What Hillary Should Say Now

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: oharris30 @ 09/06/2008 8:58:01 PM

    For all of you who believe in polls, nobody has called me or anybody else I have asked. How many on here have been polled? And as for the articles which are written on Obama, McCain, Palin or anyone else, people write from their own feelings. Most of the time they are lies. I don't believe news articles or polls. I do believe what my grandmother told me when I was younger..... money talks and BS walks. Guess we know who has more money in this campaign.

  • Posted By: don'tbedumb @ 09/06/2008 8:54:53 PM

    Anyone who snarks this article is an idiot. I was just thinking the exact same thing this morning. Hillary, come and inspire us the way you always do! People who think Palin is a feminist, who think she cares about equality, are IDIOTS. Come remind those who prayed for Obama to tap Hillary for VP that Palin is the anti-Hillary. They will get it on their own in time, but we don't have that kind of time. Do it, Hillary--say the words.

  • Posted By: wossenschmidt@earthlink.net @ 09/06/2008 8:50:32 PM

    Obama supporters, WSJ article, continued:

    Mr. Obama claims to offer a tax cut to moderate-income families, but a significant portion of Mr. Obama's tax plan is a welfare giveaway costing more than $648 billion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center.
    How so? He would authorize a hodgepodge of refundable tax credits covering everything from education, mortgage payments, child care and other items for people who do not pay income taxes now.
    About 38% of U.S. households pay no income tax today. Under a President Obama (whose policies would shave 15.3 million households off the tax rolls) that share would grow to nearly half of all American households.
    We have been repeatedly told that everyone should pay their fair share. So this sounds grossly unfair and like a return of tax-and-spend liberal economics. No wonder there is a lot of doubt about the wisdom of the junior senator from Illinois.
    Mr. Obama's health-care proposal is not quite HillaryCare, but it comes close. A national health insurance, heavily subsidized by taxpayers, would be offered to the currently uninsured. Mr. Obama's instincts on health care are always to move more people onto rolls of government-paid and government-mandated insurance, while depriving the marketplace the oxygen it needs for greater innovation, life-saving cures, and efficiency.
    Americans have heard the refrain for government-provided health care before and know an expensive government giveaway when they see it.
    Mr. Obama's energy policy is to drill less, consume less, tax more, and spend more. With barely a nod to nuclear energy -- the only meaningfully large, carbon-free source of domestic energy -- he is promising a massive increase in domestic, noncarbon-based energy from sources that produce only a fraction of our energy now.
    He has also proposed massive tax increases on U.S. oil and gas companies while continuing to cut off vast swaths of U.S. territory to drilling.
    Again, Americans are wiser than they are given credit. They know that if you restrict supply and tax production, prices go up.
    The economic wisdom of Americans should not be doubted. They can see through Mr. Obama's proposals. They know that they will have to pick up the bill if Mr. Obama sends checks to people who already don't pay taxes; they know a centralized government-controlled health-care system will be more expensive, less efficient, and less friendly to patients and doctors. They know that the most effective way to bring down energy prices is by keeping all our energy options open, including more drilling in the U.S.
    And they know that if a candidate has spent his entire career taxing more and spending more, that's what you'll get -- and more of it.
    Mr. Obama is wondering why he can't shake Mr. McCain. His problem isn't his plans for the campaign. It's his plans for governing the country. Americans just aren't buying into them

  • Posted By: oharris30 @ 09/06/2008 8:49:50 PM

    Neither John Mccain nor Sarah Palin are the types of people we need in the white house at a time like this. Of all the families I viewed after the conventions, Obama/Biden are the images that we need today. Strong morals and strong family ties. Sarah palin should have taught her daughter abstinence and to choose her baby's father better than she did. Proud to be a f@#@#$ redneck is not the type of person I would want my daughter to be with. You can dress this boy up and he is still white trash and to see that palin has brought him to the convention says a lot for her. She is not a good mother. I also did not see this country represented at the rnc convention. There are people of ALL colors fighting in Iraq and this country was built on diversity. What kind of change is McCain talking about? Where are these people? I see the same good ole boys who will put their sheets on after 12 at night and ride. His whole convention was nauseating. Palin reads her words which were written for her as a third grader following each word with her finger so as not to lose her space. Three words for the republicans..... What a Joke!

