hillary clinton=nancy pelosi, the first woman....

[mopinko]

remember when we thought it would make a difference to have a woman speaker of the house? how's that working out for you?
i understand the idea that a woman in the white house is an important barrier to break through. but if you honestly believe that gender should not be a consideration for high office, you cannot vote for hillary just so that that barrier should be broken. she is a neocon who is wrapping herself in the mantel of progress and history. and she wouldn't even be the senator from new york without her husband.
get over it. she will be an unmitigated disaster. she wouldn't have a single supporter here if her name was willard.

[zabet]

1. Why judge one person

by another's actions? By that
same standard, since the biggest
failure as a President in History
is a man, it would be a disaster to
elect another man to office.
I guess that leaves the aliens from
Area 51.

[mopinko]

2. why support a candidate because of her gender?

why care about the first woman in the white house?

[zabet]

3. Why support a candidate because of their race?

Why care about the first African-American in the White House?

[goldcanyonaz]

4. Touche.

[zabet]

7. Thanks...

mirror arguments can
be enlightening.
}(

[mopinko]

18. or not. nt

[zabet]

23. Not for those who refuse to see. nt

[mopinko]

5. i don't.

i like barack obama for who he is. he is my senator, ya know.

[zabet]

10. That has absolutely nothing to do

with the broad-brush judgment you painted
women with in the OP.
There are 2 candidates, a woman and an African-
American, 2 firsts. It is reasonable to suggest
that in counter argument to your assessment of
Clinton's electability due to gender, Obama's race
would be mentioned. Basic point, counter point debate
tactics.

[mopinko]

15. that's not an argument, it's just contradiction.

barack is not running on a platform of the first black president. hillary, however, and her supporters, are touting "making history" as a reason to vote for her. repeatedly. big diff. sorry.
and i think that the similarities between pelosi and clinton are real and relevant.

[zabet]

20. It is as valid a point as

any you have made.
Saying Pelosi and Clinton are
similar is akin to saying Obama
and Jesse Jackson have similarities
that are real and relevant.

You are entitled to take the perspective
of your choice, just as I am entitled to
mine.

[TheWraith]

6. I, for one, don't. I like that he's the best, most inspiring and competant candidate. NT

[zabet]

12. Good! Vote who you

honestly think will do the
best job. Thank you for supporting
a Dem!
:thumbsup:

[cd3dem]

8. who would vote for someone with 3 years experience to run a country?

Biden took office in 1973, before many of these Obama yo-yo's were born... I am so annoyed these days by the idiots who are about to destroy this country and our chances to restore some decency I could scream!!!

[mopinko]

11. he doesn't have "3 years of experience" any more than hill

has 35. he has lots of years of community organizing, teaching constitutional law, and i'm here to tell you that 8 years in springfield ain't beanbag. plus a harvard education. get off it. he didn't just fall off the turnip truck and your response is a tired canard.

[zabet]

14. Biden was my first choice. nt

[Matariki]

9. Calling Clinton a 'neocon' shows a *lot* of ignorance

[mopinko]

16. another intellegent post.

not

[Matariki]

21. You need to do more thinking & research and less emotional name calling.

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter,"


Her voting record is almost identical to Obama's but *she's* a neocon. :eyes:

[mopinko]

28. one supports bush and one doesn't

keep pushing your tired shit, tho.

[Matariki]

32. You resort to name calling and insults. Back up how Clinton 'supports' Bush.

Some actual facts would possibly lend you a bit of credibility.

[mopinko]

34. well besides iwr, and her repeated insistance on it's wisdom,

we have kyl-leiberman, and on and on. the thing that makes me the sickest it that she seems to be warmongering so she won't look "like a girl". just disgusting.

[Annces]

13. I did not care about Harriet Miers because she was obviously a dud

But Hillary is not. She is a top notch politician. She can bring change to America. I won't mind if Obama wins either. However even polls show that this is a male versus female race to an extent.

[Matariki]

17. Here.

Educate yourself. You don't have to vote for her. Well if she wins the primary, hopefully you will.


http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton_VoteMatch.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm


http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

<snip>

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

[mopinko]

19. she is a war monger, and a tool of the death merchants.

that makes her a neocon with me. the senator from aipac.
and 16th most liberal vs 1st? no contest for me.

[Matariki]

22. So you gonna vote for McCain then? Or just sit this one out?

[mopinko]

27. nope, gonna get obama nominated

get used to it.

[Matariki]

31. 'get used to it', 'get over it'

Great repertoire. Makes me think you're too young to vote anyway.

I'm wondering, if Obama *doesn't* get elected, are you going to support Clinton? Or vote for McCain? Or what?

Me, I'll be very happy if Obama wins the primary. Or Clinton. I think they're both fine candidates. I'm not happy with Clinton's Iraq vote either, but I believe that she wouldn't vote that way now. The majority of the Senate voted that way, so shortly after 9/11. I think you are off the mark calling her a 'war monger'.

[mopinko]

35. i will hold my nose and vote for her, and hope that a

solid dem majority in congress with alleviate the need for her to look tough. i see no way that she would have the coattails that obama would have, tho. she just looks pathetic to me prattling on about change when she would bring anything but.
and you are a warmonger if you give a maniac a free hand without bothering to check out the actual intelligence. "if i knew then" my ass. robert byrd told them all that he had george tenet come to his office and asked him if anything had changed. tenet answered no. we all knew. 20 million people around the world took to the street to scream that it was a lie. what more did she need to know?

[Matariki]

36. Just curious, who did you vote for in the last election primary?

And did you hold your nose if/when you voted for Kerry?

I agree that the vast majority in the Senate proved themselves to be either idiots, intellectually lazy, or some how threatened or bought off. The facts were in plain sight, yet the majority of not only the Senate but the entire country was clamoring to attack Iraq. It really sucks.

[mopinko]

37. i was a rabid deaniac, but it was over before my primary

i was not that crazy about kerry, but i worked hard for him, anyway. and donated. i didn't start to actively dislike him till he rolled over in ohio.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Matariki]

33. Have you ever taken any time to read her voting record? In detail?

[TexasObserver]

25. "she wouldn't have a single supporter here if her name was willard"

You are correct. She'd be a despised DLC sellout who had no chance at the presidency, which is what about 2/3 rightly believe.

[AJH032]

26. If her last name was "Willard"

she could possibly have MORE support, because she wouldn't be a despised Clinton painted a witch by the right. Why do you think all of her campaign signs say "Hillary" and not "Clinton"? Your speculation is very questionable and likely unreasonable.

[mopinko]

29. unreasonable?

you know, i have been a feminist for all my 53 years. i don't think there is anything historic about a woman being elected to her husband's old office. it is how a great many have been elected in the past. if her last name had been willard, she would not be the senator from new york in the first place.

[AJH032]

30. why? how do you know that?

She was smart and ambitious before she met Bill. There are plenty of women senators. How on earth could you be so sure she wouldn't be one of them? Perhaps unjustifiable better fits your "argument".