As I'm sure that you have noticed, Hillary Clinton is trying to sell us this lie that Obama doesn't have any ideas or solutions and yet in the same breath claims he has stolen her ideas. She can't have it both ways. Which one is it Mrs. Clinton? And if they both has similar ideas, which they do then what is the difference between the two?He represents true change, a fresh face, an inspirational orator, a more electable candidate who has cross-over appeal into the Independent voting block as well as some Republicans. He seeks to run a mostly positive campaign while she has been and continues to try and drag him into fights and mud-slinging. It looks desperate and nothing turns off an electorate more than playing dirty and negative attacks.
Is it really a good idea on her part to criticize a record turn-out and support of a Democratic candidate by an inspired youth? Does she really want to disillusion them and risk them turning away from her if she wins the nomination and campaign in the general election? I don't think it's smart of her to slam every other demographic that supports Obama (the more educated, the African American community, the youth) and basically say that the blue collar Democrats tend to favor her are the only real, true Democrats. She is hitting everyone hard that doesn't support her and in doing so keeps painting herself further and further into a corner. Obama is doing the opposite, appealing to everyone and building a diverse and strong coalition. He wants to include and she mostly wants to isolate, divide and conquer. She seems to be willing to destroy the party just so long as she wins the nomination.
Other than her similar ideas as Obama's she has nothing else to bring to the table other than pessimism, the same old politics, a less chance of being elected in the general and a controversial figure who carries a lot of negative baggage that would unite a factored, less popular Republican party. Do we liberal and Democrats want to win in November and move the country forward in a new direction or do we want to get mired again in the mud of the controversial, divisive Clinton years?
As for solutions, every presidential candidate has a reservoir of ideas and solutions or else they would've been discovered as one dimensional, not serious candidates from day one of their entrance in the race. She also is throwing this desperate net out there that Obama is all talk and that talk is cheap. Well then doesn't that cut both ways? It's obvious that he has ideas and solutions so then who is the one talking cheap and in an insincere manner? They say we project onto others our own weaknesses. So if that is the case then we can't help but come to the conclusion that this accusation of Obama is nothing but cheap talk and empty rhetoric on her part.
Then there is this still stale claim that she is a better manager than Obama and that because of that she is better capable to lead on day one. Well I think that we can get a good idea of each candidates management style by the way that they are running their campaigns. Obama has run a well oiled machine from the beginning whereas the Clinton campaign has made miscalculation after miscalculation. She blew off the caucuses from the start and then whined that they were disadvantaged by the caucus system but only after they started to get spanked by Obama in them. As if we are supposed to feel sorry for her and give her another chance. She was beat by Obama's superior ground strategy and knows it.
In addition, she hasn't been able to keep track of her funds and manage a budget within her own campaign so what does that say about how she'll handle the particulars of a federal budget? It also shows that she isn't as capable of running a well balanced and smooth operating administration. To that end she can't keep control of her advisers and we keep hearing of reports of infighting and resignations. Is this the kind of chaos that we should expect from a Clinton administration from "day one"? I think it shows a lack of judgment on her part in being able to put together a well balanced, competent and professional team.
That all being said, however, I'd like to return to the idea that Obama has no solutions. Take the FDR like National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild America's crumbling bridges, cracking highways and aging dams. Is that not a solution? It will create new jobs and invest back in America rather than investing in China's infrastructure and economy. I guess that isn't a solution to a vital problem facing us.
This is just one idea and solution that is easily found through one search with Google to find Barack's website that easily lists his ideas and solutions to vital problems in America.
Gallop Poll Shows Obama Lead Nationally Widens:
PRINCETON, NJ -- For several days, nationwide Democratic voters' preferences have been shifting toward Barack Obama in Gallup Poll Daily election tracking. Now, the Illinois senator enjoys his first statistically significant lead, 49% to 42%, over Hillary Clinton, according to the Feb. 13-15 results. Additionally, the 49% support for Obama represents the high point for him in the daily tracking program.
The tracking data reflect the Obama momentum since the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday primaries, moving from a +13 Clinton advantage in Feb. 3-5 polling to a +7 Obama lead in the latest results.
---End of Transmission---
19 comments:
James,
Very well reasoned. Great post.
I was about to say the same thing with regard to her campaign vs. his.
He's built a very effective structure, considering he was practically an unknown a year ago.
Look what he has accomplished in that short period of time.
I think Hillary and her people thought this was going to be a cakewalk, and that she'd have it sewn up by now.
They didn't see the Obama factor as a force to be reckoned with.
