Hillary = Condescending... ANYONE?, ANYONE?...


  • Feb 22, 2008 2:21 AM GMT
    Please help me out here and let me know that I'm not the only one that feels that Hillary speaks so condescendingly! She talks like we're all in kindergarten! I'm watching the CNN debate right now and I'm so aggravated. Tonight, hillary is a ridiculous combination of condescending and a suck up. She's COMPLETELY sucking up to the residents of Texas and Ohio. I hope people are smart enough to see through this. On the other hand, Barack Omama is talking as though he's sitting at a table with me and my friends at Starbucks. I love it. He deserves the nomination! Get on out there and vote for the best MAN Texas and Ohio! I'm looking forward to hearing what yall have to say about this. I hope I'm not alone in these feelings!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2008 2:25 AM GMT
    I agree. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2008 3:11 AM GMT
    Hillary ClintonChange we can Xerox


    That was the best she could pull out of a non-issue? That was pretty snarky and almost comical in how pathetic it was. Especially since she plagiarized her husbands campaign rhetoric at the end of tonight's debate.

    Time to wrap this thing up.
  • mcwclewis

    Posts: 1701

    Feb 22, 2008 4:07 AM GMT
    Whatever.... I like her.


    I think either one of them is a good candidate, so Im not too worried.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 22, 2008 5:50 AM GMT


    Well, since most voting Americans are stupid (present company excluded) and haven't a clue about what's going on in this country and such (see other message thread here on RJ) - it makes perfect sense to me if she appears to "s l o w l y" educate people.

    The woman is a brainiac and has more know-how in her thumb than most politicans combined from the past 8 yrs.

    "I'm hating the spin we're in . . ."
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14341

    Feb 23, 2008 12:38 AM GMT
    I agree 100% about Hillary trying to suck up to the people of Ohio and Texas. That carpetbagging, loudmouthed, oppportunist bitch pulled the same crap on the people of New York. Unfortunately, she was successful and we have her as our US Senator. She has done absolutely nothing for the people of New York except run her big mouth and let out a lot of hot air. Yes she talks to people like they are complete idiots. Obama is much more personable and has fresh ideas for our country. He does not talk to people like they are brainless idiots. He has respect for his audience and wants the American people to get involved in their government. Obama is definately the best choice for the democratic ticket. I hope he crushes Hillary in both the Ohio and Texas democratic primaries and wins the nomination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 12:41 AM GMT
    Newspapers are written at a 7th grade level in order to maximize reach. Same thing with politicians.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Feb 23, 2008 12:46 AM GMT
    And Obama's smug, arrogant, holier-than-thou, professorial flights of rhetorical fancy aren't just a little off-putting?

    I most certainly did not get condescension from her, last night or ever. She was as gracious and classy as she could be. I daresay she wishes she had the Xerox comment back (Hillary please don't ever try to be clever again!), but she was the mature, polished, intelligent, competent grownup candidate that I have always known and loved...

    Go all the way Hillary!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 12:51 AM GMT
    "She's COMPLETELY sucking up to the residents of Texas and Ohio."

    What is the difference in that and doing what all politicians do?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 12:58 AM GMT
    I still "love" Hillary Clinton and i still "like" Barack Obama. I voted for Hillary in the Massachusetts primary on super tuesday and she won my state... even though she is a yankee fan. I'ma red sox fan and i forgive her.icon_lol.gif All i can really do now is wait for the actual election. I'm rooting for Hilldog though!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 1:15 AM GMT
    I saw polls today that put Obama and Clinton each into head-to-head matchups against McCain in three states: Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia. Obama beat McCain in all of them, Clinton lost to him in all of them. Oddly, Obama beat McCain by a greater margin in Virginia than in Wisconsin (!)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 1:34 AM GMT
    No, she is a woman and if anything,
    I respect her for beein the first ONE with the balls to run.
    As a gay man, you should aspire to be atleast half the woman that she is. I do!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 1:42 AM GMT
    I didnt find her condenscending at all.I thought she gave an inspired concluding speech and would do a great job running the country. So would Obama and I actually like a lot about Mccain as well. I think we have the 3 best candidates still running out of the lot. Huckabee notwithstanding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 2:25 AM GMT
    I didn't find her to be condescending. The xerox comment was dumb as all hell, but not condescending. Both she and Obama both did a fair amount of sucking up to Ohio and Texas. Though I think Obama stayed more with Texas and Hillary was split between the two. That said I think Obama did a better job of relating to Texas than she did, but I live in the Austin bubble and so what I often perceive to be Texas is not really that accurate. Along those lines Obama is holding a rally in downtown Austin tonight and Hillary has already skipped town and is up in Dallas. I find it odd she hasn't had a rally in the strongest Democrat stronghold in the state. I think it is fair to say that Austin will go to Obama and due to the our strange primary/caucus system we have 8 delegates to Dallas's 6. If you really want to make your head hurt read about how Texas picks a candidate.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Feb 23, 2008 2:37 AM GMT
    actorathlete10 saidPlease help me out here and let me know that I'm not the only one that feels that Hillary speaks so condescendingly! She talks like we're all in kindergarten! I'm watching the CNN debate right now and I'm so aggravated. Tonight, hillary is a ridiculous combination of condescending and a suck up. She's COMPLETELY sucking up to the residents of Texas and Ohio. I hope people are smart enough to see through this. On the other hand, Barack Omama is talking as though he's sitting at a table with me and my friends at Starbucks. I love it. He deserves the nomination! Get on out there and vote for the best MAN Texas and Ohio! I'm looking forward to hearing what yall have to say about this. I hope I'm not alone in these feelings!