  • Posted By: wossenschmidt@earthlink.net @ 09/06/2008 8:48:53 PM

    Obama supporters, here's an article from the Wall Street Journal written by a leading economist. Its too big for one posting, so I will divide in half with two postings. Read it and weep:
    Why Obama Can't Close the Sale
    By AL HUBBARD and NOAM NEUSNER
    September 3, 2008; Page A23
    Even before John McCain shook up the presidential race by tapping Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, polls weren't showing the late-August lead that Barack Obama (and many Republicans) expected. Why so?
    It's not because of the brilliance of the McCain campaign. Rather we believe that -- despite the media's best efforts to exempt Mr. Obama's policies from critical examination -- American voters aren't sheep. They pay attention to the candidates and positions and make wise decisions about who should lead the country.
    True, Mr. Obama enjoys several advantages. Republicans are struggling nationwide in head-to-head contests. Democrats lead in voter registration, and have a well-funded presidential candidate.
    Yet Americans have not committed to Mr. Obama. Why?
    Clearly, Mr. Obama's weakness on foreign policy is a factor. He has a knee-jerk preference for diplomacy with China, Europe and Russia over the security of the American people and our closest allies. He hasn't explained his shifting positions on Iraq and Iran, among other hot spots. And he felt compelled to make up for his experience gap with Mr. McCain by picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate.
    But here's the thing: It's not that Mr. Obama hasn't been specific enough in his governing plans. To the contrary, he has been very specific about his tax policy, health-care and energy proposals. It's that voters are paying attention and appear not to like what Candidate Obama is saying.
    Mr. Obama has proposed a massive tax increase on investors, business owners, and the "wealthy." At a time when the American people rate the economy as the central issue of the campaign, a tax hike doesn't make a lot of political sense. Voters know that a tax hike won't help the economy.
    Moreover, Mr. Obama's tax plans would directly or indirectly harm U.S. investors by raising the capital gains and dividend taxes. More than half of U.S. households are equity owners, so Mr. Obama's proposal risks alienating half the population.




  • Posted By: billymatt @ 09/06/2008 8:44:40 PM

    Save us Hillary! The writer, Patty Davis, has informed us that The woman of America aren't smart enough to figure out who to vote for. They are just dumb. They will vote for the Republican ticket because it has a woman on it...they need you Hillary to tell them that would be a dumb thing to do....if you don't speak, if you don't let the women of America know that they shouldn't do that, they will never figure it out for themselves. Please save us from all the dumb women of America who don't have the brains to vote for the best party....who don't have the smarts to figure this out for themselves...who are so stupid that they will robotically see a woman on the enemy ticket and just simply vote that way....Patty Davis, thank you so much for not having faith in the women of America and for urging Hillary to wise them up...You are one intelligent woman....now if only you, Ms. Davis had faith in the woman voter of America...obviously you don't. SAVE US HILLARY!!!!!!

  • Posted By: Yes! We ALL Can @ 09/06/2008 8:06:37 PM

    IN ADDITION TO THE TWO SCANDALS SARAH PALIN IS CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN - THE OTHER SHOE MAY DROP ON PALIN THIS WEEK!!!!

    "The National Enquirer's coverage of a vicious war within Sarah Palin's extended family includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting incredible charge of an affair plus details of family strife when the Governor's daughter revealed her pregnancy. Following our John Edwards' exclusives, our political reporting has obviously proven to be more detail-oriented than the McCain campaign's vetting process. Despite the McCain camp's attempts to control press coverage they find unfavorable, The Enquirer will continue to pursue news on both sides of the political spectrum."

    • Posted By: julian007 @ 09/06/2008 8:43:58 PM

      The alleged affair by Sarah Palin reported in the National Enquirer has been debunked but as usual these days, the smear is publicized for morons like you to spread but no retraction is printed after the smear is found to be false. Also, still waiting for George and Laura Bush divorce proceedings to commence; there was a story about that happening in a National Enquirer issue way back last year. You think because that rumor peddling tabloid was right about Edwards makes it an authority on facts? how sad that journalism has come to this. Listen!; challenge Sarah Palin on facts, like her experience instead of wasting your time on innuendos and rumors. The lady has an almost 90% approval rating in Alaska, show me any other elected official in the US with anything close to that. Wake up! quit acting like a zombie, vote for Obama if that floats your boat but use your brains to arrive at a reason why you'd be doing that instead of this pathetic attempt to smear this woman.

