrying it by over 20 points in mid-February. Yes, he outspent her by 2/3:1, but she had the state locked down with the mayor, governor, and almost every other politician months ago. The fact that she closed it by 9.4% does not speak volumes on her electability, and does not infer a special rise in stature any more than if Obama won by 8-10% in North Carolina (a state he has been slated to win for months now too, and hefty amount of delegates there).
Indiana is an important state to watch. It’s a close race there– nestled between Obama’s Illinois and Clinton’s Ohio. If Obama failed to win the state there, then there is cause to speculate. But as of now, she is making a lot of noise for naught– and the media is actually giving her quite a lot of time for it.
Jen (and everyone),
These are the two points I’d like to make:
a) There is a good portion of people who already made up their minds, but you can gaurentee that the money Obama spent helped close the gap between them by just over half, which is considerable considering how much support Hillary had there.
b) Maybe (just a maybe) some Reps feel the longer the race goes the better and since their candidate is already selected they voted for Hillary, knowing that if Obama had won the race would be virtually over.
That aside, remember the following:
1. Both candidates have stated their views time and time again in 20 debates; another debate may just result in more distractions to the real issues at had. IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE STANCE ON THE ISSUES GO TO THEIR WEBSITES. I don’t mean to “yell”, but people choose how much they care and what they care about. It’s only a few clicks away.
2. If Obama wins NC and Indiana, it’s going to come to a conclusion very shortly after that. I honestly believe that BOTH candidates and their consitituents should avoid negativity becuase both candidates will need the others’ voting base to win in the fall. While older people like Hillary, they are flat-out lovin’ McCain.
3. Passion is cool, I love to see people feel strongly about our governemnt and our country, but some posts are more defensive than denfinitive. If Dem 08 can post in an agreeable manner, can’t we all? (*wink* it’s all in good fun, hon, from one Dem to another)
Michelle,
You are absolutely correct, Republicans want this to drag out as long as possible. And since it has gone negative, it’s even better for McCain. The Democrats are doing all the dirty work for him. I really think that this drawn out process is going to lose the election for the Dems in Nov.
I’m not even sure where did I attack anyone in my post Jennifer, an dI gave some good reasons, although I think that the ones Dem08′ stated were better. If I offended anyone, I’m sorry…. but I’m pretty sure that I didn’t offend anyone in that post.
I think everybody here should read the comment by Michael. He has ideas that are very much informed and organized.
Oh, and it doesn’t look like Clinton’s going to get that double-digit win in Pennsylvania after all.
It 9.2%
With 99.5% of precincts reporting, she’s at a 9.2% lead — and the votes left to be counted seem to be in Philadelphia.
http://www.electionreturn.....ctionID=27
Well Michel, if that’s the case than her statement: ‘I won that double-digit victory that everybody on TV said I had to win’ is no longer true.
I still think Obama did a good job closing the gap. Although 9% is a clear difference it shows that Obama was able to close in on Clinton in just a couple of weeks. Don’t forget that Clinton has been in the game longer than Obama. The people probably knew her better.
The bottom line is that PA has the second oldest population in the US next to FL and Obama has failed to connect with seniors.
That’s the bottom line? That means that in the 45.4% of Pennsylvanians that voted for Obama, what, there were no seniors among them?
Don’t make me laugh.
It’s a fascinating election season, eh?
There is no doubt that Hillary has picked up momentum here. Obama, for obvious reasons, wants to coast to the nomination. Isn’t it interesting that Obama, when forced to finally answer some questions, falls apart and doesn’t look so smooth after all? I can’t believe my fellow Democrats don’t see this. Are you pulling for Obama simply because he’s a good speaker with a polished presentation? What happened to discussion on the REALITY of how we’re going to change things? It’s becoming patently obvious that Hillary has a stronger command of the issues with much more experience. Hillary has constantly been forced to defend herself and her positions, yet when Obama has to defend his, well . . . can’t you just let him eat his waffle?
*LOL* You read the waffle thing, too, pam2486? I had no idea Obama jerked his onboard reporters around like that! The silent treatment for 10 days?!
Found something interesting on factcheck.org, you guys. Hillary may think she has a basis for her argument on becoming the nominee in spite of the numbers. It’s happened 4 times before in history, it seems:
http://www.factcheck.org/.....ected.html
Absolutely she does. In fact, if you consider the results from Michigan and Florida, she’s actually AHEAD in the popular vote. Now, I realize that Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan. Fair enough. That’s an issue. Nevertheless, she WON in Michigan. To dismiss her Michigan results is unfair. Her Florida votes will count. She won in Florida, yet another huge state (and, yes, Obama was on the ballot in Florida).
Obama 08!
Michigan votes cannot count, as he was not on the ballot. That’s the only way she pulls ahead in popular votes.
She Lies!
He doesn’t!
I can’t believe the American people will let happen. Both parties agreed. Hillary keeps changing the rules, to suit her, otherwise she does see the writing on the wall.
