Blogcritics Comments on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Comment by Conservative on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:54:05 EDT

I'm a former Giulani supporter who is now unfortunately forced to vote for McCain (I originally was going to sit out the election). I completely agree that Obama will do a lot worse among the crucial independents than Hilary. Obama has the most liberal voting record in congress and is far to extreme. Hilary is much tougher on terrorism. All of Hilary's negative have been hashed out years ago so they will have lesser impact. The media frenzy has built Obama into this saintly flawless figure which is incredibly easy to knock down. IMO McCain has no chance vs a dream ticket of Hilary president Obama vice, some chance vs Hilary, and a huge change and will probably win vs Obama.

Comment by MB on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Sat, 3 May 2008 21:25:34 EDT

I have to agree with Staci. Thank you for such an eloquent defense of Senator Clinton. What concerns me the most about Obama is that 60% of Ombama supporters say they would support Hillary in the fall but only 50% of Hillary voters said they would vote for Obama over McCain. My own Mother In Law, who has been a republican since birth, switched to Democrat just so she could vote for Hillary because she feels McCain is to old and unqualified. In addition, we have two states with large populations who are NOT being counted in what is a very tight race. Then, you have to consider that the states where they caucus are the states where Hillary is weakest. Caucuses are the least Democratic manner of voting I have ever heard of. When speaking to a Hillary supporter to reminder her of the upcoming caucus, a friend of mine was told that this supporter could not come to the caucus because she is handicap. Caucuses do not allow for absentee ballots and thus eliminate anyone homebound, who works at a time the caucus is being held, or who simply finds that it is not possible to leave the house at the designated time - ie-single mother with no money for a babysitter.

Comment by Jill on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 20:34:35 EDT

Good article Staci, but I'm still with Obama. I think Americans prefer straight talkers and Clinton will never be that. She exudes phoniness. I nearly gagged when I saw her down a shot in an effort to be "just folks." Please. I prefer her as a boring policy wonk. She has been far too deliberate about strategy in this election. Certainly the other candidates are too, but she is the worst of them and it seems like she sold her soul to win this thing.

Comment by Dan on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 19:33:56 EDT

dee, glad I was able to help you out. For further assistance you should know that it is Alquida, not the US who is killing Iraqi's. They usually aren't bashful about taking credit when they send in retarded women as suicide bombers. It's Iraqi's (our allies) who kill alquida. We help them of course. Tax cuts saved us from the recession Bush inherited from Clinton, and were partly responsible for the robust economy that we've enjoyed for most of Bush's two terms. I'm happy to be part of the "20%" (so you say) who enjoy prosperity.

Comment by dee on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 19:01:24 EDT

Dan, Thanks for the Al Queda, not Quida, reminder buddy... who let me remind you that had no connection to Iraq and were not in Iraq before our experienced leaders in Washington got us into a never ending, money draining retarded unneeded war... Iraq, an ally? holy s*it this has got to be the dumbest statement I've ever heard... What we have installed in Iraq is a Pro Iranian government... I hope that was the goal, it probably was one of the reasons Bushco used, they use every other possible justification.. and know your facts, al queda is a small small percentage of what we are fighting in Iraq, we are fighting and killing mostly Iraqis, not Al Quida as you like to call them.. Hillary is not the best chance, she has NO chance of winning... take my word... McCain can bring the country together is the 2nd dumbest statement ever... the guy is old and crazy, supports more war (YEAH MORE WAR), tax cuts for rich people who do not need them, and free trade deals that have hurt many many American families... no one is rallying around those policies except maybe you and the 20% or so that still support the worst president ever... the stupidity in this country just amazes me

Comment by Zedd on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 18:08:15 EDT

Clavos, I agree with most of what you said. Yes being among the elite in any area is a good thing. She addressed it as if it was a bad thing so I just turned her statement around to make her see that making the word "elite" evil is silly. I don't however agree that the plain folks are that much more different then those who hold authority in our time. Everyone's got the Internet and well, there are multitudes of George Bushes out there taking up space in the corner offices of metropolises all over the country. Don't know what's wrong with you Boomers but you messed up some how. The "greed is good" and intellect is for Liberals thing really screwed things up. Now you finally have the country to run and look at it.

