DISQUS

NMP · 1 year ago

"Her attempt to over-anti-anti-Semitism Obama also read a bit awkward." A "bit awkard"? How about petty and dispicable! Given the attempts of her campaign to portray him as a muslim manchurian candidate, I'm surprised by the lack of outrage.

Craig Hickman · 1 year ago

I have to disagree that Hillary did "fine." She was childish, defensive, insisted on having the last word, complained about having the first word, messed up the pronunciation of a Russian leader's name and blew it off with a valley-girl "Whatever", invoked a TV comedy sketch to make a point in a presidential debate, refused to release her tax returns or donor lists and said she hadnt had the time to do it (I thought "bitches" got stuff done, as said comedy show joked), reminded an economically ravished populace that she's got $5 million cash on had to lend to her inept campaign, and played the victim card whenever and wherever possible. "Poor, poor me," her lyrics and body language sang all night.


Poor her, indeed.



No disrespect, but she didn't do fine at all.

D. · 1 year ago

Isn't Obama's idea of going into Pakistan the same sort of unilateralist thought that got led us into Iraq? And there's no way Obama's Senate campaign was "high stakes;" he was running against Alan Keyes.


I call it a draw. Neither really stood out above the other. Clinton poured on the whining when necessary, but the crowd caught on to it almost instantly. And Obama's "denouncing/rejecting" bit was VERY good.



Russert was equally brutal to both. He's good for creating the "um...well...." moment.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

Spot on, Craig Hickman! Spot on!


I'll say it again; I completely agree with you CH but it is no secret that I am NOT trying to overtly or covertly aide Senator Clinton in any way. I will say that she held her ground during the first 15 minutes of healthcare ping pong but so did Senator Obama, so that exchange was a draw. After that, she was thoroughly served her loss on a silver platter by Senator Obama with every question.



OOO

Anonymous · 1 year ago

FYI, John Lewis switched his support to Obama today.


http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/02/27/Lewis_0228_web.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

Jack Turner · 1 year ago

just to be clear. my overall assessment is based on READING the transcript, so i missed all those verbal or visual cues.

CM · 1 year ago

"D. said...
Isn't Obama's idea of going into Pakistan the same sort of unilateralist thought that got led us into Iraq? And there's no way Obama's Senate campaign was "high stakes;" he was running against Alan Keyes."



D.: Obama didn't say he was going to unilaterally invade Pakistan - it was embarrassing to hear Hillary claim Obama said he was going to bomb Pakistan. Laughing at that ridiculous comment as Obama did was the right response. If you're going to comment on a post, you should read the post first.



Also, when Obama made that speech, Alan Keyes was not part of the picture yet. He had to get through a crowded primary field. Do you remember what the atmosphere was like back then? The media was acting as head cheerleader and people who were against the war were ridiculed as unpatriotic, crazy dirty hippies. Not the easiest stance to take when you're running for US Senate.

NMP · 1 year ago

d.,


He was not yet the Democratic nominee when he made that speech. It was still primary season, and he was running against an established, well-financed candidate. Senator Obama has NEVER suggested, nor would he, sending ground troops into Pakistan. Strategic strikes against targest of high value have long been the policy of US, and go on all the time without media fan fair. Did you know about the strategic strike in Pakistan last month--conducted WITHOUT Pakistan's approval--which killed the 3rd ranking Al Qaeda figure. Most people didn't. And Pakistan did not descend into chaos as Clinton and Republicans warned.

D. · 1 year ago

nmp (and cm as well),
Yes, I knew about the airstrike.



Don't get me wrong, this is one of a few (maybe the only one) of his ideas that I'm actually for. I don't care wheter Pakistan falls into chaos if we snatch bin Laden out. I don't have a problem with the statement (my personal-find where he is and start throwing nukes).



It just concerns me when I hear people saying "we shouldn't have gone into Iraq on our own" standing up and cheering for this idea. Either we bomb them on our own, or invade them on our own. Either way, it's unilateral action. And I don't see how people can support that NOW when it was a big, bad idea back in 2002.



Without arguing the "why" of the action...what's changed to make unilateralism a good idea now?

Rhonda · 1 year ago

I'm listening to Michael Baisden, Roland Martin is on...he is talking about the black leadership and how they aren't working for themselves and that they are working for their constituencies. He was like these people want to keep their jobs. You guys were all talking about people running against those in the CBC who aren't looking out for the best interests of their people. Roland Martin said that a 30-year old pastor is about to run against 68-year old John Lewis for re-election. He believes that it has something to do with it. He said that these people are taking those in the CBC to task for their support for the Clintons.


P.S. Bill Clinton endorsed the Million Man March which was orchestrated by Farrakan, so should someone ask the Clintons about Farrakan? I am going to throw this at those Clinton supporters who keep bringing it up and trying to make a big issue out of it. I was at the Million Family March in 2000 by the way.

Craig Hickman · 1 year ago

Rhonda said...


"P.S. Bill Clinton endorsed the Million Man March which was orchestrated by Farrakan, so should someone ask the Clintons about Farrakan? I am going to throw this at those Clinton supporters who keep bringing it up and trying to make a big issue out of it. I was at the Million Family March in 2000 by the way."



::



Thank you for this.

Rhonda · 1 year ago

I think that Tim Russert and MSNBC, came at both Clinton and Obama. Her complaining about getting it harder and how Obama never gets any queestion fell flat. She tries so hard and it can get tiring. Obama was cornered about public financing and he needs to accept public financing. It would be the biggest mistake. I believe that he has re-thought and wants to backtrack but it will look like he didnt keep his promise. As a voter, who is publically financing him, I wouldnt mind. Obama was strong on his discussion of engaging the American people and transparency, that was one of the initial reasons why I began supporting him. His grassroots support is amazing. When you allow special interests to finance your entire campaign, they own you. As of right now, over 1 million small donors own the majority of Obama's campaign. They says a lot.

Caged Lion · 1 year ago

Obama would be an idiot to accept public financing. The rebublicans have proven time and time again that they do not play "fairly" or by the rules. Look at the recent news: even now, McCain has faced questions about shadiness in his financing apparatus.


Obama--in principle at least--is being publically finance. One million doners. One Mil. Unheard of, I believe. He has a huge advantage and should use every advantage he has to counter the underhanded, and racially-tinged, assault he will have to endure.

Rhonda · 1 year ago

If there is a "media darling"- the crown needs to be handed to McCain. They love him.


"McCain has faced questions about shadiness in his financing apparatus"...yup I have been hearing enough reports about this.

Obama needs to accept public financing, he needs to, I cant stress it.



P.S. He is against special interests but his campaign is being run by lobbyists??