<p>What activities are you referring to?</p>
<p>When I hear the fact that the Clinton campaign is belaboring the issue, it makes me want to vote for anyone but Clinton, so maybe Bedhead has a point.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the Clinton reaction just emphasizes the drama and scandal that another Clinton in the White house could bring. I think her campaign should really re-consider their strategy as it relates to the comment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You yourself said it doesn’t have this effect when you said it makes you want to vote for Clinton. I am solidly pro-Obama, but it disgusts me and makes me feel sorry for Clinton. Don’t make this about Obama. It’s about the media.</p>
<p>And 1sokkermom clearly doesn’t understand a) the bounds of rapidly disintegrating (already disintegrated) journalistic ethics and b) the fact that the media designates front-runners and covers the horse race in a most ridiculous fashion that has little to do with anything other than what’s the easiest story to tell. Guiliani, one may recall, was one anointed front-runner for awhile. And at that time, McCain’s campaign was dying in the media. Was that a conspiracy?</p>
<p>The issue as I see it (and I think the remark was in poor taste) is not that the candidates’ children should be allowed to campaign for their parents. But if said child is an adult, then the child should face the same rules as everybody else. Why should Chelsea campaign for her mother by standing there or making phone calls, but reporters not be allowed to ask her questions? Seems to me the Clintons want the best of both worlds. They want to put her in the spotlight, but not have the spotlight show too much.</p>
<p>At first glance, it looks like the MSNBC reporter made a mistake, has apologized and we should all move on. The more the Clintons call attention to this, the more we look into it and see that, although he should have chosen a better word, he was right.</p>
<p>Bedhead missed my point about the media completely. It was pretty simple. It really had not much to do with the disintegration or ethical component of the media, but rather people’s reaction to the media. </p>
<p>I did not once hear the pro-Clinton voters demanding equal time in the media for the other candidates when their candidate was getting favorable treatment. :o</p>
<p>BedHead: Sorry, that was my goof. What I meant was that I do think the media does it because they’re pro-Obama, but I think it backfires. I’m undecided-- frankly, because I think their policies are very similar, so it comes down to personality or something else. I admit-- I am leaning towards voting my gender, pure and simple. And when I hear comments like this, they push me in the direction of supporting Clinton even more.</p>
<p>sokkermom: I wasn’t suggesting that distasteful remarks be used against other candidates; I am wondering why having other well-known people campaigning for someone-- whether he/she is a relative or not-- and it’s perfectly fine-- they’re not being “pimped out.” I don’t get it.</p>
<p>personally, I think Bill Oreilly and Rush Limbaugh are much more offensive than anything I’ve heard on MSNBC.</p>
<p>The whole thing with Oreilly denying that there are homeless veterans is WAY more significant than a dumb remark made by a journalist trying to be ‘hip’. I’m sure if he had an extra second to think about his choice of words, he might have used ‘utilized’ instead of ‘pimped’. Too bad our mouths move faster than our brains sometimes.</p>
<p>“sokkermom: I wasn’t suggesting that distasteful remarks be used against other candidates; I am wondering why having other well-known people campaigning for someone-- whether he/she is a relative or not-- and it’s perfectly fine-- they’re not being “pimped out.” I don’t get it.”</p>
<p>Because Schuster is a jerk and he happened to be the fill-in anchor that night. That’s all. If Matthews had been in place, Schuster would have been stuck doing his stupid little reports and would have had less time for editorial comments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As an Obama supporter, I would ask that you reconsider this viewpoint. I was a staunch Bill Clinton supporter, and reject the blanket vilification that Republicans have done because he was a pretty damned satisfactory president and they couldn’t stand this truth (and compared to Junior, gasp the comparison couldn’t be more stark in terms of smarts, positive effect on our standing in the world, etc.) though certainly not without some problems.</p>
<p>The problem is Hillary simply won’t win against McCain. Her negatives are too high. I have friends who are important enough to have sat down with her for one-on-ones as she has run her campaign. I don’t doubt that she is every bit as smart and as warm in these contexts as everybody raves. But this doesn’t come across when she speaks to crowds or on television. And while policy should be what matters, let’s face it: likeability is important in this country.</p>
<p>The other thing: the media has actually been pretty disingenuous in my opinion since Super Tuesday. Look at where Obama was 30 days before the election: 20 points at least down in the polls. Look who had tremendous name recognition: Clinton; political recognition doesn’t get better than this. Look at who’s been the more successful fundraiser by far in the New Year. If this were a football game, all the fair newscasters would be saying all the momentum has shifted to Team Obama.</p>
<p>Obama just picked up Washington, Louisiana, and what was it Nebraska. I saw the media saying things will still be close. The real analysis is that Obama’s running the table for all intents and purposes. Hillary is close to toast. I don’t delight in this, except that I think we’ll have a better election process with McCain-Obama than living through another redux of ant-Clinton swill.</p>
<p>If you really have no problem policywise with Obama, I implore you support him. A vote for Hillary will ultimately be a vote for McCain, effectively speaking, if she gets the nomination.</p>
<p>^ I agree.</p>
<p>What some of us Independents are trying to figure out, is who has the best plan to address the economy? I am not sure I know that yet.</p>
<p>I honestly do not believe McCain stands a chance. Too many Americans are now against this war and want to see it end. Plus, I don’t think he does well in debates; both Clinton and Obama are far superior to him in this regard.</p>
<p>After giving it some thought, I think we’ve had enough men in that office. I, for one, think a woman might be able to do a better job. Early surveys/polls supported Edwards as the only candidate who could beat McCain in a debate. No one paid much attention to that, so now we’re stuck with these 2. I really don’t like either one of them that much. Maybe if Edwards is still on the ticket in May (in my primary), I’ll just vote for him instead.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, if you look at what people care about when they are polled, the war has fallen far down the list. Iraq isn’t in the news much these days. This is entirely tragic in my view since it still drains our blood as well as our coffers. But don’t overlook the complete lack of memory of the American electorate.</p>
<p>To tell you how likely it is McCain could win: a member of that hated-by-Fox-News category liberal San Francisco democrat friend of mine told me that she went to hear McCain speak a couple of years ago and found him really compelling and likeable. She said when she actually reviewed his policy positions, she didn’t like him so much, but that his appeal was strong and palpable. And the fact is: McCain is charming.</p>
<p>McCain is getting a lot of flak from his own party right now, but that may only seek to burnish his image in the general election. After all, it is independents that purportedly decide political races. Do not underestimate John McCain. Don’t underestimate the ability of Americans to forget that the Republican party (a president and six-year Congressional majority) got us squarely into the trouble we are in in terms of the war and the economy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d like to see a good woman president too. As much a supporter of the Clintons as I have been, where HRC’s campaign really lost me for good was when Bill opened his mouth against Obama. All the good work Hillary did getting her own credibility together and establishing her own record was really diminished by this, IMO. It turned her into the “wife candidate” rather than Senator Clinton.</p>
<p>It made me think about how angry I was at the time when a ne’er done well Bush made it to the national stage via a Texas governorship. He never would have been in that position had daddy not been president. Jeb Bush, as much as I don’t like his politics, wasn’t a second-rater, but c’mon George W. Bush was always pretty pathetic. Though as president, he’s gotten a lot more pathetic in visible ways. Anyway, I resented W’s privilege in this regard, and I was reminded of HRC’s privilege in this regard. (Oh by the way, comparisons of whip-smart HRC and W end right there).</p>
<p>There may be people who complain Clinton hasn’t done enough for upstate NY, but I think she’s tried. And she’s been elected by overwhelming majorities in almost every NY county, I think there were only two or three that didn’t vote for her in the last election.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But, BedHead, don’t you think that, if/when McCain is nominated, the republicans will make sure that the election is about defense, because that is McCain’s claim to fame?</p>
<p>Defense/miltary/war are the only things McCain can talk about with some authority; he doesn’t seem to know much about the economy. So whether Clinton or Obama wins the nomination, he or she will ensure that Iraq is brought up at every turn. At this point, I have to believe McCain is toast, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a real problem with not supporting a qualified female candidate-- simply because of something a man did (husband or not) that may have sabotaged or undermined her campaign in some way. I voted for Bill, too, but I’m not really paying much attention to him in this election; after all, this is her campaign, not his. I personally see her as a very strong and qualified woman. I may not like her personality, but I feel about elected officials like I do a good doctor. As long as they’re qualified and know what they’re doing, their personality is the least of my concern. </p>
<p>Trust is another issue, and I do think she has made some bad decisions (ie, Iraq) and attempted to put a good spin on that, and that bothers me. On the other hand, Obama is only 46. I don’t know that he’s any more trustworthy than Clinton; I just think he’s lived less years than she and been in the public eye a lot less, and time (lack of) and little spotlight, relative to Clinton, are on his side at this point. Give him until he’s 60+ and has held equally high profile positions, and shine the spotlight on him then.</p>
<p>Again, I’m not falling over either one of them at this point.</p>
<p>I’m not worried about Bill during the campaign or if he were first Hubby, but I really hate the idea that our first woman president would be the wife of a former president. Makes me think of Eva Peron and other similar examples…</p>
<p>That’s only a minor reason for not having voted for Clinton in the primaries - I’ll vote for her against McCain any day.</p>
<p>Did y’all see that her campaign manager has left? Looking like a sinking ship …</p>
<p>If the current Maine results hold out, it will be interesting to see the Clinton spin. Clinton has stated that Obama can only win in states with a high African American population, and hasn’t been able to capture the white votes. </p>
<p>I wonder if they know the demographics in Maine?
(I think the latest census shows the African American population to be around 0.4 %)</p>
<p>Iowa is not exactly diverse either, right?</p>
<p>Iowa has five times as many blacks proportionally as Maine. 2006 census shows Iowa to have had a black population of 2.5%. Besides, Iowa was a fluke. ;)</p>
<p>Seriously, how can Clinton tout her wonderful management skills and experience when she keeps firing her staff? Don’t forget, Bill Shaheen (from NH) was her national campaign co-chair until he got fired. I guess if she made it to the white house there would just be a revolving door for all her staff ? One could conjecture that if you can’t even pick a competent campaign staff, how could you possibly surround yourself with competent advisers?</p>
<p>So much for <em>experience</em>…
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nailed it. She’s all over this state, having visited every county during her first year in office, so it was a re-visit everywhere when she announced. That’s pretty impressive. </p>
<p>It’s a difficult economy up here. It’s just whining to blame her for upstate’s issues, basically a post-l960’s decline in manufacturing cities and small family farms, meanwhile downstate NYC bounced back from the recession.</p>
<p>She’s well-balanced on the upstate/downstate issue, unlike the Albany state legislators who are very polarized politically and on upstate/downstate balances. So if you want to disagree, go ahead, but find other things to fuss with, IMHO. She also works seamlessly with her co-senator, democrat Chuck Shumer. </p>
<p>Most people I converse with instate consider her a hardworking, excellent state senator who started out humbly when everyone expected her to be high maintenance right after the White House. Instead, she worked on some low-level committees very hard, and worked her way up. </p>
<p>Instate, people who object to her do so for all kinds of personal reasons, rather than criticize her dilligence as a senator. (And she’s not my candidate, yet I say this.)</p>