Comments on: The N.Y. Times Endorses Hillary Clinton

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:13:08 +0000

Buzz

It really is part of the process. See my latest post.

By: William A. Stoddart

William A. Stoddart — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:57:51 +0000

Yes. Pamela, “people” should be able to question Obama. You stated, “No one is suppose to question Obama, if they do they are bashing.”
I think you and everyone will agree, however, that there is a difference between asking him a question, as opposed to making statements about him. The following ARE NOT questions:
1. Senator Clinton “states” that he thinks Republican ideas are
good. (as opposed to Democratic ones)
2. Senator Clinton “states” that he thinks Regan was a great
president.
3. Senator Clinton “states” that he opposes legislation related
to the punishment of sexual preditors.
4. Senator Clinton “states” that he is beholding to an inner-city
Chicago slum lord.
5. Senator Clinton’s husband implies that his campaign has
a fairy tale nature to it.
I could go on, but I hope every one gets the point. NONE OF THESE ARE QUESTIONS. Rather, they are all statements which serve the very purpose to which attribute to Barack, BASHING. If Hillary says, “Is if true Senator Obama that you feel Republican ideas are superior to those of Democrats?” , he would answer her QUESTION. If she said, “Senator Obama, do you consider President Regan to be a great American president?, he would answer her QUESTION.
Let’s stop with the spin again. The Clinton’s are NOT asking him questions.. Instead, they are clearly making misleading STATEMENTS, with the sole intent of bashing. The last time I checked, a question ends with a question mark and a statement ends with a period!!!! Buzz

By: bjerryberg

bjerryberg — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:54:55 +0000

Sen. Barry Obama’s meteoric rise to prominence troubles me. The universal media adulation is curious–no–make it ridiculous. Hmm?

Why is a guy who not very long ago represented the University of Chicago district in the Illinois legislature getting lavishly funded as a presidential candidate.?

What exactly did he –or his wife–do in Southside Chicago’s Hyde Park to have earned this multi-million dollar war-chest?

I suspect the answer lies in the recent confab in Omaha, keynoted by Billion Dollar Mike Bloomberg whose Mussolini-like candidacy depends on fracturing both major parties.

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:29:23 +0000

Jeanne

What’s interesting to me is that in touting Obama, you are perfectly willing to take part in Clinton Bashing yourself. What’s also interesting is that no one is supposed question Obama. If they do they are bashing. That is absurd. We choose a candidate by looking at all they offer, and their history.

By: Darrell Prows

Darrell Prows — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:20:00 +0000

Jeanne: I don’t really see anyone saying that Obama isn’t qualified for the position. What I get is that those not prefering him are simply saying that he’s not the best one this time around. I’m not sure that I’ve seen anyone who has said that they will sit it out of he makes it to the general, and I wish I could say the same thing with regards to Hillary.

By: Jeanne

Jeanne — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:14:14 +0000

I think I will call Sen. Clinton’s campaign “The audacity of power.”

NY Times certainly wants to be a player. First the editorial page chooses Gloria Steinim to write an article right before the New Hampshire primary. Then this editorial dismissing Sen. Obama experience and exaggerating Sen. Clinton’s experience to be a lot more than Sen. Obama right before S. Carolina. NY Times may have been watching Sen. Clinton but they surely have not been watching Sen. Obama. One thing Sen. Clinton certainly doesn’t have as much experience as Sen. Obama – experience in unifying people. Sen. Clinton and her believers are doing everything to undercut that unifying message with their game of politics as usual. (By the way NY Times the term “Clinton bashing” as you used it is so 1990s, today it means that the Clintons are doing the bashing.)

Sen. Obama is quite qualified to be President. He can inspire people to try to work together for the sake of our Country’s future. New ideas to get our Country moving again, not old leftovers. He has worked hard, regardless of what may be said by Sen. Clinton and the old nay Sayers. Believe in YOUR future.

By: Major Endorsement « The Krile Files

Major Endorsement « The Krile Files — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:37:03 +0000

[...] The N.Y. Times Endorses Hillary Clinton [...]

By: alrudder

alrudder — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:54:12 +0000

For those who bash Bill Clinton from the 1990s, I have two names: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. What would Constitutional Law be today if Bush Sr had appointed alternates?
If I need to say more…….: A balanced budget and lower interest rates. A president beloved the world over. More child immunizations. And hey, at least they tried to do universal health care, unlike some Democrats today.

By: Stuart O'Neill

Stuart O'Neill — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:35:16 +0000

Follow-up: Jeffrey Feldman says it far better than I can. [emphasis mine]

Despite trumpeting his ability to bring a 'new tone' to politics, last night's debate showed an Obama who scolded, complained, and pointed fingers. His performance last night raises a serious question without a clear answer: How can a Presidential candidate bring change if he is so easily thrown off message by his opponents? Having dominated previous debates with his quick wit and charisma, Obama's rhetoric and body language last night gave the impression of a candidate stuck--like everyone else--in old-school mud slinging politics.

By: Stuart O'Neill

Stuart O'Neill — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:25:42 +0000

“more of the same small bore efforts”

You haven’t been listening. I think Obama is an empty shirt precisely because his emphasis is on ‘change’ without specifics. He has inspiration without the built-in Hill experience to make the ‘change’ happen…if we even knew what the ‘change’ was going to be.

The Hill, and the Rep Right, isn’t ready to hold hands with anyone. Period. The next President has to be willing to fight not whine when attacked by opponents.

Hillary Clinton is, BTW, concretely not Bill Clinton. We are not voting on the past. We are voting on the future.