Judy, I believe in a Judy who addresses issues. Where is she now? I raised several concepts that you've simply brushed aside as "idiotic."
That's a personal comment about my brain's ability to be logical that is unfounded by anything I've ever posted here. I can be wrong, badly wrong, but I am pretty open minded to new arguments -- you've changed my mind on several issues. So for you to use the word "idiotic" has me thinking that I've got you on the ropes if you're just throwing "blurbs from other minds" and nurturing unprovable fears about Obama at me as you've done in the two posts you sent so far. The below quotes ignores Hillary's failures in the past to "guide/lead/influence" congress. Don't get me wrong; Obama has much to answer for, but in general, what I find offensive about Obama goes in spades for Hillary -- taking money from elitists for example. But to endorse Hillary by saying she's the only one who can face the repugantcans' when the war funding, the wire tapping, the destruction of the Bill of Rights are all issues that she's taken no leadership position about. Where's Hillary saying she'll repeal/undo/negate all the presidential powers that Bush has simply made "law" by fascistic edict? As far as I can tell, she and Bill will run with the same dogs to get richer, and she'll use the same "can't let you see the files/emails, because of national security concerns" for her own ends just as Bush has....she's taking money from anyone....pretty much. Obama has some restraints on money taking, but is quite sinful too -- especially his BigPharm contacts. She as corrupt as can be. I cannot for the life of me figure why she's fooled you. With Obama we have the issue of "can he deliver?" I doubt it, cuz the elitists of congress will still be able to filibuster etc. to grind the gears and spin the wheels uselessly while pork is eaten by the politicians. But at least we can be assured that Obama will be sermonizing about the abuses -- he's got too much momentum to reverse his "yes we can" grassroots empowerment to do good. He can't use any of the standard reasons to "stay in Iraq," "give up on universal health care," "keep homeland security handcuffs on our culture because of the terrorists," etc. I think he's painted himself into being a one-term president if he fails to make headway on many issues. And probably this whole discussion is moot, since Americans are so racist that Obama's skin color will make the election a one issue debate that will galvanize rich whites to mobilize the fear-vote with the most scurrilous, culture harming, swift-boating of Obama as a closeted-brainwashed-toddler-Muslim-fundamentalist, water-melon eating foot shuffling, jive-ass pimp for outdated notions of civil rights who will simply give all the African Americans an undeserved ticket to prosperity in some sort of Oprah "You get a car, and you get a car, and you get a car," giveaway to shiftless drug addled welfare sluts. Something like that. Now, here's a reason to support Hillary that I wish you'd get into Judy: that she's a woman and that despite the many examples to the contrary, women in general are far far more sensitive to the abuses of men, and men have been raping this planet for 10,000 years. There's the issue that would swing me to Hillary's side if she took up the banner for women everywhere -- starting with the plights of dirty water drinking little girls of the third world. But that wouldn't work now would it? Women love to hate women, and Hillary knows that she can't run on a "woman's time to shine" platform, because feminine issues unite the anti-female males, but hardly get any sort of female unity. If she cries a few more times, she might win the big upcoming primaries -- I think it works for her to be seen as tender-hearted but still rough/tough enough and a not a puff fluff muff. Edg --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From some comments on Obama by Joseph P. Wilson (husband > of Valerie Plame Wilson): > > Contrary to the myth of the Obama campaign, 2008 is not the year for > transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration > will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And > the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt > Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, > emptying of the national treasury - or rebuilding our government and > our national reputation, piece by piece. > > In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, > we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator > who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign > and in governing.... > > ...Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is > one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's > Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply > knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the > Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She > has never been intimidated, not by any Republican - not even John > McCain. > > Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be > increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, > especially with Mr. McCain's arrival.... > > http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal- > op.hillary12feb12,0,7566890,print.story > http://tinyurl.com/3585w6 > > > From a commenter on Kevin Drum's Political Animal blog: > > Many -- likely most, I'd guess -- of Obama's most ardent followers > are people who not very long ago vehemently argued that the > absolutely critical thing our Democratic leaders should do is "stand > up" to the Republicans and "fight back". This was certainly a > signature issue of Howard Dean's campaign, and many of Dean's most > loyal devotees have made their way into Obama's camp. These same > followers typically savaged Kerry for failing to "fight back" when he > ran in 2004, and used that as a basic reason to oppose his running > again in this cycle. Moreover, many of this camp to this very day > cannot castigate the current Democratic members of Congress enough > for backing down to the Republicans. > > Yet, simply because Obama has indicated that he's going to introduce > a "new politics" appealing to "bipartisanship", and "reaching across > the aisle", suddenly these same tongues are stilled. Suddenly, this > is the exactly right thing for Obama to do, and for us to embrace. > > When you turn on a dime on some of your most strongly held > convictions, and argue vehemently in one direction one day, and then, > after your leader has pointed the opposite way, argue vehemently the > other direction, that is a sign of a cult, I should think. And if you > don't want to call it a cult, but, say, "pink peonies" instead, then > we will all be much, much better off if we can get rid of the damn > pink peonies, because they can destroy our politics. > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013128.ph > p#1228435 > > (Sorry, can't make a TinyURL for this link.) >
