Dear Hillary Clinton

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

You lost. You've had time to understand this. You don't seem to get it. You continue giving speeches that seem designed to rip the democratic party apart in order to win at any cost. IF the democrats lose it is your legacy and the legacy of your husband that will be tarnished.

[Boz]

That's right, fight amongst yourselves.

[Deleted]

<----- Over? Did you say... OVER??? Nothing's over 'til I decide it is! Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!!! And it ain't over now! 'Cause when the going gets tough... the tough get goin'!!! WHO'S WITH ME?!?!?!?!




EDIT: (Just so we're clear, I despise Hillary, Barack and Johnny equally.)

[Deleted]

May 20, 2008 19:29:30 GMT -5 StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) said:

IF the democrats lose it is your legacy and the legacy of your husband that will be tarnished.

Yeah, that or more people vote for McCain because they like him better? Or know nothing about Obama other than he gives good speeches?

All this "Hillary is going to cost us the general election" crap is just that. If the Democrats can't get their together against a weak candidate like McCain, they don't deserve to win.

[Filo]

They couldn't get it together against a weak candidate like Bush. Twice. Why would they change now?

[DanMcQ]

The candidate has an answer for you:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.

Clinton said she didn't understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit.

Hello?

[rosslynhoya]

Does this finally eliminate HRC's chances of being Obama's running mate, or is he really stupid enough to trust her sitting one heartbeat from the presidency?

[moe09]

After the abomination that has happened over the last 8 years McCain shouldn't win the general election even if he was Jebus. With how close he has stood to the president over these years he should be ripped to shreds in the general election. Considering this, I think America would vote two asses into the White House over any Republican at this point (simply because they would like them better). If not, we're doomed.

Fact is we need to get as far away from this administration as possible. People know this. And McCain ain't there. Therefore, even if they don't know anything about Obama other than that he gives good speeches they will vote for him. Because his party didn't have the worst president this country has ever seen. People are seeing and feeling the pain that has been caused by this presidency like never before. If you want to keep near that path, kudos, but I think most people are trying to get out of these dark times. The Republican party is going to be paying for a long, long time.

[EasyEd]

Moe, other than he is charismatic and an outstanding speaker, I can't find anything in Obama's resume that qualifies him to be president. I am not a lover of McCain but at least he seems to be qualified for the job and he has certainly served his country well. Obama could turn out to be a well-functioning president but, with the world situation the way it is, I think it's an immense gamble for our country.

[Frank Black]

I find it fascinating that Hillary has any support from anyone. I understand that sometimes you have to be dishonest to win an election, nature of the beast and whatnot. But Hillary Clinton has brought the bald faced lie to its apotheosis. Her tortured comparisons of her struggle with Selma and the Constitution et cetera are so over the top as to totally defy credulity, unless you happen to be completely disinterested in elementary critical thinking. Which fortunately for Hillary Clinton, many people seem to be. Unfortunately for her, the math is totally and irreversibly against her.

As for November, the Democrats have no excuse to lose. People really hate Republicans. Fortunately, the GOP nominated the only guy who could possibly win. Despite Obama's contentions, McCain's first term would not be Bush's third term, and people probably understand this. And Obama has failed utterly to attract working class whites. I actually think McCain is going to win this, the more I think about it.

[Nevada Hoya]

May 20, 2008 20:31:55 GMT -5 Boz said:

That's right, fight amongst yourselves.

McCain blinks more than Roy.

[moe09]

I find the argument that Obama doesn't have enough experience to be one of the weaker ones proffered by those who aren't ready for a change. The people who founded this country had less experience than Obama, and they seem to have done alright in a situation that wasn't exactly perfect for those who didn't have much experience. JFK didn't have any experience. Hillary Clinton was the first lady for two terms, did she gain experience by osmosis? George Bush was a dolt. If you can vote for a guy who can barely put together cogent sentences then I think you can vote for a guy without so much "experience."

