<p>Hillary has yet to articulate anything substantive either. But I always feel that she is YELLING at us in a horrible tone. Her voice sounds like the noise you hear when you run your fingernail along the blackboard, only much louder.</p>
<p>She is the only candidate that has the experience to change the solutions on day one, blah blah blah…she has been changing for 35 years, blah blah blah She can make love not war blah blah blah her hubby never inhaled blah blah blah and her daughter is NOT being <em>used</em> for her self indulgence blah blah blah and Obama is no good blah blah blah and I am better than no good blah blah blah and I don’t have to play by the rules or show my tax returns, blah blah blah</p>
<p>Well, I can say this: I’ve said that “of course” I’ll vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, but this kind of foolishness, coupled with the Michigan/Florida shenanigans, have made me seriously start thinking “third party” again. She may win the battle and lose the world with her scorched earth tactics.</p>
<p>This part just mystifies me. She went to a big business law firm for 16 years. There’s nothing wrong with that – I did the same out of law school – but how does this experience relate to being president? Especially when compared to being in the state legislature and teaching constitutional law?</p>
<p>Frankly, if being a partner in a big firm is “experience” in presidential terms, my circle of acquaintance includes about 25 women who’ve done it for longer than Hillary did, and at bigger, better law firms than the #1 firm in Arkansas.</p>
<p>Hanna,
The “experience” theme wasn’t working. She really can’t explain what experience she has that qualifies her to be President. She saw that the “change” theme was working for Obama, so she ran with it. Heck, if change is good, 35 years of it must be better. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Didn’t she overhaul the entire education system in Arkansas in a couple of weeks? Did that not lead to the famous speech:</p>
<p>"When I took over the gubernatorial reins of Arkansas --with Bill-- the system of education was at the very edge of a deep precipice. Now, after a few weeks of consultations with the NEA, I am so happy to report that we have made a huge leap … forward.
Your Co-governor.<br>
PS This message was endorsed by the Rose Law Firm and paid by my weekend billable hours. "</p>
<p>Well, it sure isn’t going to work against McCain. It was insanity to toot the experience horn once he started winning. If she makes the race about experience, he blows her (and practically everyone else in the federal government) out of the water.</p>
<p>Hanna, I’ve been wondering why Obama’s campaign hasn’t made more of this “35 years of experience” bs. That means that everything she’s done since law school counts as experience toward running the country, when indeed she was working in a public interest law firm, then a corporate law firm, then being first lady a lot. Obama has more time in elected office than she does. But they haven’t hit on how hollow her “experience” really is. Of course, if she IS the nominee, as I’ve written before, McCain will take that word “experience” and ram it down her throat. </p>
<p>I agree, I don’t see where her “substance” is any greater than Obama’s. She makes all these lofty promises about “I’ll do this and I’ll do that and I’ll put food on the table and everyone will get a Christmas tree every day” (to borrow from David Brooks). But all I can think of is that if these promises–which are also just cheap words–turn out like her health care initiative in the 90s, people had better have a Plan B for putting food on the table.</p>
<p>“I’ve been wondering why Obama’s campaign hasn’t made more of this”</p>
<p>I have no inside scoop, but I’ve assumed that since his pitch is “I represent new politics, I want to shake my enemies’ hands,” they’ve made an intentional choice to stay away from overt attacks, even if they are justified. They’ve shown pretty good strategic judgment so far, so I hope this is the right choice. Speaking from the heart of the Obama base (I lived in his state legislative district for most of my life), I certainly don’t want to see the two Democrats ripping each other to shreds.</p>
<p>The whole plagiarism thing is a tempest in teapot that will disappear a soon as the Wisconsin primary gives everyone something else to talk about.</p>
<p>I agree that Obama has apparently tried harder to run a positive campaign. And in general you can tell who is behind in a campaign by who is running negative ads and blowing up nonsense into bogus “issues.” It’s simple desperation. If your fastball isn’t working you gotta start throwing curves.</p>
<p>I went to the opening Saturday of Obama’s Texas HQ and sat in on a precinct chair training mtg, just to see what it was all about. The two guys leading it were funny and charismatic. One person in the audience asked whether there was a script to follow when making calls, and the guys reassured them that yes, there was, and that one key principle is to stay positive and not talk poorly of Clinton, or anyone. From the audience, someone asked, “Even Bush?!?!” andd they nodded and said, “Yes, even Bush.” :)</p>
<p>I have no problem with his speeches and hope to get to the just announced rally at Reunion Arena in Dallas on Wednesday. The line should be very long with supporters from Dallas, Ft. Worth, the mid-cities and the surrounding suburbs.</p>
<p>Tomorrow, early voting begins and I plan to be at the polling station to vote for Change!</p>
<p>What’s this about Michelle Obama saying that for the first time she’s proud of the U.S?? I just saw a quick blurb on CNN about it. What’s she talking about?</p>
<p>“mini - correct me if I’m wrong (I’m too lazy to search this out amongst your 7000+ posts!), but didn’t you identify yourself as a Republican prior to this primary? If so, I have to say I’m impressed that you’ve obviously become so passionate about this election… not just that you’re voting out of your comfort zone, but that you’ve obviously spent a LOT of time researching and debating a candidate that you wouldn’t have previously supported.”</p>
<p>I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I voted for a Republican for Pres. ONCE in my life - John McCain in the 2000 primary - in a vote I don’t regret. I voted for a Democrat for PRES once in my life - Bill Clinton in 1992 - in a vote I very much regret, as it makes me complicit (in a very small way) in genocide. </p>
<p>I am supporting Obama, who I consider to be a rightwing Democrat, and whose policies and general orientation I consider closer to George Bush’s than they are to mine. I am supporting him DESPITE his policies (other than Iraq) rather than because of them, on the basis of symbolism, and the fact that he talks good. And it is so rare that there is a candidate with good symbolism who talks good, I think that is way more than sufficient reason, especially as my expectations for a President are very low.</p>
<p>Since David Axelrod wrote speeches and worked the campaigns of both Deval Patrick and Barack Obama, it seems reasonable that the two candidates should use the same message.</p>
<p>I just heard this story. I wonder why the Obama campaign doesn’t ask her why she even lied about her name?! :eek: That could be the ultimate in “Plagiarism”.</p>
<p>That statement was based on a 1995 interview with Mrs. Clinton during her visit to Nepal. "Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim “worked” well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton’s memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.</p>
<p>Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking. Indeed, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton named Jennifer Hanley phrased it like this in a statement in October 2006, conceding that the tale was untrue but nonetheless charming: “It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add.”</p>