Comments on: Changes

by: Lucy

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:47:16 +0000

the ” mantle of inevitability ” is another right wing narrative designed to bash her. She has been the frontrunner by a slight margin only , Edwards and Obama have always been in the game.
Its all very well talking about the ” will of the people ” in the abstract but politics is about bare knuckle fights in the House and the Senate. That we would trust the most important job in the world to a one term senator without much probing of his substance and adulation as to his style , is bizzare to me . The right wing smear machine is only keeping its powder dry until Hillary is off the scene , then you will see the full force of attacks.
Bill was right when he said ” its just a fantasy ” , its a fantasy for the Republicans , get Obama fanatics to knock off Hillary and then the coast is clear and he is easy pickings for example against Mc Cain , he would have no chance .

by: The Mahablog » The Organizer

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:23:34 +0000

[…] I wrote yesterday that I believed the mantle of “inevitability” that Hillary Clinton wore these past several years is part of her problem. It fed into the notion that Washington, and the national leadership of both parties, are more powerful than we are, and that we must accept whatever they choose to give us. The Obama phenomenon comes from a growing realization that we shouldn’t have to put up with this. […]

by: Doug Hughes

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:09:00 +0000

Lucy -

I have a problem with Senator Clinton. She’s too good at raising money. I don’t like what it says that she is the campaign queen of big-money donors. Frankly, I think a lot of those donors will expect a return on their investment, and I think she will put out.
She has before, and she BELIEVES this is how politics should work. This will happen at the expense of the people, and I think she is totally out of touch with them. Yes, it’s true we don’t know what we might get with Obama or Edwards, but I think a Democratic version of W, with different corporate puppetmasters is little improvement.

by: Lucy

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:45:18 +0000

ps
and no one in the media noticed Hillary’s ” smackdown ” even though my husband and I both said ” wow smackdown Obama “at the exact same moment of the debate …..

by: Lucy

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:40:10 +0000

I find it totally depressing that Obama is getting such adulation, (and notice how Fox ( and the media in general ) misses no opportunity to use his popularity to bash Hillary . ( they are hoping he will be the nominee , its so obvious )
I think those who adore Obama are buying a pig in a poke. He is not going to ” transcend ” hardball politics of today. Hillary raised her voice against him ( to point out re. his lobbyist manager and some of his flip flops ) and immediately he was on the defensive and stuttering his half hearted replies …..
its early days yet, but I fear Americans are again going to pick the ” guy I’d like to have a beer with “

by: Swami

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:34:31 +0000

Doug..Interesting scenerio with an Obama/Edwards ticket. It has an appeal the way you describe it.

by: grayslady

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:07:07 +0000

Appreciate the Armando link. I think he’s written something similar on TalkLeft, but I always love seeing his line about how political success is not striving to win over the “middle,” it’s about defining what the “middle” is. I also think he’s correct that Obama is not running on any mandate, making it difficult to judge whether or not his administration would be a success. To be perfectly frank, I’m not certain that Clinton has a mandate either, but I do understand the Edwards mandate: protect the middle class, get out of Iraq immediately, restore the constitution, and provide universal health coverage. Personally, I like to know where someone stands on the issues. We’ll see.

by: Doug Hughes

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:38:12 +0000

Edwards made the comment this AM that Clinton will not be in a position to fight with the same drug/insurance companies she is taking money from. Clinton is a Dem version of the status quo. And in my opinion, it’s hardly an encouraging defense that she will take money from anyone. The one thing she does so incredibly well, raise money, has turned into a liability.

Obama is an unknown. His bipartisan approach appeals to voters who would like government to work, but it is just what the corporations would love. K street lobbyists will eat him up.

Edwards is aching for a war with the economic powers who have this country by the balls. However, I saw Edwards say he and Obama are similar in their platform, and I wonder if Edwards MIGHT settle for the #2 spot if the chips fall that way, and if Obama would tap him for the job.

Frankly, that MIGHT work well, because they MIGHT be able to play good cop/bad cop with the corporations. Historically, this is unsound, because the VP is usually a small figurehead in the administration, but at times Cheney has worked almost as a copresident, directing policy.

If initial negotiations & contacts with certain corporate powers had to START with Edwards, Obama would be in the position of considering a compromise position to Edwards trial lawyer persona.

by: D.R. Marvel

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:03:44 +0000

Somebody who knew something about the subject once said: “Change comes out of the barrel of a gun”…

As sorry as it makes me to say it, there’s gonna have to be some blood spilt before any kind of meaningful change takes place in this country…

I just hope and pray that, this time, it’s those Heather Antoinettes in D.C. who do the bleeding…Lord knows they’ve got it coming…

by: Daryl

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:34:59 +0000

But I will say this. If Obama consistently brings in thousands of new voters wherever he goes then look out.