Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Another Reason Why No One Should Vote For Sen Clinton
While claiming competence as the reason to vote for her she implemented a strategy for winning the delegate race without bothering to learn the rules under which they are awarded. She is a micromanger planning in an imaginary world where things work like she thinks things should work insted of preparing for the real one. This is the same kind of core incompetence that led to our failures in Iraq. She and her advisors planned her campeign the same way Bush and his planned the occupation of Iraq. Both would have wone if the world worked the way their fantasies do.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/theyre-not-a-ma.html
Advertisement
Comments (21)
And a reason why no one should vote for Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc
February 18, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
javascript:void(0);
Reply
Pathetic to accuse him of doing anything wrong. He's quoting the Constitution, FDR, JFK, Dr. King...
Gov. Patrick endorsed him long ago. who cares? get over yourself.
February 18, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. If that is the best the supporters of Sen Clinton can come up with as an argument against Sen Obama, it is a compelling reason to vote for him.
February 18, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on. You know it's not the quoting of FDR, Constitution, etc. You're, if I can quote Obama talking points, being intellectually dishonest here. It's the fact that he lifted the speech basically word for word.
This is not the best argument against Obama. That would be his lack of judgment and his playing of politics as usual, which you can see in my past blog posts if you simply click on my name.
Ben--never been a better response!
February 18, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it plagerism if me Sen Obama and Gov Patrick discuss this topic over years and come to the same conclusion? No, and Gov Patric said it is not. They are allis and have advised each other on matters political and rhetorical.
You and the campaign of Sen Clinton are trying to make a mountian out of a mole hill trying to hide the fact that she has run a flawed campaign from the start. She tried to run as the experienced candidate when she did not have more experience in government, in a year when the voters want change, using a strategy that assumed that she would face no stiff competition and would wrap up the nomination on super Tuesday. Let me see that makes her wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Not to mention wrong on the war, the defining issue of her tenure in the senate, and wrong on how to get healthcare through durring her husbands presidency. Not the kind of record one would like to run on!
February 18, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Is it plagerism if me Sen Obama and Gov Patrick discuss this topic over years and come to the same conclusion?"
Who said it was? We were talking about the identical speeches.
Obama has run on the idea that he is through with "old politics" but as evidenced in this very speech, neither he nor his ideas are anything new.
He's a sneaky Senator, arguing he doesn't take money from lobbyists but then employing them and seeking donations from their wives.
He's a sneaky Senator, arguing he wants universal health care but then leaving millions uninsured under his plan. Then having the audacity to use 94 era attacks against Hillary's health care plan.
He's a sneaky Senator, arguing he's past race but then sending his surrogate Jesse Jackson Jr. out to insinuate Hillary doesn't care about black people because she didn't publicly cry after Katrina and to scare black congressman into voting for him asking "Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?"
Enough Obama! Fulfill your words with deeds and I'll gladly vote for you in 8 years.
February 18, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the best reader blogers on this site has already answered your words v. deeds argument here - http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/lets-contrast-obama-and-clinto.php
You keep on attacking. While he keeps on winning. It is not enough to be against something. If you want to win the election you have to be for something and manage your campeign well. She made her campeign about a return to the 90's and then missmanaged it. Let the results speak for themselves - http://www.obamaiswinning.com/
February 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he's such a good reader blogger, why didn't he compare them fairly? He compared Clinton's passed legislation to Obama's introduced bills. That's simply idiotic.
My comment there:
Lame. Obama takes money from lobbyists' wives, and employs them in his campaign. He'll owe them just as much in the end.
As far as a real comparison, how about using the same standard for both of them? You know, laws enacted to laws enacted, not laws enacted to bills introduced. Ha! Do you even try?
How about a comparison of their attendance in the Senate.
"Barack Obama won't win any Senate attendance awards during the 2008 presidential campaign -- he has racked up three times as many missed votes as challenger Hillary Clinton since January, according to roll call records."
Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709240004
I stand for, as Hillary does, universal health care, increased green technology and environmental standards, ending the war in Iraq sensibly, restoring America's image abroad, etc
February 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are the exact things that Sen Obama stands for. There is little or no difference on on any issue (A mandate with no enforcement mecanism is a mandate in name only). It boils down to who is the best leader and manager. Obama has the best managed, most organized campeign and is inspiring people all over the nation to folow where he leads. She is spending faster than she can raise and her campaign is floundering. If she does manage to pull it out (a big if) it will be in spite of her management so far and not due to it.
February 18, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or it will be due to her ability to recognize her mistakes and adapt quickly to changing situations, which I think are important qualities in a leader. We'll see what happens. I believe she's the better candidate. But good luck to your guy. I like him, I just hate his hypocritical message of being above "politics as usual".
What's most important is at the end of the day, we come together to support the nominee who, in your own words, represents the "exact things" we stand for. Dems 08.
February 18, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the best response to that.
February 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So great...I *heart* you ben.
February 18, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your opinion is irrelevant, what you think or say is irrelevant, now shut up and craw back under your mother's basement.
February 18, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I just made "Recomended Reader Posts" for the first time, so Nanner, Nanner, and other school yard taunts.
February 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me you already have plenty of reasons not to vote for Sen. Clinton, what's one more?
Frankly, you have worked up yourselves into such an anti-Clinton hysteria that I wonder what you will do with yourselves if she becomes the nominee? Stay at home? Vote for Nader? Pray for a third-party run by Obama?
February 18, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will probably hold my nose and vote for her in the unlikely event that she gets the nomination. I will do so because I know the next president will get to nominate several justices to the SCOTUS. It will not be an easy call though. I can understand those who would refuse to make it.
February 18, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a strange argument to make when just above you had this to say about the issues and Clinton:
"Those are the exact things that Sen Obama stands for. There is little or no difference on on any issue"
So you will hold your nose and vote for someone who stands for on the issues exactly what you believe in?
Bizarre.
Or is this the Obama supporters politics of fear--pick my guy, or else.???
February 18, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No this is not trying to scare anyone in to voting for Obama. It is my honest assesment of Sen Clinton. She may have positions I agree with but she is a divisive figure and a poor manager. She has the potential to hurt the progressive causes I believe in more than any five Republicans not seated on the supreme court.
Name the three politicians who have done the gratest damage to conservative principals and the GOP. They are Hoover, Nixon, and Bush II. I think she could be just as bad for our side. At best she will be an adequate president.
Sen Obama on the other hand has the potential to be a transformational president like FDR or (even if the transformation was for the worse) Regan. He will at least try to, she will not because she thinks that that kind of change is imposible and she will not make any great effort in what she feels is a foolishly unrealistic endeavor.
Either of them is likely to be an adequate president. If either of them were adequate I would be fine with that. But it is my opinion that this is the best we can expect from her and the least we can expect from him.
February 18, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obsidian Wings' makes a viable and rational argument. This is not the first time comments have been made about the way Clinton runs her campaign.
It has been said Clinton believed she would have Super Tuesday wrapped up to become the presumptive candidate. Therefore without considering she might lose the campaign made no effort to plan ahead. In tandem with the fact she ran out of money ($175 million dollars) is another worrisome indication of her competence as a leader.
Presuming something without taking into account different scenarios ought to give her supporters pause on how well she will manage events as they unfold.
World events are constantly in flux. Without foresight and forethought Hillary jeopardized her campaign ... will she jeopardize America, too.
Equally important Hillary's propensity to attack and blame others does not bode well for the nation. We've been through that for the past 7 years.
February 18, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
another_reader:
Your arguments lose a lot of credibility when you make exaggerated statements.
The identical "speeches" which you cite are not identical speeches, but identical phrases.
Why does this make a difference? Because the phrases that Mr. Obama uses take up about 1 minute of that 40-minute speech he gave.
Ms. Clinton herself "plagiarizes" Mr. Obama. Just Google "Clinton copies Obama chants".
And frankly, who cares if she does? I don't care. Actually, I hope she uses them more - they all usually fall flat on her face when she tries.
February 18, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary sure didn't care to show up to vote against the telecom immunity amendment, while she was in Washington.
If this plagiarism nonsense gets legs, then, yes, America will get the president it deserves. Hillary has run a campaign Karl Rove would be proud of. If we're ready to at least make an effort to get past that, it will be a great thing. If not, calling us to our baser instincts just like Bush did will bring us more wars (under Hillary or McCain), a watered down health care plan with little chance of passing (who is HIllary going to persuade to vote for it? The only way she reaches across the aisle is by caving to Republicans), and more stellar economic choices like the Clinton administration repealing the Glass-Steagall Act that regulated the financial industry. That little judgment gem made Robert Rubin rich, and contributed to the subprime and credit debacle we're in now, with the help of the Bush Administration. The Telecommunications Bill which destroyed the media, NAFTA (Hillary was for it before she was against it), cheerfully voting to allow cluster bombs -- yes, Hillary is a saint and a paragon of good judgment. Her judgments are only about what help her win.
I hope we're better than that.
February 19, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment