CNN debunks Bill Clinton's recent attacks about Obama's record right before the primary:
it's worth a watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOe01_ww29U
CNN debunks Bill Clinton's recent attacks about Obama's record right before the primary:
it's worth a watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOe01_ww29U
CNN debunks Bill Clinton's recent attacks about Obama's record right before the primary:
it's worth a watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOe01_ww29U
The Clintons strength has always been their ability to "REINVENT" themselves. Most notably, after the ninety four congressional elections. They lost that election to a movement, led by Gingrich. What did they do to counter this movement, they made life better for the average American.
Hillary needs to reinvent herself as the candidate for the future. She needs to stop talking about the ninety's and start telling the people about her current proposals. Is Hillary's plan going to keep the American people safe. Is her "MIDDLE CLASS" tax cut going to be "BIGGER THAN OBAMA"S? , CAN HILLARY"S plan bring factions together for the common good more effectively than OBAMA's plan for the future.Somehow you have to convince voters, that your plan for a "prosperous and peaceful" future for AMerica is "STRONGER" than OBAMA"S. You have to stick to this message. What was once the Clinton's greatest strength, in now a big WEAKNESS. "REINVENTION". REINVENTION, is one of the principles that have been rejected by voters. They do not want you to keep changing yourself. They want someone who is genuine and who does not change every week. It makes people feel comfortable. In this case Hillary has no choice but to reinvent her message and plans for the future.
What HILLARY SHOULDN'T DO,
Hillary has to avoid going negative.She should attack her opponents with her plan and not with her ego. For example she laughed at Obama and dismissed his campaign as "JUST WORDS". What she failed to realize is that his words have inspired a nation. This made her look mean and arrogant. Hillary do not be afraid of rejection.
Emphasize that your plan for the future is stronger and how it is going to improve the live of miniorities. You need to launch your new plan like a "blitzkrieg". Keep your message positive expecially in California and NEW YORK, the two states you must win.
Do not play the race card= it is a lazy way out for a hard working individual. Be honest. If you use race you will be forced to lie. Remember that the masses can see through mirages. Do not use them anymore.
OBAMA all the way!!!, for you people that are not comfortable about the fact that Barrack has taken a mass lead to this primary ,maybe it's time for you to STOP! LOOK! and LISTEN! thats all it takes rather than those silly politicians that are always making promises and manipulating the system try something new ;don't have to live your daily lives same thing everyday, let change takes is course.
idealism defines leaders j.frederick. ask LINCOLN, JFK OR ANY OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
Being a native of the Land of Lincoln, I don't consider Abrahom Lincoln an idealist - he was quite realistic about the state of the country and what needed to be done. Furthermore his legacy includes plenty of people who hated him - he was not appreciated for what he did for this country until years after his death. It takes a very strong person to walk alone.
Thanks Mr. Alter for your kind and compassionate piece. As a Hillary supporter and a baby boomer I am very sad that our time may have passed. It will be hard to support Obama when I really feel Hillary would be a great president but i know in the end I will. Very , very few of the supposed reporters have earned my respect through out this process and more than a few have earned my eternal disrespect. I have gone from an avid MSNBC watcher to retreating to C-Span other than David Schuster and oddly Pat Buchannan the adolescent piling on with glee is too much to bear. I truely wish that Chris Matthews would be fired for his complete lack of professionalism along with Andrea Mitchell and I have been shocked and disappointed in Olberman.
Forgot to add:
What a shameful bunch the Barack Hussein Obama supporters are. I saw people with signs and banners (also on websites) with the slogan 'Bro's before Ho's'. Is this the mentality of people voting for our possible next president?
Absolutely disrespectful to woman and to society as a whole.
Hahahah bro's before ho's hahhahah
I sincerely doubt your statement is even remotely true. Last spring, some lame online t-shirt company put out shirts that said that. Liberals, progressives and women found them utterly disgusting. Not only that, but the Obama campaign rightfully slammed them as disgusting. Besides, there should be photos available as proof of your statement and there aren't any. Feel free to slam the Senator, but there's no need to blatantly lie.
