Barack Obama knows what he's fighting for, and Hillary Clinton's campaign is all wrong, which is why she's losing
It’s sad to say, but Hillary Clinton shares a moral failing with George W. Bush – a lapse that makes her fail not only herself, but her country, too.…
Article comments
26 - Arch Conservative
Yeah Nalle and the Osama Obama Lemings.
Nothing's shinier than an emtpy platitude one word catch phrase during an election season.
Hope.
Change.
No thanks.
27 - Douglas Mays
Ugh! Well, the drummer of a punk rock band I was putting on stage last month said it well. Their singer was really drunk.
He said she was "Obomba'd"
Yeah, it seems like the politics of it all has us obomba'd...
we'll just see how the game plays out.
what is real, what is illusion? They don't even know...
DM
28 - Dr Dreadful
@ #24:
Contrary to any previous impression one might have gotten, apparently Arch does have a sense of humor.
29 - Pablo
Dave re post 23
The socialism to which you refer in my opinion has nothing to do with the left per se. That is just how it appears to the un-informed. Both the left and the right are controlled by EXACTLY the same people, bar none. That is what you fail to see. You think the socialist battle is being fought between mules and elephants of various hues. It is not, the same people that control Bush's cabinet, will control Obama's or Hilary's. It is ONE big happy family, as shown by elder Bush's bosom buddy relationship with Clinton.
I do however think that you and I put different labels on it. You call it socialism, I call it the New World Order. In either case it represents totalitarianism, I think you would agree.
The whole purpose of the left/right paradigm is to keep people separated politically while the sharks eat the fish. I am surprised you do not see this, and continue to sit on your "right" side of the fence.
30 - Zedd
Dan Miller,
Why won't you vote for Clinton.
You were quite vocal about your thoughts on this author's assessment on why Clinton is wrong for this moment. Why do you think she is not good for the job?
31 - Douglas Mays
Zedd, yeah, I vote for Hillary also. The problem is that Obama is a guy...black or white, he still is male...
32 - Dan Miller
Good question, Zedd
Part of it is plain old fashioned gut feeling:
"I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.
The reason why, I cannot tell.
But this I know and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell."
I do not like her, I do not trust her, and I do not want another round of the "Clinton Team" in the White House.
However, it goes beyond mere gut feeling and visceral distaste. I acknowledge that my gut feelings and visceral distaste color my views, but that is a common failing.
Having watched how incompetently Senator Clinton's campaign has been run, I think she would be an incompetent executive. Strategic and tactical blunders have continued from "day one," due to flattering but erroneous initial perceptions of her inevitable success as nominee. Her campaign staff appear to have been consistently out of touch with themselves and with reality, and to some extent with Senator Clinton as well. The in-fighting has been remarkable. The President needs to have consummate management skills, and Senator Clinton seems to lack them. FDR had unusual, but quite effective, management skills which he exercised very well in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. In some cases, he relished in-fighting, but used it as a management tool. Sometimes he intentionally used ambiguously defined areas of responsibility to encourage in- fighting, because he knew that he could control it and use it to produce good results. If Senator Clinton could travel back in time and replace Vice President Truman when FDR died, would she have been "ready on day one" to take over? Vice President Truman did very well, even though he had been kept completely in the dark on many important happenings, e.g., the atomic bomb. I cannot conceive of Senator Clinton doing as well.
Senator Clinton seems to take seriously Mark Twain's sarcastic observation that the truth is very dear, and thus should be used sparingly. I could provide a long list, but won't bother. Here are just a couple: She stoutly proclaimed that she had opposed NAFTA early on. However, that seems to be untrue, based on her recently and reluctantly released schedules. She claimed substantial responsibility for bringing peace to Ireland, but that claim now appears, generously, to have been highly exaggerated. Her other various claims of high level responsibility during President Clinton's time in office now seem to be equally disingenuous. Aside from her botched health care work early during President Clinton's first term -- which might well have presaged her executive abilities more recently demonstrated during the present campaign -- she appears to have functioned as first lady, and little more. Perhaps one day someone will write a scholarly thesis comparing Senator Clinton's time as first lady with that of Eleanor Roosevelt as first lady. Somehow, I think Mrs. Roosevelt would be shown as having been much more active for good than was Senator Clinton. Mrs. Johnson did a very good job as first lady in beautifying Washington D.C. and in other first lady activities; I do not recall anyone suggesting that she would on that account make a good president. I simply do not believe that the truth is in Senator Clinton.
Compromise does not seem to be one of Senator Clinton's strong points. Even if she could grow to be a competent executive, I do not think that she could be effective in her relations with the Congress. For the same reason and others, I think that her foreign policy would be a disaster.
Perhaps none of these perceived defects alone would be disqualifying. All of them put together suggest to me that Senator Clinton would be an incompetent executive and a very poor president.
Dan Miller
33 - bliffle
I don't think Clintons judgement is good. On 3 occasions (at least) she didn't study the issues and alternatives and solicit information and opinions:
1-the 1993 healthcare plan where she assumed existing healthcare ins. cos. would have to survive intact.
2-the AUMF, when she didn't read the NIE
3-the Iran AUMF, when she didn't read the NIE.
In each case , I believe, instead of investigating and then making a good decision she substituted political advantage for forethought. Pretty cynical. And the irony is that she lost her supporters in each case without securing new supporters. Another mistake in judgement.
Plus, now that I see her campaign, I have further reservations about her judgement since she seems to be taking a Rule Or Ruin approach that may deprive her party of an election win. That's dumb. In office, would she do something contrary to the best interests of the USA just to secure her personal power?
34 - Zedd
Dan,
Which modern day politicians do you deem honest?
35 - Dan Miller
Zedd,
I am afraid that I have come to the conclusion that the phrase "honest politician" is and has long been an oxymoron. While a great president, FDR had his problems with truth and with traditional moral behavior. I understand that when he died, he was in the company of a woman not his wife. President Truman, whose popularity ratings at the end of his term of office were even lower than those of our current president, was a product of the Pendergast machine. His failings notwithstanding, I consider him one of our best presidents, certainly during my lifetime.
The choice, unfortunately, is between lesser evils. In the present contest, my response to your earlier question presents my view that Senator Clinton is the greater evil. I think that, his flaws notwithstanding, Senator Obama is the lesser evil. I sense that he was at least trying, subject to obvious political constraints, to be honest in his racial issues speech. I can't imagine Senator Clinton making a similar effort in any context.
Will I vote for Obama if he is the Democrat nominee? I don't know. I have never voted for a Democrat. This may be the first time. Let's wait and see what happens once Obama and McCain face of in the general election, as I think they will.
Dan Miller
36 - Condor
I was thinking just the other day that Obama may not have even been a contender if Ryan did not have to reveal his divorce papers... remember the husband of Jeri Ryan (aka 7 of 9), who divorced him because he wanted to perform sex with her in very public places... well, the papers are made public, Ryan resigns from the campaign, Keyes takes the podium and Obama wins 70% of the vote. Wow, deja vu, all over again.
Didn't similar escapades (i.e. sexual scandle)reduce Bill Clinton's public stature?
Da' rest is history; ain't it the truth? Right Spitzer?
As Jimma' Swaggart used to say "let us pray."
37 - Krutic A
Isnt it curious how the passport story disappeared from the news as soon as it was revealed that the contractors who breached the files were actually working for a company whose CEO is an Obama consultant?
If there was anyone that doubted that the media is in the tank for Obama - this is a clear indication of that fact.
38 - Dave Nalle
Krutic, the passport story was also stupid and pointless and involved nothing even vaguely controversial much less criminal.
dave