An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Barack Obama’s Credibility Problem
I have discussed the candidates with several friends, mostly lifelong Democrats, college-educated women in their 40s and 50s. We just cannot buy what Barack Obama is selling. Many of us are facing the possibility of, for the very first time, voting for the Republican nominee in November. Sen. Obama does not charm me (the more I watch and listen to him, the less I like him) and is clearly not qualified to be president at this time. He needs many more years of experience and a long track record which can be evaluated before I would consider voting for him. If the Democratic Party makes Sen. Obama its nominee, we will be sorry. Should Sen. Obama be elected President, we will all be very disappointed and very sorry.
196 Responses to “Barack Obama’s Credibility Problem”
Rats – I lost the comment!
George – some of this comment is great, some of it assumes way too much but I'll chalk that up to the one-dimensional nature of blogs.
I left this comment on Shaun's thread – this isn't an issue of Hillary to me it's an issue of language:
http://tinyurl.com/2csmu9
I don't want to be told it's hissy – I want a description of what someone observed that they call hissy – then let me decide for myself. I am like that with nearly everything – and I try to blog that way as well – let the reader decide what they're seeing – they don't need me to tell them.
Rats – I lost the comment!
George – some of this comment is great, some of it assumes way too much but I'll chalk that up to the one-dimensional nature of blogs.
I left this comment on Shaun's thread – this isn't an issue of Hillary to me it's an issue of language:
http://tinyurl.com/2csmu9
I don't want to be told it's hissy – I want a description of what someone observed that they call hissy – then let me decide for myself. I am like that with nearly everything – and I try to blog that way as well – let the reader decide what they're seeing – they don't need me to tell them.
Rats – I lost the comment!
George – some of this comment is great, some of it assumes way too much but I'll chalk that up to the one-dimensional nature of blogs.
I left this comment on Shaun's thread – this isn't an issue of Hillary to me it's an issue of language:
http://tinyurl.com/2csmu9
I don't want to be told it's hissy – I want a description of what someone observed that they call hissy – then let me decide for myself. I am like that with nearly everything – and I try to blog that way as well – let the reader decide what they're seeing – they don't need me to tell them.
Since I'm sure this conversation won't be over today, it might be helpful for me to know what is “great” and what is “one-dimensional”.
Since I'm sure this conversation won't be over today, it might be helpful for me to know what is “great” and what is “one-dimensional”.
Since I'm sure this conversation won't be over today, it might be helpful for me to know what is “great” and what is “one-dimensional”.
Since I'm sure this conversation won't be over today, it might be helpful for me to know what is “great” and what is “one-dimensional”.
I think when you consider ditching the Democrats because of percieved irregularities or flaws in their ideas you should also consider what kind of decisions the Supreme Court will be handing down with a 6-3 conservative-liberal ratio for the next 30 years. Are you comfortable with a pro-corporate, anti-consumer court that has a narrow view of protecting our civil liberties? Do you want political power to be consolidated at the top, with little recourse for the rest of us? Think hard before you vote instead of reacting to fear-mongering on foreign policy.
I think when you consider ditching the Democrats because of percieved irregularities or flaws in their ideas you should also consider what kind of decisions the Supreme Court will be handing down with a 6-3 conservative-liberal ratio for the next 30 years. Are you comfortable with a pro-corporate, anti-consumer court that has a narrow view of protecting our civil liberties? Do you want political power to be consolidated at the top, with little recourse for the rest of us? Think hard before you vote instead of reacting to fear-mongering on foreign policy.
I think when you consider ditching the Democrats because of percieved irregularities or flaws in their ideas you should also consider what kind of decisions the Supreme Court will be handing down with a 6-3 conservative-liberal ratio for the next 30 years. Are you comfortable with a pro-corporate, anti-consumer court that has a narrow view of protecting our civil liberties? Do you want political power to be consolidated at the top, with little recourse for the rest of us? Think hard before you vote instead of reacting to fear-mongering on foreign policy.