And considering what I saw in the conservative blogosphere, who (unsuprisingly) absolutely loved those shirts, I really wouldn't be surprised if the supposed people you saw carrying these alleged signs were people who think that the Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin types contributes something to society.
I have been in the US for about a year now, and I continue to be amazed by this media spectacle. My observatons: with a few - very few - honorable exceptions, all the so called pundits - especially on TV - have no clue. In order to grab TV time they have taken - rather squeezed into - any vacant position in the political spectrum, regardless of what they truly believe in. They are as driven and guided by poll numbers as the politicians themselves, exhibit classic herd mentality, do not say anything original, and are subjective. To boot, they are extremely defensive when somebody questions them and the methods they adopt and immediately adopt a 'how dare you question us' stance. Hillary may or many not be 'phony' and 'insencere' as the media likes to portray her. Obama appears a great candidate. But, it does seem to me that the media does not scrutinize Obama substantively on policy matters, leave alone personal. When he responds to any question in his characteristic soothing abtractions, the media seems to be satisfied and does not follow through with the same rigor that they do with Hillary. So long as they believed Hillary's nomination was 'inevitable' they treated and wrote about her deferentially but when they saw that she is vulnerable they are going after her like bloodhounds. They created the Fred Thomson myth and are abandoning him now. For them, this is all a circus that could help them garner more eyeballs, ears or readership. In this cacaphony, the American public does not get the right kind of information that it deserves.
Do you really believe that if Barack Obama is elected the world will change? Take off your rose colored glasses - they are all just people. Idealism should not rule your decision, reason and factual information should be the basis for our vote for president. We should be choosing a leader - there aren't any savior's running for election.
When is comes right down to it what have any of the candidates done that says they will fight for America? Have they filabustered in order to achieve a congressional goal, Have they had a "Disney" moment when the world stands still while they work their magic,accomplishing something for the people or are they special merely because they happen to be at the right or wrong place at the right time. Everyone of these candidates could have at any time during the Bush mess stood up and called upon citizens and politicians
to act for the good of America, the only one even close to standing up for what they believe is John Edwards, that's where I got my tools to support the troops without supporting the war, where was everyone else. Huckabee strums the guitar while rome burns, Thompson was playing at acting, Rudy was too busy with his love life, McCain needs to put his family first (I couldn't believe he would shake hands with Bush after how they treated his family, if he can't stand for them do you really think he will stand for us?) Hillary had her time in the Senate to set herself apart if she did I missed it. Obama started to run for president before he accomplished anything in congress. Everyone of these candidates has failed so I guess we just try to figure who will fail in the most painless manner. If we really are looking for change, we need someone else and I don't mean Bloomberg how pompous is he? And talk about flip flopping he can't even pick a political party and stick to it how can he unify when he can't seem to make up his mind about who he really is or exactly what he hopes to accomplish.
Obama has a lot to offer the American public beside just hope. He has been a civil rights leader and civil servant, since his college days. (This is a lot more then what most people I know do.) Also, Obama???s background is from a poor household and an absent biological father, so he has insight to what most common American???s feel today and have experienced in their own life. Isn't an understanding of the average American relevant? Shouldn???t a President understand human nature and the human struggle? Then use this understanding as an important tool for communicating to publics of all countries? Isn???t understanding how to a person needs to compromise or how to hold restraint when provoked, such as Kennedy did during the Cuba missile crisis, important and a critical for foreign politics? Obama is a symbol to the world that America is not a Texan money hungry bully scared of the big bad world, but a man who is looking for unification of the world. To bring America back from these sad Bush years of mismanaging our government. Showing that we can stand for American believes of freedom and equality, yet we stand up with kindness and diplomacy. America wants peace and harmony. We are tried of war. I know this view is a little sappy, but why the hell not! I am tried of fear and oppression. I want to believe. I want a hero. I want to be proud. I want hope. I am voting Obama!
