<p>
</p>
<p>Very true! I know people who vote on one single issue only, such as abortion, and ignore all the others. There are 2 issues on which I disagree with my candidate of choice, but the most important issues far outweigh those.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem here is, unlike young Hillary, you don’t exactly strike me as a ‘Reagan Girl, right down to your slick tar-blackened hair’, and you aren’t exactly a ‘Bushgirl’ either. Hillary didn’t simply vote for Goldwater (she couldn’t, since she was only around fifteen?). She campaigned for him and was very much politically attuned to the times. If racism and Civil Rights were even marginally important to her, she would not have been able to overlook them while working for Goldwater’s ideals. There was a great deal of dissonance, to put it mildly, between the two. We need not read of Hillary’s hatred of the Civil Rights Act to understand that as a youth, contrary to her implied claims today, civil rights and segregation meant very little to her at best, and were anathema to her at worst. My beef with her does not concern this because very many whites were virulent racists back in 1964 and then tempered their views later. My beef with her concerns the rosy picture she paints of herself today. I think enough evidence exists allowing us to conclude that Hillary is being dishonest. When she speaks to blacks and makes her former self out to be some sort of “Little Miss Vanilla King”, she in my view shows just how much contempt she has for blacks.</p>
<p>Was Goldwater a one issue candidate? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed before he was nominated.</p>
<p>The Goldwater I remember was the guy who was going to blow up the world with nuclear weapons. At least that is what Johnson told me.</p>
<p>I guess its just me. I don’t want to hang anybody based on probability. Maybe its because I deal with probablilty for a living and I have found that even 99% probability isn’t certain.</p>
<p>If a person says she was passionate about civil rights at 15 and she almost certainly wasn’t (not the same as certain), and that’s a deal breaker for you, don’t vote for her.</p>
<p>But sorry, I am not going to the hanging.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is almost entirely irrelevant. Goldwater wanted the Act repealed. He also preached a virulent brand of racism for almost the entire time the latter Civil Rights Movement existed. His view against blacks could not be avoided by anyone with anything between the ears.</p>
<p>* [The</a> Civil Rights Act, signed July 2, 1964, by President Lyndon Johnson,](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1953700]The”>Reagan, the South and Civil Rights : NPR) ended legal discrimination against blacks at hotels, restaurants and department stores. It also made discrimination illegal in hiring. Barry Goldwater, the Republican presidential nominee that year, decided to make himself a voice for opponents of the Act.
Goldwater said he supported the white Southern position on civil rights, which was that each and every state had a sovereign right to control its laws. The Arizona Republican argued that each American has the right to decide whom to hire, whom to do business with and whom to welcome in his or her restaurant. The senator was right at home with Southern politicians who called the Civil Rights Act an attack on “the Southern way of life.”*</p>
<p>
Come now. Just because a racist wants to blow up stuff does not mean he isn’t a racist. Goldwater held a package of xenophobic, jingoistic views that was a threat to the civil rights of minorities. He preached it for ages, and then ran on it. By the time of his campaign he saw the handwriting on the wall and spoke in words that both whites and blacks understood to be code. He did this because he knew civil rights were here to stay and he ‘didn’t want his grandkids to see him as one who stirred up racial tensions’. But when Goldwater spoke of “law and order”, for example, everyone understood he meant putting the thumb on blacks.
