Hillary's getting a raw deal

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 4:11 PM GMT
    I was watching some of the late night talk shows (thank god they have their writers back) and I realized something profound. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to get consistently bad press from nearly every facet and I'm baffled. It seems to me there's plenty of ammunition to use against John McCain (eg. his age, his speech via closed teeth, even his betty of a wife). Then there's Barack Obama, why is no one poking fun at him either? If he were any skinnier I'd be tempted to call the Christian Children's Fund and tell them "Forget kids in Africa, we've got a starvin marvin right here in the US!" Or how about the fact that his wife Michelle looks like a freaky combination of Omarosa from The Apprentice and Condoleezza Rice. Ah!
    stories_michelle.jpg

    I just find it odd that the entire country is so biased against Hillary Clinton. What could this woman, who's dedicated her life to public service, have done to have deserved this kind of constant ridicule? If it seemed that the race was played fairly, meaning the media actually abided by its claim of unbiased reporting, or followed its legal obligations of providing equal coverage of each candidate (both in negative and positive light) then I wouldn't feel she's being attacked. The fact of the matter, however, is that she is, Hillary Clinton is attacked by any and everyone who will listen. I for one am completely fed up with it. Yes, I am a Hillary supporter. I have been since her 2000 bid for New York's US Senate seat. She's a strong woman with good ideals and has concrete answers to the issues plaguing our country today. Unlike Obama, Hillary Clinton has given us specific details on how she will provide health care for every American (Obama's plan DOES NOT COVER EVERYONE), how she will bring our friends & family home from Iraq, how she will improve the economy as we stand on the verge of hitting a recession, (if you ask me, i'd much rather have someone in the white house who knows what the hell they're doing with our economy about to plummet).

    It just seems to me that a lot of the American public is easily swayed by rhetoric. I've asked tons of Obama supporters what it is that attracts them to him and nearly all of them say they like the way he speaks, or that he's hot or that they like the dopey song ads they've seen on youtube. Not one of the many Obama supporters I've spoken with have said they like him because of his plan for America. Not one person has said they support him because of the specifics of his economic agenda, or his health care plan, or his plan to help us avoid the coming recession.

    So, I have to ask Obama supporters, why are you supporting someone who hasn't given you a straightforward answer to any of your questions for the future of this country? Why would you prefer nice words without any meaning behind them over sound advice and leadership?

    I'll end with a question I pose to all Americans; why are you so afraid of a strong woman? It seems to me that many strong women have been attacked throughout history. If we truly are a nation of opportunity and equality, why have you so vehemently opposed women in positions of power? I've met many women in my lifetime that were stronger, smarter and better leaders than millions of men. I wonder if Hillary Clinton were a man, would she have any trouble at all convincing the country that she is more experienced, more pragmatic and more qualified to be the President of the United States?


    ****SPECIAL NOTE: I don't ever change my original post if I start a thread but I think everyone reading should know that after some responses I clarified myself a bit further down in the thread. thanks!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 4:27 PM GMT
    Very good questions. Barack Obama has star power right now. The USA has always had a weak spot for movie stars, charismatic politicians and other celebrities. "You are how you look and present yourself" is one way to summarize it.

    Hillary Clinton, although obviously very bright, hard-working and disciplined, is not what I would call "warm and fuzzy". She also has her husbands presidency as baggage to carry. I personally kind of liked the womanizing old rogue, but I know a lot of people hated Bill Clinton. The Clintons I feel made a strategic error early in the primaries by taking some cheap shots at Obama. Voters saw this as the same old dirty politics, and they are sick of it.

    You gotta be very careful in an election campaign about attacking people because they are old (like McCain) or to be perceived as attacking their race. I would not go after Obama's wife! That would be a disaster. The best way to tackle Obama is to try and question the details of his policy platform and to bring up his lack of experience. George W. Bush had no foreign policy experience (and obviously his father did not have any impact on him) and no federal government experience. This lack of experience showed up in his presidency.