Enter Your Comment
Obama's desire for the Presidency is not cunning. It's rather bizarre to think the moment a candidate begins to gain popularity that they are wrong to actually want the Presidency. Obama wants the Presidency. Edwards wants the Presidency. Clinton wants the Presidency. Why shouldn't they? And I do have sympathy for Senator Clinton as a human being but I think it's very un-Presidential to start crying over everyone 'not liking her.' She has yet to wrangle with those who wish her ill. She has yet to have to defend herself. Does anyone really think her tears WON'T be broadcast all over the world as being 'unstable' 'weak' or 'womanish' for the rest of the world's leaders to see? Is this the person who'll lead us OUT of Iraq safely and victoriously? Someone who will negotiate effectively? Is this the woman who led her campaign on the backs of empowered women and then hid brhind the strategies of her husband when the going got rough? No surprise why so many women left her campaign. Things seem to have turned to "It's you and me Bill. Let's go back to the White House."
I just hope that the Senator Clinton realizes that winning the Presidency won't change all the hurt she's carrying toward Bill for the public hell he put her through, and that the rest of the country does not owe her the White House. It's a long running campaign. The rumors, temper tantrums, and tears run their course pretty quickly. Dare to dream... spread the word... state your case. May the best candidate win.
To MissyE - Personally, I think Hillary's emotion is representative of her passion about the condition of this country and the belief that she can make a difference. She sat back while Bill was in office because every time she spoke out she was criticized. She and Bill are two people with their own strengths, experience and abilities.
I have been so frustrated by the media in this campaign. Every time Hillary speaks up the media judges her actions and motives. Who else has had to endure this type of criticizm? Hillary Clinton is a incredibly intelligent and experienced woman with so much to offer our country. Obama is a shing star, but as someone who lives in Illinois, he hasn't made a dent in the problems in this state. He didn't repair the partisian gap and he doesn't even effectively represent our state in Congress. I'm sure Obama is good-hearted and wants to change the world, but I'd like to see him put action behind his charismatic words.
I wish more people would see Hillary as a person separate from Bill, with her own passion and commitment to bring American pride back to the people of this country.
Senator Clinton is only a human being, so if you want to support Obama, which is your right, but please don't defend your candidate at expense of someone else's dignity.
Yes, it is cunny by making yourself look good while making your rival look bad because you know she has more baggages (because she has been around longer) and you don't have baggage (because you haven't been around long enough).
Obama's bipartisan/unity approach is mere a strategy designed to grab power or sincere appeal? It certainly works for for him because this way he can appeal to more voters and can attack Hillary's weakness (but you can not only blame Hillary for being called "divisive," those rignt wing Hillary haters should bear the responsibility for that.)
In short, Obama is not that pure either. He has no baggage because he hasn't been long enough so he doesn't need to go negative, which makes him look better, but that doesn't mean he is more decent and better a politician.
At some point Obama has got to give us some specifics about what he'll do for change and NOT just platitudes of hope. Go HIllary!
Be hopeful! It enrages me to see on all the news shows (I mean all of them) people continue to say that Senator Obama is not clear or has not stated his positions! On his website, he has detailed policies and/or ideas from economy, health care, supporting individuals with disabilties to foreign policy. They are well thought out and researched ideas and plans. I wish that more people would find out for themselves rather than accepting what tidbits that "haters" spew to the news. Obama is my man for sure. No other candidates are as detailed as he is on positions- Democrat or Republican.
Comment: No one has mentioned Obama's secret weapon. He has not played it to it's full extent, but Michelle Obama is an intelligent , well spoken, successfull women who can and does speak passionately for her husband and she would fullfill the role of First Lady very well. She and his daughter compliment his image as a person who wants the Presidency not for his ego, but to protect his family and their future. this will enhance his appeal to Democratics, republicans and Independents. Any thoughts on this?
I think your are right on about Michelle. Unlike the Clintons, wherein Bill could be an asset or a hinderance, depending what you thought of him when he was in the white house, I think one can only find positives about Michelle. I think she will make a fantastic First Lady who, like her husband, is what our country needs right now.
me, too. I saw her on CNN on one of the townhalls in NH and she is just as impressive as he is. What an asset and wonderful thing for the American people if they were elected into the presidential office! Anyone can go to CNN and they play repeats if people were really concerned about learning what the candidates have to say.