I think when you consider ditching the Democrats because of percieved irregularities or flaws in their ideas you should also consider what kind of decisions the Supreme Court will be handing down with a 6-3 conservative-liberal ratio for the next 30 years. Are you comfortable with a pro-corporate, anti-consumer court that has a narrow view of protecting our civil liberties? Do you want political power to be consolidated at the top, with little recourse for the rest of us? Think hard before you vote instead of reacting to fear-mongering on foreign policy.
That's very cute!
That's very cute!
That's very cute!
That's very cute!
Jillmz, I almost chose the word 'arduous' instead of 'painful' for that very reason.
Kritt, you make an excellent point… as usual. The SC is sufficiently lopsided already.
Jillmz, I almost chose the word 'arduous' instead of 'painful' for that very reason.
Kritt, you make an excellent point… as usual. The SC is sufficiently lopsided already.
Jillmz, I almost chose the word 'arduous' instead of 'painful' for that very reason.
Kritt, you make an excellent point… as usual. The SC is sufficiently lopsided already.
Jillmz, I almost chose the word 'arduous' instead of 'painful' for that very reason.
Kritt, you make an excellent point… as usual. The SC is sufficiently lopsided already.
George, from your last link.
Some pretty stunning ignorance there. Barack is a Semitic word meaning “to bless” as a verb or “blessing” as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible.
George, from your last link.
Some pretty stunning ignorance there. Barack is a Semitic word meaning “to bless” as a verb or “blessing” as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible.
George, from your last link.
Some pretty stunning ignorance there. Barack is a Semitic word meaning “to bless” as a verb or “blessing” as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible.
George, from your last link.
Some pretty stunning ignorance there. Barack is a Semitic word meaning “to bless” as a verb or “blessing” as a noun. In its Hebrew form, barak, it is found all through the Bible.
Great conversation here
Just a shot in the dark here, but I think Holly is afraid to reveal the most important issue to her in this election. She will only vote for an unabashed hawk.
Since I suspect that's how she feels, I also suspect she will enjoy her time supporting John McCain and the Republican party.
Long Live the Empire!
Great conversation here
Just a shot in the dark here, but I think Holly is afraid to reveal the most important issue to her in this election. She will only vote for an unabashed hawk.
Since I suspect that's how she feels, I also suspect she will enjoy her time supporting John McCain and the Republican party.
Long Live the Empire!
Great conversation here
Just a shot in the dark here, but I think Holly is afraid to reveal the most important issue to her in this election. She will only vote for an unabashed hawk.
Since I suspect that's how she feels, I also suspect she will enjoy her time supporting John McCain and the Republican party.
Long Live the Empire!
Great conversation here
Just a shot in the dark here, but I think Holly is afraid to reveal the most important issue to her in this election. She will only vote for an unabashed hawk.
Since I suspect that's how she feels, I also suspect she will enjoy her time supporting John McCain and the Republican party.
Long Live the Empire!
I fully agree Jill, which is why I said simply that I truly hope once the dust settles that those who have been passionate supporters of Clinton will calmly assess the positions, character and records of the remaining candidates and vote accordingly. I know that some will disagree with my last sentence about what the GOP has done, and for those who think the last 8 years were a cakewalk, they can vote for 8 more of the same. I know from lots of Holly's posts that she has not been thrilled with how our country has been (mis)managed, so I'm quite hopeful that she and others who are die-hard Clinton fans will have a good long think about what specific decisions Obama would likely make vs what McCain would do.
I fully agree Jill, which is why I said simply that I truly hope once the dust settles that those who have been passionate supporters of Clinton will calmly assess the positions, character and records of the remaining candidates and vote accordingly. I know that some will disagree with my last sentence about what the GOP has done, and for those who think the last 8 years were a cakewalk, they can vote for 8 more of the same. I know from lots of Holly's posts that she has not been thrilled with how our country has been (mis)managed, so I'm quite hopeful that she and others who are die-hard Clinton fans will have a good long think about what specific decisions Obama would likely make vs what McCain would do.
