The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in On the State of Things

Re: On the State of Things

StockBoySF — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:18:51 -0000

"Hillary Clinton had eight years of co-Presidential experience." I don't think the country voted for Hillary as co-President in either 1992 or 96. Nor did she sit in cabinet meetings or have the same sort of access and working relationship to lawmakers, etc. as her husband.

If Hillary wants to claim her years as First Lady as experience, then she should release he papers as First Lady.

Other than the The Adoption and Safe Families Act and SCHIP legislation, what, exactly, did Hillary accomplish either as First Lady or as "co-President" in those eight years?

Re: On the State of Things

cosmoetica — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:56:10 -0000

Slam: I agree. There should be no formal announcements allowed until April ogf the year of the election, all the primaries in June, then the Cons, and then the General.

Re: On the State of Things

Slamfu — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:42:27 -0000

I would give good money for the primary season to be about 30 days long. Or better yet, get them all done in one day. Oh my god how is it possible we drag this crap out for this many months? Like everyone didn't make up their minds sometime last year.

Re: On the State of Things

cosmoetica — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:31:25 -0000

DLS: Being told an executive secret or 3 as payback for infidelities does not qualify as experience, and the Dems who support Hill are not going anywhere on Obama- that's a dream. Or nightmare.

Re: On the State of Things

DLS — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:00:12 -0000

Actually, Hillary Clinton had eight years of co-Presidential experience. I suppose defense of her then can be the "basis" for denial of that fact now by Obama fans.

Re: On the State of Things

DLS — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:58:41 -0000

2006 as well, what I originally intended to say...2008 is more Blue than 2006 the way things look (such as in Hastert's former district)...

Re: On the State of Things

DLS — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:53:26 -0000

In 1996 we've seen Red blocs go Blue, and it appears more of this will happen this year.

Re: On the State of Things

PaulSilver — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:50:12 -0000

From Andrew Sullivan's the Dish:

"Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle,"
- Kos commenter, Jsn.

Re: On the State of Things

Half_Past_Midnight — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:13:02 -0000

"I'll also remind people that executive experience doesn't guarantee success. Look at Bush-"

It does when when it comes to getting elected. What's that you say? Bush was elected TWICE? Yeah, let's take a good look at that. Obama has yet to be elected into office with his "change" and "hope" gravy train.

Re: On the State of Things

Don Quijote — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:39:33 -0000

DQ-yes some white working class will not vote for Obama, but a lot do and will,

More than enough to swing more than one supposedly safe Blue State, Red.

if we let the basest (lowest) define us we are doomed to 50 more years of Bush/Clinton

Too late we already have, the best we can get is another Bill Clinton. Where do you think all that filthy lucre required to win elections is coming from?

They are the old style politicians and will do and say anything (as they have so clearly demonstrated) to get elected.

Because Obama won't... Please...

I am sure thats why he bashing NAFTA in Ohio and sending his emissary to Canada to let the Canadian Government know that it's just a show for the rubes.

Re: On the State of Things

StockBoySF — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:45:03 -0000

"Obama has no executive experience, either way. He is not ready to run a country." Oh puhleeze... give it up.... neither do McCain nor Hillary. In fact Obama was way more experience in elected office than Hillary. Hillary, as most people apparently have forgotten just woke up one day and decided to move to NY to run for the open US Senate seat, which she got because her hubby was prez. Now she had some good positions, but so do a lot of people.

Obama, on the other hand, worked his way up the hard way through politics. He wasn't married to anyone with political connections, nor did he come from a political family. Obama made his way up through hard work, intelligence and good judgement.

I'll also remind people that executive experience doesn't guarantee success. Look at Bush- he ran a couple OIL companies in TX into bankruptcy, he was governor of a huge state and when he became prez he had more executive experience than one could hope for. Yet we see where we are now.... a country $10 trillion in debt, embroiled in a war that he CHOOSE to get us into, and he supports torture (and because he has a lot of followers, a lot of Americans in this country find torture to be acceptable). The Republicans seem to think all this is fine, but then they spent millions to impeach Bill Clinton because of a consensual relationship he had with an intern. Can't this country get its priorities in order? McCain promises to be an extension of Bush.... until the general, when he will change his position to appeal to a broader audience.... and then when he gets into office, McCain will do as he pleases and no one knows what that will be because he is a political chameleon. Just like Clinton.

Obama, on the other hand has been consistent in his positions and has shown to be a far more capable leader than Bush, Clinton, and McCain. Obama is pretty steady in his beliefs and has stood up for what he believed is right. Tell me that you can say the same about Bush and McCain (both support torture) or Hillary.

So go ahead and elect Hillary or McCain, but don't whine when they are President and do things they were against on the campaign trail. They are the old style politicians and will do and say anything (as they have so clearly demonstrated) to get elected.

If you are going to use the Obama doesn't have executive experience and so won't make a good president" argument, then you're including McCain and Hillary in that statement, too.

