Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 1, 2008 in Politics | 84 comments

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.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 The Moderate Voice
  • GeorgeSorwell

    Why should I find this persuasive?

    • HillaryGotMyVote

      I will let you decide even though I have made up my mind. I decided after the S.C debate my home state. I looked into the charges that each leveled. Wal-Mart, Rezko and the Ideas that republicans had. What I found I will ask you to look at and see if you see what I did. The criteria that I used was who was telling me the truth because each looked as though they were telling the truth. One thing we don’t need is someone who can look us in the eye and lie as if it’s nothing we already have that his name is Bush. Below are the links I found most come from the Chicago Sun Times. Let’s start with Wal-Mart yes Hillary worked om the board when Sr. ran it she left when his son’s changed things. What Sen. Obama did not mention was his wife worked in the same capacity ans Hillary for Treehouse foods, a subsidiary of Wal-Mart. She left the day before he announced he was running. She also worked on the board of a not for profit Chicago hospital. This hospital has a history of over charging patients without insurance and makes millions too. I had these links however my computer is down and am borrowing my daughters now. When it is up again I will list the links for you all. To the links I can provide they involve Rezko. Sen. Obama told us he only worked for him doing minor legal work for 5 hours. I found out that he has had a 17 year relationship with him. Rezko was once part of Obama’s senatorial finance committee as well. All information I will give you is from the Chicago Sun Times.,CST-NWS-rezko26.article,CST-NWS-obama18.stng,CST-NWS-obama10.stng,CST-NWS-sweet01.stng

      There are more but I would like you to look them up so you know for yourself what is what. The articles cam be found in the Sun Times (liberal paper) and the Tribune. You will for some have to look into the archives.

      An the issue of Ideas I have to give 1 thing he did not exactly say good ideas but it was not really clear. The time frame of 10-15 years would be also when Bill was in office too. I do not think Sen. Obama was calling Bill a Republican as well. So you can see there is confusion as to what he meant. Remember John Edwards was still running and he too slammed Sen. Obama for the ideas interview. Here is the link
      I wish I could get a longer one but thats what I saw and judged on.
      This is what I made my decision on. To me someone running on change and getting rid of the same old politics should not practice the same old politics. Just like the strait talk express should talk strait because thats what he claims to do. I will get into his mistakes later now I want to look at the Democrats only. I will bring up some newer examples that at this time are mainly observations. I can qualify then but some are to new yet.
      I will start with lobbyists and special interest. Obama has stated that he has not taken any money from them or pacts(political action committees). He has however in a round about way. Ads in Texas and some in Ohio paid for by labor unions. In kind contributions, goods or services in place of $. How can you do that and think that its any better? He has taken money from lobbyists even-though he states thats what is wrong. Yes its less than Hillary but do not claim not to take it when you do. The major donor was a nuclear power co. At the time he was sponsoring a bill to come down on this industry. Funny after he took their money the bill was watered down and had little to no teeth. In the end this bill that he held up to voters did not even pass.
      Lets look to today with the red phone ad that Hillary put out. Sen. Obama blasted it as trying to scare up votes and what is wrong about politics today. That said he puts his own ad out with the same tone, red phone, the same voice, to the point that when it starts you think its the same ad then at the end he puts his spin on. Does he really think its fear bating if so why did he put the same type of ad out? To me that’s a mixed message, if she had done it she would be called a flip flopper.
      In the end look at what little I have brought up there is a lot more out there however I don’t want to take up more room than Holly did. My personal thoughts and yes I can not back these up but at least I will tell you that are as follows. He is running on some of the same things that Bush ran on in the beginning. I am a uniter, that works across party lines, I’m not part of Washington insiders. Sound a little familiar? Look what we got with that talk then call them the party of ideas. you can see my delima there. I also can not buy his I have a better argument on the war he was never asked to vote on it. Yes he was against it, but would he still have been against it? We now know some of the proven lies that the Bush administration told. The reports that were altered, changed and in some cases just made up. These were done for the express purpose of going to war. To put enough compelling information out there that if checked out looked real. Do you really think that if given the same information with what was going on at the time Sen. Obama would have voted differently? Ask yourself this as well if she has such bad judgement why do so many military Admiral’s and Generals support her? These are people who in some cased saw some of the same data, in other cased were retired. If his judgment was so much better don’t you think they would be supporting him. The commander-in chief after all heads up the military. Most times I do not look at which politician supports who or celebrity but these people I do look to. I think you can see the difference.

  • Holly –

    I’ve enjoyed many of your posts and comments in the past, but recently many of your statements have lacked a substantial argument and instead seemed closer to ranting against Obama and for Hillary. For example, stating that “if Obama is the nominee then McCain will win the election” without anything other than hearsay seems to fly in the face of most evidence. The adage that there are “lies, damn lies and statistics” may be true, but most polls show that Obama is now seen as most electable by a majority of Democrats, he seems to consistently fare better than Clinton in head-to-head polls against McCain, and the Right has made it clear that defeating Clinton is something they all agree could bring their side together again.

    What would be insightful to hear from you is an analysis of what you see as the pros and cons of BOTH Obama and Clinton, instead of just “I don’t like him and she’s better” or “my friends say if he wins they’ll vote for McCain”. For my part I believe that Clinton is a very competent woman who honestly does have the country’s best interests at heart. Policywise she does not differ much from Obama, although I see the defining difference between the two her mantra that “I will fight them” vs. Obama’s “we will form a coalition”; I believe that the second approach will be more productive, although I do expect there to be some nasty attacks. In terms of negatives, I am extremely disappointed with Clinton’s stance on Florida and Michigan, and the changing rhetoric with respect to Texas and Ohio – she needs to keep a straight story, whether it is sticking to the rules set for the primary or sticking to her proclamation that Ohio AND Texas are her firewall. On Obama’s side, I’m hugely disappointed by his approval of letting unions and other 527 groups run ads for him, don’t like his recent pandering on NAFTA, and if he did pledge to accept public financing then I want to see him stick with that, even though he has a million donors ready to flood him with money.