Comment by Dan on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 17:41:19 EDT

dee, we were at war with Iraq for about 2 weeks. Mission accomplished. We're now allied with Iraq in a war against a common enemy, alquida. Remember them? Now that Obama has been exposed as a lying racist fanatic, Hillary is the best chance Democrats have. Although if left leaning Democrats were truthful about bringing the country together, (which they're not} McCain would be the man. No polarized partisans like him.

Comment by dee on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 16:46:18 EDT

"Dee thank you for providing proof that there people other than the intellectually elite who support Obama. If he wins the nomination that will be a stereotype we'll need to quickly overcome." Wait a minute... if I am not the intellectual elite as you allege, then I have to be supporting Hillary right??? B*tchface has the support of all the dumbies in this county, I cannot be unintellectual if I support Obama based on your logic... And seriously, what are you smoking when you claim that the war issue will actual help Hillary against McCain? This is the most rediculous assertion I have ever heard. Somehow Hillary's dumb vote to get us into a war with a country that never attacked us is going to help her with her party. That's just nonsense. I see why you support her. Hillary needs to die. Arch - suck it

Comment by Dave Nalle on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 12:58:31 EDT

The way I see it happening is through sweeping legislation limiting CEO salaries or tying them to employee salaries in some semi-arbitrary way. For example I'm a CEO in the same sense that you are. I've got 4 part time employees. If my salary were limited based on what they earn it might well be set so low that I wouldn't be able to stay in business. Or what if salary were limited to a set percentage of gross? My salary is the single largest expense of my company because I do almost all of the work. My point is that the same formulae which would work to restrict CEO salary for the top 500 or 3000 companies would be disastrous when applied to the 500,000 small companies which are below that level. That concern aside, the truth is that in the vast majority of cases CEO compensation is entirely reasonable given the size of the company and the number of workers the company has. There's no need for government regulation. CEOs are answerable to their boards and stockholders and if they aren't complaining then the government has no business stepping in. All talk about the 'relationship' between CEO compensation and worker salary is meaningless because that relationship doesn't exist. You could cut the CEO salary to 0 and the workers would not get paid a single cent more because the two types of salary are set based on entirely different criteria. The CEO is paid based on what the board thinks his performance is worth. The worker's salary is set entirely based on the prevailing market wages for that sort of job. The minute you see someone talking about a relationship between CEO salaries and worker salaries you know they aren't qualified to make any kind of decision on how those salaries are set and especially not to impose wages through government fiat. Dave

Comment by Cindy D on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 12:28:12 EDT

Dave, I am not so sure that measures taken against the highest paid publicly traded corporations will have fallout on people making 100k. By definition, I am a CEO. I own a C corporation and have two employees. I make about 62k per year. I don't see how making those at the highest levels of compensation accountable to their shareholders is going to hurt me. How do you see this fallout happening?

Comment by Dave Nalle on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 11:53:07 EDT

I'd like to see your references for that figure. Here is what I find: The median total compensation for all CEOs was $2.079 million; for CEOs of S&P 500 companies, the median was $8.847 million. Based on The Corporate Library's study, which included companies in the Russell 3000 index. My source is the BLSs data which includes all companies not just the top 3000 publicly traded companies, so it averages in the relatively low salaries of a huge number of CEOs from hundreds of thousands of small companies. Plus the figure I quoted was for salary, not total compensation. Very different things. Even your Russell 3000 companies are a tiny fraction of the businesses in the US which remains a primarily entrepreneurial society. My fear about CEO salary fearmongering is that measures taken against the highest paid CEOs will have unintended fallout for the small business owners earning 6-figures and too small to lobby to protect themselves. Dave

Comment by Staci Schoff on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 11:19:26 EDT

Dave, obviously I just picked an exaggerated number since it had nothing to do with the point I was making -- the point is that labor unions exist to ensure corporations compensate their workers adequately for the services they provide. I was only making the point that union members don't tend to support socialism. Bliffle, I see your point. But how exactly do you suppose the U.S. government might force China to leave Tibet? By sanctions that would starve the Chinese people, as in Cuba? Or by bombing China? Either it's ok for the U.S. military to impose its will on others around the globe or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. Some people (including some Iraqis) feel that the U.S. liberated Iraq from a vile dictator. It's complicated, yes, and it obviously can't be worked out in an online comment section.