Well by these impossibly high standards you do not believe in anything. I suspect should an issue ever fall in your direction, you would be more reasonable and not require a 100% certainty before you take a firm position. I do not think you are being reasonable here, friend. It is not a matter of computerized probability. We don’t even need it to be such a matter. There is enough evidence on this issue to allow us to come to a firm enough conclusion against Hillary’s truthfulness on this issue. Because of the strong incongruence between the historical facts and her modern day claims referring to history, she must now reconcile the dissonance or admit she is lying and stop lying further. That is all quite reasonable, and we do not need 100% certainty to make this judgment.</p>
<p>
Of course I am not voting for her. And I am not interested in hanging her. Neither would I invite you to the hanging if I were, since you would not even be certain enough that it would occur, and if you did attend that the lynching you were witnessing was even real. I am only pointing out that PH has a legitimate point concerning the integrity of Hillary Clinton on this issue. I think it is an honest point, and that there is a sort of nasty bit of dishonor in taking your approach to addressing it.</p>
<p>“I think it is an honest point, and that there is a sort of nasty bit of dishonor in taking your approach to addressing it.”</p>
<p>Obviously, I disagree.</p>
<p>I also wanted to comment on this.</p>
<p>“Hillary didnt simply vote for Goldwater (she couldnt, since she was only around fifteen?). She campaigned for him and was very much politically attuned to the times.”</p>
<p>A fifteen year old who was politically attuned to the times. I don’t know too many of those. Looks like a contradiction to me.</p>
<p>As I said before, Obama’s just getting started. Here comes Super-Tuesday!!!</p>
<p>
No. A contradiction does not exist merely because of a relative low frequency of a certain thing. It only exists when a claim is made that negates itself. The two statements “Hillary is a woman” and “Hillary is not a woman” are contradictory since she must either be a woman or not and not both. Merely because many fifteen year-old girls are not politically attuned does not mean Hillary was not. There are many fifteen year-olds who are quite politically attuned, especially should their parent’s be politically active. They exist, despite that you don’t know many of them. They often grow up to join the Young Republicans, become first ladies, and senators, perhaps even presidents.</p>
<p>Most talking heads are actually saying that super-duper Tuesday won’t decide either party’s nomination and may not even create a front runner. The runoff is just that close.</p>
<p>As for Hillary v. Obama, I am voting for Obama simply because I feel he has a much better chance at winning the general election. As I see it, 45% of the population will not vote for Clinton no matter what, so all the Repubs need to do is sway 4 or 5% of the population. Clinton is the epitome of the northeast liberal that made Kerry lose the election in 2004. I don’t mind Clinton at all and I would be very happy with her as president, but I believe Obama just has better odds at winning the overall battle.</p>
<p>Well Drosselmeier, it’s amazing how much you know of Hillary as a 15 year-old.</p>
<p>The 15 year olds that I know need to experience life a little bit before they are really politically attuned.</p>
<p>I shouldn’t talk about people I don’t know, should I?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, were you to say they need to experience life before they are “politically mature”, then I would agree with you. But to be attuned to the times requires nothing more than about an eighth grade education. Any fifteen year-old with a basic American education can recognize a racist or one who is an advocate for civil rights. It is most reasonable to assume Hillary knew where Barry Goldwater stood on these issues, since Goldwater was quite clear at the time, and since she campaigned for him and claimed close identity with him.</p>
<p>
Not if sound reason is insufficient for you, and you instead require a 100% certainty to do it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand this line of thinking.</p>
<p>That 45% of the population that won’t vote for Clinton no matter what are all REPUBLICAN. If you’re someone that won’t vote for a Clinton “no matter what”, then you’re probably not a Democrat anyway.</p>
<p>Hillary has a better chance at the general election because she actually has a campaign that is composed of more substance than “Hope, change”. “Hope, change” would be utterly destroyed by the GOP attack ads, and that’s something Obama is not equiped to handle as well as Hillary Clinton.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the “I’m not going to support the candidate that is the harder/harsher campaigner because I don’t think they’ll be as well equipped in the general election.” It’s a total oxymoron.</p>