    I am not saying Obama would have the same issues but it is something I would be concerned about if I was voting in the US election.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 5:03 PM GMT
    genqb said
    I'll end with a question I pose to all Americans; why are you so afraid of a strong woman? It seems to me that many strong women have been attacked throughout history. If we truly are a nation of opportunity and equality, why have you so vehemently opposed women in positions of power? I've met many women in my lifetime that were stronger, smarter and better leaders than millions of men. I wonder if Hillary Clinton were a man, would she have any trouble at all convincing the country that she is more experienced, more pragmatic and more qualified to be the President of the United States?


    And I will answer you with a question. What is your obsession with straw man arguments? Because someone supports another person than Hillary they are afraid of strong woman? Because someone is supports someone other than Hillary they are opposed women in power?

    I was actually undecided in the race until today and my stance is more on principal than anything else. Hillary has decided late into the process that she doesn't like the rules and that Michigan and Florida delegates should be seated at the convention. This is not the act of a "strong" person. This is the act of a desperate person who would rather subvert the whole process than follow the rules she agreed to. So please take the "Hillary is a poor victim" card and put it away. That one is getting really old.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 7:07 PM GMT
    genqb said

    What could this woman, who's dedicated her life to public service, have done to have deserved this kind of constant ridicule?

    I'll end with a question I pose to all Americans; why are you so afraid of a strong woman? It seems to me that many strong women have been attacked throughout history. If we truly are a nation of opportunity and equality, why have you so vehemently opposed women in positions of power? I've met many women in my lifetime that were stronger, smarter and better leaders than millions of men. I wonder if Hillary Clinton were a man, would she have any trouble at all convincing the country that she is more experienced, more pragmatic and more qualified to be the President of the United States?


    To answer the first question, she ran for public office. Public figures are often the subject of ridicule. You did the same thing in your post regarding McCain, Obama, and his wife.

    As for the second set of issues, those are sweeping generalizations. Of course women have been attacked throughout history. The same is true of people of color. We're at a point in history where a woman and a person of color can both become President, unfortunately they're both trying to do so at the same time in a system which doesn't allow it. The public HAS to choose one of them. Their reasons for choosing one over the other might not be the best, but I don't think there's a nationwide anti-woman bias. Otherwise, how could you account for women as governors, AGs, mayors, in Congress, etc?

    And let's face it, the media is biased. I think a big factor was how successful conservatives were at making the mainstream media believe that they were too liberal. There has been a general pull to the center/right over the past few years, especially when the 9/11 investigation was going on and criticism over the war started escalating. So with McCain safely on the conservative side and Obama a relative unknown, Clinton was left. Add her husband's history to the mix and the target grows. I'm not saying that any of it is right or fair, but that's Presidential politics.
  • stevarino7

    Posts: 149

    Feb 20, 2008 7:27 PM GMT
    I just read a really good article about this in Newsweek:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/113672
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 7:36 PM GMT
    The media is under no such legal obligation "of providing equal coverage of each candidate (both in negative and positive light)".

    She does have it pretty bad. It is amazing she has done as well as she has considering how she was dragged through the mud in the 90's.

    I will say though, have you read the NY Times? That paper loves them some Hillary with the exception of Maureen Dowd (who is not a journalist, but an entertainer-columnist). Paul Krugman has devoted almost his entire column to praise Hillary and discredit Obama. He has especially gone through lengths touting that her health care plan will cover everyone but his will not, something that has no consensus among his fellow economists or health care experts.

    However, if you want to see why Hillary has gone from the inevitable candidate to the underdog you need not look further than her campaign strategists, particularly Mark Penn. When Obama was spending his money building campaign networks in 50 states she was shelling out big bucks for advisers. This really should have been her election.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 7:38 PM GMT
    Hillary is out for herself, it is time most in the country have realized it. Why it took so long is what I don't understand.

    I personally don't like any of the candidates that much. It is very dissapointing to me that a country as great a this one has had 2 families in the White House this long. If we don't wake up I wonder what the outcome 10 or 20 years will be.

  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 20, 2008 7:48 PM GMT
    It just seems to me that a lot of the American public is easily swayed by rhetoric.

    HA!! This is laughable. Hillary never spoke any rhetoric? Really!!!

    I've asked tons of Obama supporters what it is that attracts them to him

    My choice for is Obama is that he is the only one that offers any real optimism. Hillary wants to give every newborn $5000 as a way to start their lives when they turn 18. That's what parents should be doing and parents who don't shouldn't expect this kind of hand out, especially in our society that doesn't know what thrift and savings mean.