On to Wisconsin!
Students should support Hillary. Here's why: check this out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p1ofQRam--g
Shaw:
Thanks and I agree that Hillary underestimated Obama and his appeal at their own peril.
Ariel:
I won't let you get free advertising for Hillary without pressuring you to address the points that I mentioned in this post. What is you retort to what I've said here?
That video doesn't convince me that Hillary is better for students. Sure you can point to some students who support Hillary. However, I think the overwhelming majority of student voters support Obama. That to me says a lot about who students think best support their interests.
As for those solutions, Obama has just as many if you would have read this post and/or gone to his website and read them for yourself.
Stop swallowing whatever Hillary churns out and do some research for yourself and see what the man believes and purposes for America.
Do you honestly think that he has no solutions? If so, that is dangerously naive.
Hilary is the best person for the job, i do believ if Obama wins, people will have herd enough medi bullshit and will go over to McCain. As when it comes to crunch, Obama wont know how to talk politics, at the moment he has the money to beat Hilary, but not the brains for a politics or to be president
Anonymous:
I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that you are the best judge about whether Obama is smart enough to be president. I say this because your comment was full of misspellings and disjointed sentence structures.
As for people favoring McCain, have you seen the polls that show Obama ahead of McCain should he be the nominee? Whereas the same polls either show Hillary behind or tied with McCain. Look them up.
That is why I say Obama is more electable. I don't just say that because I like the sound of it. I do have evidence to back up my talk.
One more thing Anonymous, like Ariel I noticed that you didn't address the points in this post. I'd love to hear your rebuttal to them.
Obama is very sly when he attacks Hilary. Lets look at the two. Hilary is world class known woman, and known as the brains behind Clinton. Obama is known for empty speeches, and jibberish politics.
How does he stand on Isreal, being a jew i think he looks more arabic than African. And all you smucks didnt think about that did you?
I saw Barkley on the CNN today, and didnt he look like he was on something, maybe the police should give the guy a blood test. He favours Obama, and he did really say why, because he is black, he couldnt talk about the guys politics, as there is none.
IQ test. What doe the USA stand for? Untied states Of america, screamed a young student. Wrong go to the back of the class. Answer United States Of Africa.
Obama has put his whole party at risk, as when it comes to crunch, he will have set the party 20 years back in time. McCain also has a brain, therefore Obama is the wrong man for the job.
Obama says he will loan students 5000 US. Dollars, and they will have to work in the public sector, but where in the public sector? Dont you have educated people doing that already and if so will you sack some of these people as you bring in your young cheap labour, make it like Africian standards.
To say he doesn’t have any ideas or solutions and yet in the same breath claims he has stolen her ideas is true and can well be a true statement. If Senator Obama has taken Senator Clintons ideas and put them into speeches as if his own, she's right. And he has done that on two occassions that I am aware of. Both came in his economic speech the other day. He took two of Clintons ideas (one from Aug 2007 and one from Dec 2007) and incorporated them into his speech.
He also voted against a bill that would have prohibited (paraphrased) leadership PAC's from employing spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal Office holder connected to the committee...........geezzz - sounds like more the same to me!
And since all politicans will do whatever it takes to get elected, I think it is shameful that anyone from the Democratic party would willful disenfrancise millions of voters for their own personal gain! The rest of the pack learned from Clinton to leave their names on the ballot in Florida. This is playing 'follow the leader' and Senator Obama is not the leader.
Anonymous:
You sound a bit racist. What difference does it make if he looks more Arabic than black? I don't think he does but so what if he did look Arabic? What do you have against Arabs? Sure some are violent jihadists but you can't say that about the entire Arabic diaspora.
And the United States of Africa??? Are you kidding me? It is beyond racist to say such a thing.
Empty speeches? Have you heard any of them? He talks all kinds of specifics:
Click here to read Obama's stance on Israel. It is titled, Obama Supports Israel, Period.
You want specifics on his ideas and solutions besides the ones that I talked about in my post? Well check out these videos:
Specifics on Ending Poverty.
Obama on Health care.
More http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfNG6cbTSkI">on Health care.
Obama on Iraq.
Obama on Renewable Energy.
True Hillary is known throughout the world but so is Obama. There are those in Indonesia who follow him because of his days studying there.
In addition, people all throughout Africa follow his progress and cheer him on.
Also, Europeans know him well as they prefer him to Hillary in a recent Financial Times poll.
As for setting our party back 20 years no one has done that more than Bill and Hillary Clinton.