Re: On the State of Things

Half_Past_Midnight — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:51:36 -0000

Holly is right about what will happen to the Dems if Obama wins. DQ, however, is right about how voters really think. Obama has no executive experience, either way. He is not ready to run a country. Good luck with that Obama "change" and "hope" thing, because I know it's all about the catch phrase.

Re: On the State of Things

Kathryn — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:45:32 -0000

Jeremy, great to see you! I still check out Charging RINO and I am really glad to see you doing some posts. I am also glad to see your posts that are giving Obama a fair hearing. Have you checked out the Republicans for Obama site?

Regards,
Kathryn
DQ-yes some white working class will not vote for Obama, but a lot do and will, if we let the basest (lowest) define us we are doomed to 50 more years of Bush/Clinton

Re: On the State of Things

cosmoetica — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:33:38 -0000

Wow, Don Q went more negative than Holly? That's an accomplishment!

Re: On the State of Things

Don Quijote — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:46:14 -0000

DQ - we've received complaints about your last comment and it will be deleted.

Truly unfortunate, but does not invalidate my point.

Once the White Working Class realizes that their choice is between a Republican and an African-American, they will vote for the Republican.

Re: On the State of Things

Holly_in_Cincinnati — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:39:08 -0000

DQ - we've received complaints about your last comment and it will be deleted.

Re: On the State of Things

StockBoySF — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:19:34 -0000

Cosmo- thanks for the clarification. I'm dense today. Yes, I agree- in an O-M race, M will have to fight for territory that would usually be safely in his corner.

I think in a H-M match that M would prevail. In a H-M match-up, M enters with the best of both worlds. M has much of the appeal of O (both O and M appeal to moderates whereas too many people find Hillary divisive) and M has waaay more experience than H. In order for H to win against M, she really has to go negative and push M's buttons. Let's face it, M is not very pretty when he has his buttons pushed.... Which attacks would also make Hillary look like the divisive person she is, which would turn a lot of former O supporters off from voting at all. (O, on the other hand seemed to shed H's attacks like water- at least in the OH debate.)

Also you mentioned that in a H-M race, H would have to campaign more in blue states. I totally agree. And it's another reason she would lose the general election- H will need the support of some red states to win the presidency. She won't win that support if she's busy defending her "home" turf. Those 5-6 states that you mention would more than likely go to M (assuming M can come across as reasonable and not let H's attacks get under his skin).

Re: On the State of Things

cosmoetica — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 16:01:21 -0000

Stockboy: I meant Offense and defense not in specific charges but in having to defend states. O can eat into Mac's strobghold but there are few blue states that will go for him, esp. we his pro-war stance. A Hill-Mac match is a stalemate with the 2 battling over 5 or 6 states to decide it. Indies give Mac an edge and means Hillw d have to campaign more in blue states.

O, however, would have the Indy cushion, and could campaign in Red states that Mac would gave to defend, because he won't eat into the blue base if O is the guy.

Re: On the State of Things

StockBoySF — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:39:30 -0000

Thanks, Jeremy- great post.

Cosmo- thanks, too! But I'm not too sure about your #17 (O is on the offensive and Mac is on the defensive). I think M has shown his willingness to be offensive (pun intended) and will be even more on the offensive to lure moderates away from O in the red states. Besides, a huge part of O's support is his ability to appeal to Dems, Repubs and independents. I think if O were going on the offensive in a O-M race, O would lose some of that support. But then again, maybe my idea of being on the offensive in countering one's opponents is different than what you mean.

Anyway I couldn't agree with you more on the other points and I like the way you laid them out, too.

Re: On the State of Things

cosmoetica — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:50:11 -0000

Relax:

1) O has a delegate lead
2) O has about a 6-700k popular vote lead
3) there is no way Hillary will be able to make either deficit up
4) she will end up, at best, down 120 or so delegates, and down 500k+ votes
5) that's at best
6) the Dems will not commit hari-kiri by pulling a Bush 2000 and selecting Hillary
7 because the Obamaheads wd walk, and Big Mac would kill Hill the Chill
8) because O will not take a VP slot when he shd be the #1 guy
9) black people would pull a Rodney King if the first black Prez candidate w a real shot at winning is screwed
10) Obama is more electable because he can win in states Hillary cannot
11) because Hillary is eking out wins in the traditional Dem strongholds
12) but O is blowing her out in Red states
13) therefore, Hill's campaign against Mac wd be a defensive one cuz no red state will go blue for her
14) because she has no appeal to Indies
15) while O does appeal to Indies more than Mac
16) and O draws Rep voters, while Hill does not
17) therefore a Mac-O matchup would put Mac on the defensive and O on the offensive
18) because O can win Red states
19) and he's done this all by actually living up to his promise not to fight dirty
20) where Hill only has dirt left and will lose fairly.