You Call This Hope?

I fully understand the candidates want to draw distrinctions between themselves but I know that Hillary Clinton has said she will support the nominee and so has John Edwards. But here’s Barack Obama playing the great divider instead of Mr. Hope:

For all the touting that Obama is running a different sort of campaign, one that isn’t “divisive” this just shows that’s nothing but a phony sales pitch. Oh Please… Obama has had the gloves off for a while now. Claiming otherwise is only an illusion.

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to You Call This Hope?

  1. Please listen to this again, carefully, Pamela. Senator Obama DID NOT say that he would not support Senator Clinton if she was our nominee. What he did say was that he thinks it would be easier for him to attract Independents, and perhaps some Republicans, if he were the Democratic nominee. He is simply saying that he thinks he would have a better chance of attracting these folks than Hillary would–if she is the nominee. AGAIN HE DID NOT STATE THAT HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT HER IF SHE WAS THE NOMINEE. Can we please stop with the spin?

  2. Buzz

    Repeating right wing spin that she has high negatives isn’t that being negative? The spin goes both ways. Sadly.

  3. NOT saying he will support ANY nominee is the rough equivalent of saying he won’t support her. He and she are the two most likely nominee’s so the inference is obvious.

    Political speech is many times about what is NOT said.

    Omission is as important as inclusion much of time.

    To say that these comments were anything other than a slam at the leader in the race is simply wishful thinking or ineffective ‘spin’.

  4. Darrell Prows says:

    I search my memory for any main stream candidate in any party primary who has failed to openly agree to support the eventual choice of the party and am coming up empty.

  5. Darrell

    You are probably correct on that. The implication in what Obama says however is beyond that.

  6. Brandon says:

    It is so freakishly unusual for the losing candidate not to support the nominee that to suggest that is what Obama meant is almost silly. I think what he was saying is that he has more crossover appeal and that there are rabid Clinton haters that wouldn’t vote for HIllary if she walked on water. Both of which are accurate statements. Hillary’s high negatives are, for the most part, the result of the right wing smear machine, nevertheless Obama’s statement is factual.

  7. Brandon

    I think most candidates would sidestep through a question like that and time will tell just how much appeal he really has. As for her negatives, considering she’s leading in the national polls I wouldn’t let that worry you.

  8. Please stop the spin!! He did not say he wouldn’t support Hillary
    if she becomes our nominee. Historically, all former rivals rally around the nominee at the conclusion of the convention. He simply answered that HE THOUGHT that he would be able to carry more Independent voters and Republican crossovers if he happens to win the nomination. How can this be read as a put down? IT WAS JUST HIS OPINION!!! I don’t understand why it would be stated that, “Most candidates would side step a question like that and just tell how much appeal he really has?” Do we want our candidates to side step questions? HE WAS stating how much appeal HE THINKs he has by saying HE THINKS he has the appeal to attract Independents and Republicans!!
    Futher, he states that HE FEELS that Hillary carries a lot of high negatives. Having been the spouse of “YOU GET TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE” eight year Bill Clinton presidency (baggage), he is again stating that HE THINKS he would be able to attract more non-democrats. He was not putting her down!! He was just giving his opinion to a question which was possed. Is he no longer suppose to respond to questions or give his opinion? When will the spin ever stop???? Buzz

  9. Buzz

    We’ll have to differ on this. While you see Obama as a clarion of “hope” I personally don’t see the ““YOU GET TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE” eight year Bill Clinton presidency (baggage)” and feel that too is spin against Clinton. I’ve said here before, she’s her own person, her own candidate and she’s vastly more experienced.

  10. It’s not right wing spin or democraic spin,Hillary has HIGH NGATIVES. It’s an aknowledged fact. Some, but all of the high spin (baggage) factors she would bring with her are as follows.
    1. Death of Vince Foster
    2. The Arkansas land dealings
    3. Her 1993 failed attempt to get meciaid reform
    4. The fact that she stood by Bill during his years of flandering
    5. The entire Monia Lewinski thing
    6. The fact that on 10/10/02 she voted to authorize the war in
    Iraq. She voted Yea for the war but failed to read the
    intelligence report, which was at her disposal, Hillary then
    said the following. “It is clear that if left unchecked,
    Sadam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage
    biolgical and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
    nuclear weapons. This is a difficult vote for me. This is
    probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any
    vote that MAY lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with
    These are just six examples or her actual, NOT PERCEIVED, high negatives. All leading GOP folks communicating via TV, radio, or in the newspaper are PRAYING for her to get the nomination. They correctly realize that their candidate would have a far better chance of winning, should Senator Clinton be our nominee. I will definitely vote for her if e gets the nomination. However, a large percentage of democrats will either vote for the GOP candidate or just not vote at all. The Clinton’s do have lot’s of bagage and are both VERY polarizing. If she is the nominee, most all political analysists agree, that we will have a much better, 50/50 chance,of lossing the executive branch, for the 3rd consecutive time. I AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD BE ABOUT WINNING, AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHY I’M BACKING OBAMA!!! Buzz

  11. Buzz

    Thank you for sharing. Again.