  • Posted By: billymatt @ 09/06/2008 8:37:16 PM

    Is Hillary your savior still? If women are so smart, why are you so worried that they would vote for McCain Palin...because there's a woman on the ticket? Aren't women smarter than that? If you believe they are, then why write your letter? If you believe they are not, then you certainly aren't saying much for the women of America. My point, to suggest that many women will vote for McCain Palin simply because there's a woman on the ticket is degrading to women and even more so because we need Hillary to wise them up....Once they enter that booth, they'll vote who they think is best for this country, man or woman.

  • Posted By: gatoloca @ 09/06/2008 7:53:08 PM

    To Ohioindependent-

    As a woman I would find the words Sarah Palin uttered just as repulsive if they came from a man. As for your post- yes it was snippy and not well written.

    As a WOMAN myself I am tired of any negative comment about Sarah Palin being considered "Sexist". If the same comments were directed at McCain, they would not be considered sexist. It is ludacris that Sarah Palin cannot take a negative comment without someone screaming "SEXIST". Gender inequality still exists in this country, but this article did not contain one drop of Sexism, like most of the negative comments regarding Palin on her record and "pitbull performance". (by the way the Humane Society if full of Pitbulls that people got until they realized what shallow, nasty pets they are)

    By the way to all you PUMAS -you are more like fat old housecats than PUMAs. You should call yourselves-FAT OLD WHITE RACIST BITTER WOMEN WHO NEED TO BE PUT IN AN RETIREMENT HOME WITH GERADINE FERRARO. As an educated, working mother I resent all of your cry baby whining (by the way did you know that Caribou Barbie called Hillary a whiner?? you can find it on you tube) over Hillary's loss. I love the Clintons, I voted for Pres. Clinton twice, but now is the time to stand by the party and not watch McSame and the Alaska Hillbillies move in and continue to destroy what Bill and Hillary did. Hillary' is the most influential woman we have even if she is never elected President, she will remain a strong figure in the Senate and the leader of our (dem) party. Although I am disappointed that she was not chosen VP, I am not surprised-Hillary Clinton is second to NO ONE. Stop screaming sexism at everything, it sounds like women can't take the heat- WE CAN TAKE MUCH MORE THAN ANY MAN CAN!!!!! When people ask me about how I raise my children -I asked them if they are volunteering to babysit. Screaming SEXISM is not effective. If Sarah Palin had come out and addressed the media fascination they way she addressed the GOP convention I would think more of her. Instead a McCain studge come out and speaks. As women we have our OWN voices and can speak for ourselves.

    So all you PUMAS need to chill out and go eat some catnip and turn off Lifetime TV.

    • Posted By: ohioindependent @ 09/06/2008 8:33:13 PM

      I am pleased that your reply was NOT snippy.

      And yes, oh SO incredibly well written. Why I thought I might be reading a post from that OTHER non-snippy rational commentator, James Carville.

      How Put in my place I feel now after reading what is an independently thought out reply! It is refreshing to read somethig that doesn't take the party line, trash those who disagree with you, and not resort to name calling! Your eloquence is ...how shall I put it..think think think... I know!

      Your intelligence and elloquence is very VERY... STEALTHY. (Mostly that invisible part of stealthy.) Thank you for honoring me with the reply, I am so clearly a better man/woman, dem/GOP, young/old, black/white person for it. Your effort to reach across the line to inform me of my silly ideas is truly touching.

      Now, as to My "snippy" attributes, I think you have just unintentionally put me in the company of Palin, Churchill, Truman (ANOTHER unseen long-shot out-of-the-blue VP pick)and Lincoln. She may not be in their league, but she IS the reason for the article by Ms. Davis, so I can't leave her out.

  • Posted By: dkfuller @ 09/06/2008 8:11:34 PM

    Personally, as a woman, I'm glad Hillary has been quite. She, and the author, both need to realize Hillary needs to remain silent and quit assuming that American women are too stupid to think for themselves. Further, the choice of Palin as VP wasn't to pick up the women who supported Hillary, as alluded to and widely assumed. If that was the choice then it would not have been a staunch pro-life advocate. Whether you like McCain or not is not the point, he's not that stupid nor are his advisors. The real reason Palin was picked was to try and bring in the more powerful and numerous conservative votes - not the Hillary women - and for that she was a very wise choice. She has united the party in a way that McCain never could have by himself or with some of the assumed male candidates. Obama had his chance to pick Hillary and not overlook those voters and decided it was not in his best interest. Hillary had her chance and now needs to move quietly to the background and let the intelligent American public, male and female, think for themselves.