    So, I have to ask Obama supporters, why are you supporting someone who hasn't given you a straightforward answer to any of your questions for the future of this country? Why would you prefer nice words without any meaning behind them over sound advice and leadership?

    Again, your smug support of Hillary has left you deaf and blind to Obama. You need to turn your question around and ask yourself why you don't like Obama. You see him and hear him, but you lack his vision and you don't listen.

    I'll end with a question I pose to all Americans; why are you so afraid of a strong woman?

    Who says that anyone's support for Obama is fear of Hillary? Your supposition is bias enough that you cover what you find the media lacking.

    And for your remaining questions, what soapbox do you get your ideas from? I have voted for women before and just because I hadn't voted for Hillary doesn't mean that I won't ever vote for women again.

    Finally, since you want to use demographics to argue your points of view, let me turn the table on you: Why are you so afraid of the Black Man?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 7:55 PM GMT
    Obama's black?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 8:08 PM GMT
    A president who can inspire the people can get a lot done.

    A president with a lot of negatives coming into office and the opposition already digging in their heels is only gotting to prepetuate the political gridlock.

    People are tired of it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 10:06 PM GMT
    Just saw this on Towleroad. It a video of Omama criticizing people who use minorities, gays, and others to divide the public. I'd be more than happy to watch a similar Clinton video.

    [url][/url]
  • yogadudeSEATT...

    Posts: 373

    Feb 20, 2008 10:14 PM GMT
    Obama unites, Clinton divides. We are seeing this played out before our very eyes. I for one am sick of living in a country divided.
  • dhinkansas

    Posts: 764

    Feb 20, 2008 10:40 PM GMT
    Everyone is entitled to support whatever candidate they want. I don't really quite understand how people supporting other gives Ms. Clinton a "raw" deal. I think this thread in itself shows how divisive she can be. Not to be offensive, but you aren't listening to any other point besides Hillary. I think a lot of voters are still listening and examining the information, stances and all that in order to determine what candidate to support. I don't think lame late night talk show jokes will sway very many voters. Is she under a more severe light because of her gender: probably so. It's an unfortunate part of the syster, just as Obama may face increased scrutiny because of his race. Politics is a machine run by wealthy, older white men of both parties, and until this changes...I'm not sure who sits in the oval office matters as much as to whom makes up the rest of the government.
  • dfrourke

    Posts: 1062

    Feb 20, 2008 10:48 PM GMT
    ...this isn't surprising...

    ...our list of past presidents is riddled with names of men who were "men of their time"...not the smartest...not the best leaders...men of circumstance...

    ...there are few of those men who rose to the occassion and really matched leadership, intelligence, and charisma...it's a rare thing...

    ...I remember two elections ago, the comment being made that Americans chose George Bush [rolls eyes] because they felt more comfortable having a beer with him...8 years later, it seems obvious to most of the country Al Gore was the smarter guy...

    ...you can't just have great ideas or past history these days...you have to be able to "sell it" to the public...

    - David
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2008 11:16 PM GMT
    Hillary is getting a "raw deal" because she's a figure who has been immersed in the political machine for too long. Does she deserve it? Not exactly, but that's life when you run for office. That's like saying, gee those American Idol kids shouldn't be scrutinized by the media because they never did anything to the public.

    I think there is a lot of bias against Hillary. I'm an Obama supporter without question, but if Hillary were to win the nomination, I'd vote for her. Unfortunately, Hillary has a ton of baggage and a vast following of people who hate her for no specific reason.

    My question to you is Why do YOU have to attack Obama because he's winning? Why do YOU contribute to the negativity that you hate to see directed at Hillary?

    You may believe that Hillary has it all mapped out and has given you "straight answers," but enacting those policies is the most important part of being a President. Obama stands a much better chance of uniting people and getting bipartisan support... something Hillary Clinton will have a much harder time of doing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 1:40 AM GMT
    I knew I was going to get a bunch of replies on this. I was hoping, however, that people would understand the underlying theme which is Hillary Clinton gets a ton of negativity directed towards her. No one can argue that any other candidate has received as much. I'm just wondering why? In this campaign she's been talking about a lot of the same issues that any other candidate and has given a lot of great solutions to the problems were facing -- specific solutions.