    There is a reasonable debate to be had about Clinton and Obama, but a “she’s good and he’s bad” or “he’ll unite us and she’ll divide us” argument is too superficial and does not meet the standards that most readers of this site are looking for.

  • JSpencer

    Holly, I realize there is disappointment in your chosen candidate not the one beng embraced the most wholeheartedly, but several of your comments seem to me more informed by emotion than by a fair comparison of attributes and liabilities. And that is not a criticizm; we are all emotional creatures to varying degrees, and finding a good balance of emotion and logic can sometimes be a challenge, particularly when it comes to politics.

    I don’t see any candidate out there who represents my views as well as I’d like, nor do I see one who is entirely without the kind of baggage that will lend itself to divisive and rancorous tactics, and so once again, I am faced with choosing the one who offers the best shot at pulling people together in a way that will begin to move us out of our downwardly mobile status-quo, and who has the energy, vision, and credibility to make this happen. There are things about all the candidates I like, and I think any of them would make a better president than our last, but that isn’t a very high standard in itself is it.

    If the democrats weaken themselves in a fight between senators Clinton and Obama, then they may succeed in shooting themselves in the foot… again. Since we don’t have instant runoff voting in this country, I will most likely be voting for the democrat candidate, partly because either represents me better than John McCain, and also because I have strong beliefs about why the republicans do not deserve to be rewarded in this particular election based on their record and their behavior over the past decade.

    In any case, I sincerely hope that at some point you will be able to shed your disappointment and move toward a choice you can live with.

  • PaulSilver

    To paraphrase William F Buckley, I have too much respect for your intelligence to believe that you believe what you just said.

    Obama is likely to promote a similar agenda as Hillary including tolerance, Health Care, support for the middle class, protecting services for the disadvantaged. How sad that you would seriously consider voting for someone who doesn’t represent your interests.

    I prefer Obama, but if he is not the nominee I will support Hillary.

  • pacatrue

    I understand that you do not find Obama charming or convincing, for lack of a better word. No problem there. I support Obama but it has nothing to do with charm. I support his agenda, overall, and his aspirations for how politics could operate. But I still don’t understand why you would actively vote for a person, McCain, who rejects 80% of the policies your favorite candidate supports. Is it entirely foreign policy? On domestic policy it would essentially be voting for the candidate with a lot of experience attacking all the things Clinton supports.

  • DLS

    “We just cannot buy what Barack Obama is selling.”

    Nobody who restricts himself or herself to the sales pitches will ever learn what is being sold.

    In fact, Obama’s agenda is nearly identical to Clinton’s. The choice comes down to style or appearance or packaging, little else. Also in favor of Obama is that, at least with him, there is a possibility of personnel changes in Washington, but even this is questionable — the Dem establishment and DC fixtures won’t leave or relinquish power without a fight.

    As for the general election, McCain appears to have next to no chance against Obama. Clinton has serious negatives, much more than McCain has (my own term for Clinton is unassailable, as it’s based on past experience as well as observation: she’s America’s Mother-in-Law From Hell); but even against Clinton, McCain is likely to lose. McCain is not an attractive opponent of the Dems, for he isn’t much of an opponent at all of the Dems or with liberalism to begin with. And he’s a DC fixture. Ugh.

    Both Obama and Clinton are among the Dem’s left wing, with nearly identical programs. (ugh) Either risks alienating Americans in huge numbers (as Clinton did in the 1990s, giving us the 1994 elections and post-1994 Clinton concessions to reality) if either chooses to be arrogant and conceited (as Clinton was in the 1990s) and go far to the left of the US public after election (official or in Clinton’s earlier case, unofficial).

    It’s simply packaging — do you choose representative of lib-Dem party machine goal-filled, special-interest-pleasing agenda A or the nearly identical agenda B?

  • I agree that this is a mediocre post (about as much beef as the average Obama speech, but what Holly’s describing is a common reaction among liberal friends of mine.

  • Lit3Bolt

    Ah yes, I forgot that if Hillary doesn’t win, McCain will then receive the all important “spiteful” vote. What’s the quote? Wait, here it is. “Hell hath no fury as women voters scorned.”

    • HillaryGotMyVote

      I belive blogger may say things like that however a lot of it started when Obama said ” I know her voters will vote for me but mine will not vote for her”.
      please tell me how this is any better? Could he be hinting to a “spiteful” vote or “Hell hath no fury as men voters scorned”. It cuts both ways.

  • You know holly, no disrespect, but in the hood they call folks like your self a:


    Here is a definition and an example of a lot Holly’s posts:

    1. Hater Definition:

    A person that simply cannot be happy for another person’s success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.

    Hating, the result of being a hater, is not exactly jealousy. The hater doesn’t really want to be the person he or she hates, rather the hater wants to knock some one else down a notch.

    Susan: You know, Obama from accounting is doing very well. He just bought a house in a very nice part of town.

    Holly (hater): If he is doing so well why does he drive that ’89 Taurus?

    This short exchange is an example of how you hate on Obama, I mean i read articles that and hear reports that criticize him that have way more substance than yours. Those are respectable but yours are just rants from a sore loser (hater).

    Definition link –

    “Modified Definition 1 for posting on TMV”

  • StockBoySF

    Manasia, enough. Your attack on Holly is uncalled for.

    • I think Holly shows us that what Drew Westen has written about just cannot be dismissed from whatever rational logic we otherwise can muster for or against someone. This is to say, for some of us, not all of us, maybe many of us, the choices this year, on both sides, is causing an emotional reaction that is unparalleled. I am not defending that as good or bad – I’m just saying that I believe that so many voters want so desperately to see so many different things improve in their lives and are so far removed from the power or place where those things are controlled that we are losing our minds over the possibility that whomever wins won’t be “The One” who can make things better.