    I've never... EVER thought that Hillary speaks in such a way... Perhaps you should evaluate your own perceptions....
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Feb 23, 2008 2:38 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]roadbikeRob said[/cite]I agree 100% about Hillary trying to suck up to the people of Ohio and Texas. That carpetbagging, loudmouthed, oppportunist bitch pulled the same crap on the people of New York. Unfortunately, she was successful and we have her as our US Senator. She has done absolutely nothing for the people of New York except run her big mouth and let out a lot of hot air. Yes she talks to people like they are complete idiots. Obama is much more personable and has fresh ideas for our country.


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

    Feb 23, 2008 2:50 AM GMT
    jarhead5536 saidAnd Obama's smug, arrogant, holier-than-thou, professorial flights of rhetorical fancy aren't just a little off-putting?

    I most certainly did not get condescension from her, last night or ever. She was as gracious and classy as she could be. I daresay she wishes she had the Xerox comment back (Hillary please don't ever try to be clever again!), but she was the mature, polished, intelligent, competent grownup candidate that I have always known and loved...

    Go all the way Hillary!


    While I agree she was not condescending there is no way the one can defend the Xerox comment was not classy, mature, intelligent nor grown up. It was stupid and smacked of sheer desperation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 2:51 AM GMT
    Well we all have our moments. Shows we're human.icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 2:52 AM GMT
    ShortJake saidI didnt find her condenscending at all.I thought she gave an inspired concluding speech and would do a great job running the country. So would Obama and I actually like a lot about Mccain as well. I think we have the 3 best candidates still running out of the lot. Huckabee notwithstanding.


    I so heart you right now shortjake.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 3:06 AM GMT
    Alexander89 saidWell we all have our moments. Shows we're human.icon_neutral.gif


    I agree, but and as I have said i thought they both did well but I wouldn't use the words classy, mature, intelligent nor grown up to describe it. Isn't that the kind of denial that people say Obama supports have? I also think that jarhard falls into that trap of defaulting to not liking the person who he is not supporting. Just because someone supports Obama doesn't mean they have to dislike Hillary. Because someone supports Hillary doesn't mean they should dislike Obama. Personally I like them both and it was really hard for me to decide which way to go. In my case the decision was made when Hillary decided she wanted to demand a change to rules she previously supported because it would now be in her best interest if they were changed. So I supporting Obama. Doesn't mean I hate or dislike Hillary and it doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for her in a general election.

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

    Feb 23, 2008 3:20 AM GMT
    I believe both candidates to be fully qualified for the Office of the President, and both have similar policy stances. However, I "feel" that Hillary would only be successful increasing the polarization of Americans, something that President Bush will be remembered for... Barrack, on the other hand, seems to have a more healing and inclusive approach. I feel it is time for Americans to come together and stop taking sides.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 4:29 AM GMT
    mcwclewis saidI think either one of them is a good candidate, so Im not too worried.


    I am, though, because no matter what we think on RJ, a site populated by a fairly liberal group, there is a huge middle American vote that either/or (a) hates the Clintons all out of proportion to anything they did or did not do; and (b) are racist, and would rather vote for the worst white candidate than vote for Obama.

    You put a admittedly somewhat moderate Republican candidate like McCain up against either, and I am afraid the anti-woman, anti-Clinton, anti-black vote will will rise up. I am just hoping it won't rise up enough to prevent us from kicking this current group of Republicans and their think-tank out.

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

    Feb 23, 2008 5:16 AM GMT
    absolutely not - no way i'm voting for barack obama in the primary... i'll vote for him over mccain, but he'll get the nomination without my support. no way. you cannot bring everyone together under his big tent policies - someone will get left out. he tried to bring black evagelicals and white gays together here in columbia, sc and it was an absolute total fiasco. he's trying to please everyone, which means he won't end up pleasing anyone... i want hillary. i live in north carolina and we vote near the end, so my opinion will wind up not mattering (they should do ALL the primaries at the same time!), but i do NOT want a president who can talk to me at starbucks better than he can talk to the leader of another nation (that "he's just like us" attitude is what got us stuck with george w. bush). they tried to make me vote obama, but i said no, no, no...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 1:58 PM GMT
    Yeah, the whole business of bipartisanship is fantasy -- granted, an attractive one, after 7 years of iron-fisted Republican rule. But it's highly unlikely that the Republicans are going to step across the aisle, singing Kumbaya, if Obama is elected.

