Why is Hilary overly ambitious yet Obama is driven...

[WCGreen]

I don't know...

Anyone who is running for president whether is John McCain, Ron Paul or Mike Gravel is overly ambitious...

And why wasn't Elizabeth Dole considered overly ambitious when she ran for the Senate...

Does anyone really think that fluff of a woman would have gotten anywhere in live if her name wasn't Dole...

Damn, the Clinton's seem to be put to a much higher standard than the rest of us or, for that matter, any other politician...

Now before all of the Obama people pile on me, I was an Edwards guy who will more than likely vote for Obama in the Ohio primary...

I'm just stating an opinion about the sorry state of political reporting in this country which, in the long run, determines how most people perceive any given candidate...

[LiberalFighter]

1. Do they want a wuss of a woman as President or a leader?

[WCGreen]

34. I think anyone running for high office is willing to do what it takes...

as long as they can maintain the perception of being "above the fray"...

[neutron]

60. NYT SCANDEL: Obama Lied to Iowa Voters

Took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Nuclear interests then
worked AGAINST the interest of his contituents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon....

[TexasObserver]

2. Because Hillary consistently chooses ambition over principle

[sandnsea]

8. That would be it n/t

[BootinUp]

9. Perhaps when I am a little rested we could test your statement

head to head, the compromises of Hillary v. Obama.

[WCGreen]

15. Obama hasn't been at it as long as Hilary....

[BootinUp]

17. Yet, the number of his compromises will amaze...

stay tuned.

[WCGreen]

21. Voting present all those times aren't his best moments...

[TexasObserver]

32. Another fraud by Team Clinton

Have you ever worked in a legislature? Every issue gets many, many votes, and there is a reason we judge legislators on the body of their work, not every motion or every reading of every bill. Voting present is a way of making a statement on THIS particular version of this particular bill.

Any time anyone starts a campaing shill with "he voted 14 times to raise taxes," it's probably a gross distortion of truth.

I don't attempt to parse Senator Clinton's votes. She stands for what she stands for, and that's what I judge her on.

[WCGreen]

35. I worked inthe Ohio House for three years...

It would have been better had he not voted on procedural votes or doomed amendments than to vote present...

[TexasObserver]

42. Then you ought to know better

stop pretending you're clueless about procedures, then

[WCGreen]

48. Give me a fucking break...

Voting present is a craven way to protect his ass...

It's the perception I am talking about...

It really doesn't matter what I think or know now does it...

Voting present doesn't get you anywhere...

Unless the vote counts for quorum and then I can understand it...

But if he was running for president from day one, like I firmly believe he was, he should have avoided a situation that would be percieved, down the road, as being wishy washy...

[TexasObserver]

50. I've already written you off as an angry, bitter person

toodles

[Darth_Kitten]

58. And Obama?

:eyes:

[thunder rising]

3. Well, that's your description, and not any I've seen before. Do you think your are enlightened

to see things that nobody else has seen.

[WCGreen]

16. Sorry if someone else brought it up before...

But you know what, I have a rich life outside of politics...

Or DU...

[Hieronymus]

51. It's news to me as well. Searching, searching for slights.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. Everything Clinton does is seen through the lens of hate and disgust

She can do no right, no matter what she does. Conversely, Obama is seen through the lens of awe. He can eat babies and be applauded.


Back wards and in high heels. Women have always had to be better and work harder.

[boston bean]

7. sort of how the repugs were about *

[Bread and Circus]

5. ...because its true?

Hillary seems to be in it as much for herself as for the rest of us.

obama seems to be more in it for the sake of the country.

That's the difference.

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. oh brother. What a load of crap

"Obama seems to be in it more for the sake of the country." I have to just chuckle and shake my head.

You are really snowed.

[WCGreen]

19. I have been around politicians for over 30 years and every one is

motivated, at least somewhat, by ambition...

If you really think that Obama is only in this for the altruistic buzz, I have some swamp land in FLA that is just waiting for you...

[Bread and Circus]

59. I think it's a balance thing. Certainly Obama has some self ambition...

that's undeniable.

But I think on balance, Clinton's actions throughout her life have been much more self serving. Starting with her corporate law firm job.

Obama could have written his $$$ ticket after Harvard, but he went to work on the South Side of Chicago, which is a hell of a thing to do. That's one of the places in the country that needed help the most, and that's where he went.

[Auntie Bush]

40. " Hillary seems to be in it as much for herself as for the rest of us. " "

You state that as if it's fact. How do you know what she or Obama thinks.
She has always wanted to help people and has always been a liberal. I don't see why she is just being selfish because she wants to be the president and bring about change in America.

By the way...how do you know he is thinking about the country or if he has his own ulterior motives? I personally don't think so but you don't know that any more than what Hillary thinks.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. Aren't men supposed to be driven?

Women who want to get anywhere are seen as overly ambitious...

I don't know either...

:shrug:

[WCGreen]

24. Perplexing are the perceptions...

[MichiganVote]

11. Because Hillary Clinton did not bow or break under her husbands infidelity

So to some that makes her a hard core bitch

To others it makes her certified co-dependent spouse incpable of making an indep. decision

All crap, all the time. Factually she was a freshman senator from a major state who had suffered a major attack. If she felt she was representing the interests of her constituents, so be it.