      Feeling that way certainly can lead to a feeling that one is simply not won over.

      Anyway – if I didn’t articulate this well, I apologize but I mean to say that I know what Holly is saying, and I highly doubt it’s her entire rationale. But it’s still a strong sentiment.

  • StockBoySF

    Holly, I can’t help but think back to the 2004 prez. election. There were two types (broadly speaking, of course) of people who voted for Bush. On the one hand there were those who actually believed and supported Bush’s policies. On the other hand there were those who didn’t care for Bush or his policies, but bought into the Bush/Rove/swift boaters’ attacks on Kerry.

    Bush/Rove was able to convince this second group of people that Kerry, despite being a decorated veteran and someone who put his own life on the line in Vietnam would not do what was necessary to keep the country safe. Bush (who used his family’s political connection to keep himself out of harm’s way and then couldn’t even show up to serve his full term in the TX Air National Guard because he was out partying) was the far better person to lead the country in time of war and do whatever was necessary to keep the country safe. I know a lot of people who just “felt” that Kerry was deficient, despite evidence to the contrary. They didn’t like Bush, and weren’t enthusiastic over Kerry, but Bush (and the swift boaters) managed to instill doubt in their minds that they needed to vote for Bush to stay safe.

    Personally I find Obama’s legislative time in the 90’s (elected in 1996) as valuable experience that one can look at for a long track record. Whereas Hillary was First Lady in the White House during these years. Also valuable experience, but she can only run on her husband’s record from this time (since the Clintons refuse to release her letters as First Lady). So Obama’s longer legislative experience (11 years for Obama v. HIllary’s 7 years) is clearly valuable. I’m also impressed that Obama is running a great campaign staffed by competent and able people. I am convinced Obama will continue this trait, choosing bright and capable people, for his cabinet and other government positions (unlike Bush and others who clearly reward important positions based on loyalty and not ability). Overall I believe that both Obama and Clinton have worked for the American people in some capacity or another for their entire adult lives.

    I’ve posted on here before that I thought many Obama fans supported him based solely on his rhetoric. I’ve also posted that they need to look at all aspects of him before supporting. Now that we are on the eve of what may be the most important races (because Obama may effectively wrap up the nomination) it’s important that people really look hard at the candidates and vote based on the total candidate.

    So, Holly, thanks for caring about this race and this country and voting for who you believe is the best qualified candidate. I strongly feel (being the idealist I am) that if voters studied the candidates (as much time as you and I do) to determine the best person for the job, then the best person will be selected. Hillary has a lot of great experience and I’m really impressed with her. But Obama is my man. I feel that both are capable of being good and solid presidents.

    So whoever wins the Dem nomination, it’s important that we look at the candidates and make the best decision based on what we see. After watching the 2004 election I see how easily people are persuaded by rhetoric. Politicians like Obama can use the power and emotion in rhetoric to uplift people. Other candidates, like Bush, who can’t otherwise persuade enough people to support them, use rhetoric to beat down his (or her) opponent. So when someone attacks his (or her) opponent on this basis it’s important to recognize what’s going on and vote accordingly.

    So Holly, thanks again for investing so much time to choose who you think is best.
    This is democracy in action.

  • Mike_P

    I can understand refusing to vote for someone you disliked, for whatever reason.

    What I can’t understand is voting for someone who represents a continuation of policies that have been extraordinarily damaging to the nation because you dislike the person running against them.

  • There are criticisms that sound like reasons to criticize, and then there are criticisms that sound like excuses for criticizing. I’m afraid, Holly, that your post is entirely of the latter class.

  • Holly, I sympathize with what you’re feeling as your candidate falters, but there is nothing in your post that supports the headline you chose. I find no substantive credibility problem with Obama and I support him (now that Edwards has bowed out). If Hillary surprises us all and wins the nomination, I’ll not only vote for her, but help her in every way I can to beat McCain, who would simply extend the horror we have experienced over the last seven long years. I truly hope you and your friends will see the light, or at least the GOP darkness, and join us in ridding this country of the toxic and dangerous policies that have wrecked our standing in the world, pushed science and reason out of government decision-making and savaged our constitutional rights.

    • Well, I’d like to say that we should step back for a minute. We can criticize how someone comes to a decision all we want, but the fact remains – it IS our vote. And we do get to do with it whatever we want, for whatever reason – including no good OR bad reason – we want to. We can disagree with the logic, we can disagree with the result of that logic – flawed or unflawed. But in the end – it’s Holly’s vote. It’s your vote – it’s my vote. Part of democracy is respected that.

    • 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.

      • 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. 🙂

        • Now now, you don’t mean that. You know that he will be kinder to the environment, as are all dems vs repubs, better on social issues, education, taxation, etc. There’s no evidence whatsoever that he’s lying about his domestic and international beliefs and intentions, and has been pointed out by others here, the Supreme Court issue alone will make us all very glad we had ANY democrat in the whitehouse for the next few years.

  • Davebo


    You could have saved a lot of time by just posting “I don’t like Obama and if Hillary doesn’t win I’m taking my ball and going home”.

    Because that’s all you’ve really said in this post.

    Which of course is your right,as it is your right to ignore Hillary’s eventual request that her supporters give their support to the eventual nomine.

  • Jammer


    As a Clinton supporter bitterly disappointed that she is likely to lose, as a man who was very very excited 2 yrs ago at the notion of breaking the gender barrier to the White House, well…to paraphrase Bill Clinton…I feel your pain.

