Cyrena:

I would like to parse your most recent post, as gently as I can…

“I was gonna mention the NAFTA thing myself. I thought I might also throw in the Kyle-Lieberman bill as well.”

Re NAFTA, please tell me which camp you are in: the one that says that Hillary did not learn to be president “by osmosis” vis-a-vis her time in the White House, or the one that says she is equally responsible for all of Bill’s failed policies (because too many people are trying to have it both ways).  And if you are in the latter camp, do you associate her ONLY with Bill’s failed policies, or with the good ones as well?

Re Kyl-Lieberman, please keep in mind that Obama did not actually vote: his “NV” means he was either not there or chose not to take a stand.  In either case, does this seem “principled” to you, and, given his non-vote, does he have a right to chastise her about hers?

“Then there’s the thing with Alan Dershowitz as one of HER advisors.”

If this is true, it’s too bad.  But I don’t think we want to engage in the “who has what advisors” debate, since both Hillary and Obama have a number of “questionable” people as senior advisors, not least Albright on Hillary’s team and Brzezinski on Obama’s.

“Then there’s the issue about her NOW being ‘opposed to the war.’ I’m not so sure she IS opposed to the war. She’s still talking about ‘protecting American interests’ in the Middle East. Let’s make sure we understand what those ‘interests’ are…OIL and anything else the transnationals can get their hands on.  And no, those are NOT “American” interests, as in ‘we the people’ interests. They are US and transnational corporate ‘interests’. We still pay the same price at the pump, and our troops are still dying in the Middle East.”

Cannot the same be said of Edwards?  He also voted for the resolution giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq.  And he is also now against the war, but also talks about U.S. interests.  As well, Obama may or may not have specifically mentioned the phrase “U.S. interests,” but I would be surprised if he did not believe in this as well.

“Hillary has been a Senator for 7 years…she’s taken NO ACTION to STOP the war. Why should I believe she’s ‘opposed’ to it now?”

Mr. Obama has been a Senator for only three years, and despite his powerful 2002 speech, once he arrived in the Senate, he voted identically to Hillary on every bill to continue funding the war. Why should I believe he has not “flip-flopped” in this regard?

Again, since you seem to believe that I live only to annoy you (which I don’t), I ask these questions simply to have you (and others, if they wish) provide answers in explanation.

Thanks.

Peace.

I was gonna mention the NAFTA thing myself. I thought I might also throw in the Kyle-Lieberman bill as well.

Then there’s the thing with Alan Dershowitz as one of HER advisors. (I didn’t know that until recently).

Then there’s the issue about her NOW being ‘opposed to the war.’

I’m not so sure she IS opposed to the war. She’s still talking about ‘protecting American interests’ in the Middle East. Let’s make sure we understand what those ‘interests’ are…OIL and anything else the transnationals can get their hands on.

And no, those are NOT “American” interests, as in ‘we the people’ interests. They are US and transnational corporate ‘interests’. We still pay the same price at the pump, and our troops are still dying in the Middle East.

Hillary has been a Senator for 7 years…she’s taken NO ACTION to STOP the war. Why should I believe she’s ‘opposed’ to it now?

Mike:

You have been harping - almost to the exclusion of EVERTYHING ELSE - about Hillary’s vote on the original resolution that gave Bush the authority to use force in Iraq.  I get it!

But in doing so, you ignore a few things.

First, 296 representatives and 77 senators voted for that bill.  So why is Hillary singled out?  Are you as harsh on the other 372 people who voted for it?  Aren’t they just as culpable in the “4,000 dead and tens of thousands of amputees and brain damaged American troops” and the “Iraq war dead, although they are no less dead and injured and in much larger numbers?”  If one of those 372 reps is in your state, are you opposing their re-election - no matter what else they have done (which may, on balance, be to the good)?

Second, Edwards also voted for that bill.  Yes, he openly apologized, while Hillary’s “apology” has been obfuscated.  But since BOTH of them now oppose the war, why continue to take Hillary to task (despite her non-apology), but not Edwards?

Third, as noted many times, despite Obama’s anti-war rhetoric - on which he initially premised his entire campaign (though it admittedly broadened later) - once he arrived in the Senate, he voted identically to Hillary on every bill that helped continue to fund the war.  (Tom Daschle, Obama’s most senior advisor, also voted for the resolution.)  In addition, Obama voted (as Hillary did) to extend the Patriot Act.

Fourth, with regard to my first point, while Hillary can certainly be faulted for that vote whether it was “tactical” (to make her more palatable as a CIC) or just plain stupid, why should that SINGLE thing by itself counterbalance all the positive things she has done (and don’t get smug; she HAS done positive things) or could do?