I fully agree Jill, which is why I said simply that I truly hope once the dust settles that those who have been passionate supporters of Clinton will calmly assess the positions, character and records of the remaining candidates and vote accordingly. I know that some will disagree with my last sentence about what the GOP has done, and for those who think the last 8 years were a cakewalk, they can vote for 8 more of the same. I know from lots of Holly's posts that she has not been thrilled with how our country has been (mis)managed, so I'm quite hopeful that she and others who are die-hard Clinton fans will have a good long think about what specific decisions Obama would likely make vs what McCain would do.
I fully agree Jill, which is why I said simply that I truly hope once the dust settles that those who have been passionate supporters of Clinton will calmly assess the positions, character and records of the remaining candidates and vote accordingly. I know that some will disagree with my last sentence about what the GOP has done, and for those who think the last 8 years were a cakewalk, they can vote for 8 more of the same. I know from lots of Holly's posts that she has not been thrilled with how our country has been (mis)managed, so I'm quite hopeful that she and others who are die-hard Clinton fans will have a good long think about what specific decisions Obama would likely make vs what McCain would do.
Athena: 'Obama supporters are some of the most hateful and disrespectful people I have ever encountered. They cannot address issues so they become personal.'
Your 2nd sentence describes Holly's post to a T.
Jill: 'So – Shaun saying “hissy” – was that okay or does he too immediately lose quite a bit of his credibility?
Come on – we are all analytical enough folks her.'
Finally, on eof you Hill Shillers comes clean. Yes, we already knew Holly was pissy over Shaun's hissy, but, analytical? Show some analysis in this post. There is none.
Jill: 'Well, clearly several of you seem to have a much greater familiarity and steadfast opinion of Holly's work here than I do'
No, simply a more intelligent and analytical one.
'I just don't see Holly's feelings as influential re: creating or perpetuating a storyline.'
Correct, they were just a fart, better to have been kept silent and private.
Stockboy: 'I guess Holly's column is great- it has spurred this lively discussion.'
VD, the Holocaust, and serial killers park long discussions too.
'So Holly made a great point in her post, and her reaction to Obama is not really based on anything easily quantifiable. So lay-off Holly and get over yourselves for demanding that she offer concrete explanations.'
No, because all her posts are this way. She needs to learn to think before she posts and makes a fool of herself. People do this sort of twaddle too often in life and many folk are sick of it. It's just static.
Jill: 'Shaun – that is all very true and far – I agree. I just don't think you needed the word hissy to tell us all that.'
So, Jill, you are peeved at Shaun for using the word hissy and not at Holly for tossing a hissy fit. Great rationale.
Chris: Holly a militant Jew? Don't get her started then.
Athena: 'Obama supporters are some of the most hateful and disrespectful people I have ever encountered. They cannot address issues so they become personal.'
Your 2nd sentence describes Holly's post to a T.
Jill: 'So – Shaun saying “hissy” – was that okay or does he too immediately lose quite a bit of his credibility?
Come on – we are all analytical enough folks her.'
Finally, on eof you Hill Shillers comes clean. Yes, we already knew Holly was pissy over Shaun's hissy, but, analytical? Show some analysis in this post. There is none.
Jill: 'Well, clearly several of you seem to have a much greater familiarity and steadfast opinion of Holly's work here than I do'
No, simply a more intelligent and analytical one.
'I just don't see Holly's feelings as influential re: creating or perpetuating a storyline.'
Correct, they were just a fart, better to have been kept silent and private.
Stockboy: 'I guess Holly's column is great- it has spurred this lively discussion.'
VD, the Holocaust, and serial killers park long discussions too.
'So Holly made a great point in her post, and her reaction to Obama is not really based on anything easily quantifiable. So lay-off Holly and get over yourselves for demanding that she offer concrete explanations.'
No, because all her posts are this way. She needs to learn to think before she posts and makes a fool of herself. People do this sort of twaddle too often in life and many folk are sick of it. It's just static.
Jill: 'Shaun – that is all very true and far – I agree. I just don't think you needed the word hissy to tell us all that.'
So, Jill, you are peeved at Shaun for using the word hissy and not at Holly for tossing a hissy fit. Great rationale.
Chris: Holly a militant Jew? Don't get her started then.