    But please consider over the ensuing months the ramifications if Hillary supporters move to McCain. To paraphrase Carville “its the Supreme Court stupid” (no disrespect meant of course). WIth 4 rock solid ultra conservative judges, and with McCain firmly and repeatedly pledging to appoint more of the same, with the certainty that liberal Justice Stevens will leave w/i the next 4 years, we simply MUST have a Dem president. Otherwise the Court is lost to the right wing for decades and we will all be responsible because we ended up voting in a snit.

    I prefer Hillary and have severe doubts (although less now then before) about Obama, but this should not be a personality cult on either side. Our country needs us to do the right thing this fall and thats make sure that Alito-Scalia-Thomas-Roberts are never in the absolute majority. Please consider going forward?

  • DLS

    This is 2008.

    American IdolXXXXPresident is the name of the game this year.

  • cosmoetica

    Holly: Give it up. I know you, Jill, and Damozel (aka the Hill Shillers) are all pissy right now, and when the Texas results come in woe be to your betesticled loved ones, but really; last night I watched a CBS comparison of Hill’s and O’s records, and then a Newshour report on the duo from an Ohio supporter of each, and it’s clear that Obama is winning because his approach to campaigning and governance is more embracive.

    Despite what Right Wingers like DLS and SD think, there are substantive diffs between Hill and O. Hill is an old fashioned top down manager. She hires consultants and tries to micromanage problems.

    O is a problem solver by consensus, and is willing to shift. This is the diff in approach between a party hack and a grassroots organizer, who has, BTW- 5 more years of elective experience than Hill does.


    It is also this bottoms up grass roots, check the pulse of the electorate approach that draws so many Republicans, who in theory prefer that form of governance. Not only have the networks and PBS seen this, but so has the electorate, and I work w many R’s who are Obamacans.

    In short, the electorate finally got it right, and rejected the party hack for the better candidate. Now, not I delineated a substantive difference between the two. Try to do the same, or why bother posting?

  • cosmoetica

    Ah, I see, this was a hissy fit in response to Shaun’s post below.


  • StockBoySF

    Yes, Holly’s vote is her own and if she wants to support McCain, then so be it. That’s what democracy is about. What I was getting to in my post (and what Jill said) is that it is easy for emotions to play a role in the choice of which candidate to support. I would hope that voters look beyond the emotional games candidates play on their own behalf (and against their opponents) and try to choose accordingly.

    While I don’t want to discount “feelings”, some are clearly good and some are clearly bad, the “feelings” that Bush/Rove instilled in many voters- the “us v. them” fear, the non-sense doubts that Bush/Rove/Swift boaters raised about Kerry are all clearly bad. So we need to look at the candidates and understand that the politicking that they each do is aimed at selling themselves (or keeping us from voting for the opponent) is just that- the politicking.

  • StockBoySF

    DLS: wouldn’t it be “American Idol XLIV President”? 🙂

  • Loviatar

    People understand, Holly is TMVs local neo-con; she recently stated that she was dubious of the new NIE and would vote Republican for the first time because with the issuance of the NIE, the Democratic candidates’ insisted that the military option be “off the table” with Iran. Couple that with Obamas linkage to Farrakhan (however dubious), and Holly was never going to vote for Obama.

    • And that’s okay, right? Even if it’s not okay, do people not realize that sometimes we WISH we could be more decided, like our choices or choice better and so on? You know, silly or not, for those of us who really really really really wanted Gore and absolutely hated seeing how the popular vote could lose out AND live in Ohio (which, like me, Holly does), you need to understand – it is really hard here sometimes taking all this in.

      I know Mark D. is another Ohioan – I hope he chimes in.

      Lots of very reasonable analysis of what Holly said but the bottom line is, it’s her expression of how she is feeling about her choices. Why other people rip it up or tear it down, I never get that.

      To me, my support is like my religion – private. If you haven’t read what Stephanie Tubbs Jones, my congresswoman, wrote in The Root, here it is and I’ve been thinking about it a lot since I read it yesterday. I think she is exactly right.

      Many people do not understand what it means to truly support a candidate. It is more than a bumper sticker, or a yard sign, or even attending a campaign event. By supporting a candidate, you are making a commitment to that candidate. I made that commitment to Hillary to support her through thick and thin, not to be a fair-weather friend only to leave her when the going gets tough.

      I have spent over 26 years in public office working for the people of Ohio and working within the Democratic Party. I have gone door-to-door handing out pamphlets for candidates, stayed up late making phone calls and raising money for candidates – including Barack Obama’s Senate campaign through the Congressional Black Caucus PAC. After 26 years in public office, I would hope that my constituents would respect my judgment and my choice to support Hillary Rodham Clinton, just as I respect their decision to support the candidate of their choice.

      In politics all you have is your word. And I have never been one to fold when the cards are not being played in my favor. True integrity is measured when the times get tough. There is no doubt that Hillary’s campaign is facing tough times, but I made a commitment to her, and I will support her all the way.

      • Loviatar


        In response to your comment;
        “Lots of very reasonable analysis of what Holly said but the bottom line is, it’s her expression of how she is feeling about her choices. Why other people rip it up or tear it down, I never get that.”

        When you are in a position to influence others whether its as a coach, politician or as a writer on a blog, it behooves you to be credible. When Holly starts by headlining her post with the title “Barack Obama’s Credibility Problem” she immediately loses quite a bit of her credibility. She then loses whatever credibility she has left by making a very passionate however illogical argument on why she won’t vote for Obama, and while her argument has tons of emotion it had no facts, only anecdotes. If this is the sum of her argument she should keep them to herself and her friends not spew them over the airwaves.

        As we’ve learned from the 2000 and 2004 elections and the past 15 years of Main Street Media emissions, we must challenge our opinion makers on what they say and what they write, because rightfully or wrongfully they do shape our choices.

        Ask Al “the Liar Gore” or John “War Criminal Kerry” if you think I’m wrong.