If you say Bill Clinton did nothing for this country, that's because you know nothing about the history. Even Greenspan said Bill Clinton was one of the best presidents of Amercian history. If our next president can achieve what Bill Clinton achieved as a president, we are lucky
Hope, change, dream. These are powerful words evoking poignant feelings. But Obama is as shallow as he is eloquent. There really isn't much there. He has almost no relevant experience required to lead this country. He even missed 80% of the votes in the Senate this year, since he's been campaigning. What does that tell you?
I think many officials miss votes, etc when they are campaigning.
I think many officials miss votes, etc when they are campaigning.
Obama's typical speech messages:
"???.stand by me and we will change the country and the world???".
" The country needs a real change???."
"???folks, change is what this country need right now!",
"???we don't want the same people in the white house, we need change"
"???I am an agent for change, help me implement change???"
"???this is a revolution for change!"
"???..if you vote for me you will be voting for change"
Notice the lack of content. Notice the repetitive term "change". Notice the lack of willingness to point to any realistic records for change. Notice the lack of details to the changes that he is proposing. Most importantly, notice how broad the definition of 'change' is and how VAGUE it is. A vote for Obama is a vote to confirm that you this country can not be bother with specifics. A vote for Obama is a vote to say???"don't ask don't tell"???..A vote for Obama is a vote for ignorance. The country is at a cross road, we need a Woman who has defy the odds to get where she is now???.a woman who has done the tough battles???.a woman who knows what it really takes to make change happen and know too well that talk is cheap.
Obviously you only listen to the sound bites. "cowen123456". If you really want to know Obamas positions and plans read his "BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE" plan. All the answers to your whiny questions are in there.
A vote for Obama is a vote for bringing back the good times of the 90's, without having to battle each other all the time.
As they say down here in Texas, Obaba is all hat and no cattle. He has not connected on a single issue with me, a lifelong Democrat who was campaigning for George McGovern before I was old enough to vote. Obama began running for president practically as soon as he began in the Senate. His record is empty of achievements and substance. He is not electable and the Republicans will eat his lunch, dinner and midnight snack if he's the nominee. I won;t vote for him.
Enter Your Comment Well, i don't know if we need a woman,but Biden has the experiece,Clinton does, McCain does and O'Bama doesn't. I think a few more years in the senate and I could vote for him. Clinton is the brightest of them all,but comes on w/o Obama 's smoothness,She's America's Maggie Thatcher.
O'Bama voters are young and dreamers change doesn't happen over nightespecially in Washington.
This country is becoming a third world nation if you look into its ifrastruture,currency,debt,and the way we are seen in the world.
I feel bad for these young kids swept up by O'Ba,ma,because they are going to be hurting.Do you think companies like Exxon/Mobile ,Haliburtn are going to loosen their grip with a nubie?
This is what is interesting to me about those criticizing Obama. They say he has no "substance" because he doesn't bore people to death with endless policy minutiae in his speeches. People respond to him because he inspires them. Makes them believe in hope over fear etc... What Dems have needed to learn for a long time is that policy wonkishnness doesn't inspire people or win eliections. Just ask President Gore and President Kerry, both of whom wonked circles around GWB. Bill Clinton is as much ofa wonk as they come too, but he doesn't put it in his speeches. When you listened to him,talk, it was all about personal stories, and such, just like Obama. As of thers have said,if you want the substance, go to his website. Better yet, if you want to konwn what he's about, look at where he comes trom, and his background as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. But remember, policies are important, but an equally important quality for a president is the ability to lead, to inspire, and to be a statesman. And Obama has all of that in spades.
ridiculous Hillary pandering.
The rich pay the taxes in this country by an overwhelming percentage. Immigrants come here to seek the American Dream - of making it in America, yes! of getting rich! Jimmy Carter tried to "damn" the richh people and it caused one of the worst recessions and duoble digit interest rates this country has ever seen.
