Judy, How do you explain Hillary's not voting on the issue of telcom immunity?
http://tinyurl.com/2ceckv Don't you think that that's a tell about her general stance on the Bill of Rights? --------------------- Would Hillary find anything wrong with this spy satellite project? http://tinyurl.com/2qyov7 ---------------------- Do you think Hillary will EVER address the issue of ballot chain of custody? http://tinyurl.com/2rmf2n Edg --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <jstein@> 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.) > > >