    We've already seen that the Democrats' so-called compromises are really about caving to the Republicans. It's going to take a savvy fighter to undo the damage George Bush has done. That's not a bipartisan agenda.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 23, 2008 2:04 PM GMT
    Raptor saidDid anyone notice their responses when pressed on the Iraq issue? Hillary gave a detailed and SPECIFIC plan, while Obama avoided it by saying he'd bring the troops home somehow, and then turned the answer into a domestic one.


    You are kidding right? Here is the question and the answers given:
    2008 Austin Debate

    MR. KING: I want to continue in this vein and hone in on the very point you just made because one of you, unless this remarkable campaign here takes another wacky, unpredictable turn, is going to be running against a decorated war hero who is going to say that you don't have the experience to be commander in chief.
    And you have both said it's not about that type of experience; it's about judgment.

    You both had to make a judgment a short time ago in your job in the United States Senate about whether to support the surge. And as that was going on, Senator Clinton, you had the commanding general in Iraq before you, and you said, "I think that the reports you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," your words to General Petreaus.
    I want you to look at Iraq now and listen to those who say the security situation is better. Ideal? No, but better, some say significantly. In recent days, even some steps toward the political reconciliation. Is Iraq today better off than it was six months or a year ago because of the surge?

    SEN. CLINTON: Well, John, I think you forget a very important premise of the surge. The rationale of the surge was to create the space and time for the Iraqi government to make the decisions that only it can make. Now, there is no doubt, given the skill and the commitment of our young men and women in uniform, that putting more of them in will give us a tactical advantage and will provide security in some places. And that has occurred.
    But the fact is that the purpose of it has not been fulfilled. The Iraqi government has slowly inched toward making a few of the decisions in a less than complete way, but it hasn't taken advantage of the sacrifice and the losses of life and billions of dollars that have occurred since the surge began.
    That is why I have said, upon taking office I would ask the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and my security advisers to give me a plan so that I could begin withdrawing our troops within 60 days.
    And I would begin that with...
    ... with a very clear message to the Iraqis that they no longer had a blank check, as they had been given by President Bush, that as we withdraw our troops, probably one to two brigades a month, they would have to step up and make these decisions. I believe that is in the best interest of our military, which has been stretched thin. Last night in Brownsville, you know, a woman grabbed my hand and said, "Please, my husband's there for the third time. Bring him home." And I told her privately what I have said publicly many times -- I will bring him home because I do not think it is in the interest of America or of the Iraqis that we continue to be there. It is up to the Iraqis to decide the kind of future they will have.


    BROWN: Senator Obama, in the same vein, you were also opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong?

    OBAMA: Well, I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. And that's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. In fact, you know, the 1st Cavalry, out of Fort Hood, played an enormous role in pushing back Al Qaida out of Baghdad.
    And, you know, we honor their service.
    But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder.
    And I think that, when we're having a debate with John McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision...
    ... than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. (
    Because, ultimately, that's what's at stake. Understand, not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan. We've been diverted from focusing on Latin America.
    We contribute -- our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week.
    And it is any surprise, then, that you've seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we've been neglectful of that.
    Iran is the single biggest strategic beneficiary of us having invaded Iraq, and that is something that I think John McCain has to come to terms with.
    So that is a debate that I'm happy to have.
    One last point I want to make on this, and that is, the incredible burden that has been placed on the American people, starting with military families, and the fact that we still are not doing right by our veterans, that we still don't honor their service, that there are still homeless veterans, that we still don't screen properly for post-traumatic stress disorder and make sure that they're getting mental services that they need, that we are still...
    ... having veterans in south Texas have to drive 250 miles to access a veterans hospital.
    That's unacceptable. But we talked about the economy earlier, the fact that we're spending $12 billion every month in Iraq means that we can't engage in the kind of infrastructure improvements that are going to make us more competitive. It means that we can't deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that both Senator Clinton and I are looking for.
    And that is also an argument that we have to have with John McCain because he has said that he is willing to have these troops over there for 100 years. The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow our economy to sink. As John McCain says, he doesn't really understand the economy that well. It is clear from his embrace of George Bush's policies that he doesn't, and that's what I intend to change when I am president of the United States of America.


    So the question asked was what the surge was working. They both gave full answers. Hillary added a bit about her plan to get out of IRAQ that is what I assume you are calling detailed though I would argue that "I would ask someone what to do" as lacking any kind of specifics. Obama answered in what he thought about the surge and since the question was about judgement he talked about his vs. McCain's. This, amazingly enough, is related to the actual question asked.