Athena: 'Obama supporters are some of the most hateful and disrespectful people I have ever encountered. They cannot address issues so they become personal.'
Your 2nd sentence describes Holly's post to a T.
Jill: 'So – Shaun saying “hissy” – was that okay or does he too immediately lose quite a bit of his credibility?
Come on – we are all analytical enough folks her.'
Finally, on eof you Hill Shillers comes clean. Yes, we already knew Holly was pissy over Shaun's hissy, but, analytical? Show some analysis in this post. There is none.
Jill: 'Well, clearly several of you seem to have a much greater familiarity and steadfast opinion of Holly's work here than I do'
No, simply a more intelligent and analytical one.
'I just don't see Holly's feelings as influential re: creating or perpetuating a storyline.'
Correct, they were just a fart, better to have been kept silent and private.
Stockboy: 'I guess Holly's column is great- it has spurred this lively discussion.'
VD, the Holocaust, and serial killers park long discussions too.
'So Holly made a great point in her post, and her reaction to Obama is not really based on anything easily quantifiable. So lay-off Holly and get over yourselves for demanding that she offer concrete explanations.'
No, because all her posts are this way. She needs to learn to think before she posts and makes a fool of herself. People do this sort of twaddle too often in life and many folk are sick of it. It's just static.
Jill: 'Shaun – that is all very true and far – I agree. I just don't think you needed the word hissy to tell us all that.'
So, Jill, you are peeved at Shaun for using the word hissy and not at Holly for tossing a hissy fit. Great rationale.
Chris: Holly a militant Jew? Don't get her started then.
Athena: 'Obama supporters are some of the most hateful and disrespectful people I have ever encountered. They cannot address issues so they become personal.'
Your 2nd sentence describes Holly's post to a T.
Jill: 'So – Shaun saying “hissy” – was that okay or does he too immediately lose quite a bit of his credibility?
Come on – we are all analytical enough folks her.'
Finally, on eof you Hill Shillers comes clean. Yes, we already knew Holly was pissy over Shaun's hissy, but, analytical? Show some analysis in this post. There is none.
Jill: 'Well, clearly several of you seem to have a much greater familiarity and steadfast opinion of Holly's work here than I do'
No, simply a more intelligent and analytical one.
'I just don't see Holly's feelings as influential re: creating or perpetuating a storyline.'
Correct, they were just a fart, better to have been kept silent and private.
Stockboy: 'I guess Holly's column is great- it has spurred this lively discussion.'
VD, the Holocaust, and serial killers park long discussions too.
'So Holly made a great point in her post, and her reaction to Obama is not really based on anything easily quantifiable. So lay-off Holly and get over yourselves for demanding that she offer concrete explanations.'
No, because all her posts are this way. She needs to learn to think before she posts and makes a fool of herself. People do this sort of twaddle too often in life and many folk are sick of it. It's just static.
Jill: 'Shaun – that is all very true and far – I agree. I just don't think you needed the word hissy to tell us all that.'
So, Jill, you are peeved at Shaun for using the word hissy and not at Holly for tossing a hissy fit. Great rationale.
Chris: Holly a militant Jew? Don't get her started then.
“Just think if any canidate has a hate group listed as a supporter”
What disingenuous bull, HillaryGotMyVote. Anyone can state their reasons for supporting Obama on his website. Karl Rove could sign up and put the GOP logo and his reasons for supporting Obama. That's not a sign of Obama approving of each of his millions of supporters, and it's not a link to a page of endorsements that the candidate highlights. Maybe Hillary scrutinizes every supporter's statement and deletes and bans those with whom she disagrees, but I seriously doubt it.
“Just think if any canidate has a hate group listed as a supporter”
What disingenuous bull, HillaryGotMyVote. Anyone can state their reasons for supporting Obama on his website. Karl Rove could sign up and put the GOP logo and his reasons for supporting Obama. That's not a sign of Obama approving of each of his millions of supporters, and it's not a link to a page of endorsements that the candidate highlights. Maybe Hillary scrutinizes every supporter's statement and deletes and bans those with whom she disagrees, but I seriously doubt it.
