Hillary Talks the Talk, but Wheres the Walk?

[PresidentObama]

Says she'll end the war, but will continue combat missions.

Says she'll pass universal healthcare, but will only commit to it by the END of her SECOND term.

Says she'll end cowboy diplomacy, then votes for Kyl-Lieberman the first step to war with Iran.

Says she'll fight for the middle class, but then takes hundreds of thousands from lobbyists. And then defends lobbyists.

She sure talks a good game. Universal healthcare for all, end the war, end cowboy diplomacy, fighting for the middle class. But then you look at the fine print....

Senator Obama is the real deal.

He's the kind of President we need. I would be very proud to have Barack at the top of our national ticket.

He may not be my candidate, but he's sure as hell EXACTLY what this nations needs.

[oasis]

1. Look who's talking. An Obama supporter with an Edwards avatar.

:eyes:

[PresidentObama]

2. I'm an Edwards supporter....

If you'd open you're eyes...

[oasis]

5. "He's (Obama) the kind of president we need"

Make up your mind.

[PresidentObama]

10. I've had my mind made up, I'm FOR Edwards.

In case you're blind. Or just not smart.

I think a few of our candidates are exactly the kind of Presidents we need.

Like Richardson, Obama, Dodd, and Biden.

Senator Edwards is, above all, the best choice. He's got the most progressive and boldest vision for our country, and he's talked tough and sincerely on how we need to bring about change.

Your response was lame, and didn't address the OP one bit.

I've noticed a tendency on DU to take digs at one another instead of addressing the OP when someone has nothing to combat it. For instance, one time I was having an argument about something Senator Clinton said or did and the other poster brought up John Kerry. Senator Kerry had nothing to do with the post. But because my name was Kerry2008, the personal dig came out full force.

Stick with the issues. Stick with the OP.

Or don't post.

[oasis]

14. What's your definition of "exactly"? Then apply that to "He's (Obama) exactly

what the country needs". The OP (supposedly an Edwards supporter) is bashing Hillary for "not walking the walk" while praising Obama at the same time. I'm calling him on his hypocrisy. That's the issue.

I'm not going to tell you not to post, or what to "stick" (your words) but I'd advise you to read before posting.

:dem:

[PresidentObama]

18. There is no such hypocrisy. I support JOHN EDWARDS.

Not Barack Obama.

It's perfectly ok to be comfortable and to like some of the other candidates. We have a strong field, and I like all of them. And most of them would be good Presidents.

Now the best President?

That would be John Edwards. Which is why I support him.

I find it interesting, again, that so many on DU can't combat the points OP's present so they attack other DUers and attack their candidate. Instead of defending their candidate or combating the OP.

[Bitwit1234]

3. She walks gooood baby

not all the jumping and American Idol crap like Obama.

[The_Casual_Observer]

DUPE

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Check the Senate voting record, then ask that question.

[Maven]

6. You should look at Obama's fine print.

His plan calls for the ongoing presence of "security forces" in Iraq, indefinitely.

His joke of a health plan depends on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. He's accepted over $2M in contributions from "individuals" in the health care industry.

He's talked about missile strikes on Iran and military intervention in Pakistan.

What this nation DOESN'T need is another president who says one thing and represents the exact opposite. Barack Obama isn't a real deal progressive...he just plays one on TV.

[PresidentObama]

7. Kick n/t

[readmoreoften]

8. Obama is the real deal? You have low expectations on "real"... /nt

[oasis]

11. "Obama's the real deal" brought to you by the guy who's really for Edwards.

And Hillary's the one who can't make up her mind. :eyes:

[rinsd]

9. Oh the irony coming from a supporter whose candidate relies on his words vs his actions.

[PresidentObama]

13. The entire OP was about how Clinton relies on her words vs. her actions.

For example, she says she'll end the war. But her actions would be to continue combat missions.

That's not ending the war.

She says she'll fight for the middle class.

But her actions show her being the candidate on both sides of the aisle, Republican or Democrat, to take the most lobbyist money. Then defends it.

And I find it interesting you can't defend Hillary EVER, but you can attack the OPers candidate almost every time. Do us a favor for a change, and defend YOUR candidate.

[rinsd]

15. LOL

"For example, she says she'll end the war. But her actions would be to continue combat missions."