    That being said, i'll reply as best I can...

    webinfrontAnd I will answer you with a question. What is your obsession with straw man arguments? Because someone supports another person than Hillary they are afraid of strong woman? Because someone is supports someone other than Hillary they are opposed women in power?


    I never even implied that supporting someone else means that he/she is afraid of a strong woman. I'm merely questioning the negativity directed towards women in power, including Hillary.

    coolarmydudeMy choice for is Obama is that he is the only one that offers any real optimism. Hillary wants to give every newborn $5000 as a way to start their lives when they turn 18. That's what parents should be doing and parents who don't shouldn't expect this kind of hand out, especially in our society that doesn't know what thrift and savings mean.


    You feel he offers optimism, that's fair, but does mere optimism solve complex problems? Not really. As for the "hand out," why would you oppose strengthening the next generation by ensuring a good start for their lives? Who do you think will run the country & care for you when you're too old to do so?

    coolarmydudeAgain, your smug support of Hillary has left you deaf and blind to Obama. You need to turn your question around and ask yourself why you don't like Obama. You see him and hear him, but you lack his vision and you don't listen.


    There's no need to get snarky. I don't support Obama because I think he's too green to run the highest office in this nation. Does he make people feel good? Sure. Will he be able to start fixing our feebled nation the day he's sworn in? Doubtful. I'm a realist, I like candidates that talk about exactly what they're planning to do to help us. I've listened to Obama's speeches, I've been to his website. I just don't see the answers I'm looking for from him. Lastly, please don't assume that because I don't support Obama that I lack vision and do not listen, it's just not true.

    coolarmydudeWho says that anyone's support for Obama is fear of Hillary? Your supposition is bias enough that you cover what you find the media lacking.

    And for your remaining questions, what soapbox do you get your ideas from? I have voted for women before and just because I hadn't voted for Hillary doesn't mean that I won't ever vote for women again.

    Finally, since you want to use demographics to argue your points of view, let me turn the table on you: Why are you so afraid of the Black Man?


    Once again, I never said that supporting Obama is based solely on fear of Hillary. I have no soapbox, and I didn't even project the aggressive tone you've displayed for all of us. As for race, well, perhaps you'd like a character reference from my exboyfriend of 2 years, who is african american.

    dhinkansasEveryone is entitled to support whatever candidate they want. I don't really quite understand how people supporting other gives Ms. Clinton a "raw" deal. I think this thread in itself shows how divisive she can be. Not to be offensive, but you aren't listening to any other point besides Hillary.


    I'm not implying support for others gives Hillary a raw deal. I'm saying that the excessive negativity thrown at her is a bit unfair. I think everyone can agree that if there are stones to throw, they'll most likely be aimed at Hillary. As for listening, i'll simply restate that I have been looking at nearly all the candidates on both sides of the aisle (particularly the primary front-runners). I've seen and read many points besides those of Senator Clinton. But I appreciate your encouragement to stay well informed. icon_smile.gif

    irishkowboyMy question to you is Why do YOU have to attack Obama because he's winning? Why do YOU contribute to the negativity that you hate to see directed at Hillary?

    You may believe that Hillary has it all mapped out and has given you "straight answers," but enacting those policies is the most important part of being a President. Obama stands a much better chance of uniting people and getting bipartisan support... something Hillary Clinton will have a much harder time of doing.


    I don't know if I agree with the statement that i'm attacking Obama because he's winning. My mild jokes were fairly tame in comparison to the endless 'bitch' jokes out there about Hillary, still, if that offends, I apologize. They were more of an illustration on what could be said in those media formats. Unfortunately, that isn't happening making the scale significantly uneven. I think your point of enacting policies poses a valid arguement FOR Hillary Clinton. It's profoundly more difficult for someone without her experience to go about getting legislation passed. While many might not believe so, she really has been able to reach across the aisle successfully. People were shocked when she reached agreements with conservatives like Newt Gingrich. Recently, even ultra-conservatives like Ann Coulter (albeit, quite crazy) said they'd support her over John McCain.