[libbygurl]

12. And Hillary's pushy and shrill, others are assertive...

...the anger-fuelled framing of Hillary as totally negative and evil in the media (and by many right here on DU among some 'Democrats' and extreme LWingers) goes beyond rationality. No one writes about the endorsements for her, but Obama's get front page and live coverage treatment. And Obama continues to get a pass from the mainstream media.

I also did notice, by the way, the recent media shutout of Edwards, and earlier, of Biden and Richardson, not to mention Kucinich.

[WCGreen]

27. It's frustrating for me because I just want the people outside of

our small circle of friends to be able to make sound decisions...

That ain't happening now when perception trumps reality...

[libbygurl]

44. Such is the rottenness that has infected our media today. And most people don't have...

...the time or energy to do deeper than surface research on any candidate. It's scary, since there are sooo many clever and cheap distortions being propagated as fact out there.

[Pharlo]

54. "Obama continues to get a pass from the mainstream media."

And THAT worries me. Barack Obama has not been through a vicious national political campaign. His run for IL Senator was damn near a coronation after Ryan bowed out. His opponent was Alan Keyes. Hell, after the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, he became so popular that he didn't even have to stay in his state to campaign. He just let Alan Keyes stay in IL and speak, and every time A.Keyes spoke, B. Obama got more votes. Meanwhile, Barack Obama was out campaigning for other Democrats in tight races. Highly commendable, but look at what is happening now.

All in all, the Democratic primaries have been relatively tame as national politics goes. Downright courteous and polite. He is going to be in for the shock of his life when the Republicans zoom in on him. The Rezko thing hasn't even taken off yet. The Dem candidates haven't even begun to tap it like the Republicans will.

Hopefully, there's not much more for them to find, but if there is, they'll find it. And, if they can't find something they'll make it up. Doesn't really need to be true, just needs to be something that could be PERCEIVED to be true for a couple of months. After the election, "Oh well, too bad. Just the Democrats crying about losing again."

Look at how the campaigns have reacted to negative media. I'm more impressed with Clinton's ability to turn around and retaliate against negative propaganda than Obama's. She's had a HELL of a lot more experience at it. And, if anyone here argues with that, they have dismally forgotten the 1990's and the constant barrage of attacks against the presidency of W. J. Clinton.

As for Hillary Clinton - what is there left to find that the Republicans haven't already taken out and thoroughly pummeled to death? How many surprises can there be left for them to pull out of thin air. What is there possibly left for Republicans left to find? And, if they make something up, it'll make the Republicans look thoroughly incompetent - I mean, why didn't they find it during the first witch hunt? They sure as hell wasted enough US taxpayer money looking at nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Fact is, campaign wise, Clinton is much more experienced, more savy, tougher, and has a better rapid response team than Obama.

I like Obama. I really, really do. I just don't think he's seasoned enough. Not for what the Republicans will do to him. Clinton has been through the fire and come out the other side hardened and, God only knows why, still willing to serve.

As for ambition, to run for president you have to be 'overly ambitious' regardless of gender. And, based upon their biographies, BOTH candidates have a history of public service. Add to that a belief that they can do what needs to be done to bring this country back from where the current misanthrope has taken us, and they are running for President.

If there is one thing we, as Democrats, should remember is that we brought an entire field of candidates into play the likes of which we should be honored to be served by. Intelligent, dedicated, and willing to serve the best interests of the people within the confines of the Constitutional limits of that office.

For me, it boiled down to experience - who has the best chance of getting things done. The fact is, there will be necessary compromises by ANY one who goes to Washington in a public capacity. And, I will not like those damn compromises. Nor, will the vast majority of people here. And we'll bitch, and we'll complain, and we'll gripe. AND, we will do so in the knowledge that whoever we send to D.C. (Clinton or Obama) will give us the right to protest freely. And that they will do their damnedest to return the civil rights to us that Herr Cheney has seen fit to allow his monkey Bush to rescind.

It just seems to me, that lately, there has been a lot of uncivil, sometimes downright vicious, Clinton vs Obama posts here. I can understand the desire to support your candidate. But, I would think it would be possible to do that without vilifying the other candidate. Because, one of those two people will be our candidate. And, in the end, we'll wind up supporting that individual. Easiest to do if you don't think of them as the Devil Incarnate - save that for our Republican rival. And, for those few who have stated that they will definitely NOT vote for 'Dem. Cand A' or 'Dem Cand. B', well, maybe you feel your interests would best be served supporting the Republican Candidate.

For the record, I started out as a Biden supporter. Then, I was an undecided between Clinton and Edwards. Edwards dropping out solved that dilemma for me. I'm now a Clinton supporter. If Obama gets the nod, I'll become an Obama supporter.

One thing I have tried to do is remain civil during the primaries. Evil vilification I'm saving for the Republicans.