In fact, I kind of like the fact that Obama doesn't have as much experience as others. It means that he's going to do things his way, as he promised, bringing some much needed change (I'm not going to lay out his platform, you can find it if you want to) to this nation. I don't want someone who has worked through the same old system for much of their careers. It means they're going to keep instituting it at the top. I want the opposite of GWB, and that's Obama. I think most people agree, and I think they sent that message by voting him into the nomination. People who don't have the "experience" generally bring something different to the table, much like what happened at the founding of this country, but I guess if people don't want something different, then I suppose that's their opinion, this is just mine.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

May 23, 2008 16:21:10 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

The candidate has an answer for you:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.

Clinton said she didn't understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit.

Hello?

Here's the remark in context, FYI: www.breitbart.tv/html/101403.html

In context its still bad - she basically says one of her reasons for staying in is that Obama could be shot like RFK (in addition to the fact that other candidates didn't get the nomination until June).

Here's her explanation of the remarks: www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/23/clinton.comments/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

She apologized to the Kennedys but not Obama who she clearly alluded to being potentially assassinated. She has also failed to disclaim people voting for her because of Obama's race. These are the desperate acts of a desperate candidate. It makes you wonder what else she will say if she loses both Montana and South Dakota.

[strummer8526]

The thing that annoys me is that SHE KNOWS that since 1968, primaries have all become very front-loaded. So to still have a contested primary in June during RFK's candidacy would be like contesting it in February and March today. No one was calling for her to drop out then. And she knows that such a historical analogy is BS, but still she throws it out there like the 1968 primary system is at all similar to the current one.

[Frank Black]

May 24, 2008 6:08:35 GMT -5 moe09 said:

I find the argument that Obama doesn't have enough experience to be one of the weaker ones proffered by those who aren't ready for a change. The people who founded this country had less experience than Obama, and they seem to have done alright in a situation that wasn't exactly perfect for those who didn't have much experience. JFK didn't have any experience. Hillary Clinton was the first lady for two terms, did she gain experience by osmosis? George Bush was a dolt. If you can vote for a guy who can barely put together cogent sentences then I think you can vote for a guy without so much "experience."

In fact, I kind of like the fact that Obama doesn't have as much experience as others. It means that he's going to do things his way, as he promised, bringing some much needed change (I'm not going to lay out his platform, you can find it if you want to) to this nation. I don't want someone who has worked through the same old system for much of their careers. It means they're going to keep instituting it at the top. I want the opposite of GWB, and that's Obama. I think most people agree, and I think they sent that message by voting him into the nomination. People who don't have the "experience" generally bring something different to the table, much like what happened at the founding of this country, but I guess if people don't want something different, then I suppose that's their opinion, this is just mine.

I tend to agree that experience is overrated. The trouble with Obama isn't his experience, its his policies. Which tend to be liberal boilerplate. His policies are pretty pedestrian, often wrong and certainly fail to address several big-time crises on the horizon. Most notably the demographic crunch that is going to have an enormous impact on people my age (early 30s) who will have to support legions of retired baby boomers. The Democrats have made it impossible to talk about this issue because every time someone brings it up, they demogogue it. When you combine his silence on this issue with his embarrassing stance on trade and general populism, I think that people ought to take a deep breath before they decide he's the guy to lead us for four years.

[C86]

May 23, 2008 18:21:20 GMT -5 moe09 said:

After the abomination that has happened over the last 8 years McCain shouldn't win the general election even if he was Jebus. With how close he has stood to the president over these years he should be ripped to shreds in the general election. Considering this, I think America would vote two asses into the White House over any Republican at this point (simply because they would like them better). If not, we're doomed.

Fact is we need to get as far away from this administration as possible. People know this. And McCain ain't there. Therefore, even if they don't know anything about Obama other than that he gives good speeches they will vote for him. Because his party didn't have the worst president this country has ever seen. People are seeing and feeling the pain that has been caused by this presidency like never before. If you want to keep near that path, kudos, but I think most people are trying to get out of these dark times. The Republican party is going to be paying for a long, long time.

For what it's worth, most surveys I've seen rank James Buchanan as the worst president the country has ever seen. The assessment seems to make sense, as states seceded during his watch. He was also a democrat.