<p>Obama is not going to attract any significant amount of people versus the GOP nominee when all is said and done that Hillary won’t, in my opinion. Especially when Obama’s biggest strength would be getting the black vote. Well, they’re already democratic. Republicans are not going to vote for Obama anyway, and really, the past 8 years are going to determine an Independant’s vote, not as much the nominee, I think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If none of the candidates of one’s party resonate with a voter, than why wouldn’t they vote based on who they think stands a better chance in the general election? Sounds logical to me.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, Hillary said this as Novak reported…</p>
<p>“As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.” </p>
<p>From this…
[Hillary</a> Clinton: the early years - Today HIDDEN - MSNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079098/]Hillary”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3079098/)</p>
<p>Hillary said this…</p>
<p>"And I really did grow up between my parents’ different views of the world. My father was a very conservative, rock-ribbed Republican, a small businessman. But he believed in self-reliance. He taught me to just be as — everything I could be. And my mother who had a much more difficult childhood — really deprived and neglected — just poured her love and attention into me and my brothers. And she was a closet Democrat in a very Republican community.</p>
<p>My youth minister really opened my eyes to the rest of the world.</p>
<p>Here we were in a very sheltered, suburban upbringing. He took us into the inner city to meet with young African-American and Hispanic kids in church basements. And then my 9th grade social studies teacher was a real conservative. And he helped me understand the values of people that he revered like — Douglas McArthur for example. So, I had wonderful exposure to a full range of experiences and political beliefs and values that I don’t know I would have gotten if I hadn’t had the parents I had, the teachers, the ministers that I had — when I was growing up. ”</p>
<p>Couric: “Well, you were a Goldwater girl…”</p>
<p>Clinton: “That’s right. ”</p>
<p>Couric: “…all the way down to the cowgirl outfit. ”</p>
<p>Clinton: “That’s right. I was a Goldwater girl. ”</p>
<p>Couric: “And you were elected president of the Young Republicans. But then found yourself leaning in another direction. I guess, as a result of your participation in the mock election debate. ”</p>
<p>Clinton: “That’s right. Well, in the 1964 election, I, certainly, was a Goldwater girl. That was, you know, my father’s candidate. That’s what I believed. And I had a very smart senior high school government teacher who took me aside and said, ‘I want you to play the role of Lyndon Johnson in the mock election debate.’ And he went to about the only girl who considered herself a Democrat in our school and said, ‘And I want you to play the role of Senator Goldwater.’</p>
<p>I was really upset at first because I was such a Goldwater fan. But it forced to me to have to look at and rethink that which would not have otherwise come my way. So, that by the time I got to college I really had to start thinking about what I believed, you know, not my father’s or my mother’s or my teacher’s or anyone else’s beliefs. And as a result, I concluded that I was more independent than I had originally thought I was. And I began to look more closely at political ideas and evolved my own convictions and values."</p>
<p>[ABC</a> News: Hillary Clinton: From Goldwater Girl to Democratic Front-Runner](<a href=“Get to Know Hillary Clinton - ABC News”>Get to Know Hillary Clinton - ABC News)</p>
<p>"Instead, Clinton began reaching for the political stars. At the age of 13, she helped canvass the south side of Chicago in the 1960 elections and later volunteered for Republican Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election. </p>
<p>"My best friend and I became quote ‘Goldwater Girls,’ Clinton said. “We got to wear cowboy hats. We had a sash that said, you know, I voted AUH2O. I mean, it was really a lot of fun.” </p>
<p>But it was more than fun that drove Clinton to the Republican camp. </p>
<p>“Medicare and Medicaid was a big part of [Goldwater’s] platform, or the civil rights law – maybe it’s not such a bad idea, to kind of require that people treat each other in a civil way,” Clinton said of her thinking and political leanings as a teenager. </p>
<p>In 1965, Clinton graduated from high school and headed off to Wellesley College, where her political views and self-perception would take a drastic turn."</p>
<p>What is your problem with what Hillary is saying? What did she say that contradicted what I posted here? When did she say she was working hard for Civil Rights as a 15 year old? What did she say that merits Novak going off on her?</p>
<p>I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so what is your thinking?</p>
<p>Just to speed things along.</p>
<p>Novak…</p>
<p>[RealClearPolitics</a> - Articles - Hillary, King and Goldwater](<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/hillary_king_and_goldwater.html]RealClearPolitics”>RealClearPolitics - Articles - Hillary, King and Goldwater)</p>
<p>"While Hillary Rodham Clinton came out second best to Barack Obama in their long-range oratorical duel at Selma, Ala., the real problem with her visit there a week ago concerned her March 4 speech’s claim of her attachment to Martin Luther King Jr. as a high school student in 1963. How, then, could she be a “Goldwater girl” in the next year’s presidential election?</p>