Comment by bliffle on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 11:11:16 EDT

Sometimes Archie and Al sound so alike I can't tell them apart. Are you two bunkmates?

Comment by bliffle on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 11:08:33 EDT

oops. That was Archie with the childish language.

Comment by bliffle on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 11:05:57 EDT

"U.S. Out of Iraq" and "Free Tibet" are not contradictory premises at all: war and occupation are not the solution for problems in Iraq or Tibet. In fact, both premises are encompassed by "Occupiers out of Iraq and Tibet". Just a small point, but it illustrates the shallow and illogical thinking of some BC participants, accented by Mssr. Bargers violent and abusive rant, above.

Comment by Cindy D on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 10:34:51 EDT

Dave, I'd like to see your references for that figure. Here is what I find: The median total compensation for all CEOs was $2.079 million; for CEOs of S&P 500 companies, the median was $8.847 million. Based on The Corporate Library's study, which included companies in the Russell 3000 index.

Comment by Arch Conservative on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 08:15:36 EDT

"Dee thank you for providing proof that there people other than the intellectually elite who support Obama." No doubt Staci. Obama has the hippy, hooka smoking college kid vote locked. He's got the support of Hammass, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc... and all of their sympathizers in this nation. He's got the Nation of Islam vote locked up. He's got the white liberal steeped in guilt for slavery vote locked up. He's got the "look at me I'm a white liberal voting for a black man....am I not the most open minded person you've met" vote locked up. Yet despite all of this support he will still never get anywhere near the white house. Fuck Barack Hussein Obama and fuck all of his supporters. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor. Arch, that kind of remark is not in keeping with the spirit of brotherly love we wish to foster at BC, so knock it off!]

Comment by El Bicho on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 02:21:06 EDT

"actually BC doesn't prefer a lot of outside linking in articles, so I didn't do it." If you double check with the political editors, I don't think they will have a problem with you linking to a few sites that support your points. They do. But then again I don't see how they prove your points in the future. They are snapshots of the moment and fluid. None of the respondents are locked into their positions, so just because a Democrat says right now they will vote McCain doesn't guarantee they will in November. If McCain listened to polls seven months ago, would he still be running? I don't see how pointing out the flaws in your arguments makes one a Obama supporter, but you are wrong about that as well.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 02:02:19 EDT

And in that average, are you including the CEO and owner of Uncle Walt's Pizza Shack, who barely covers his operating costs and misses mortgage payments with unhealthy frequency? C'm on, Dave. You know that when people talk about fat cat CEOs, that's not who they mean. Oh, and you can stop being Mayor Barry now. You remember how that whole Vox Populi thing went...

Comment by Bjork on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 02:00:25 EDT

The country needs Hillary. Why? To continue the Washington game of sweeping problems under the rug and pandering to the uneducated. Elect Hillary (or McCain) and they will continue to perpetuate the games politicians play with our lives and money. Clinton's (and McCain's) proposal to suspend the tax on gasoline for the summer months when use is highest is a stupid idea at best. It's surprising that anyone with intelligence would fall for it. They are dishing out the same old crap to fool the people. It's pure gimmick. The gas-tax proposal would be doing what the Bush Administration has done since 2001 -- offer ineffective solutions, disguise problems, hide them or delay the consequences. You can bet the oil companies would not freeze gas prices so the cost per gallon would continue to go up. The 18.4 cent tax totals about $30 for the average consumer for the entire summer. Big Deal! Those proposing the gas-tax suspension are showing ignorance of the sources of high prices. In 2002 the price of oil was $26 a barrel. Now it's well over $100. Why? Could it be the war in the Middle East which McCain wants to expand and which Hillary voted to allow Bush to start? Anyone with intelligence can see that Barack Obama is right about not backing the gas tax suspension. We need "change" -- not the same old crap that Washington likes to dish out. It's past time for change in Washington.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 01:36:28 EDT