[moe09]

For what it's worth the Democratic party of today is hardly comparable to the Democratic party of 1860... that is laughable.

Then, as for the demographic problem, at this point Social Security has been so screwed by the Bush Administration that I can't imagine an argument for putting it in the hands of another Republican. I went to John McCain's website and the only mention of this issue is a small paragraph that reads thusly:

"John McCain Will Reform Social Security. He will fight to save the future of Social Security while meeting our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts – but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. He will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity."

Man, if he can do it without raising taxes and some mystical system of "personal accounts," (and I don't even know what that means other than the fact that it sounds to me like an allusion to the terrible idea of privatizing Social Security), then I suppose even I'll vote for him.

On the other hand, Obama dedicates an entire page to this issue.

Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $102,000 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

I dunno, maybe it's me, or maybe by taxing above just $102,000 will bring in more income to spend on the Social Security issue that will keep Social Security solvent for the 30 year olds of today.

While it's pretty easy to find a litany of information on how Obama plans to support the senior citizens of this country at this page:

www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/

You have to drag through all of McCain's economic plan to find his little measly paragraph on this page:

www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm

I suppose if you disagree, though, you're entitled to your own opinion.

[TBird41]

May 24, 2008 16:42:36 GMT -5 moe09 said:

For what it's worth the Democratic party of today is hardly comparable to the Democratic party of 1860... that is laughable.

FWIW...Buchanan was still a worse President than W. And JFK was first elected to Congress in 1947 (and was elected to the Senate in 1853). He had a lot more experience than Obama does

[Frank Black]

May 24, 2008 16:42:36 GMT -5 moe09 said:

For what it's worth the Democratic party of today is hardly comparable to the Democratic party of 1860... that is laughable.

Then, as for the demographic problem, at this point Social Security has been so screwed by the Bush Administration that I can't imagine an argument for putting it in the hands of another Republican. I went to John McCain's website and the only mention of this issue is a small paragraph that reads thusly:

"John McCain Will Reform Social Security. He will fight to save the future of Social Security while meeting our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts – but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. He will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity."

Man, if he can do it without raising taxes and some mystical system of "personal accounts," (and I don't even know what that means other than the fact that it sounds to me like an allusion to the terrible idea of privatizing Social Security), then I suppose even I'll vote for him.

On the other hand, Obama dedicates an entire page to this issue.

Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $102,000 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

I dunno, maybe it's me, or maybe by taxing above just $102,000 will bring in more income to spend on the Social Security issue that will keep Social Security solvent for the 30 year olds of today.

While it's pretty easy to find a litany of information on how Obama plans to support the senior citizens of this country at this page:

www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/

You have to drag through all of McCain's economic plan to find his little measly paragraph on this page:

www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm

I suppose if you disagree, though, you're entitled to your own opinion.

Okay, I'll bite. "Solvency" is a fiction. 'Solvency' means that there are 'IOUs' in the Social Security Trust Fund. But IOUs don't pay the rent, current taxpayers do. The trust fund is an accounting fiction, and everyone under 45 needs to know that because we're the ones that are getting hammered by it.

The key barometer for a serious plan is an acknowledgment that the government has made promises that it cannot keep. How does Sen. Obama plan to address the issue of an ever-deteriorating ratio of workers to retirees? I encourage you to get the facts at concordcoalition.org. I'm not saying that McCain's 'no tax' pledge isn't irresponsible, it is. But Obama's pandering is not change, Moe. It is the same stupid crap we've endured since democracy was invented.

[strummer8526]

May 24, 2008 18:36:19 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

May 24, 2008 16:42:36 GMT -5 moe09 said:

For what it's worth the Democratic party of today is hardly comparable to the Democratic party of 1860... that is laughable.

FWIW...Buchanan was still a worse President than W. And JFK was first elected to Congress in 1947 (and was elected to the Senate in 1853). He had a lot more experience than Obama does

Wow...most people go from the House to the Senate if they're going to change houses. Seems odd that he would be in the Senate and then move to the house 94 years later. That's quite a long political career. I'm just nitpicking.