[libbygurl]

61. Thank you for your excellent thoughts, with which I agree. Funny that I also liked...

...Biden - as well as Richardson - at first, and also liked Edwards and thought he should've been the presidential candidate in 04 instead of the weak campaigner, Kerry (but didn't appreciate Edwards' transparent allying himself with Obama during the debates to attack HRC), but the piling on on HRC before NH clinched the deal for me. Got me to examine all the remaining contenders in closer detail, and find HRC to be the best prepared for the big, dirty job at hand.

I still fail to see what it is in Obama that inspires others - he just doesn't do anything for me, speech-wise, and this perception of mine dates back to his first time on the national stage at the 04 Dem Convention - was very surprised to read and hear hosannas about him after that. Yet I must concede that he did his best yet during the 31st January debate - but even in that event, Hillary clearly showed her deep command of the issues and put out more detailed plans about what she was going to do in so many areas once she's president. I also like her consultative approach to decision-making, and how she sees many sides of an issue or matter - what a refreshing change from the current disgrace at the White House.

Thanks again for your wonderful reply, and for not adding to the toxic, vitriolic tone on DU these days! We should really save our gunpowder for the Republicans!

May the best woman win! (heh)

[dailykoff]

13. Because she resorted to despicable tactics against a fellow Dem.

She's a loser, and deserves the humiliation that's going to come her way on Tuesday.

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. ummm..you got that backwards. Obama called her a racist...used

race to gain the SC votes. Worse than Willy Horton.

[dailykoff]

18. Oh please. Honoring MLK is not "racist." Calling Obama a crack smoking

terrorist gangbanger is. Truth is the first casualty of any Clinton undertaking so I'm not expecting you to embrace it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. Whatever. you go ahead and keep your head in the sand and

continue to spew right-wing talking points. The "truth" is in the facts and the timeline.

Your "truth" is a load of garbage fed to you by the media. Drink lots of water before swallowing that load of truth.

[dailykoff]

25. Thanks for that fact-free spew.

:hi:

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. Look, you, like Obama, talk a good talk about "truth"

No where has Clinton ever called Obama a crack-smoking gang banger. Obama himself has brought up his vague use of cocaine and pot into his 20's. Not fair game? Why? Double standard.

Calling Clinton racist and shouting racism from the rooftops is worse than anything I have ever seen. And it worked. With George Bush's media behind him, he was successful in gaining the SC vote. And with GW's media behind him and the continued attacks on bill and hillary, he may well suceed....but make no mistake

it is not because of any "truth."

[dailykoff]

31. Look, I heard Hilly race-baiting with my own ears,

so save your spittle.

[Evergreen Emerald]

33. _____ you.

[dailykoff]

37. You're welcome.

Always glad to lend a hand. :hi:

[billbuckhead]

47. And what did Hillary say that was race baiting?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9LhWUsrJnM>

[dailykoff]

49. Transcript of the Jan. 13, 2008 broadcast of NBC's 'Meet the Press,'

featuring Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22634967/

[Levgreee]

20. implying that a terrorist might attack because Obama is elected is unacceptable

same as if Obama implied the same for Hillary

[sjdnb]

22. Cuz she's a qualified girl trying out for the boy's team

how dare she!

[dailykoff]

28. She hasn't been a girl in forty years.

Why do you keep pretending this is a Billy Jean King tennis match anyway?

[TexasObserver]

36. you asked: Why do you keep pretending this is a Billy Jean King tennis match anyway?

because she can't get that Helen Reddy tune out of her head

[dailykoff]

39. bwahaha

hear me snore!

[TexasObserver]

41. I was just remembering that match from 40 years ago

Astrodome!!

to me the song and that moment always fit together nicely

[dkf]

26. Hillary is overambitious because she is willing to go to any lengths to win.

George Bush is also overly ambitious.

[WCGreen]

30. And Obama raining millions of dollar from the very same trough

as Hillary and all the rest isn't going to great lengths to win...

I don't have the answers but I think Obama would, at least at this stage of the game, pretty much do what ever it took, short of violent criminal activities, to win the nomination...

Compromises are easy when the possibility of such great power is so close...

[Levgreee]

38. He's getting almost all his money from individual donations nt

[WCGreen]

43. Right....

Like the $1,163,118 he raised from people who just happen to be employeed by Goldman Sachs...

That's a really big Walls Street investment banking firm...

Obama's people know how to work the game...

HRC, BTW, raised only $340,211 from people working at the Wall Street firm...

[paulk]

45. because she's a woman

pretty obvious the bias our culture has in this.

[cooolandrew]

46. The pundits will have anyones blood boiling cspan is the best view of candidates.

...I think they are both being competitive. It's more concernes about some methods for me.

[krkaufman]

52. Maybe because of the tactics she employs?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/krkaufman/20

[Chalco]

53. The depth of hatred for women requires the psychoanalysis of

the human race. nt

[demo dutch]

55. Women in power get shit on all the time!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

56. See Misogynist thread posted here earlier

"overly ambitious" = "this isn't a woman's place"

[Darth_Kitten]

57. How come......

a woman like Hillary has so much more experience than Obama, but they are "both" equally qualified to be President?

A woman has to be many times more qualified/experienced/etc to be considered half as good as any man.