Hillary, stop playing the gender card
Hillary Clinton’s victory speech Tuesday night could have been a moment to reflect on the important issues, the important reasons why she won. It could have been a time to point out to superdelegates that they could give her immediate support by “logging on to Hillary Clinton.org”
Instead, She played the gender card. Again.
Why doesn’t someone tell her that’s not going to be a distraction from the numbers which show how unlikely it is that she would take over the delegate count by June 3. Don’t believe that’s the case, CNN let’s you see for yourself.
Hillary only won Pennsylvania 55-45, a number which if given to her in the remaining primaries and caucuses would leave her still behind Obama. Even with a 55-45 win in every race that remains, she would need 65 percent of the superdelegates remaining to give her their vote. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Instead, she will decide to play the role of the powerful, intelligent woman who refuses to give up and wants to win at all costs. I believe her to be a liar. Former President Bill Clinton suggests we should give her a break.
But I won’t be giving her any breaks, because how often do we go about our daily businesses despite sleep deprivation. That happens to everyone, but we won’t use it as an excuse to lie in hopes of advancing our careers.
Perhaps she should claim sleep deprivation for repeatedly playing the gender card while trying to suggest Obama uses race to his advantage. Obama ALWAYS comes out looking like the better person, because I think he is genuinely a good person. I unfortunately doubt that Hillary Clinton has common decency.
So when last night, CNN pointed out that exit polls showed 38 percent of voters planning to vote for a democrat no matter whether it’s Obama or Clinton, I consider myself alongside the other 62 percent. If Hillary purchases the superdelegate vote with her husbands book money and becomes the nominee, I will have no problem voting for McCain.
Because the only thing McCain lies about is being a Republican. And that kind of fib is alright with me.
Your post suggests you are more comfortable with lies from the Obama camp because he is a “genuinely good person,” which is, of course, the reason we were told it didn’t matter Bill Clinton was a liar too.
To me, a liar is a liar, and being a liar is therefore disqualified from being a “good person.”
Obama has lied repeatedly about his relationship with his minister and church, his relationship with indicted “fixer” Rezko, his positions on gun control, and the depth of his relationships with former domestic terrorists.
Is it not also a lie to totally mischaracterize something somebody else says for political gain (think McCain - hundred year war)?
McCain is a Republican, just not a conservative (isn’t it ironic that the “extreme” right keeps putting forth moderates, while the “uniters” of the left keep bringing the fringe). He’s been very up front about that so there’s certainly no lie there.
I get the impression it isn’t lying that bothers you. Just lies of those you don’t support for president.
Oh the word “mischaracterize,” I love it. Especially since Obama’s relationships with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright cannot be characterized by anyone outside those relationships. That’s like me trying to characterize my neighbors relationship with his rabbi.
You use the term “uniters” as a synonym for “extreme left,” which is a “conservative” ploy. In fact, I think I’ve heard those same terms used before — you must watch the great Bill O’Reilly.
If you’re going to regurgitate the words of others, take it elsewhere. This is the “no spin zone.”
Actually, the “mischaracterize” was in relation to Obama’s mangled use of a John McCain quote. I never attempted to characterize Obama’s relationships with anyone.
Since “mischaracterize” is exactly what Obama did, it isn’t really “spin” to point it out, is it?
As to “uniters,” it is used commonly as a sarcastic device by many on the right and center who have experienced the vitriol of the left first hand. If O’Reilly uses it I’m sure I wouldn’t be surprised but I have pretty much sworn off TV news for the last couple of years, so I don’t really know.
What I didn’t see in your comment is any acknowledgment that Obama, like Clinton, has lied this campaign season. Is he getting “a break?”
Take it elsewhere? Really? Okay then, but, just for the record, if people weren’t allowed to use (”regurgitate”) words others have used before, we would be constantly making up new words and no one would understand anything people were saying. Know what I shnerklop?
In fact, in calling Hillary a “liar,” aren’t you as well simply regurgitating what others have said (including, probably, Bill O’Reilly)? I’d recommend calling her a gnarfler going forward, to eliminate the possibility of unsightly and unintended regurgitation.
Perhaps you need to point out Obama’s lies this campaign season, as you seem to be sitting in anticipation of telling the world he was aware of Rev. Wright’s “hate speech.” Perhaps this is a good time to confess, I don’t fully disagree with all of Wright’s sentiments.
Oh my gosh, blasphemy! How dare we consider damning the great Church of the United States of America? How dare we consider befriending a former “domestic terrorist?”
Instead, we should befriend someone like McCain, who comes back from being a POW to find that his wife was in a serious car accident, but proceeds to cheat on her and remarry. Oops, that’s regurgitation.
And again, for the record, I am an unregistered independent who does not pledge allegiance to any presidential candidate.
If you don’t have a problem with the associations that is fine with me. My point wasn’t that he had the associations, but that he has consistently lied about them. You seemed to be drawing the line between Clinton and Obama based on the fact that HIllary is a liar. I was merely pointing out that Obama has been far less than honest as well.
If you prefer to give him a pass because you aren’t disturbed by the relationships, it is your right to do so. It is a free country where everyone is allowed to draw their own conclusions about the meaning of choices politicians make.
I would say that he has been reluctant to detail the level of his associations with people like Rev. Wright and Ayers. I don’t deny that he has lied many times in his political career (many lies which will surely become news in the general election, or earlier if Hillary has her way). But I don’t know if those lies can compared to Hillary putting herself under sniper fire and pretending that a woman had died because Hillary’s health insurance policies weren’t in place. Even if you like Hillary, I think those people like her because she comes across as a B to the isnitch. That’s what they want in a president.
I rather have someone like McCain who can stand at a MLK Day rally and admit he was wrong in voting against a national remembrance day. I rather have someone like Obama who refuses to throw his pastor under the bus.
However, I will concede that he might be holding back on throwing Wright under the bus because he wants those like-minded votes.
PT, you need to get HB over to this blog. Then we will have a left fielder (HB), a center fielder (MP) and right fielder (PT).
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion you wouldn’t be quite so quick to dismiss associations were the candidate a Republican who was involved with people who bombed…say…abortion clinics and were proud of it, and ministers who preached racism against black people.
Furthermore, I suspect you wouldn’t truck with their lying about those associations, nor would you be okay with a close friend of that candidate charged with a host of criminal activity, regardless of that candidate’s promise to bring hope-n-change.
But, like I said, I could be wrong.
For the record, I prefer to patrol left field from the left center gap, but it’s no problem to drift over towards the foul pole and grab this one.
I have far fewer quibbles with Mr. Wright’s comments than most, including Barack Obama himself, if today is any clue. Obama, by all rational measures, tacks as a very slightly left-of-center politician, far closer to the center than McCain - in this election cycle, particularly. Which is why Obama stands to garner a fair number of moderates come November if he can somehow navigate the absurdly conservative/inept mainstream television media.
All that being said, Jeremiah Wright is a crank. And to continue our baseball analogy, Wright belongs in the same eccentric bullpen as Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Al Sharpton, and every last breathing blonde bimbo standing in front of a camera at Fox News. Not pleasant company, but plenty of company out there on the fringe.
As for all this business about lying and liars? If there’s one thing the Bush Administration has accomplished, it is nullifying the impact of lies. These three candidates could lie themselves into a collective frenzy and January 20th would still bring relative truth. That’s the best news of all here - nowhere to go but up.
For the record HB, Obama is ranked the most liberal politician in the Senate. 95.5 rating in 2007, higher than even Ted Kennedy. McCain is far closer to the middle. Sometimes I wonder where you even get this stuff.
Once again PT, you are wrong. “Ministers who preach racism against black people,” come on. I think you should consider yourself lucky PT, that you weren’t a black child or teenager in the 1950s and 60s. If you had, maybe you wouldn’t consider Rev. Wright a “racist.”
Racism is defined as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”
If you think Wright preaches racism, you’re a very ignorant person. Not an ignorant liberal, or an ignorant conservative. An ignorant human being.
The “ranking” PT cites is from National Journal, a magazine that this month features a cover story which breathlessly cites:
“John McCain’s three years as the Navy’s lobbyist in the Senate opened up a new world - and new connections - for the war hero. The former POW quickly befriended senators from both parties and absorbed lessons about national security, foreign policy, and political courage.”
Buried deeper are several articles and columns trashing Obama. Go figure. Back in 2004, the same “scientific survey” was used to label John Kerry the most liberal Senator in Washington. John Kerry! An amazing coincidence, that.
That’s where I get this stuff.
Breathlessly? Really?
By all means dispute the conclusion, but simply trashing the source really doesn’t get it done.
I left another comment here that was either deleted or failed to load, so I’ll try again, abridged:
Rev. Wright most certainly is a racist and had he been a white preacher saying these types of things about black people, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Even Obama calls Wright “divisive and destructive” on race. Is he ignorant too?
Wright is a racist by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. What is amazing to me is that he can be so, and nobody bats an eyelash, but call him out for what he is, and you are branded “ignorant.”
What a strange and wondrous world we live in.
That bastion of conservative screeching, NPR, somehow managed to report Obama’s ranking as real news.
Don’t they know that NatJournal is nothing but a McCain proxy? Pull the funding! Pull the funding!