    Frankly I’ve heard enough of the Hillary’s baggage routine for months now.

  12. So, in other words you have heard about Hillary’s baggage for months now. The reason that you have heard “ENOUGH” is because it is being said over and over again by folks of ALL political persuasions: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and the GOP candidates themselves. I guess it would get a little tiresome to hear your candidate of choice being taken to task for her negatives almost every time you turn on the TV, check the internet, or read the editorial page. Perhaps these folks from every political persuasion can’t all be wrong.
    Reality for some is very difficult to face. It’s kind of like that dumb bumper sticker, “America, Love It Or Leave It.” The correct sentiment, of course should be, “Love It Or Change It.”
    Back in 1992 when Bill was running, The Clinton campaign slogan was with Bill, “you get two for the price of one.” How come they have abandoned this campaign slogan in 2008? Are we to think that back then it was going to be a kind of “dual presidency” but now in 2008, Hillary will be the sole Commander-In-Chief? Bill being both the “First Man” and a former President will just be relegated to moth balls and have no influence over her executive decisions. Right!!!
    In conclusion the majority of republicans are publically stating that it is their fervent hope that Hillary becomes our nominee. The baggage, which you have already heard enough of, will make her far easier to both attack and defeat that Obama. I don’t claim to be a top notch political annalyst, but most of this is just plain obvious.
    On a side note, which I am sure will provoke controversy, I think there should be a Constitutional admendment to prevent any spouse from running for President, if their mate is an ex-president and they are still married. The Constitution currently clearly states that a President shall be limited to two terms. Any spouse assuming the presidency is actually giving their mate a quasi third and perhaps a fourth term. Is this suppose to represent CHANGE? If you recall this is exactly what Governor George Wallace of Alabama did back in the 1970’s. He had already served the maximum two terms as governor. Both he, and the Alabama electorate, wanted him to remain governor. So, they just elected his wife, Lorrine, effectively assuring that George would stay in the statehouse. Thus the topics of ‘high negatives” and “dual-presidency” are heard “enough” simply because they are factual instead of being debateable!!! Buzz

  13. Buzz

    I think I have made it clear actually many times that I didn’t appreciate the “baggage” remarks here. They are divisive remarks that don’t serve the party well at all. I’ve been polite and quite tolerant given the rules that are in place here.

    One final FYI, it would be easier to bypass this if it wasn’t offered as some defense for supporting Obama. There’s a double standard with Obama supporters that no one can say a word about Obama, but it’s clearly okay to trash HRC. That doesn’t cut it with me. Never has. The more I heard the “baggage” remarks and the other hatred spewed about Senator CLinton, the more inclined I became to supporting her. And there are plenty of others who feel the same way.

  14. Buzz

    “On a side note, which I am sure will provoke controversy, I think there should be a Constitutional admendment to prevent any spouse from running for President, if their mate is an ex-president and they are still married.”

    Okay so what about the women who run for their husbands seats in Congress after the husband ides? I suppose you think that should be banned too? Oh, I know only if it’s a Clinton.

    Honesly I highly doubt that you have taken the time to listen to what Hillary Clinton is saying. I suggest you go watch the video in this post.

  15. Sorry, Pamela, my purpose was not to provoke. Although it does not seem like it, I actually do agree with you on many points. Hillary has certainly payed her dues. She is extremly intelligent, articulate, and also would represent positive change!!
    All three of our potential nominees far exceed the limited talents of the sorry GOP field!! I will work as hard as possible to assure our nominee gets elected in November. I can see that I myself was falling into the trap of character assassination. Us Democrats tend to be very passionate in our allegiances, as we should. The eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency were years or prosperity and hope. I am positive that Hillary would also be an excellent chief executive. Just think, we as Democrats have the great distinction of giving either the first woman or the first black a legitimate chance to be president. How far this nation has come!! Perhaps, instead of taking so many cheep shots at our fellow democrats, we should simply be so verry, very proud!!!!! Thanks for getting me back on track. Buzz

  16. Buzz

    Just think, we as Democrats have the great distinction of giving either the first woman or the first black a legitimate chance to be president. How far this nation has come!! Perhaps, instead of taking so many cheep shots at our fellow democrats, we should simply be so verry, very proud!!!!!

    Yes we should. And yes, we’re passionate about our candidates and that is a good thing. I look back on the Clinton days and remember a time when life was better, theeconomy was good, people were prosperous. Good memories.