Hillary supporters : I've had enough of the attitude

[J. J.]

That is clearly something every voter should consider.  Who they think the stronger candidate is.  Let me just say this for you to consider.  Hillary has run a horrible campaign and has managed to polarize the democratic party.  I'm probably biased but I see Obama much stronger in the General Election. 

What's wrong is to assume Hillary should be the nominee, paint Obama as just words with no substance, try to make him the "black" candidate, make him a "homo", accuse him of plagiarism or treat him as if he has to prove his worth but Hillary doesn't as her campaign and some of her supporters have.  It's wrong. 

First, I obviously was appalled by the SC primary actions of the Clintons.

Second, we say something about Hillary Clinton's "lesbian lover" before NH.  We treated each the same way, as jokes.

Third, the plagiarism charge was legitimate, in that an eloquent man didn't use his own words.  It was used in the past (Biden - 1987).  Now, it's not a biggie, but it is legitimate.

Fourth, there are serious questions about Obama's experience; I was disquieted to references in his speech tonight to being a community organizer in Chicago and how that translates into the ability to be President.  That is especially true since he was doing that in the lifetime of perhaps all of the posters here (and considering we have some 13 year olds here, that is NOT a lot of experience.)

[And in all fairness at the same time, Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago.]

[Lief 🗽]

Oh for God's sake.


The hyperbole is quite ridiculous - so every attack on Clinton is justifed and any defence is hackery? Conversely any attack on Obama is based on hackery or racism?

It is possible to see good points and bad for both you know?

Where is the attack on Hillary?   If she is better qualified on these items, let somebody tell us why. 

There is an absolute attack here.  The attack here is the concept that she is entitled to the nomination.   She isn't.  She is the candidate that is behind in this race.  People should stop asking what Obama brings to the table and start asking if Hillary is bringing something to the table.  If she is, vote for her. 

Right now the focus is about trying to take Obama down by the Hillary campaign as far as I'm concerned.

Wait a minute.  I've gone out of my way to describe Obama as "sincere" and "intelligence."  I think it will be a long and difficult campaign with the lead shifting back and forth and, correctly, pointed out some structural advantages Clinton has, if Obama doesn't win big.

I actually think now that Obama could be a weaker candidate in the Fall against McCain.

I agree with you after hearing his victory speech tonight. It sounded like a socialist/communist talking. He wants to take all away from the rich to pay the poor, raise the minimum wage, and build the economy from the bottom up, which isn't possible if he would take Econ 101.

I think he'll be much easier to beat once people actually learn where he stands. Right now the far-left has control.

I guess Americans overwhelmingly support communism then...

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

I too worried about Obama's approach to Foreign Policy.  The idea of sitting down with all leaders worried me that he may seem weak.  He likes to talk about John Kennedy and us not fearing to sit down and talk but I was still a little concerned.  However, I liked the idea. 

I had the opportunity to hear Colin Powell speak recently in a business seminar and again on CNN.  Colin is clearly not a politician and has no "axe" to grind.  This is exactly what our former Secretary of State is talking about.  Look at our current approach, we will only talk with Iran after they dismantle their program.  They look at the program as a way to stop us from invading.  It's crazy not to sit down and talk.  McCain will not and nor will Hillary.  We need a new approach and he is the only one offering it.

I'm supporting Obama right now, I could move back to McCain.  I'll definitely vote McCain over Hillary.  What could make me change my mind on Obama?  It who he will surround himself with for foreign policy advisor's.  If he selects Biden, Former Sen. Sam Nunn, Lee Hamilton, Colin Powell or other leaders with solid backgrounds then that will say a lot.  If he selects other less known advisers ( Clinton's team was too lite and was John Kerry's advisers ) then he show he lacks experience. 

I already know he has reached out to folks like Colin Powell, Bill Bradley and others to advise him.  I see this as very promising

[exopolitician]

I too worried about Obama's approach to Foreign Policy.  The idea of sitting down with all leaders worried me that he may seem weak.  He likes to talk about John Kennedy and us not fearing to sit down and talk but I was still a little concerned.  However, I liked the idea. 

I had the opportunity to hear Colin Powell speak recently in a business seminar and again on CNN.  Colin is clearly not a politician and has no "axe" to grind.  This is exactly what our former Secretary of State is talking about.  Look at our current approach, we will only talk with Iran after they dismantle their program.  They look at the program as a way to stop us from invading.  It's crazy not to sit down and talk.  McCain will not and nor will Hillary.  We need a new approach and he is the only one offering it.

I'm supporting Obama right now, I could move back to McCain.  I'll definitely vote McCain over Hillary.  What could make me change my mind on Obama?  It who he will surround himself with for foreign policy advisor's.  If he selects Biden, Former Sen. Sam Nunn, Lee Hamilton, Colin Powell or other leaders with solid backgrounds then that will say a lot.  If he selects other less known advisers ( Clinton's team was too lite and was John Kerry's advisers ) then he show he lacks experience. 

I already know he has reached out to folks like Colin Powell, Bill Bradley and others to advise him.  I see this as very promising

I dont understand why diplomacy is considered a weakness. We actually need that to build back our image in the world that Bush severely destroyed in his 8 year reign. Diplomacy is better than sitting safely behind your desk in the oval office and accusing countries of conspiring to attack us in someway, and accusing of countries of harboring large amounts of nuclear arsenals that could plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust. Fearmongering is so Bush...and its on its way out in 2008.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

"I dont understand why diplomacy is considered a weakness."

You are correct.  Remember Hillary is saying that she will not sit down either.  She too is concerned about office of Presidency and sending the wrong message.  It's just not a good foreign policy

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree - diplomacy should always be the first port of call, and preferred.

I wasn't pleased when Clinton said she wouldn't sit down with them at all - but equally the naive and clumbsy comments by Obama on Pakistan were what made me even more hesitant.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

I agree - diplomacy should always be the first port of call, and preferred.

I wasn't pleased when Clinton said she wouldn't sit down with them at all - but equally the naive and clumbsy comments by Obama on Pakistan were what made me even more hesitant.

Agree Pakistan was clumsy and I do think Obama needs to have some solid Foreign Policy Advisers.  I never liked the Bill Clinton foreign team and I'm fearful Hillary will turn to them.  She seems to have some of the same Bush weaknesses; too much reliance on people she feels comfortable with ( like Terry McCalliff, Howard Wolfson, Laura Tyson etc )

[Lief 🗽]

Obama's policy on Pakistan is current US policy anyway, if I remember correctly.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No, Obama said he would strike AlQaeda targets inside another sovereign state without the approval of the Pakistani leadership.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes, Biden said, in the AFL-CIO debate in Ohio (I think), that what Obama said is current United States policy.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

That was a bit of hyperbole on Biden's part.

The US military still acts inside Pakistan with the permission (however empty) of the leadership, although the US doesn't offically act inside Pakistan. To just start attacking targets in another state without permission of the state is not present policy, no.

[Kalimantan]

That was a bit of hyperbole on Biden's part.

The US military still acts inside Pakistan with the permission (however empty) of the leadership, although the US doesn't offically act inside Pakistan. To just start attacking targets in another state without permission of the state is not present policy, no.

No, you're wrong, Bush administration has already done it. Forget where the link is, but some unmanned planes attacked some ground targets, and Bush only informed Musharaf after the mission had started.

[Gustaf]

Your posts read as though you are someone who likes to write letters to newspapers.

There is nothing wrong with being a concerned citizen.

There is something wrong with anyone who is referred to as a concerned citizen in a non-mocking manner (especially if it's that person himself).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No, Obama said he would strike AlQaeda targets inside another sovereign state without the approval of the Pakistani leadership.

IIRC, we already did that in the past week in Pakistan, no?