Actually her actions at this point are a mixed bag. There's been some encouraging signs but there is not much she is able to do(in terms of ending the war) as Senator beyond voting for and cosponsoring various bills.

"But her actions show her being the candidate on both sides of the aisle, Republican or Democrat, to take the most lobbyist money. Then defends it."

OMG she got $565K from lobbyists! That's like .6% of her total campaign donation intake. Meanwhile Edwards has raised nearly $188K from Fortress Investments alone. What da ya know? That's about .6% of his campaign haul. Does not of course include his $500K a year consulting slaray for a business he had little or no knowledge about. Perhaps they wanted to burnish their populist credentials while they fucked over sub prime mortgage users? Who knows?

"And I find it interesting you can't defend Hillary EVER"

I find it interesting that you lie about me.

"but you can attack the OPers candidate almost every time"

Because an OP attacking my candidate by another candidate's supporter is somehow off limits? :shrug:

[oasis]

16. 'Tis the season of much touchiness. And Hillary said it would be "fun".

Please don't put any of these jokers on "ignore" because a few of us have to force back their daily dose of b.s..

[PresidentObama]

20. Again with tackling the issue of John Edwards, and not the OP.

If you have nothing to say positively about your candidate, then why bother?

If all you got is attacks on the others, it seems pointless. I've really not seen much on this board from you DEFENDING Hillary. Even though she's your candidate. I made many points in the OP, and none of them were about John Edwards. And you seem to want to turn this into a thread about Edwards, so be it. I'm very comfortable talking about the negatives and positives of my candidate. But the OP had NOTHING to do with Senator Edwards.

As far as ending the Iraq war, when talking about actions, I was talking about the actions she'll take as President--not her actions thus far on the war in the Senate. She says she wants to end the war, which is a nice piece of rhetoric that plays well with voters. But she wants to continue combat missions. That's NOT ending the war. That's my point.

And to your point about lobbyist money, I don't care WHAT percentage it is of her total campaign contributions. She still is the candidate on both sides of the aisle who has taken the most money from lobbyists. And defended taking the money. I think it's worth bringing up when she says she'll fight for the middle class. It's OK to bring Edwards fortune and expensive haircuts and big house, but not ok to bring up Hillary's campaign taking bucket loads of money from lobbyists?

[rinsd]

23. My irony meter just was pegged!

"If you have nothing to say positively about your candidate, then why bother?"

"But the OP had NOTHING to do with Senator Edwards."

<BOING> (sound of irony meter exploding)


"And to your point about lobbyist money, I don't care WHAT percentage it is of her total campaign contributions. She still is the candidate on both sides of the aisle who has taken the most money from lobbyists."

But the point of lobbyist money is undue influence isn't it? And if this undue influence is such a piddling amount of her total funding then it would appears to be much ado about nothing now wouldn't it.

"It's OK to bring Edwards fortune and expensive haircuts and big house, but not ok to bring up Hillary's campaign taking bucket loads of money from lobbyists?"

Really? Show me a single instance where I brought up his haircut or house.

I didn't say it wasn't ok but that as an attack it is hollow. Much like Edwards.

[oasis]

17. "Entire OP" minus the few lines praising Obama. There you go again.

Let's not evade the OP's lack of conviction. Remember, he's the guy who can't stand Hillary's lack of conviction.

BTW, "entire" means the whole damn thing.

[PresidentObama]

19. I can't praise Obama, and say he'd be a good President and still be for John Edwards?

News to me.

[maddiejoan]

24. Then why on earth do you support Edwards?

Talk about a different walk then his talk.

[Robbins]

12. Hillary

I like how you think.If I had to vote now It would be for Edwards but Obama would be a great choice.
I can tell you my mother who was 21 when she had me In 1974 who usually votes democrat doesn't like
Hillary,and won't vote for her but would vote for Obama.And we are In Missouri!The thing to remember the latest General election number while Edwards Is the most electable.Obama does slightly better than Hillary.Obama would tie Mccain while she loses to him.Obama has another thing to
remember.He could get some moderate Republicans voters to crossover.While I think Edwards could do
the same this needs to be remembered.

I am beging to think Novemebr 2008 could be Obama vs Huckabee.

[PresidentObama]

22. I'm seeing the same thing in Missouri: they won't vote for Hillary!

A lot of Democrats here like Edwards and Obama.

[Hieronymus]

21. You pretty much laid it all out...