        • No right or wrong no need to ask anyone. Not sure of your point there.

          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 here. It’s a blog post title. If you’re going to view them as raising or depleting someone’s credibility, then apply it across the board, yes?

          I’ve had this if you’re in a position of influence it behooves you to be credible pushed before. I agree with it – to a point. The point at which I no longer agree with it is the point where I recognize: the reader is in control of whether someone is in a position of influence or not. And you control that by saying, hissy? pahleeze or “credibility problem? I think not.”

          Why all this big deal? No offense to Holly or anyone who posts here – myself included, but you are us way too much credit.

  • cosmoetica

    Tubbs Johnson was one of the Hill supporters I mentioned. The Mayor of Columbus was an O man.

    But, Jill, no one here has questioned Holly’s right to vote for whomever- that’s a dodge. She can write in her drooling uncle Otto Slobovnich for Prez. Her judgment, however, and especially when writing such a pissy little post- ala a 10 year old who hasn’t gotten the exact flavor candy she wanted, is different. There was no substance and no reason for the post.

    As Greendreams wrote: ‘there is nothing in your post that supports the headline you chose.’

    And, as I wrote: ‘Ah, I see, this was a hissy fit in response to Shaun’s post below.’

    I have a feeling Mr. Mullen’s Manhood is going to be bronzed and hanging as a trophy from the mantelpiece of one of you Hill Shillers if Hill drops Texas in a big way!

    • Cosmo you lost me in your last graph but otherwise still – you know, people are feeling hissy – that’s what happens sometimes. In real life, on the blogs, in newspapers, on editorial and op-ed pages. I have my own blog and write that stuff there but still – eh – I don’t know – of course you can criticize it – I guess I don’t see the point. I would have just left it alone and say, aw, sorry she’s feeling so miserable about this.

      I mean, it sucks to have the right to vote and feel like you don’t even really want to use it – that’s how I’m feeling right now. And I don’t like feeling that way at all. It shouldn’t be that way – but it is.

  • StockBoySF

    That makes absolutely no sense. Hillary and Obama have pretty much the same positions. So why not vote for McCain now? Besides Obama has a more hawkish stance than Hillary. Obama was against Iraq, but not against all wars- also Obama is the one who first brought up the idea of going into Pakistan and taking out terrorist targets if the Pakistani government would not or could not act. This is precisely the kind of “out of the box” thinking (and discussion) we need. I don’t see Hillary supporting such positions.

    Also as recently reported Hillary has signed onto a bill banning the use of private military contractors. This is clearly a political move to try to get votes. Again Obama is demonstrating his ability to think about difficult situations and finding some solution (working on legislation that once enacted will hold contractors accountable) that address various concerns. While I don’t really want the private contractors in Iraq, Obama knows the political reality. Instead of butting heads (like Hillary is doing with her outright ban) with those who feel that the private contractors are necessary, Obama understands the reality.

    Obama hardly has the lock on the “most dubious endorsements”. As TMV’s Shaun Mullen posted, McCain has the support of John Hagee. McCain welcomes Hagee’s support whereas Obama has rejected and denounced Farrakhan’s support.

    If Holly wants to vote for a Republican, that’s fine with me and I trust her to have good reasons. I don’t need to know them (though it would be nice) but I’m not going to try to change her decision.

  • StockBoySF

    My above post was in response to Loviatar’s post.

  • cosmoetica

    Jill: Great, let us know everything you’re feeling, and your temperature, too. Holly, Damozel, you too.

    Then, when everything’s feeling really comfy and everything’s gone right, let us know if you’ve conceived.

    Oh, wait, was this to be an intellectual discussion of ideas or a pregnancy planning party?

  • cosmoetica

    Loviatar: now you’ve gone and ruined it. Jill’s temp spiked three degrees at reading your last post. Now we’re in for another month of whining from her and the other Hill Shillers about that big, bad, dark and handsome stranger with the Muslim name.

    Thanks alot, you Punxatawney Phil of the Internet!

  • Athena

    I couldn’t agree with you more. From reading many of the above statements, other bloggs and from personal conversations, many of the Obama supporters are some of the most hateful and disrespectful people I have ever encountered. They cannot address issues so they become personal. I have shown others the written responses from Obama supporters and I’ve successful convinced many people not to support Obama.

    So let the Obama supporters continue to be hateful and disrespectful to others and not address specific issues. They are only showing their true cards.

    Keep up the great writing. Thank you.

  • Loviatar


    You’re ignoring the dubious Obama, Farrakhan connection.

    As pointed out here on TMV several times, their has been a concerted effort to paint Obama as hostile to Israel and the dubious linkage to Farrakhan is part of that effort. Unfortunately, their is a certain portion of the Jewish American population who has bought into that portrayal, you then put that with Obama’s willingness to talk to Iran and Hamas and others that the neo-cons find objectionable and you then have a ready made reason “to vote for a Republican candidate for the first time”.

  • Loviatar


    First let me clear something up; I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, I think she is the best candidate to lead our country out of the mess that the Republicans have lead us into. My second choice was John Edwards, however I will gladly support Barrack Obama if he is the Democratic nominee.


    I’m not giving you or the other writers on TMV anymore credit than you deserve. Again, believe it or not if you are an opinion maker (and with the web we can all be), you do have influences on the choices we make. Your decision to highlight a story (Holly’s “Obama 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”) can play into a storyline which will help decide our country direction.

    See the George Bush “The Person I want To Have A Beer With” storyline if you think I’m wrong.

  • casualobserver

    Looks like admittance to that big tent in Denver is going to be closely controlled. Sorry, Scoop, times have changed.

  • Jill – to many of the people on this thread, the issue is simply pointing out that many of Holly’s comments and postings over the past several weeks have seemed like rants without substantive argument. Consider:

    “Obama… is clearly not qualified to be president at this time… 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.”