<p>“As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.” </p>
<p>The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton’s temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy. Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 voting rights bill was not incidental to his run for the White House but an integral element of conscious departure from Republican tradition that contributed to his disastrous performance."</p>
<p>There is no incompatibilty between being a Goldwater girl and her experience listening to Dr. King. You can be a Goldwater girl and you could have had the opportunity to listen to Dr. King. She did not say she was working hard for Civil Rights at age 16.</p>
<p>“While Clinton was re-inventing her past,”</p>
<p>Where did she re-invent her past?</p>
<p>Novak is a *****.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not quite sure you understood my point, because I was implying that people were saying that in regards to Obama, which doesn’t make much sense. If the Clintons are the better campaigners, the more tactical campaigners, then they are the ones best suited for the general election. The polls back that up, and Obama is a huge huge wildcard.</p>
<p>Combination of 1. Goldwater Girl and 2. The use of race-baiting by Clinton in SC makes me question how racist Clinton is or isn’t.</p>
<p>gottaloveucla, sometimes I actually just think you’re a ■■■■■, because really, I didn’t think anyone would be stupid enough to say some of the things you do seriously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is the implication that as a youth she was just like any other young person who was interested in hearing MLK. The statement and its context leaves the impression that she identified with King and his effort, even claiming it a “great privilege” to hear it. Then she went on and continued to support Republican policy. Once again, the issue does not concern her evolution on these matters. Kids tend to evolve as they grow. The issue concerns the implication that she has a developed pedigree when it comes to identifying with civil rights. There wasn’t just one salient fact about those times. There were two. Yet Hillary mentioned only one of them because that fact alone, gutted of the context created by the second salient fact, was beneficial to her. The second salient fact is that she supported a campaign that was diametrically opposed to the very issue that ultimately drove her to attend the MLK speech. She ought not have stated one without the other, taking advantage of the ignorance of her audience so that she might score political points. That shows utter contempt for her constituents.</p>
<p>I marvel that you cannot see this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, the issue does not concern her “working hard” for anything. It concerns integrity, being transparent and honest with one’s statements, rather than employing her brand of sleight of hand. It is reasonable to assume she was taking advantage of those people, that she knew that her speaking of her “great privilege” and of King’s encouragement to “stay awake during the great revolution” that MLK was leading for a ‘better America’, would cause her audience to assume she was a young supporter in King’s audience. The evidence, however, is quite clear that she was an ardent supporter of King’s enemy at the time, a fact that her audience would have thought absolutely necessary to know in order to understand who they were dealing with. Because of this, people are right to feel she is dishonest—that she hid vital facts from them in order to score points. Novak was quite right to tell the truth here.</p>
<p>Dross, will you please dissect the meaning of Obama being considered black? I just don’t understand why this is accepted. Same with Tiger Woods. I know there is racism quicksand here in that asking ‘why is he defined as black’ suggests that it would be better if he wasn’t, as in ‘at least he has some white blood.’ Perhaps the folly of dividing up the species into labels is revealed in this question. Just one of the many things that bothers me about assumptions. It’s all so weird.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, I am not going to insult you like you insulted me earlier.</p>
<p>Try and read Novak again. </p>
<p>What you said Hillary did, did not happen. </p>
<p>Novak was wrong. He talked about the incompatibility of two issues when there wasn’t an incompatibility.</p>
<p>I am also 100% sure that what Clinton said in Selma and what she said about her youth were 100% compatible. (You know I like 100%).</p>
<p>“While Clinton was re-inventing her past”</p>
<p>Novak said this as a fact. There was nothing in Novak’s column that substantiated this.</p>
<p>Since I deal with probability for a living, the probabilty that Clinton was reinventing her past, using the facts Novak used in his column was 0%.</p>
<p>0%.</p>
<p>I am 100% sure Novak did not use any facts.</p>
<p>I don’t see what you see because what you see did not happen.</p>
<p>I suggest when you want to learn anything about Hillary Clinton, you use a source different than Robert Novak.</p>
<p>And Drosselmeier, I suggest you read rorosen’s post #279 (And his other posts. He writes very well).</p>
<p>Have a great day.</p>