“Just think if any canidate has a hate group listed as a supporter”
What disingenuous bull, HillaryGotMyVote. Anyone can state their reasons for supporting Obama on his website. Karl Rove could sign up and put the GOP logo and his reasons for supporting Obama. That's not a sign of Obama approving of each of his millions of supporters, and it's not a link to a page of endorsements that the candidate highlights. Maybe Hillary scrutinizes every supporter's statement and deletes and bans those with whom she disagrees, but I seriously doubt it.
“Just think if any canidate has a hate group listed as a supporter”
What disingenuous bull, HillaryGotMyVote. Anyone can state their reasons for supporting Obama on his website. Karl Rove could sign up and put the GOP logo and his reasons for supporting Obama. That's not a sign of Obama approving of each of his millions of supporters, and it's not a link to a page of endorsements that the candidate highlights. Maybe Hillary scrutinizes every supporter's statement and deletes and bans those with whom she disagrees, but I seriously doubt it.
Sigh – Green, I expect that to happen, thoroughly. But you see, this is the part that causes people who lean to Hillary a case of the rolly-eyes: “have a good long think about what specific decisions Obama would likely make vs what McCain would do.” What specific decisions WILL he make, versus McCain – I don't get a sense of what they are – not now.
Anyway – I may very well vote for Edwards – he's predicted to get several percentage points – last I was 19%! in Ohio – I doubt he'll get that in the end, but Ohio voters are sticklers – I just don't know.
I want Biden back.
Sigh – Green, I expect that to happen, thoroughly. But you see, this is the part that causes people who lean to Hillary a case of the rolly-eyes: “have a good long think about what specific decisions Obama would likely make vs what McCain would do.” What specific decisions WILL he make, versus McCain – I don't get a sense of what they are – not now.
Anyway – I may very well vote for Edwards – he's predicted to get several percentage points – last I was 19%! in Ohio – I doubt he'll get that in the end, but Ohio voters are sticklers – I just don't know.
I want Biden back.
Sigh – Green, I expect that to happen, thoroughly. But you see, this is the part that causes people who lean to Hillary a case of the rolly-eyes: “have a good long think about what specific decisions Obama would likely make vs what McCain would do.” What specific decisions WILL he make, versus McCain – I don't get a sense of what they are – not now.
Anyway – I may very well vote for Edwards – he's predicted to get several percentage points – last I was 19%! in Ohio – I doubt he'll get that in the end, but Ohio voters are sticklers – I just don't know.
I want Biden back.
Sigh – Green, I expect that to happen, thoroughly. But you see, this is the part that causes people who lean to Hillary a case of the rolly-eyes: “have a good long think about what specific decisions Obama would likely make vs what McCain would do.” What specific decisions WILL he make, versus McCain – I don't get a sense of what they are – not now.
Anyway – I may very well vote for Edwards – he's predicted to get several percentage points – last I was 19%! in Ohio – I doubt he'll get that in the end, but Ohio voters are sticklers – I just don't know.
I want Biden back.
'What specific decisions WILL he make, versus McCain – I don't get a sense of what they are – not now.
'
That says more of your discernment abilities than of O's judgment.
'What specific decisions WILL he make, versus McCain – I don't get a sense of what they are – not now.
'
That says more of your discernment abilities than of O's judgment.
'What specific decisions WILL he make, versus McCain – I don't get a sense of what they are – not now.
'
That says more of your discernment abilities than of O's judgment.
'What specific decisions WILL he make, versus McCain – I don't get a sense of what they are – not now.
'
That says more of your discernment abilities than of O's judgment.
It's amazing to see how agitated Democrats and left-leaning voters become over the subject of whether to vote for Obama versus Clinton given that there's not much difference between the two of them when it comes to domestic policy. Much of the “debate” between the two of the have been over non-issues.
The one area where there are clear distinctions between the two candidates is foreign policy, and that appears to be the fundamental reason why Holly is so pro-Clinton and so anti-Obama. Holly, by her own admission is a Democratic “hawk” and has been a vocal cheerleader of the Iraq War.