Hillary is no angel.  (But neither is she a devil.)  But then, as most of us here have agreed, ALL of the Dem candidates are, to various degrees, members of the power elite, compromised by lobby or industry money, corporately-owned, vetted by orgs like CFR and Bilderberg (and having members of those orgs as senior advisors), etc.

Given all of the above, I fail to see why Hillary’s singularly horrible vote somehow equates with a singular dismissal as a potential president.

Peace.

Cyrena:

With all due respect, I will leave it to others to judge which one of us has been on the attack against the other; it is a simple matter of reading our respective posts.  I never resort to vulgarity, which you do constantly, and seem to think strenghtens your points.  I have never resorted to name-calling, as you do incessantly.  I have never resorted to ad hominem attack, as you have.  I have remained calm, while it is YOU who respond from emotion - your post above being a perfect example.

Indeed, I have tried to make peace with you twice, and you have spurned both attempts.  As well, I was the only one who attempted to help you in answering your question on the tuna sushi thread.  You never acknowledged this.

You have also NEVER acknowledged incorrection in your responses to any of my posts.  For example, despite FOUR corrections, you have STILL not admitted that you were wrong about Paul Krugman.  On the other hand, I have at least twice (and, I believe, even more often) accepted clarification or corrections that you have provided, and stated so.

As for a couple of your claims above:

“I have actually defended Hillary Clinton against petty and nasty remarks about her…[T]his board is full of such remarks from me, but you wouldn’t know that, because you only ‘just’ –appeared on the scene…”

I can only go by what I see.  If you have made such defending comments in the past, great.  However, I have now been on these particular boards since just prior to the Iowa caucuses, and I have seen ONLY Hillary-bashing from you, whether visceral or otherwise.

“...with some determination to do whatever it takes to promote your candidate.”

No more so than you or anyone else.  And my defenses of “my candidate” seem to be much in need here, given the incessant Hillary-bashing, much or most of which (whether coming from you or others) IS visceral as opposed to fact-based.  As well, I have made it clear that I would support Obama if he becomes the nominee; you have made no such comment re Hillary.  In this regard, you are FAR more rabidly and “determinedly” pro-Kucincich, and now pro-Obama, than I am pro-Hillary.

If anyone has “had it in” for the other, you have had it in for me practically from the first day I posted - and I think most of those who have been watching the back and forth between us will agree with me.  You have continually attacked me, impugned my integrity, insulted me, accused me of being on Clinton’s payroll, and any number of other accusations.  You have engaged in ongoing vitriol, vituperation, sarcasm, denigration and mean-spiritedness.  There is no question that many of my posts (whether general or specifically to you) were “aggressive.”  Yet I have NEVER resorted to vulgarity, insult, denigration, mean-spiritedness, etc., all of which are part of your regular “vocabulary” vis-a-vis your interactions here.

I have learned that that is simply your way, and you are entitled to act any way you choose.  And for the most part I allow it to roll off my back.  But don’t now attempt to reverse the situation.

Peace.

•  “…As well, it is actually frightening to me that you cannot get it through your head that those of us who criticize Obama do not “hate” him, or “personally dislike” him.  That you cannot see that our criticism - much of which IS “substantive” in nature - and our personal feelings can be mutually exclusive says far more about YOU than it does about us…”

You make these comments, and don’t realize –obviously- what you’re doing, which just continues to prove my own point, which I DON’T NEED YOU TO DO!! And…I didn’t ASK you to do!!

So again, you really SHOULD just shut the fuck up!! I have never displayed any ‘visceral hatred’ of Hillary Clinton. My dislike for her policies would STILL be dislike and disapproval, REGARDLESS of who they came from. And, if you weren’t so incredibly ignorant, and so incredibly emotion based, and myopic in your aggressive negativity to simply attack for no reason at all, you’d know that I have actually defended Hillary Clinton against petty and nasty remarks about her, that have ZERO to do with her candidacy.

Yes, Maani, this board is full of such remarks from me, but you wouldn’t know that, because you only ‘just’ –appeared on the scene- with some determination to do whatever it takes to promote your candidate. You’ve been unaware that until Dennis Kucinich decided to drop his bid, HE was my own selection for the office, and while I will now put my support, (for what it’s worth) behind Obama, I’d probably be OK with Edwards as well.

So Maani, stop the attacks on me, and stop the attacks on anybody else that supports anyone other than your personal choice. Americans aren’t going to have ANYBODY shoved down their throats, and that should be obvious to you by now, since it’s obvious that the Clinton’s should have figured it out by now as well.

This attack on me, -personally- like all of the others, is unwarranted, and I told you before, your record is broken now. It’s the same old shit from you all the time, like a tag-team with DC, which would lead me to believe that YOU are ‘obsessed’ with…ME, and it is only THAT which should be ‘frightening’ and to ME…not YOU!!

So Maani, send somebody out to the pharmacy. Have them get a gigantic bottle of lithium for you. Make sure there’s someone around to see that you take it. And, get some rest!! We need it as much as you do.

Well doc know it all,

I’m not so sure that it’s a worthless statement “wind at our backs” in the context in which I used it, or even that he used it.

Pragmatically, maybe, but then again, Jackpine Savage has pointed out very clearly that if one is downwind, (and everybody I know is) then you can still smell it wherever we are.

So no, I wasn’t attempting any insightful prose or commentary here. It’s more just a rhetorical or ‘good will’ sentiment. Let the wind be at your back is the same as God Bless You, or Godsend (some people use that) or whatever you want to make of it. If you don’t want to make anything of it, then no need to.

On a slightly different note, the WIND has always figured predominately in my own former career, in the same way that the sentiment addresses…TAIL winds, (wind at our back) could ALWAYS be counted upon to hasten the journey, and allow for less fuel to do it.
HEADWINDS always made the trip longer, and required more fuel.

With that concept in mind, I’ll take the wind at my back anytime; it just provides a boost. Now where it ‘boosts’ us to, is yet to be revealed, and we can’t really know that. But, for whatever it’s worth, I’d still rather be peddling down hill than up…Maybe I’m just lazy….Or…just wanna spare energy for those times when of course, the wind will NOT be at my back, or I AM gonna have to peddle up the hill. Chug Chug…

Wow….just….wow.

just posted my absentee ballot last week.[florida] went with mike gravel. fuck hillary i hope that cunt is now out of the race. i can live with obama,even vote for him,but hillary, i would never vote for that fucking pig bitch. she is anti everything i am for. both she and obama are getting money from at&t;. i really despise both of them, but i will vote for obama over mccain romney or huckabee.

JS:

Wow!  Now THAT’s a new one!  Chastising Hillary for NOT running against Bush in 2004?!?!?!  Is there NOTHING the Hillary-bashers on this site won’t come up with as a complaint about her?  Holy Cow!  And I thought I had heard everything!

You guys are amazing…

Peace.

How did Hillary steal New Hampshire?—(Jan. 25, 2007) • “Ask Congressman Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] who is paying for a “recount” of the electronic balloting in New Hampshire and he will likely tell you that the old Clinton shenanigans were taking place in the nation’s first primary. Staffers for Congressman Ron Paul [R-TX] will say the same thing, but laying the blame on Sen. John McCain rather than Hillary Clinton. But, in both instances, the name “Diebold” will pop up in the dialogue.

According to the totals, Hillary Clinton won over Barack Obama 39.4% to 36.8%. When you examine the Diebold AccVote Optical-Scan voting machine count for each candidate, you discover that Hillary took 52.95% of the votes compared to 47.05% for Obama. However, when you examine the paper ballots, Obama took 52.93% of the votes compared to 47.07% for Hillary. By no stretch of the imagination can you make the argument that in all of the voting precincts where machines were used, Hillary actually won, and that Obama only won in the districts using paper ballots. It is more logical to assume that someone switched the names in the voting machine’s memory bank, and credited the Obama hits to Hillary and visa versa. Two things lend credence to that train of thought.

First, election officials in New Hampshire have confirmed that employees from LHS Associates—the programmers for Diebold’s AccVote Optical-Scan voting machines—were allowed to access vulnerable optical scan data systems throughout election day. Talk about a front row seat to who’s voting for whom. Second, every major pollster—and we are talking about the biggest and most important names in the public opinion field—ended up with egg on their faces in New Hampshire because every one of them—including those doing the exit polling—predicted that Clinton would lose to Obama.

(It turns out that Hillary’s “human moment” in New Hampshire wasn’t due to “woman talk,” but defeatism. When Hillary was caught by a photographer with a tearful gaze, staring off into space, its because she had just learned that every pollster in the country was awarding the night to Obama. I suspect Hillary was not at all sure the voting machines would be able to save the day.) In the days leading up to the primary, Obama led 41% to 28% in a USA Today-Gallop poll. Just before the primary a CNN poll gave Obama a 39% to 30% edge over the New York Senator. Fox News put the race at 32% to 28% for Obama. Every indicator—including the people who cast the votes—gave the win to Obama.