    Sean’s post from this morning could have been more tactful, but his basic premise that Hillary seems to be changing the rules as she goes is a fair one – Texas and Ohio were must win states until they weren’t, the votes in Michigan and Florida didn’t matter until they did, etc. “Hissy” might not be the best way of putting it, but at least there is an argument being made that could then spur debate.

    If Holly was to use her role as a TMV editor to argue why she felt Obama was not suitable for the Presidency that would be a welcome insight into her thought process, but instead her posts have suggested that the thought process is simply “Hillary is good and Obama is bad”; there is no debate to be had based on that stance, and TMV expect better of the posters here.

    • Well, clearly several of you seem to have a much greater familiarity and steadfast opinion of Holly’s work here than I do – seriously (that’s the kind of sentence that sounds more terse than intended; I’ve been an RSS reader of TMV until about two months ago when I was asked to be a co-blogger so I really don’t have these presumptions and assumptions about many of the people who post here – I like it that way, frankly.

      I see my invitation to co-blog here as having an obligation to write honestly from my perspective. I’m not interested in telling other posters here how to reshape what they choose to write – the readers will comment, and the editors here will choose/make decisions if people go overboard. I’m very democratic in this sense when it comes to blogging. I guess I don’t get this whole criticism piece of people who post – it was done to me in one of my first threads and I had a furrowed brow the whole time. I didn’t think we were supposed to try and control what the others write.

      I suppose I can choose not to do that, and others can choose to do that, if they want. But I don’t think any of us should be trying to “use” our role at all. I just don’t like that idea.

      • Loviatar –

        I’m not exactly sure what you mean about the “George Bush person I want to have a beer with” storyline as an example of how people can control or perpetuate storylines but I am familiar with how useless I think it is to judge one’s choice for candidate based on whether you could have a beer with him or her or not (the Plain Dealer, my hometown paper, didn’t endorse Hillary because they felt they could more easily have a beer with Obama – no joke).

  • Loviatar


    Part of the storyline for the 2000 election was that Al Gore was too cerebral, he “thought too much”, he was stiff, standoffish and a creature of Washington DC. George Bush was the good old boy, he didn’t over think issues, he was from Texas and was someone you’d “want to have a beer with”. Seeing as most people didn’t know much about George Bush before the 2000 election it makes you kind of wonder how this false storyline became such a established and major part of the election.

    In reading some of the books and articles written on the 2000 election the common theme is that the Republicans did a good job creating their own reality (storyline), but did an even better job getting the opinion makers (MSM, talk radio, local media, blogs, etc.) to buy into their reality and then turning around and disseminating it to the general public.

    Think about it, if you in your small way can convince even one person that your candidate’s storyline is true or the other candidate’s storyline is false, then you have to accept the possibility that you in your small way can influence the choices and decisions we make.

    If Holly who is convinced that Obama is inexperienced and anti-Israel is able to influence even a small number of votes that she is correct, she could cost Obama the 2008 election. And, remember it was a small number of votes that cost Al Gore in 2000; the state of Florida and the election.

    • Thanks for taking the time to flesh out your reference – yes, I remember that now. You can see what an impact it made on me, huh? (not, lol)

      I guess I just feel pretty immune to having those stories move me or trying to push storylines on others. But I suppose it can’t hurt be aware that such a thing might be going on – I understand what you’re saying.

      I just don’t see Holly’s feelings as influential re: creating or perpetuating a storyline. I have concerns about Obama’s experience too, and my rabbi was at the very meeting last Sunday in Cleveland at which Obama further clarified his views on Brezinski, Rev. Wright and his religious background. But these things matter to me (as issues to understand and put in context) not because someone told me that they are issues – I figured it all out on my own.

      I don’t mean to be flip – I understand that you’re saying that if the media and others are all chiming in, then people may come to believe certain things that aren’t real. But I also have a great deal of faith in voters and I also believe that blogs, for example, are a great place to hash it out.

      Thanks for taking the time to write your comment.

      • Oh okay and let me add – I do think Shaun’s title with the word hissy in it is just as guilty. As are many, many posts, not just in this blog but across the blogs and the MSM. The name-calling is EVERYWHERE and I abhor it – absolutely ABHOR it. I don’t do it here, and I rarely do it on my own blog – precisely because of what you are talking about – it sets a tone – tells people how to see something, rather than giving the reader a chance to just think for themselves.


  • StockBoySF

    Loviatar, “You’re ignoring the dubious Obama, Farrakhan connection.”

    Sorry- I guess I didn’t make myself clear (or maybe I’m missing your point). I understand that folks are trying to link Obama with anti-Semitism, Islam (and other undesirable traits) by linking him with Farrakhan one way or the other. The point I was making is that McCain also has dubious endorsements (which are equally offensive to certain people). So for someone to use Obama’s “link” to Farrakhan (and therefore anti-semitism, etc.) as a reason to vote for a Republican doesn’t make sense when that Republican has supporters who are just as bad.

    As far as a certain number of Jewish Americans buying into that smear against Obama… I would hope that voters who are concerned about racism and religious bigotry would reject any candidate who endorses it, even if that racism isn’t aimed at that particular voter’s group. Obama has rejected Farrakhan, but McCain welcomes Hagee’s support, even though he doesn’t agree with all of his positions. What positions, exactly, does McCain disagree with Hagee on? I’m a WASP so does that mean I would support Farrakhan or Hagee because they don’t attack my background? No. I want an America that welcomes all its citizens. Racism, religious intolerance, etc. aimed at any group only undermines our country and should not be tolerated. It’s off the table for me to support any candidate who does not fully reject the positions of racists. I’m sorry but I don’t see how it advances the US if candidates are willing to support bigots, rather than stand up for the citizens they are suppose to represent.