There is some truth to the argument that Obama has gotten a free pass from the media and that much of the support for him is unwarranted. I have believed from the very beginning that Obama has offered more style than substance and that his appeal to independents and moderates is based more upon his being a “fresh face” than with offering new and innovative policies.
That being said, Senator Clinton has proven herself in my eyes to be undeserving of any sympathy or support. Clinton is not the candidate of change. She's the status quo. She controlled much of the party machinery and had a huge lead in name recognition and support from the party establishment but couldn't close the deal. She was horribly wrong on the Iraq War, and while she didn't go as far as Lieberman did in condemning fellow Democrats who refused to support the war, she did lend her voice in the effort to quell dissenters like Senator Russ Feingold, who was arguing for a withdrawal from Iraq as early as 2005.
Think of how many hundreds of American lives and how many hundreds of billions of dollars could have been saved if Hillary Clinton and other pro-war Democrats had listened to Feingold instead of using recycled Republican talking points to discredit him.
Of course, that was BEFORE the 2006 midterm elections. It's funny how a sudden plummeting in voter support for the war can make a politician completely flip-flop on their position on the war, but that is exactly what Clinton did. Now she uses the Iraq War as an excuse to criticize Bush and the Republicans with nary a word about her own complicity in moving the war forward.
It may very well be the case that Senator Clinton had a genuine change of heart and genuinely opposes the war today, but when it comes who is best equipped to lead this nation, it is a little far-fetched to ascribe the label of “strong leader” to someone who chose to speak out against the war nearly four years into the war and only after some 3000 lives and nearly $400 billion had been spent (these were the approximate figures back in December 2006, when Clinton switched her position on the war).
But even if you're of the mind that the war is legitimate and that Senator Clinton was right to have supported it, the tactics she has resorted to within the last couple of weeks are unforgivable. Her blatant pandering to Jewish-Americans and opportunistic attempt to associate Obama with some kind of tacit approval of anti-Semitism during last week's debate was a new low in her campaign.
“Denouncing” Louis Farrakhan versus “Rejecting” Louis Farrakhan? Talk about a distinction without a difference! These are the kind of rhetoric gymnastics that the American people have grown tired of, and to blame a candidate for the hateful words of one of his supporters whose support he neither accepted nor solicited represents a logical fallacy (imagine if we held all politicians to such standards). It just goes to show once again that Senator Clinton will say just about anything to become elected.
It's amazing to see how agitated Democrats and left-leaning voters become over the subject of whether to vote for Obama versus Clinton given that there's not much difference between the two of them when it comes to domestic policy. Much of the “debate” between the two of the have been over non-issues.
The one area where there are clear distinctions between the two candidates is foreign policy, and that appears to be the fundamental reason why Holly is so pro-Clinton and so anti-Obama. Holly, by her own admission is a Democratic “hawk” and has been a vocal cheerleader of the Iraq War.
There is some truth to the argument that Obama has gotten a free pass from the media and that much of the support for him is unwarranted. I have believed from the very beginning that Obama has offered more style than substance and that his appeal to independents and moderates is based more upon his being a “fresh face” than with offering new and innovative policies.
That being said, Senator Clinton has proven herself in my eyes to be undeserving of any sympathy or support. Clinton is not the candidate of change. She's the status quo. She controlled much of the party machinery and had a huge lead in name recognition and support from the party establishment but couldn't close the deal. She was horribly wrong on the Iraq War, and while she didn't go as far as Lieberman did in condemning fellow Democrats who refused to support the war, she did lend her voice in the effort to quell dissenters like Senator Russ Feingold, who was arguing for a withdrawal from Iraq as early as 2005.
Think of how many hundreds of American lives and how many hundreds of billions of dollars could have been saved if Hillary Clinton and other pro-war Democrats had listened to Feingold instead of using recycled Republican talking points to discredit him.
Of course, that was BEFORE the 2006 midterm elections. It's funny how a sudden plummeting in voter support for the war can make a politician completely flip-flop on their position on the war, but that is exactly what Clinton did. Now she uses the Iraq War as an excuse to criticize Bush and the Republicans with nary a word about her own complicity in moving the war forward.