    • Posted By: olderwiser @ 09/06/2008 8:27:58 PM

      You are right about Mc Cain picking Palin to try to regain his far right base. They are narrow minded zealots for the most part and Palin seems to fit that mold. The total lack of substance in her convention speech which was laced with one insult after another of an opponent whose shoes she is unworthy to shine pretty well duplicates the harshness of the base Republican base that she has been called to rally.

  • Posted By: Eagles_Heart @ 09/06/2008 8:20:30 PM

    I dread the effects of you and your noisy cohorts shoving that swing into a New Age Puritanism. The story of human-kind is, of course, exactly that... swings of human behavioral pendulums... as inevitable as the cyclic Ice Ages of hundreds of millions of years since the birth of planet Earth.

    In such a scheme... you are a blip in humanity's eye. And the reaction, inevitably, and I pray not disastrously, is reflexive: to rub it out

    Although, and perhaps because of, I am registered as Independent, I am seeing posters on both sides of the political party lines distant myself.

    Overwheming is the lack of FACTS which have not been checked by the posters themselves. When you repeat hearsay and emotion-driving comments of others without checking the allegations for yourselves.. .you are, simply, illustrating the very pendulum swing you should fear the most!

    American voters are neither "dumb" nor "stupid"! Quit with the dimbot name-galling of people here... and it is happening on the part of both Democrats and Republicans.

    Think! Check! Look at the other viewpoints! Do ALL of that before you make decisions. These kinds of decisions ... what button you ultimately push in the voting box ... should never be based on what verbal types, determined types, arrogant types, misinformed types (and no, not all of the above for each poster).

    Think for yourselves! Check. The. Facts. Check. The. Sources.

    sigh.. including me.

  • Posted By: Arrow1343 @ 09/06/2008 5:53:14 PM

    Thanks Hoosiergal49. I'll make sure to use my "brains." Did you watch the conventions? Did you read this article? One need only to have tuned in to MSNBC to watch Keith Olberman gush with the Dems and snipe at the Republicans. The loaded, leading questions, making sure to get a dig in. Fox is the way it is to try and offset the rest of the mainstream media, which is subversive and underhanded. At least you would have to have only one brain to miss Fox's leanings. In two days I watched Olberman pre-empt governor Guilliani's speech at a big moment to take the sting out and CNN have a "technical difficulty" right at the moment of the story which hi-lighted the fact that more people watched McCain than Obama. Yesterday on msn.com they headlined a story with "Angry Readers Drop Subscriptions over Palin" implying that people cancelled magazine subscriptions because one had the audacity to put the VP candidate on the cover. In reality, as the story reveals, they dropped them because of the magazine's sensational and flagrently left leaning tag line below the picture. Open your eyes. There is no objectivity in the news in any medium and with the exception of but a few mainstream outlets (Fox, the Wall St. Journal) , there is no doubt where media's loyalties lie. Dan Rather. Need I say more.

    • Posted By: 'BamaforObama' @ 09/06/2008 6:05:31 PM

      Fox? Objective? Oh get real honey. You're the one who is biased. Take the blinders off and join the real world, which will be a MUCH better world after Obama and Biden take office. Yes, even for you.

      • Posted By: Arrow1343 @ 09/06/2008 8:17:21 PM

        Honey? No one is saying that Fox is objective. Fox is off to the Right to try and offset the Left lean of the rest of the mainstream media. And I'll be just fine when McCain wins in November, but double digit percentage points. So will you. Because it's about deeds, not words.

  • Posted By: Lina_YM @ 09/06/2008 8:14:32 PM

    I am so tired of hearing well obama is so talented but he has no experience. or the very old he needs hilary to unite the democratic party or that we as women need her to voice our frustrations with the new pride of the republican party palin. enough is enough i am ready for change i would rather a president who is not in any big business pocket than have a president who will be a cabon copy of our current one. if we as women want have our voices heard laud and clear vote vote vote and hopefully it will be for the one who will get our country back where it should be

  • Posted By: bt4u @ 09/06/2008 7:55:53 PM

    When I see Obama I see a man who though quite talented is not yet ready for the job he seeks. I see a stubborn, prideful man who has benefited richly from campaigning against Hillary Clinton [he'd be toast today if their battle ended in Feb]. He then *needed" Hillary to unite the party, & now he *needs* her to consolidate the women's vote. whendoes he begin to win this on his own by his own accord [& now w/Biden] instead of calling on Hillary every time he's in a jam. It's not that far away from the SNL skit which is tragic. Now you say her voice is needed. He needed Hillary more than he would admit and yet he couldn't even bring himself to go through the motions to vet her for VP. While a Clinton/Obama ticket would have represented the best chance for this country, an Obama/Clinton would still have been unstoppable. Yet here we are in a politicle climate tailor made for Democrats, w/all Obama's money & momentum, he is still dead even w/McCain when NO GOP candidate should even be standing. That alone should speak volumes. The man is not ready. McCain is no wing-nut unlike his VP pick. The country would be safer in his hands although it puts the Supreme Court in great peril...a tough pick.