CEO's make 85 billion a year now? I had no idea. The average CEO in the US actually makes $90K a year. That's thousand, not billion. And in those few cases where CEOs make billions, if their salary were divided among their workers it would add only pennies to their weekly pay. Dave

Comment by Staci Schoff on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 01:08:29 EDT

El Bicho, I may or may not be lazy, but actually BC doesn't prefer a lot of outside linking in articles, so I didn't do it. What I was pointing to at RCP is that it shows Clinton beating Obama by a greater margin. What I was pointing to on Gallup was a poll showing that 28% of Clinton's supporters will vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. As I wrote in the first place, I know that the majority of Americans do not support the war now. However, the majority of Americans DID support the war when Clinton voted for it. It will be a non-issue between Clinton and McCain - or to Clinton's advantage because she will be able to present a view more in line with the general public (Obama opposed initially but approved off and on later when it suited him, and McCain still approves). Between Obama and McCain it won't be the only issue that matters - and McCain will get the 27% who DON'T think the war was a mistake right off the top. Ralph Nader can't even get support among the people who voted for him in 2000 (myself included) so I doubt anyone is shaking in fear for what he might do. Nobody is interested in HIS "shenanigans" anymore, frankly. I'm not exactly sure what your point or problem is, but if it's that you think Obama is some kind of a saint compared to Clinton or McCain, try reading what Ralph Nader's running mate has to say about his voting record and his ablility to talk out both sides of his mouth -- you can find it on the CounterPunch website titled The Obama Craze by Matt Gonzalez. You might want to get a handkerchief first.

Comment by Al Barger on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Fri, 2 May 2008 00:08:42 EDT

Here in Indiana, we are getting mailers from Barack and Hillary pretty nearly every day. Barack's are bigger and have pretty pictures of His Awesomeness. Today, however, Hillary sent us a nice flyer about an actual issue - Barack's record on guns. Not like the NRA would endorse Hillary, but she is credibly running to the right of him on this issue. I'm guessing that there were similar mailings in PA. We've got Kentucky and West Virginia coming up. Yup, us bitter hillbillies are clinging to our guns. Do no underestimate the importance of gun issues in these particular primaries -and then in the general election.

Comment by El Bicho on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Thu, 1 May 2008 23:35:01 EDT

Just so I have this straight, you are too lazy to offer any proof of your assertions and expect others to do it for you? All right, even though the value of polls at six months out is no guarantee as the primaries have already shown. At RCP, you only want us to paying attention to the polls that has Hillary beating McCain and not the ones where Obama beats McCain. Is that right? The current numbers at Gallup have both Hillary and Obama with statistical errors of tying, so I don't see how that gives one candidate more of an edge. btw, Gallup had this: "The most recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds 63% of Americans saying the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, a new high mark by one percentage point." so your pro-Hillary point "Another advantage she'll have over Obama in the general election is that she voted to go to war initially" is proven false by the numbers. "about the same number of people who voted for Ralph Nader -- big deal." You must not be up on your recent history. The numbers Ralph got in 2000 were a big deal, and he will be more appealing to many than he was in 2004 if Hilary gets the nomination through perceived shenanigans.

Comment by Staci Schoff on Why Democrats Should Choose Clinton

Thu, 1 May 2008 22:29:02 EDT

Dan, you're right that a lot of people just "don't like" Clinton -- but I'll be truly sad for her if the media find one more thing with which to beat her up. Still, if they do, I know she won't whine about it, so I won't whine on her behalf. As for Bill's comments -- he didn't inhale either -- I agree that it's hypocritical, but I don't know that it will make a lot of difference at the polls.