It may very well be the case that Senator Clinton had a genuine change of heart and genuinely opposes the war today, but when it comes who is best equipped to lead this nation, it is a little far-fetched to ascribe the label of “strong leader” to someone who chose to speak out against the war nearly four years into the war and only after some 3000 lives and nearly $400 billion had been spent (these were the approximate figures back in December 2006, when Clinton switched her position on the war).
But even if you're of the mind that the war is legitimate and that Senator Clinton was right to have supported it, the tactics she has resorted to within the last couple of weeks are unforgivable. Her blatant pandering to Jewish-Americans and opportunistic attempt to associate Obama with some kind of tacit approval of anti-Semitism during last week's debate was a new low in her campaign.
“Denouncing” Louis Farrakhan versus “Rejecting” Louis Farrakhan? Talk about a distinction without a difference! These are the kind of rhetoric gymnastics that the American people have grown tired of, and to blame a candidate for the hateful words of one of his supporters whose support he neither accepted nor solicited represents a logical fallacy (imagine if we held all politicians to such standards). It just goes to show once again that Senator Clinton will say just about anything to become elected.
It's amazing to see how agitated Democrats and left-leaning voters become over the subject of whether to vote for Obama versus Clinton given that there's not much difference between the two of them when it comes to domestic policy. Much of the “debate” between the two of the have been over non-issues.
The one area where there are clear distinctions between the two candidates is foreign policy, and that appears to be the fundamental reason why Holly is so pro-Clinton and so anti-Obama. Holly, by her own admission is a Democratic “hawk” and has been a vocal cheerleader of the Iraq War.
There is some truth to the argument that Obama has gotten a free pass from the media and that much of the support for him is unwarranted. I have believed from the very beginning that Obama has offered more style than substance and that his appeal to independents and moderates is based more upon his being a “fresh face” than with offering new and innovative policies.
That being said, Senator Clinton has proven herself in my eyes to be undeserving of any sympathy or support. Clinton is not the candidate of change. She's the status quo. She controlled much of the party machinery and had a huge lead in name recognition and support from the party establishment but couldn't close the deal. She was horribly wrong on the Iraq War, and while she didn't go as far as Lieberman did in condemning fellow Democrats who refused to support the war, she did lend her voice in the effort to quell dissenters like Senator Russ Feingold, who was arguing for a withdrawal from Iraq as early as 2005.
Think of how many hundreds of American lives and how many hundreds of billions of dollars could have been saved if Hillary Clinton and other pro-war Democrats had listened to Feingold instead of using recycled Republican talking points to discredit him.
Of course, that was BEFORE the 2006 midterm elections. It's funny how a sudden plummeting in voter support for the war can make a politician completely flip-flop on their position on the war, but that is exactly what Clinton did. Now she uses the Iraq War as an excuse to criticize Bush and the Republicans with nary a word about her own complicity in moving the war forward.
It may very well be the case that Senator Clinton had a genuine change of heart and genuinely opposes the war today, but when it comes who is best equipped to lead this nation, it is a little far-fetched to ascribe the label of “strong leader” to someone who chose to speak out against the war nearly four years into the war and only after some 3000 lives and nearly $400 billion had been spent (these were the approximate figures back in December 2006, when Clinton switched her position on the war).
But even if you're of the mind that the war is legitimate and that Senator Clinton was right to have supported it, the tactics she has resorted to within the last couple of weeks are unforgivable. Her blatant pandering to Jewish-Americans and opportunistic attempt to associate Obama with some kind of tacit approval of anti-Semitism during last week's debate was a new low in her campaign.
“Denouncing” Louis Farrakhan versus “Rejecting” Louis Farrakhan? Talk about a distinction without a difference! These are the kind of rhetoric gymnastics that the American people have grown tired of, and to blame a candidate for the hateful words of one of his supporters whose support he neither accepted nor solicited represents a logical fallacy (imagine if we held all politicians to such standards). It just goes to show once again that Senator Clinton will say just about anything to become elected.