Yes, I'd love to see a woman as President of the US, but not THIS woman. She is an elitist and a socialist at heart. She is also controlling and power hungry. She will make Jimmy Carter look like a piker when it comes to ruining our economy. No one wants to listen to a harpie and a shrew for 4 years, let alone 8. She is not as slick as her husband. O'Bama has probably, wisely, studied JFK. He offers hope in a very fractious contentious time in our history. Will I vote for him? Probably not. I don't want National Healthcare brought to me by the same people who brought me the DMV, but I get O'Bama. A lot of voters, young and old, would rather vote for an optimist than a woman who shrieks at us that its her turn.
THIS IS A SEXIST ARTICLE. I'll be voting for Obama - I would vote for Kucinich, if I thought he had a snowball's chance in hell - so this gripe isn't about my support for Clinton. But I do want to say that the author's reference to a female candidate's inability to "sexually" connect with the women in the audience, and his underlying assumption that the women in said audience will vote for the candidate they think is the hottest is RIDICULOUS and OFFENSIVE. Not to mention the way the author calls "Hillary" by her first name and Obama by his last. I understand both the Clintons have the same last name, but we know Bill Clinton is not running for a third term. Hillary Clinton deserves the same dignity and respect in writing given to male candidates. In any case, my point is, the reason I'm voting for Obama - or would vote for Kucinich - has nothing to do with a latent desire to go to bed with them. And the reason I won't vote for Clinton has nothing to do with my lack of desire for her. My problem with Clinton is she is of an older generation, one that stands by their men, no matter what they do. She cannot win the support of younger women voters, not because we're automatons who only vote for candidates with whom we'd like to go to bed (what about lesbian voters, anyway, or men who are attracted to dignity and class), but because she is not a good role model for women like me who believe she should've left Bill Clinton years ago.
This is definitely a situation of "Don't kill the messenger". Is it the article that's sexist? Or is the article simply telling the truth about the American people being influenced by their own sexuality. We're all sexual beings and our sexuality influences all aspects of our life. This isn't just true for women. Men will be drawn towards tall strong vibrant males just as much as women; and that isn't to say they are latent homosexuals. They're simply sexual. Sexual cues have been harbingers of ability since life first emerged out of pondscum, and despite how much we like to think we humans have transcended our animal nature, any first year psychology student could tell you how untrue that myth is.
Let's face it, since the advent of television our presidents have been over six feet tall with wide shoulders and full heads of hair. We simply have a gut level reaction to men who look like they spent their high school days trapped in their lockers. Dennis Kuninich could be the most brilliant, visionary, moral and capable man this country has ever seen, but he will never be a viable candidate simply because he looks like the kid who was always picked last in gym class.
This is a massive hurdle for a female candidate to overcome. It can be done as Margaret Thatcher and others have demonstrated, but in order to pull it off a woman candidate has to be more masculine than most men without appearing to be overly butch. It's quite a tightrope.
Is it fair? Absolutely not. It's nature. And nature is above all pragmatic. There is no room for moral considerations in the jungle, and we, like all animals, are products of that jungle.
I did have the same viseral response as you did, but I think the author was talking about getting women's votes, if I'm not mistaken. Generally speaking, men do have an advantage there. And I will not lie and say that I don't think Obama's looks have anything to do with it - I think he is absolutely gorgeous, but part of that is what I think of him as a politician.
To frustrateddemocrat:
I think you're missing Mr. Alter's point here. He's extending the comparison of Obama to John Kennedy, suggesting that charisma and sex appeal can play a part in American politics. This is undeniable. Now, it may be unfair to women that the sex appeal aspect is a risky issue for female politicians, but it's wrong to dismiss this entire article because you disagree with the social reality.
The fact that attraction/sex appeal are linked to power and status is nothing new for the human species. It affects all of us in our psyche to some degree. So no, Mr. Alter is not suggesting that Obama is a more viable candidate because more women are attracted to him than men are to Ms. Clinton. But as Mr. Alter argues, the appeal (or lack thereof) could play a part in this for both candidates.
I'll also point out that nearly all columnists will call Senator Clinton by her first name and Senator Obama by his last in op-eds. Is it not sexist when Maureen Dowd calls Senator Clinton "Queen Hillary"? It's a moot point.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Discuss