The pollsters were so shocked by missing the mark so bad it apparently did not dawn on any of them that someone might have been playing loosey-goosey with the voting machines. The explanation offered by the pollsters was that the voters were leaning this-a-way and that-a-way and just weren’t really locked in on Obama (even though they said they were) until they got into the voting booth. Some of them, I guess, weren’t even sure—even after they had cast their ballots—how they voted when they engaged in exit interviews. Or, maybe 20% or so of the voters lied to those doing the exit polls because they didn’t want to admit they would be stupid enough to vote for Hillary Clinton.”

http://www.jonchristianryter.com/RyterReport/headlines.html

Hi Mike,

Good to see you.

Hillary is bought and sold by the special interests, and her stand on the war is almost like the lying bush.

Substance lacking in her program, makes her my last choice.  Now that Kucinich is out, I like Obama and Edwards. 

You want sold substance, the media kicked them out, so we get to choose from what we are served.

” Symbolically however, I think it gives us a direction of things, IF in fact we last until November, without the current dictatorship simply cancelling ALL of this out.”

“Current dictatorship”?

Right out of the tin-foil-hat manual…..........

Maani,

You consistently point out the policy similarities between Sens Clinton and Obama.  It is a good point, but it only speaks to the fact that we really only get to choose between corporate, centrist candidates.  If their positions are the same, what recommends Sen Clinton?

You mentioned how Sen Obama “abandoned” his constituents to run for president.  I have a long standing question concerning Sen Clinton’s campaign as the toughest Democrat we can nominate.  In 2004 we needed someone capable of really taking George Bush on; where was she?  Yes, i know that she pledged not to run for president during her first term as a Senator from NY, but she knew that Bush would be the ‘04 Republican candidate.  Why did she not run against Bush?  Was it because she thought she couldn’t win, or was it because the two family’s have grown so close?  Seriously, i don’t buy the pledge argument when considered in the context of her certain knowledge that she would have to face Bush.

I will admit that i’d much rather vote for Obama than Clinton, but i am by no means an Obama supporter…i’m far too cynical to support any candidate within the normal connotation of “support”.

Whichever way you’re facing, if you’re downwind you’re going to smell it…

Obama offered up substance when he mentioned,  Lobbies running Washington, Obama hooked me on his band wagon when he said we need to stop the lobbies running our government. 

If that is not a bit if substance what is it. Obama sounds better all the time.

Cyrena:

You said, “I honestly like to believe that I’m being as objective as possible, which requires that I accept all realities.”  About Obama, perhaps, but NEVER about Hillary.  You have proved that time and time again.  Your objectivity re Hillary is not just compromised, but non-existent.

You also said, “the criticism thrown at him from these posters is more personal dislike than anything else.”  You mean unlike your visceral hatred of Hillary?  Despite all your chatter, you have yet to show how Hillary’s actual positions and policies differ to any SIGNIFICANT degree fom Obama’s.

As well, it is actually frightening to me that you cannot get it through your head that those of us who criticize Obama do not “hate” him, or “personally dislike” him.  That you cannot see that our criticism - much of which IS “substantive” in nature - and our personal feelings can be mutually exclusive says far more about YOU than it does about us.

Peace.

In suggesting that Hillary supporters change their minds, Tony said, “You have honest candidates running you can be proud of.”  Really?

Obama’s entire campaign was initially premised on his anti-war stance (yes, it broadened, but that its initial focus).  Yet as soon as he got to the Senate, he voted identically to Hillary on every appropriations bill to continue funding the war.  How “honest” is that?

As well, Obama had barely served two years of his first four-year term as a U.S. senator before he abandoned his constituents to run for president. How “principled” is that?  (To say nothing of “ambitious” - a word that is used pejoratively about Hillary at every opportunity; yet she served a full six years before running for president.)

And he accuses Hillary of changing her positions to fit the political wind.  Yet his position on Iraq has changed dramatically since his initial anti-war rhetoric, and his health plan is co-opted from (and a watered down version of) Edwards’ plan.  (Hillary’s is also co-opted from Edwards, but is a stronger plan.)

And that’s just a start.  No, my friend, you need to take off the Barack-tinted spectacles and see that Marjorie and others are correct: Obama has campaigned on the heady and intoxicating fumes of rhetoric - but the SUBSTANCE of his “change” is no less “corporate” and no more “progressive” than Hillary’s.

Try again.

Peace.

Another worthless saying, even ill-advised.  If you have the wind in your face you’re more apt to smell the stench. If it’s at your back, you’re more apt to get swept along, oblivious or unconcerned like Congress and the electorate have been for the last seven years.

Here’s a good saying:  “It’s better the wind is in your face so you can smell a neocon coming.”—Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD

Obama wins - good on him.  The talking heads are dissecting and beating the win to death.

Look, we’re talking about a race which has featured hispanic, white, black and female candidates all with credible resumes (give or take). 

The repugs are worried about a mormon.  Quite a difference in the primaries.

We don’t want repugs again and having repug-lite isn’t to gracious either.

I agree with you on this jdogg, and I honestly like to believe that I’m being as objective as possible, which requires that I accept all realities.

And, the reality is that while Obama is not perfect, and I cannot agree with every single stance, the criticism thrown at him from these posters is more personal dislike than anything else, and you can see it in the accusations, which don’t hold up.

Maybe he is a ‘phony’ but that too is subjective. What isn’t subjective, is what you’ve pointed out. The Obama campaign hasn’t marginalized Hillary Clinton, and nothing has been ‘done to her’ in HIS name. So, that’s just hype, from someone who hates Obama, and that’s clear enough, especially if you read the same posters, even more than once.

So, the media is largely the most responsible for what has been directed at Clinton, but more than anyone else seems to want to accept, is that THE CLINTONS are responsible for what has occurred in that respect, for setting themselves up to be the EXPOSED by the media, for what they have stooped to.

And, I get pretty pissed off at having the blame not focused where it should be. The media is responsible, but it also suggests that the voters are too stupid to recognize dirty tricks when we see them, or that we somehow have these 5 minute memories, and don’t bother to check on things like Hillary’s record, or what she says, or what she does, and not just since she decided to run for President, but what she’s done as an ‘experienced’ politician and lawmaker.

I mean, isn’t that what she’s run on, her alleged ‘experience’? So…we LOOK at her ‘experience’ and it doesn’t look so good. As a matter of fact, it’s really, really, shitty…making us (or at least many democrat voters) see yet another Repug. And then, OBAMA gets blamed?

See, that’s why so much will never change. People don’t even attempt to be objective, and weigh the good and the bad for each. They’d rather hold fast to an ideological position, even if it works against their own best interests.

Meantime, Edwards really would be fine with me too, but I’m glad Obama has done this well. I see nothing more than the same old shit with Hillary. The same thing that has brought us to this very cliff, the one that so many of us have already fallen off.

And, there is no Obama/Media Conspiracy. If anything, they’ve simply been more or less forced to cover him. The Clintons did their own damage to themselves. They didn’t have to..but that’s their standard operating procedure.

I would say that the media had more to do with this than Obama. As for his surrogates I can’t say. The media has also beaten the race/gender thing to death and in the process insulted voter. The media has also grossly marginalized John Edwards due to his anti-corporate position. (I think Edwards got screwed by the media more than the Mrs. Clinton and her pet Bubba, but I digress.)

I find the Obama/Media conspiracy dubious at best.
But thats just my opinion.

With Obama and his surrogates and the Clinton hating media spending nearly every minute of every day since New Hampshire bashing the Clintons and portraying them as evil incarnate it is hardly surprising that Obama won. The man I support, John Edwards is on life support.

Quite honestly, after all the frothing at the mouth liberal Clinton haters have done their level best to resemble frothing at the mouth conservative Clinton haters I simply don’t care anymore. I do know one thing, I will never vote for Obama. If he is the candidate I will vote but the spot on the ballot for president will remain blank. I don’t like what has been done to the Clintons in his name. Unite that, you phony!

I am truly, truly proud, as an American..Oh yes I am…

Barack included something in his speech, that I say a lot myself, part of our ‘ancestral bible’ maybe…I never really thought much about it…but maybe more folks use it than I realize…It’s an old Indian proverb…

“May the wind be always at your back”....

Ah yes…may the wind remain at our backs…all of our backs, pushing us to a collective victory for America….

GO U.S.A.!!! Go Barack Obama!!

It was a great speech by the way…no matter what the cynics do to take the steam out…the wind is howling around here…and it’s at our backs…

It was a crushing victory in South Carolina, and a major repudiation of Clinton’s racist tactics. Obama’s victory speech was a powerful, pointed reproof of Clintonian politics.

Clinton must not be forgiven for this. Not only black people but any white liberal with a conscience must quit supporting Clinton. Come on, you Clinton supporters! Forget those sleazeballs. You have honest candidates running you can be proud of. Either Edwards or Obama is worth your vote. Kick the Clinton habit. You’ll feel better about yourself.

“....relatively few delegates at stake.”

This is probably important; the fact that in terms of real muscle, (as in electoral votes) there really is little at stake in these races to date.

Symbolically however, I think it gives us a direction of things, IF in fact we last until November, without the current dictatorship simply cancelling ALL of this out.

So…for whatever it’s worth…this is good.