    Here's the bottom line guys. I have no hatred for Barack Obama or any other candidate out there. I simply think she's the most qualified for the job. I said she's getting a raw deal because there is excessive negativity out there directed towards her without a lot of explanation why. I suppose I should have asked IF people are afraid of strong women. I just feel like strong women have endured severe contempt and harsher punishment than men in similar standing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 1:58 AM GMT
    Wow genqb, I'm glad you typed up my message for me icon_smile.gif

    Nice responses to some of the stale comments out there....

    Guys, stop trying to turn genqb's original message around. I don't completely agree with him, but I wouldn't hesitate to say that he's made some good points. Don't turn his comments around to make it sound like he was saying something he didn't mean at all. You'll just cause your argument to seem rather pedestrian. =
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 2:02 AM GMT
    stevarino7 saidI just read a really good article about this in Newsweek:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/113672


    Thanks for the link! It was an interesting read. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 2:10 AM GMT
    branson08 saidWow genqb, I'm glad you typed up my message for me icon_smile.gif

    Nice responses to some of the stale comments out there....

    Guys, stop trying to turn genqb's original message around. I don't completely agree with him, but I wouldn't hesitate to say that he's made some good points. Don't turn his comments around to make it sound like he was saying something he didn't mean at all. You'll just cause your argument to seem rather pedestrian. =


    Given the number of people that misunderstood him in the same way I wonder if he could have worded his post a little better. Even after having his explanation and going back and re-reading the post it still reads like "If you are against Hillary you don't like strong women". Heck he even said in his response to me that he was questioning negativity toward women in power including Hillary and yet the title of the post is "Hillary's getting a raw deal" rather than "Women in power get a raw deal".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 2:21 AM GMT
    webinfront said

    Given the number of people that misunderstood him in the same way I wonder if he could have worded his post a little better. Even after having his explanation and going back and re-reading the post it still reads like "If you are against Hillary you don't like strong women". Heck he even said in his response to me that he was questioning negativity toward women in power including Hillary and yet the title of the post is "Hillary's getting a raw deal" rather than "Women in power get a raw deal".



    point taken. unfortunately RJ wouldn't let me change the title to 'women in power getting a raw deal (including hillary)' -- guess it's just gotta ride. sorry!
  • ep83

    Posts: 144

    Feb 21, 2008 2:51 AM GMT
    Well, here's the perspective of someone who is not an ardent Obama supporter. I caucused for him, but only because I do not care for Hillary. For me her war vote is inexcusable, but beyond that I see it as the symptom of classic Clinton triangulation.

    We've seen this before. She, and Bill before her, shift to whatever position they believe to be most expedient to achieve their ends, which are often personal rather than national. Some examples from her history: her vote to classify the Quds force of Iran's army as a terrorist organization (they may supply some of the Iraqi insurgent groups, but it is still unprecedented to apply that label to a segment of a uniformed national army), she sponsored an anti-flag burning amendment, she voted for the PATRIOT Act (you can say that many Senators were under electoral pressure to do so, but the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN) was in a tight race, that he would have won, and voted against it). The list could go on but that is a good place to start. It leaves you with one of two possibilities. Either she is quite conservative, which is plausible, or she is not willing to take an unpopular position and fight for it no matter what. Neither one of these is a particularly attractive scenario.

    As for Obama, I am not infatuated with him the way many seem to be, including my roommate. I think he has the charisma to win over people, and we've seen that Americans are easily swayed by that. Fortunately he is substantially smarter than the last person to do that. I have said for quite some time that in many ways he is a blank slate on which people project their own hopes and desires, for he has not shown that he is the progressive champion many seem to think he is, when you look at his record and proposals. I wish he were a bit more substantive in his platform and a bit more angry, after all, there are some things that are too important to compromise on. Still, he has appropriated a large amount of John Edwards' message and some of his tone. That can only be seen as a positive.

    While I am not hugely enthusiastic about either candidate, I do prefer Obama. Still, it would be nice if I could actually vote for a true liberal for once. Sadly our nation is rather devoid of them, at least on the national stage. Russ Feingold is currently the best of the bunch. I'll vote for whoever the nominee is, but if it's Hillary we'll have a 2004 redux as I had to clench my teeth and vote for Kerry "to do my duty to the party." How 1984.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 3:05 AM GMT
    I didn't really feel like reading everyone's responses, so I'm just going to give some feedback of my own. Hillary isn't getting a raw deal. Two months ago, she was the presumptive nominee for the Democrats, leading in polls in many states by wide margins. She had everything - the money, the Clinton name, the fundraising capabilities, the campaign infrastructure. She assumed she had it all, and she took it for granted. Barack worked his ass off to build a grass-roots movement and didn't give up. That's what is showing now.