    As far as being willing to talk to Iran and our enemies- why is that such a bad thing? How are we going to resolve differences if we refuse to talk to them? At one point the USSR was our greatest enemy yet Reagan talked with them and resolved some differences. The USSR fell and is now Russia and much less of a threat. Though Bush should have paid more attention to them, but after he looked into Putin’s soul and knew that it was a good soul, Bush had his resident USSR expert tied up with putting out fires in the Middle East.

  • elrod

    Well, I saw this one coming a mile away. Maybe our lovely Tennessee Republican Party Communications Director got the best of Holly.

    No matter. I’m a proud Jew for Obama. I’d support Hillary Clinton if she’d won the primary without hesitation. I’m a moderately liberal Democrat and I agree with the policy positions of both candidates. But I like Obama more, mostly because he turns the generational page in ways that JFK once did. And I don’t want 100 years of occupation of Iraq and I definitely don’t want more Scalias, Alitos, Thomases and Roberts on the Supreme Court.

    • HillaryGotMyVote

      some people will always question groups like that. They want to know why the suport of this group and others that have supported him for example I found this and would like clearity.
      Just think if any canidate has a hate group listed as a supporter there would be sone questions. What would happen if the shin heads were displaied as a supporter. Let me make it clear NO campain to my knowledge has them listed. What would happen if they did? Do you think it would be fair to question it? I’m not defending thoes who are trying to bait the issue and push it past just a clearity question.

      • HillaryGotMyVote

        The above is in answer to elrod. sorry if some think its part of my last post. Sorry for spelling to forgot to spell ck. bad speller.

  • StockBoySF

    I guess Holly’s column is great- it has spurred this lively discussion. But more importantly (and to the point, I think) it shows that the support (or rejection) of a candidate isn’t all rational. I mentioned earlier that it would be nice if I knew specific reasons why Holly didn’t like Obama, but I didn’t need to know them and I’m not going to try to change her decision. I can only give my reasons for supporting Obama. Anyone reading them will come to their own conclusion.

    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. Sometimes they don’t exist especially when one is struggling to make what one hopes is the best decision. I have moments like that, and sooner or later (once I stop over thinking) the decision gels and becomes crystal clear. I don’t agree with Holly for supporting Hillary or McCain (should she decide to support him), but I respect her choice because she takes the decision very seriously and wants what is best. I’ve posted before that we need more voters in this country to take this decision seriously, LEARN about the candidates and vote accordingly.

  • kritt11

    Holly – As a Clinton supporter who will vote for Obama if necessary to end Republican rule, I think you are wrong that he will not fare well against McCain. How many times did we hear that Clinton had the nomination sewn up with a double digit lead only six months ago?

    Until Obama did what he does best- make converts out of doubters and raise tons of cash on the internet. We have not seen a political force like him sweep the nation since Reagan, who similarly won converts and raised great amounts of cash easily. McCain does not have these abilities. He hasn’t the charisma to attract the huge crowds that Obama is getting. Finally, don’t forget the GOP is broke and dispirited- Democrats are motivated and energetically turning out in droves.

  • GeorgeSorwell

    Well, I see Democrats are busily forming their circular firing squad.

    In two years, we’ll be governed by John McCain’s running mate.

    Think of all the recriminations you’ll get to enjoy then!

  • shaun


    This belated comment is being cross-posted at my own post regarding Clinton.

    We would be reading more about “the way things are,” as you put it in a comment under my post if Clinton didn’t, among other things, try to change the rules or say they should be changed when things don’t go her way. The Michigan and Florida delegations, Nevada caucuses, Texas primary rules and superdelegate rules are but four examples. Additionally, she keeps trying to move the goalposts, the latest instance being the most ridiculous. In this context the comparison to my childhood friend Kathy in my own post is most apt.

    • 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. 😉 (she said smiling, really)
      A batch of good comments in here at the end – StockBoy I note in particular. Choosing isn’t always rational – I can guarantee you my vote won’t be – I still am undecided – as are 9% of Ohioans, according to the polls – that’s a big number 48 hours out.

      Another thing – on the Jews believing Obama smears? This thread, is extremely troublesome to me. It’s what the right is going to be pushing. 99% of the Jews I know, and I know a lot of them, have completely gotten over the smears – many are steadfast Obama supporters.

  • GeorgeSorwell

    Oh my, and who should come along two minutes later to prove the point but Shaun.

    Elections have consequences.

  • JSpencer

    Geez, do republicans engage in as much painful self-examination as this when trying to choose a candidate?

    • The key to the answer is in your question: why is self-examination painful? Some of us relish it. 🙂 Especially the narcissists among us. If someone finds self-examination painful, maybe there’s a reason?

  • Davebo

    I couldn’t agree with you more. From reading many of the above statements, other bloggs and from personal conversations, many of the Obama supporters are some of the most hateful and disrespectful people I have ever encountered.

    If you can point me to the Obama version of this dribble I’d love to see it.

    Note not only the tone of the comments (rather disgusting) but the amazing quantity.

  • GeorgeSorwell


    You can find threads like that all over the internet. Imagine what people say to others when nothing is being recorded!!

    I’m sorry Clinton is losing, but there it is. I don’t especially blame white women in their 40’s and 50’s for feeling cheated. If Obama were losing, black people would be feeling cheated right now. This kind of identity politics–as you say, “choosing isn’t always rational”–was bound to blow up. And maybe it’s easy for me to say this, but the time to grow up has arrived.

    Think back to that thread. John Kerry was a war hero. He was painted a fraud and traitor by people with no respect for the truth. There was an audience for those lies. And so we’ve four more years of incompetence and obstruction. Four more years of divisiveness. Four more years of a President whose only concern was keeping the base together.

    And since the Swift-Boating worked for them, now comes the Hussein-Mongering.

    The time to fight back against it is now, not in September when you can’t believe people have fallen for it.