You'd know that if you've been following the Lewinsky scandal in the 90's.
As for the $5,000 claim of yours, I can't find evidence that he said this. If you can find evidence then I will address it more in full.
Now I'll address the other Anonymous comment:
I don't exactly have a problem with Obama using some ideas of hers if that be the case. All candidates do it. It's about honing the message.
As for the PAC issue I don't quite understand what you're saying.
Could you provide a link to the issue so that I could read it first hand for myself and better understand the issue? Thanks.
site
That second health care link is broken. Here is the new link:
More on Health Care.
Hey Anon, take your AIPAC talking points and move along. You obviously base your choices upon irrational fears instead of any facts. You are a bigot and if you are representative of the average Hillary supporter, she is doomed!
"Hilary is world class known woman, and known as the brains behind Clinton."
Really? So Bill was a Rhodes Scholar because of Hillary?
Funny thing, he attended Oxford before he met Hillary at Yale! You need to get your facts straight before you come to a blog claiming you know what is best for our country!
T&A:
Yep. I'm not surprised this person is a Hillary supporter. Hillary plays on people's fears not that differently than Bush with her rhetoric that Obama isn't capable of handling difficult situations.
If he couldn't handle difficult situations then why was he elected again and again in the Illinois state house? As well as being elected as U.S. Senator.
The reason that most people don't become politicians is because they don't want the responsibility of making such difficult decisions that all politicians face.
Even the Mayor of a city has to make difficult decisions and does so or else is voted out of office.
The fact that Obama hasn't been voted out of office tells me a lot of how he deals with difficult situations.
There wouldn't be such a strong wave of support from millions of Americans if he was seen as weak and unable to make the difficult decisions.
Seasoned politicians such a Ted Kennedy wouldn't be endorsing him if they thought he was a weak politician.
Anonymous commenter talking about Florida: What are you getting at? I'm confused at what your point is in your comment.
T&A:
Hillary isn't the brains behind the Clinton machine, she's the muscle--the enforcer. She's smart to be sure but she's even more of a snake in the grass than Bill--and that's saying something!!
At least Bill is an all around likable person. She's about as likable as a post.
She's the person that you bring into a company when you need someone who is willing to fire people without hesitation. She's cold and calculating which is not the kind of president that we need right now.
We are desperately in need of a president who stokes the fire of hope and inclusiveness. We are desperately in need of a president who motivates us to reach further and have a stake in the country again. That person would be Obama.
Hillary has an ego the size of the entire country and would run things with absolute power. I can't see her bringing people together. I can though see her trying to ram things through Congress and down American's throats because she "knows what's best for us."
Obama certainly carried no pretense about the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime, referring to the late Iraqi dictator as “brutal” and “ruthless” and acknowledging that “the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.” At the same time, he recognized that “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors.” Furthermore, Obama recognized “that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained.”
That same month in Washington, Clinton was insisting incorrectly that Iraq had ties to al-Qaida, was “trying to develop nuclear weapons,” and that Iraq’s possession of biological and chemical weapons was “not in doubt.”
Clinton then went on record insisting that the risk that Saddam would “employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States” was enough to “justify action by the United States to defend itself,” specifically by authorizing President Bush to launch an invasion of Iraq at the time and circumstances of his choosing.
Whether Iraq constituted such a threat to U.S. national security was not the only thing that separated Clinton and Obama back in October 2002. In the months leading up to the Senate vote, former State Department and intelligence officials, representatives of European and Mideast allies, scholars specializing in the region, and other experts advised Clinton that a U.S. invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems. So did thousands of ordinary citizens.
Despite this, Clinton insisted that her voting to authorize the invasion was “in the best interests of our nation.”
Meanwhile, back in Chicago, Obama was observing how “even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He also recognized that “an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida.”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/18/7120/
Sorry. Here's a smaller url to that post from CommonDreams:
http://tinyurl.com/2b3o5e
Written by:
Stephen Zunes, of Santa Cruz, Calif., is a former Madison resident and a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco. He is the author of “Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism.”
Have you ever thought that if the Banks would let all people losing their HOUSE have an INTEREST ONLY NOTE they could afford it and KEEP IT until they die ...
It wouldn't be vacant and Vandalized costing the Back Billions in Damages
It wouldn't cost the Back ONE Dine in LOSS..
It's Like renting to an Owner..
AWESOME IDEA
Affordable to boot by all ...Best the Back gets Interest which is everything they want anyway ...
Tell the world and Save America...
John "King" Howell III
Post a Comment