  • Posted By: formillers @ 09/06/2008 4:38:26 PM

    Bill - HUH? we WOULD be going "down the road" in voting for Obama just because he is a person of color. Thst is exactly the only thing we would accomplish in casting a vote for President of the United States in regard to Barack Obama right now. That appears to be the only reason - his level of experience being nothing but the role of a senator and/or community organizer - ever - but not an effective, all inclusive, MULTIPLE bureaucracy managing American politician like Sarah Palin. Separate out the skin color and/or gender here. Hands down Palin tops Obama. If you cannot at least credit her for that - you are less than "credible". Flat out. Budgets handled, National guards held accountable for. Educational systems. Health care for an entire state. Social services. Resource development and/or conservation. Budgetary cuts and graft ferreting out - all accomplishment at the helm of Palin's administration. Not so - ever - with Obama.

    • Posted By: Sarahh @ 09/06/2008 4:47:37 PM

      Complete bs. Head of the Harvard Law review and offered tenure by U of C law at an extraordinarily young age?

      Those signify a "best of generation" level of ability intellect an accomplishment.

      Then contrast that wth 5 schools in six years, sportscaster, PTA, part-time mayor of a small town that had a full time manager & 18 moths as governor-- and already under investigation for ethics.

      • Posted By: bill328 @ 09/06/2008 5:02:13 PM

        Sarahh Sarahh Sarahh... Head of Harvard Law Review...Impressive title, but what does that have to do with gaining experience running any sort of government? Offered tenure at U of C.... so he would be a teacher, hmmmm nope don't see the experience there either. But wait you didn't mention Community planner.. I would say the experience as Mayor and Governor out does that one, actually all of they together

        • Posted By: Sarahh @ 09/06/2008 5:41:23 PM

          John McCain-- nearly flunked out, never held a private sector job, adulterer, married into a mob fortune (yea Cindy's father was a felon, bootlegger & parters with a killer) erratic, hot tempered, zero executive experience--- pair him up w mz PTA sportscaster & you might have a viable ticket for the Prom Court, but you don't have one qualified for the presidency.

          • Posted By: bill328 @ 09/06/2008 7:54:02 PM

            I recall a name...let me think...Kennedy! Stories of making the family money by bootlegging... Seems the Negacrats didn't have a problem with that one.....
            As for the Tenure.. did he/didn't he...it still does not added up to the experience of Gov Palin nor make him qualified for prex. But hey the rules only say you have to be 35 and a citizen.

        • Posted By: zyxwvut @ 09/06/2008 5:47:45 PM

          Obama was never offered tenure.

          The University of Chicago issued a press release to clarify this misconception. He served as a part-time lecturer for 12 years (1992 - 2004), which falls into the category of "professor". They offered him a full-time job as a professor on the "tenure track" - meaning if he worked long enough and accomplished enough (e.g., published enough), then he could be awarded tenure. He declined the job.

          So, he did work in the Law Department at U of C for a dozen years. That's a notable achievement. Folks should be proud of that. But, let's be clear, he was never offered tenure for that service to the University of Chicago.

          • Posted By: Sarahh @ 09/06/2008 5:55:24 PM

            Sorry you are wrong.


            "Mr. Obama never mentioned his humiliating, hopeless campaign against Mr. Rush in class (he lost by a two-to-one margin), though colleagues noticed that he seemed exhausted and was smoking more than usual.

            Soon after, the faculty saw an opening and made him its best offer yet: Tenure upon hiring. A handsome salary, more than the $60,000 he was making in the State Senate or the $60,000 he earned teaching part time. A job for Michelle Obama directing the legal clinic.

            Your political career is dead, Daniel Fischel, then the dean, said he told Mr. Obama, gently. Mr. Obama turned the offer down. Two years later, he decided to run for the Senate. He canceled his course load and has not taught since."