WE NEED CHANGE
Yes, Pam, he was on the ballet, and though his camp claims they shouldn’t count because he didn’t campaign there, he DID spend over a million dollars on TV ads in Florida. So I do think that Florida should count. If he chose to spend money on ads, he could just as easily stumped there if he chose that method. His own fault he didn’t.
Michigan’s going to get screwed though, and I feel bad for them.
Even if Florida’s delegates are seated, they would be seated acording to demcratic rules: proportionally, like all the other states. In Florida, Clinton got 49.68% of the votes, and Obama got 32.98% (Edwards: 14.41)
So, even with if the Florida votes counted, she wouldn’t catch Obama in pledged delegates. Only if Michigan votes were counted as well, and they can’t be…. and no, it’s no unfair. She dismissed party rules and he didn’t. It’s because of party rules she is the position she is.
Michel
I think you know that either Obama or Clinton will beat McCain in the general election. You make a point that Obama has a wider range of voters but you are still talking popular votes. Ask Gore what that is worth.
Simple truth is that if the democrats want to make sure they win the big states with big electoral votes there is no reason to deny Clinton for what she has been able to do.
I think you also know that things will settle down by the fall and most of the Obama supporters will vote for Clinton if she wins just like most of the Clinton supporters would vote for Obama.
The country knows as a whole that the democrats need to win and all this arguement will be gone shortly after the nomination has been won by either one.
Make you case for Obama but if you are worried about the issues you will vote Dem in ‘08 even if is Clinton.
If you are biased and not really concerned with our nations problems then maybe you should go with McCain.
Dem08
I totally agree with that. It’s some of the things I’ve been sayin from the beginning. Clinton’s message it’s void because they both have possibilites of defeating McCain. After all she won those states FROM OBAMA and not FROM MCCAIN.
She’s speculating about the outcome and we have to remember that McCain could be a fairly decent opponent, but his party has losed much popularity in the past years, and the Democratic party even managaed to get the majority of the Senate. And when it comes to popularity and mass-gathering, Obama is the better opponent in that aspect.
Furthermore, McCain’s campaign is being sustained by public-funding, and that will weaken his party more and more, while Obama has millions in donations. Another reason for the later to do better, no matter what some people say.
And yes, Gore would know what it is the allow your rival to steal your own very votes from you. But no, I don’t think Obama will be that faint-hearted and timid. And yes, I could be wrong about him.
I just want you to see my point, not exactly share it. You have very good arguments as well. And yes, I will vote Dem either way, because of the political agendas of both parties. But I don’t trust Clinton, and I find McCain to be a much better and honest person than her. So it wouldn’t be a choice I would be very confortable with.
your opinion is your own.
i don’t trust obama. he stutters every other word and inpiration is wonderful–but i need more assertiveness. There’s just something about him that I don’t trust…i think that last debate showed his true colors and if he can’t complete a sentence or take hard hits from the media or clinton, how is he going to run our country?
I agree with you, Jennifer. I wish that Prime Minister Brown had given a public critique of his meeting with each of the candidates. It would have been a good measuring stick to judge how each of them would hold up in meetings with other world leaders.
Jennifer:
If you’re talking about the ABC “debate” (as I presume you are) then I think that Obama was the only one who adressed the proble of questions that had no value, and instead of playing that game tried to put his finger and redirect the questions. Are you trying to extrapolate to a whole a presidency election from that? Is that your point?
Imagine me for a second that I would be evaluating Clinton’s possible presidency by her crying show when she lost one state.
Well, it would be VERY stupid if I did that.
Think about it.
Michel, really, why bother to respond to a person who argues that Barack Obama should not be trusted because he stutters too much?
Honestly, a stutter? I could come up with 20 better reasons than that not to vote for him, and I support the guy pretty wholeheartedly.
I think is better to call on these things and made them think twice about it and reformulate their thoughts, or keep the quiet. If she’s not voting for the right reasons, she’s voting wrong. So, all I can do is speak and try to speak correctly. That is my contribution.
Well, IndiMinded, if you can come up with 20 reasons not to vote for Obama………….=)
I sure could. Unfortunately finding reasons not to vote for one candidate isn’t the same as finding reasons to vote for another
Anyway I like Obama pretty well, despite his flaws.
And I’m one of those lucky voters who would rather vote for any of the 3 candidates running this year than for anyone who has run in the last few elections - I really like all 3 of the candidates this time around, I just think they all have they’re own serious flaws. But then, I’ve never met a person who doesn’t.
All 3 of them are under a lot of pressure, and undergo continuous intense scrutiny by the media - it’s bound to leave them all more exposed. I’m sure we’d remember Lincoln and Washington very differently today if today’s media had been around back then.
Out of the three of them, I’m the most unsure about Obama, and I don’t think any argument I could give for that would be better said than the one I just heard Fred Thompson give on another section here.
But I’m like you with the other two, I’m supporting McCain, but I could live with Hillary. It’s the absolute truth we had a balanced budget while Clinton was in office, could be she could do the same or better.
On the other hand, can you imagine the last two presidents without the media? Think of all the things we wouldn’t know about them, and all the gaffes we wouldn’t have been privvy to with the current candidates. You think we’re better off now?
I’m with you, Babs. I am VERY suspicious of Obama (although I don’t really like McCain either). He seems to be hiding something, or have ulterior motives that he’s not divulging to the public. This has become very apparent in the last couple weeks. When he’s pressed, by anyone (Democrat or Republican), to explain his beliefs and positions, we don’t hear anything substantive. Change and hope SOUND good, but a potential president must EXPLAIN that change. I think the Rev. Wright issue has been blown out of proportion, but I have to admit that it concerns me. Any Democrat that denies the worrisome nature of the Wright issue is simply blinded by emotion and partisanship.
Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see what transpires in the next couple of weeks.
Babs,
The Clinton had two terms with a pretty balanced national budget forseveral reasons. Among them, two of the most important, in my oponion, were these:
1. there was no money-sucking war in the Middle East (and the Middle East is NOT Kosovo, if you get what I mean),
and
2. there was no global home-foreclosure crisis. She was ony the first lady, and several of her and her husband’s more trusted advisors have abandoned her. Guess who they are supporting now…
Pam,
You are very suspicious of Obama because he’s hiding some of his “true” intentions? You are suspicious of his “ulterior motives”?
That’s the best joke I’ve ever hear this week. The best part is: it comes from a Clinton supporter.
I think Bushs biggest crime is to have been so terrible at his job he made everybody forget just who Clinton is.
By the way, everytime you hear a message of good will, distrust them and don’t support their efforts. They are sure hiding bad intentions and fishy ulterior motives.
I have to say Babs that while Thompson’s remarks about Obama may phase you, they really strike me pretty much as smear politics as usual. Here’s what he said in a nutshell:
A) We don’t know who Obama is. As if he’s some mysterious figure no one knows anything about. This has been something remarked over and over again since Obama first took the lead, but I don’t see much substance to it. No one ever specifies what they find to be mysterious about him - are there years missing from his past? I simply don’t get this line of assault on his character.
He’s a little green, he’s kind of new to the game, ok. But don’t panic as if he’s appeared from a cloud of smoke. Simply put this doesn’t seem a particularly valid criticism.
B) He basically makes the argument that Obama’s associations with Wright and Ayers are all we can judge his character on, and that they’re very telling about what this mysterious man might actually be like on the inside.
But of course both Clinton and McCain have long lists of loose associations with people much worse than either Ayers or Wright - but they’re old news.
For my part, I do think Wright is more or less a mildly crazy but mostly harmless preacher who’s had a few angry moments on the pulpit blown way out of proportion. He wasn’t actually spewing “god damn america” for 20 years, we’re just bound to hear about it for that long from media pundits. Which is one reason I feel that both he and Ayers are probably closer to smear tactics than genuine incites into his true character.
I’m sure every candidate running has associations with worse characters that we’ll NEVER hear about half as much.
Is Ayers worrisome? Maybe. I guess time will unfold this story if anything’s really there. But I sort of doubt there’s much of real substance. A mostly harmless, but unrepentant terrorist has some sort of loose tie to Obama? And Obama may have had a party at his house once a long time ago?
I guess that might be something. But I really think that you could find more disturbing stuff on both McCain and Clinton. The whole thing feels like a stretch to me, not a story. But I’m willing to wait and see how that unfolds.
In Obama’s character I’ve repeatedly seen something that I perceive as being both bold and genuine. I’m not drawn in by his “hope” and “change” rhetoric (he’s not the first politician to promise it). But when he really talks in depth on the issues I get the sense that he is both an incredibly intelligent man, and that he’s also sort of a sincere philosopher.
Far from the mysterious figure that his enemies paint him, I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of him. He seems to like to speak from the heart, and give full answers without talking down to the voters. This is difficult for a politician to do, and I suspect it’s part of the reason behind his stuttering.
I really liked hearing both the Dems at the CNN Compassion Forum, although it didn’t make many headlines. I felt it did a particularly good job at addressing issues from a new angle - if not one the candidates were always comfortable with.
Anyway that’s why I disagree with Thompson, Babs. He’s also released a few nasty ads about McCain if I recall, but I trust you weren’t swayed by them ;-). He’s a pit bull, that one.
IndiMinded, I respect your opinions, as always, and won’t try to sway you from them. I do think Ayers is a problem, an unrepented terrorist is not harmless, and if he invited to launch my political career at a private party in his home, I would certainly decline.
I think the worse thing I can say about Wright is that he’s a fraud. He came to a church with only 80 members and built it into an 8000 member church who is setting him up in style in his retirement. He did that by preaching a racist and divisive message, but does he believe it himself? Probably not, he had a very “earthly” goal there and he achieved it. But to say he believes all he preached would probably be a lie, thus to me he’s a fraud. Remember George Wallace’s famous stand at the doorway? Well, you know in his later years he admitted he didn’t believe in what he did, but was advised it was the political move that would further his career. I think it’s the same with Wright.