    The media is reporting on the fact that Obama is continuously growing his movement while Clinton is losing steam. People are rejecting her not for her policies but for her character, and they are embracing Barack. People want something fresh and new. They are sick of the "old Washington politics", which is exactly what Hillary represents. Don't make the mistake of thinking that there's really a huge difference in their policies. I'd say 80% of them are the same. As for her giving everyone concrete solutions and him being full of rhetoric, I'm pretty sure she was the one who, when she was the frontrunner, stood up on the stage of every debate and when asked a question, she fake laughed, didn't answer the question at all, and instead threw out some glittering generality for propaganda purposes.

    You may think I'm biased, but I was actually extremely torn when I voted in my state's primary. There are things about both that I like and things I don't like. I like Barack's genuine message of change and hope. I don't like his lack of experience when it comes to foreign policy, but I hope he'll surround himself with the right people who advise him well. On the other hand, I like Clinton's toughness and tenacity. I agree that she is divisive, though, but I think she'll be able to fight back against the Republican machine like she has before. She's also kind of a bitch, but hey, she kind of has to be in order to compete in a race like this.

    I think it's important for the Democrats to begin rallying around one candidate because this race is too important to allow infighting demolish them before November. The conservatives are starting to realize that the only way they will keep their hold on the White House is if the conservatives make some concessions to the moderates and put their differences aside for the betterment of the party. McCain may not be the conservatives' favorite, but he is slowly beginning to court their votes.

    My bet - Clinton concedes after losing Texas and Ohio on March 4th. It will be Obama vs. McCain, with Obama going all the way. Now it'll be interesting to see who each chooses as his running mate.

    P.S. If Al Gore would've gotten in on the action, he would've won HANDS DOWN, but he's too busy saving the environment. Environment... President...? Tough choice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 3:26 AM GMT
    Obama is running his candidacy on "change" and "hope." The ideas on which he is running are ones which strike a chord with many, and I assume that the media assumes that more people would want to be inspired by one of Obama's speeches than listen to Clinton, and thus viewers tune in to watch Barack. Therefore, we don't hear about Obama's plans for action, we just hear his rousing speeches. This is my direct experience, at least. I can't make it to his rallys, nor do news stations broadcast the entirety of his speeches. They tend to show the crowd going crazy for something he says. So, perhaps he has declared his plans/his answers for the issues facing America and I just haven't heard them through the media.

    I've watched her speak about issues and her intended actions for improving our country, and I agree with you: she has concrete answers. Both she and McCain are calling for an end to Obama's rhetoric and for him to start talking more about action. I hope they continue to call him out on it as the weeks and primaries progress.

    I hope the media concentrates more on his ideas for the country now, and focus less on his rousing speeches. And yes, it's time everyone stops beating up on Hillary.

    I'd be happy voting for either Barack or Hillary in November. Both would vote on issues the way I would want them to vote, and both would take this country in a much better direction.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2008 3:31 AM GMT
    cosmicjewboy saidI for one am sick of living in a country divided.


    Actually, I'm not sick of it. I don't want to make nice with the bad guys. I want them crushed and marginalized so badly that it takes 40 years for them ever to regain power. The minute you start compromising or negotiating with these people, they date-rape you, which is the one clever (and true) thing Grover Norquist ever said.

    I want to see show trials, actually. Stalin was deeply misunderstood.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Feb 21, 2008 3:46 AM GMT
    cosmicjewboy saidObama unites, Clinton divides. We are seeing this played out before our very eyes. I for one am sick of living in a country divided.



    I totally disagree with this statement.... We are divided, but it isn't Hillary....

    But the question at hand is about press coverage and I tend to agree with the assessment. I do think the media will eventually wake up and take a serious look at Obama.. ask questions and get a few answers.

    BTW, why is this thread under Dating, Relationships, etc.