            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


    • Posted By: bill328 @ 09/06/2008 4:53:06 PM

      formillers...you misconstrue my comments here. I think that Gov Palin is the best person that Sen. McCain could have picked. I agree that Obama lacks experience to be Prez. I was responding to the original article that Ms Davis wrote and stated that women would never vote for another woman just cause she is a female. Yet others do vote on the "just because" reason...

  • Posted By: Drdike @ 09/06/2008 7:48:38 PM

    When you know more about Sara Palin, you will ask yourself, what was McCain thinking.:

    Under Palin's leadership, Alaska this year asked for almost $300 per person in requests for pet projects from one of McCain's top adversaries: the state's indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. That is more than any other state received, per person, from Congress for the current budget year. Other states got just $34 worth of local projects per person this year, on average, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based watchdog group.The state government's earmark requests to Congress in her first year in office exceeded $550 million, more than $800 per resident.

  • Posted By: Debbie316 @ 09/06/2008 7:45:26 PM

    Who is Patti Davis to entice Hillary to go negative towards Sara Palin? I don't recall any positive Hillary articals from Davis. I am sick to my stomach of reporters and newspapers doing select coverage, as far as I am concerned it was the lack of intelligent coverage that got Obama nomitated. From how I understand it - McCain selected Palin. Go after McCain. And by the way, Obama came from out of nowhere - so why is that now some big deal for Palin? Women are not waiting to hear from Hillary - we are waiting for the next election!

  • Posted By: Sarahh @ 09/06/2008 6:02:46 PM

    >Obama was never offered tenure"

    You are incorrect:

    "?Mr. Obama never mentioned his humiliating, hopeless campaign against Mr. Rush in class (he lost by a two-to-one margin), though colleagues noticed that he seemed exhausted and was smoking more than usual.

    Soon after, the faculty saw an opening and made him its best offer yet: Tenure upon hiring. A handsome salary, more than the $60,000 he was making in the State Senate or the $60,000 he earned teaching part time. A job for Michelle Obama directing the legal clinic.

    Your political career is dead, Daniel Fischel, then the dean, said he told Mr. Obama, gently. Mr. Obama turned the offer down. Two years later, he decided to run for the Senate. He canceled his course load and has not taught since."

    The article is well wort reading

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

    • Posted By: zyxwvut @ 09/06/2008 7:44:40 PM

      The NYT article was in error, that is why the University of Chicago issued the press release to clarify the story. Obama was not offered tenure upon hire. He was offered a job which would be on the tenure track. This link contains the entire statement from U of C, so you can read it yourself. The last line of the release gives the accurate detail.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/university-of-chicago-ob_n_93896.html

      So, now that you know the correction, please stop perpetuating misleading information. Your candidate is inexperienced enough already, don't complicate things by trying to puff up his resume. Let him do his own fighting. Since he is not fighting very hard to expound on his own resume, well, draw your own conclusions.....

  • Posted By: clc5225 @ 09/06/2008 6:27:59 PM

    We don't just need a woman, anymore than we don't just need a man! We need the right party! I am disappointed and saddened that Hillary is not on the ticket, but I will wholeheartedly back the party that she and so many others have worked hard for and the party that has tried to help the American people. Don't turn your back on the party just because Hillary's name is not on the ticket - she is still fighting for us! As is Obama! Let this party bring us back to where we all need to be - The Clintons, Obamas, Kennedys, Bidens, etc. are all pulling for us - let's pull for our team!

    • Posted By: CAnnie @ 09/06/2008 7:43:11 PM

      Artfully spoken! UNITED WE STAND---DIVIDED WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE NOW!!!
      I with Obama/Biden. We are not the Red vs Blue----we are the Red/White/and Blue!

  • Posted By: alby88 @ 09/06/2008 7:30:01 PM

    Here's the thing: Hillary does not "NEED" to say or do anything. But it sure would be nice. I'm not happy she lost the nomination or wasn't properly vetted for VP, etc., I'm not blind to the fact that that the democratic party treated her badly, I'm mortally angry about the rampant misogyny leveled against her during the primary and I'm really saddened by all my Obama supporting friends who kept their mouths shut about it because it benefited their candidate. However, I'm not mad enough to vote Republican. Not ever. So yes, it would be nice for Hillary to do something about this, but let's try asking politely, let's give her the respect she has earned but was so woefully denied during the primary . So, the title of this piece should be "what we'd LIKE Hillary to say now", you don't need to write orders to Hillary Clinton, you have no more right to...unless you live in the state of New York. Either way, there's no excuse to vote against her values and your own, no excuse at all.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse