Comments on: Even Clinton Has the Audacity of Hope — And Why Not?

By: Darrell Prows

Darrell Prows — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:27:33 +0000

Sen. Obama has contributed (or at least helped to) increased awareness among various groups, including younger people, of the political aspect of our public life. I’m not sure that anything more than that really is required as a qualification for holding high public office in this time and place. I don’t argue that that proves he would be the perfect President, but we have never had one of those. And no one else can realistically argue that he would be worse than many in the past, including the one that we are in the process of replacing.

By: Janis

Janis — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:32:18 +0000

Tangentially related to this, another great piece by Sean Wilentz in Salon.com that discusses — in the context of the current primary — the entire way that the Dems choose a candidate for the general election.

It’s quite interesting, and alone among anything I’ve ever encoutnered, it does seem to go straight to the heart of the question that’s been asked so often for the past few decades: “Why do the Democrats enver seem to put forth a decent candidate?”

Until this election, I didn’t realize two things — that the Repubs and the Dems don’t use the same method for choosing primary winners, and that the Dem method of choosing primary winners was so grossly different from the one used in the general election! No wonder the damned jackasses can’t field decent candidates! They aren’t testing them according to the “winner take all” method used in the general election. It’s like picking a candidate based on how well he (and I mean that “he”) can throw a football and then pushing him forward for a chess tournament.

It answers a lot of questions — the whole thing comes down to the Dems, for some convoluted reason that will never be acknowledged, addressed, or solved, using precisely the wrong process to vet candidates. It’s incredibly easy to pick the wrong one with a system like this. How insane.

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:50:04 +0000

Kendall

Also — There is no need for me to “wake up” I am supporting Hillary Clinton. Buzz is a long time commenter here, and a friend. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (his name is spelled Kerry) are neither stupid or reactionary. I am originally from MA, they were both my Senators and they are 2 of the most progressive men in the US Senate. Please do not continue to bash them here — Your comments bashing them in the future will be moderated.

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:45:29 +0000

Kendall

Your comment above has been edited for foul language — I have edited a few of your comments recently.

Please tone down your comments — refrain from using the F word or edit it and stop using all capital letters — it comes across here as screaming.

By: Kendall A. Johnson

Kendall A. Johnson — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:20:05 +0000

Obama is a media made candidate that will fall as quick as he rose!!!! The media is his base!!! Without MSNBC and CNN he would have sunk before Edwards dropped out. Obama is only in this race to derail any viable democratic ticket in the fall.

When the time comes, they will break him, just as fast as they made him!!! And then, John McCain will comfortably take the presidency!!!!! Don't fool yourselves, the only reason the media made mirage is in this race is to deliver a republican president for General Electric and Time Warner as well as others!!!!!

It's not a randum coinsidence that this young half black guy entered the race at the same time that Clinton was running!!!!Everyone knew she was going to make a run for years before she announced it. Obama 's constant reminding us of his white mother is all about getting white men to vote for him!!!!! That's the only reason he keeps reminding everyone that she was white.

CNN is regularly saying that sexism is not as offensive as racism!!! They have specials on race every single day trying to brain wash white america to vote for this big ZERO!!!!! Even Lou Dobbs couldn't keep his mouth shut about it!!!! ITS DOWN RIGHT SICKENING!!!! And these weak kneed dems are falling for it!!!!!THE SAME LOSERS LIKE JOHN KARRY AND TED KENNEDY WHO ARE TOO STUPID AND REACTIONARY TO SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS,. INSTEAD THEY WILL RUN TO THE BLACK MAN'S SIDE TO PROVE HOW PROGRESSIVE THEY ARE!!!!! MEANTIME, THEY **** THE WOMEN, THE WORKING CLASS AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO NEEDS A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT SO THEY CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEIR "PROGRESIVENESS"!!!! WHAT **** **** AND WHAT MORONS!!!!!!PAMELA WAKE UP!!!!! Its so obvious!!!!

By: Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:27:16 +0000

Buzz

“Since the votes have never been available to end the war, do
you expect that any Senator worth their weight would vote to
further endanger the safety of our troops by not properly
funding it?”

I hate to break this to you but Kerry-Feingold would have effectively put an end to the war. Obama voted against it.

By: William A. Stoddart

William A. Stoddart — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:05:48 +0000

OK, let’s look at the contentions of Helen Thomas one at a time:
1. She ask’s the question, “Does making a good speech make
a good president.” No, not neccesarily, but it can’t do much
harm. Would you prefer a president who delivers a bad
bad speech? If so,its a shame we don’t have a president
like the current one, who has time and time again proven that
he is barely literate. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and
John Kennedy all could deliver a pretty good speech and they
aren’t useally considered on a list of our worst presidents.
One’s speech is frequently an indicator of their overall
intelligence.
2. Yes, Senator Obama has frequently and accurately indicated
that he oppossed the Iraq War from it’s beginning. He has
never tried to misslead the electorate into believing that he
was a member of the US Senate at it’s conception.
He freely admits that he was a member of the Illinois
legislature in March 2003. Since becoming a US Senator, he
has gone on record time and time again as being opposed
to this war that was based on lies. And, of course, “he has
twice voted to fund the war.” So has Hillary Clinton. Funding
the war and being in opposition to it are two seperate issues.
Since the votes have never been available to end the war, do
you expect that any Senator worth their weight would vote to
further endanger the safety of our troops by not properly
funding it?
3. I totaly dispute her claim that he has displayed only, “middle
of the road political moves to make his name known and
steered clear of hot-button issues. This is just plain false.
If anyone wants to see where he stands on hot-button issues
they can go to Obama.com, listen to the debates, read “The
Audacity of Hope”, or “Barack Obama In His Own Words”–
where he speaks on everything from abortion to the Middle
East. He has been very specific as to where he stands!
4. Yes,” Martin Luther King did have a dream, acted on it and
went to jail.” Has Obama disputed this? For a young
politician, he has displayed great leadership skills. He
definitely, like Martin Luther King, has a natural ability to
inspire people. Inspiration, especially among the young, is
what this country desperately needs in 2008.
5. Yes, I agree that the news media has seemed to go harder
on Hillary than Barack. She rightly states, “She has been
longer in the public eye and there’s more to pick on.” I have
gone on record as saying that Hillary, because of her access
baggage, would be a less electable candidate than Barack.
This is the very reason that the GOP brain-trust, Sean
Hennity, and Rush have let it be known that they are hopeing
that Hillary is our candidate. They realize that she would be
the the easier of the two to defeat.
6. I simply don’t understand Helen’s assertion that the media
has given Barack a free ride. There has been his association
with real-estate broker Resnick, Rev. Wright, his wife’s
statement that she is only now proud to be an American etc.
This sure doesn’t sound like a free ride to me. Helen states
“likeability does go a long way.” To this point in the
campaign, justly or unjustly, it seems like both the media
and the electorate are finding Obama more likeable.
7. Why does she consider Obama’s comment that, “My attitude
is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants.”
patronizing? Would she rather hear Barack saying that she
should drop out of the race? I find it far more patronizing
for Hilary to publicly offer Barack the vice-presidency when she
becomes President. HELLO HILLARY–it’s you who is trailing.
Shouldn’t perhaps it be Barack offering you the VP spot?
8. Yes, I totally agree that Hillary also has the right to have the
“audicity” of hope. I think it is historically proven that
most all Americans since 1776 have been characterized by
faith and hope. The “audacity” Obama was talking about in
his book, however, was not the audacity that some day he
might be President. Rather, it was the type of visionary
outlook tyypified by the life of Martin Luther King.
I apologize for the length of this response but Helen Thomas
provided a whole lot of material worthy of refute! Buzz

By: Even Clinton Has the Audacity of Hope — And Why Not? | Hillary Clinton Chronicles

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:53:57 +0000

[...] The Democratic Daily added an interesting post on Even Clinton Has the Audacity of Hope â [...]

By: Even Clinton Has the Audacity of Hope — And Why Not? | Barack Obama Chronicles

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:48:26 +0000

[...] The Democratic Daily created an interesting post today on Even Clinton Has the Audacity of Hope â [...]