    If Clinton were winning, wouldn’t the whispering about Vince Foster be starting now? Wouldn’t the whispering about a White House Christmas tree decorated with crack pipes be starting now? By September, wouldn’t Tim Russert be asking Mrs.Clinton what her answer to these charges was? Just imagine–it would make for fantastic television!!

    You can be mad about the word hissy. You can be mad because Clinton is losing. You can be mad because life is unfair. In America, you have the right to be irrational. But whose ends are served by your behaving irrationally?

    Or you can make the conscious decision to be rational.

    And I’m not saying you should vote for Obama in the primary. Vote for Clinton if you think she’s the best candidate.

    But in the end, the smear-merchants will be out there, attacking whoever is in their way.

    Elections have consequences.

    Fight the real enemy.

    I hope all that HTML works.

    • 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:

      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. 🙂

  • GeorgeSorwell

    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”.

  • kritt11

    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.

  • JSpencer

    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.

  • Davebo

    George, from your last link.

    His Arabic birth name of “Baraka” came directly from the Koran, meaning “blessing.”

    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!

  • cosmoetica

    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.

  • cosmoetica

    ‘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.

  • StockBoySF

    NicRivera, good comments. Though I don’t hold Hillary’s 2002 Iraq war resolution against her and it doesn’t bother me that she changed her mind as the rest of the country changed their mind. (I was against the war from the start, by the way and never supported it.) But as you rightly point out there are other reasons to consider Obama.

    On “denouncing” v. “rejecting”. I agree with you. I still don’t know why Hillary interjected herself into a question aimed at Obama about one of his endorsements that he denounced. When Obama conceded the point to her, Hillary looked like the cat that ate the bird, as if she had scored some victory. Personally I feel that Obama won that exchange because it showed (as he did on other occasions during the same debate) that he was “big enough” to concede points (when most politicians don’t) and to give Hillary credit (as he did on another occasion) where credit is due. She came across as petty (especially complaining about the SNL reference and then being the “first one” to be asked questions). Obama did come across as much more mature an in control.

  • In a democracy, the side with fewer votes don’t get their way. That’s how it is; the sky is not falling. It is hard to see your preferred candidate lose, but HRC supporters could take a real lesson from John Edwards’ supporters on knowing the difference between an opponent and an enemy.

  • I hold Hillary’s 2002 Iraq war resolution against her. If only because of her accompanying speech on the floor, insisting that it not be used as a justification for war. It is proof that she knew what Bush would do and wanted to have it both ways.

  • StockBoySF

    GeorgeSorwell: “I’m sorry Clinton is losing, but there it is. I don’t especially blame white women in their 40’s and 50’s for feeling cheated. If Obama were losing, black people would be feeling cheated right now.”

    Actually that’s a great point- that if Obama were losing blacks would be feeling cheated.

    I’m not sure it’s true and I’d love for others to chime in.

    The reason I don’t believe it’s true is that blacks didn’t support Obama at first. They never expected for him to come this far. Many blacks felt as though whites would keep him down.

    But after it was evident that white America would vote for him, then blacks started to realize that he was not just some “token” candidate that was up there for show.

    But that’s just a musing, not a fact. I’d love to hear others’ ideas.

  • StockBoySF

    HillaryGotMyVote: thanks for all the hard work, though I don’t agree with everything there… it’s good to have a mental check.

    Besides, I feel better knowing that there are people out there who put up longer posts than I do! 🙂

  • StockBoySF

    ChrisWWW: “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.”

    No, I don’t think Holly is afraid to reveal that she will only vote for an unabashed hawk. It is an interesting point and observation.

    Whereas I’m against the Iraq war from the beginning, I’ve also stated that I thought Bush was 100% right to go into Afghanistan. He made the mistake of turning his back on places where we knew the terrorists to be to focus on his own private oil field (well what he wanted as his very own).

    So you may be right about Holly, but there are other “war” supporters here (and I think there are some folks here who even want us to stay in Iraq, but I’m not sure). It just has to be the right war for the right reason. And I say get out of Iraq so we can concentrate on fighting the terrorists who are a threat to us and so we can respond to other global situations as the need arises.

    My position on Iran- we need to really try to negotiate with them before we invade. (What would we invade them with, anyway?)

    So, good observation and I’d be curious to hear others’ thoughts.

  • The “unabashed hawks” who have been running the country handed Iraq to Iran. They’re having a lil lovefest over there right now. Anyone who thinks we can take on Iran and Iraq together now (forgetting Afghanistan and any other situation that might come along) is sadly misshapen.

  • kritt11

    ‘Now now, you don’t mean that. You know that he will be kinder to the environment, as are all dems vs repubs, better on social issues, education, taxation, etc. There’s no evidence whatsoever that he’s lying about his domestic and international beliefs and intentions, and has been pointed out by others here, the Supreme Court issue alone will make us all very glad we had ANY democrat in the whitehouse for the next few years.’

    AMEN, brother!

  • gryfox

    How credible is candidate Obama? First he denied knowledge of Wright’s more outrageous rantings. Then, he admitted awareness of them, but claimed that they were due to, and understandably directed at, white racism, given Pastor Wright’s experience as a black.

    Yet, Wright does not qualify his outbursts. He yells “God damn America,” not “God damn white racists.” He charges that America has murdered and infected blacks with HIV, not that white racists are to blame.

    Such indiscriminate attacks on America and all whites go far beyond reasonable disagreement between mature adults.
    How many non-prejudiced Americans would support and belong to a church with such a pastor for more than twenty years, claim him as a close friend and adviser, let alone, have him marry them and baptize and guide their spouses and children?

    William Fox
    6605 SW 37th Way
    Gainesville, FL 32608
    (352) 376-9786

  • and today Obama is a president of USA, and it is interesting how he will rule USA, how he will provide his politic course for all globe

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :