All you have to do is listen to Gregory & Buchanan at MSNBC, Roberts of ABC, and Gergen of CNN.
All these political analyst explain it perfectly.
"Bill Clinton clearly UNDERSTANDS that No Democrat can win the White House in this day & age UNLESS you are POSITIONED right smack in the MIDDLE. No perceived Liberal Democratic can ever win the White House. That's the REALITY that MOST Liberals could Never Ever accept"
Do you think Ted kennedy, Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton will be seen or heard of this Fall crisscrosssing America for Obama ????
For god's sake, you don't even hear from these people anymore in PA, OH & TX and we are only in the primary.
Honestly at this point I don't see either democrat winning. I think we have already snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The Clinton campaign has been saying that Obama's victories and supporters "don't matter" and giving them good reason to stay home if she somehow gets the nomination. The Obama campaign has somehow perceived to be slighting the Clinton legacy (which btw, it would be absolutely, positively out of line for President Clinton to be in the middle of this race if it was anyone else) and all the DLC democrats will be telling the "middle ground" to stay away.
This whole thing has created huge rifts in the democratic party after the kitchen sink came out. There is pretty much no way to put humpty dumpty back together again.
No one can see the future that precisely.
"I don't see" is not the same thing as "this is what is going to happen...bank on it"
Just pointing that what you don't see isn't necessarily not there.
Yesterday this individual, Kasjogren, said it's ok to call people white trash. Today he/she can see the future equally well as God. One can only shutter to think about what tomorrow may bring.
I said my own family used the term my whole life as a joke. And I said this was my opinion.
Would you like to troll me some more? On Sunday I let in 4 goals playing keeper in my soccer league. I didn't finish all my yard work this weekend either. Oh, I often go three days in between shaving.
So there is some more information for you to personally troll me with. Gotta love Clintonian politics.
When Obama started winning and gaining more support, it was apparent to all - and mostly to dancing-in-the-streets Republicans - that the Democratic party was facing a HUGE rift.
African Americans have voted Democrat by and large - and for good reason. When you have Republican "greats" like the lauded Ronald Reagan making snide crappy remarks about welfare queens and setting out to gain the south - the Reagan Democrats - based on racial division, what party was the logical party for African Americans AND for those who sought equality for all?
I don't know if Obama knew that he was going to be as appealing as he is to so MANY voters, but he's run a great campaign and scored big. I disagree that HRC should step aside and Obama says the same.
We have to trust our party that we WILL come together when the primary is over.
BUT - keep this in mind as well. The American public is not wild about a Congress AND the Presidency all of one party. So with Republicans leaving Congress in droves - like rats jumping ship - leaving Democrats to clean up the absolute MESS (and take the blame), this helps to position McCain for a win - simply to balance Congress.
I'm sure the Obama people are not self aware of this, but the elitism and messianic aura around their campaign alienate most Americans.
That's why Hillary is going to win the Dem primary popular vote, by all reasonable estimates. If you can't win political and cultural Dem centrists, there is no way to win in the Nov.
How do you figure. Even under the twisted MI logic, Obama will probably grab the 200k+ lead back after NC.
That we only win when we go with Jacksonians? Or that Hillary will win the popular vote?
Both are self explanatory. NC happens on the same day as IN. Hillary will have big wins in WV, KY and PR.
"I'm sure the Obama people are not self aware of this, but the elitism and messianic aura around their campaign alienate most Americans."
Rove might as well have written that.
And he won't be constrained by the truth like we are here.
"like we are here?"
Your rovian comment shows you obviously don't feel constrained by truth.
The messianic thing is no invention either, and Obama's own supporters recognize it.
It doesn't matter if she wins the popular vote. It is the delegate count that matters.
The superdelegates will be able to choose the one who is ahead in the poplar vote, or the one who has the most pledged delegates.
Seriously? We need to live up to Buchanan's standards?
Bill Clinton ran and got elected as a center-left candidate. He proposed, during the campaign, to let gays serve openly in the military, for example.
It's precisely his triangulation and, frankly, wimping out on his ideals, that lost us Congress in 1994, and led us to where we are.
yes, he proposed. Reality took a different turn. and it did a hell of lot good as well - the polls back in the 1990's had Americans totally disapproving of gays in the military. Look at the polling today - night & day difference.
racially integrated the Armed Forces, this country was still segregated in large parts of it, parts that were a key part of the Democratic coalition.
The difference between Truman and Bill Clinton is political courage.
and it took 15 years for it to be completely done away with.
it is time we got rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But it served its purpose and it should be removed, with new laws put in place so that the military cannot discriminate against sexuality.
However, what BC did was political courage, based on the democratic losses that happened in the house in the next year.
it may not have been what you wanted, but when the military was and is still against gays serving in the military, it was the best that could be done. Unlike black Americans, the military was not against them serving, just that they didn't want them serving alongside whites.
DADT was a sign of political courage in the face of a defeat that hadn't happened yet?
Coincidentally, I dated someone who was kicked out over the Clinton policy. The military is filled with gays, a fact not unknown to the leadership and presumably the President. So Clinton passed his policy knowing it was discriminatory.
You know, it would be really refreshing if some people were to admit that Clinton engineered some major fuckups. DADT is one of them.
I don't believe it was a major fuckup, because of what was occurring before that bill was signed.
it was a step in the right direction. Not my fault that the military still doesn't want gays in their organization (only 25% of them approve of having gays serving in the military).
Excellent point. Clinton's could have allowed gays to serve openly in the military but he didn't have the stones to do it.
most Americans thought in 1993, and today still, think of homosexuality as immoral and disgusting yet CHOSEN by those who live the lifestyle. The military didn't want any gays in it, and the polls in the early 90's were heavily against it. Clinton didn't care, he wanted to let them in, but 20 years of Nixon/Ford and Reagan/Bush stacking the military ranks was not gonna allow that, so Clinton did what he could. Clinton also lacked military cred because his non service hurt him at the time.
with blacks, not as many Americans thought so lowly of them as they did gays, even in the 1940's. People knew that you were born blacks, but people didn't and don't think you're born gay largely. The military didn't mind blacks actually serving in it, only wanted them segregated. But blacks were never banned outright like gays were before Clinton. Truman also had military cred, he'd served in WWI and won WWII, and the army was stacked with Roosevelt/Truman appointees from 1933-1948
He could have done more but he chose not to. He also let DOMA become law.
and what was happening before the law? Gays were greated with flowers & candy in the military?
jeez.....
greeted, not greated. I have to type slower
They were kicked out of the military. Just like they are now.
only if they tell. I know, my nephew is going to boot camp and he is keeping his mouth shut.
That isn't good enough.
Good luck to your nephew. I hope he gets what he wants out of the service.
I agree, it isn't good enough NOW. But when it became law, it was revolutionary and I bet that caused a lot of those seat switches the following year in congress.
thank you about my nephew - we all don't want him in the military at this point, but it is something he thinks he needs to do. So, we support him - it is sad, because serving our country is a wonderful thing to do. but this fucked up situation in Iraq is not worth it.
a classmate just dropped his friend off at the airport the other day - he is going back to serve a 3rd tour - he isn't doing it for the "mission" but that he doesn't want some inexperience kid getting blow up.
sad.
that instead of rebutting each instance of wrong, I'm just going to hope that some gay Clinton supporters read it.
how many years did it take for the Civil Rights Act to be passed? How many years since we fought the Civil War? How many years did it take for Affirmative Action?
my goodness, BC was the first pro-gay president that I can remember, and you shit over him because he didn't do what it took hundreds of years for civil rights for blacks.
because only freed the slaves, but didn't end segregation, or stop Jim Crow laws from happening
Clinton passed DOMA, probably the worst piece of anti-gay bigotry on the statute book, and DADT, making anti-gay discrimination a matter of bipartisan agreement on government policy.
Clinton was better for us than all of his predecessors, absolutely. But that's because all of his predecessors were in the Dark Ages. Better is a relative expression.
But as I see below, that means I'm just ungrateful for the crumbs we did get. Jesus.
yes, things are relative. Jimmy Carter, LBJ in the dark ages? Try in the same century, and same half century. Stop whining, gays got the best they were ever gonna get in that period. I doubt Bob Kerrey or Paul Tsongas or Jerry Brown or Ross Pert would have gotten any better for gays in the military. In the future, gays will get more. Clinton paved the way and whining about how he didn't get the stars and moon for gays ignores that he did get a lot more dignity for them than ever before. He appointed more to cabinet that Truman did, who as you point out, desegregated the army for blacks.
You are so awesome, truly. "Stop whining"?
Hey, gay Hillary supporters! This guy is saying what they really think about you! Read all about it!
Yeah, I'll demand my civil rights whether or not you approve, straight man. And by the way, unless you're regurgitating freeper lies about Janet Reno, Bill never appointed an openly gay cabinet member.
In the future, gays will get more.
All we want is full equality with everyone else. Too much to ask as far as you're concerned?
I totally agree that your civil rights should be appointed. However, based on bigotry and ignorance, it does take time. Again, look how long it took for African-Americans to achieve equality or women for that matter.
I think there has been great strides taken, and more will happen - more & more people are open to this and in much a quicker time frame than other minority groups have achieved.
hang in there - I wish I was prez, because I would enact it in a heartbeat and damn my future in a political career. But I doubt I could get elected dogcatcher, let alone president.
any of us, going to have full equality, not as long as there's a white-male-dominated power structure. But we'll move forward slowly but surely :-)
Almost half of Democrats live in fear or awe of the likes of Buchanan. I call them Fraidycrats. And they support Hillary.
This isn't true at all. Clinton actually governed the most progressively in the period leading up to the 1994 elections. WIth the exception of NAFTA, he governed on tradition liberal princples. He raised taxes on the wealthy. He pushed for more gun control. He tried to get universal health care. He expanded the role of government via Family Medical leave.
I think it can be said that Clinton recognized the challenges and problems facing America and the globe but make a world of progress in solving them in eight years. Hence, George W. Bush.
Obama and Hillary are positioned in exactly the same place.
The difference is, Obama doesn't have to carry the baggage of having supported the worst of Bush.
You can say it over and over but that doesn't make it true.
When Obama needs cred he says Hillary == Obama to try and sponge some off her.
Hillary is the continuation of 1992-2000 with peace and prosperity.
Obama is the continuation of 1976-1980 with inflation and hostages and a general sense of moral superiority in the white house.
Bill Clinton served from 1993-2001, and Carter was 1977-1981. it matters because troops were sent to somalia in 1992, and the first Al Qaeda attack under that name happened that year, and if you get Clinton's dates wrong, haters can blame those two things on Clinton.
Obama is Jimmy Carter. If he gets elected, and turns out to govern like him, and his presidency is like his, I support Hillary 2012, ala Ted kennedy 1980. unlike Kennedy, she hasn't killed anyone yet, and the head of her machine is still alive, Bill, so she could conceivably take his nomination if Obama turns out to be another Jimmy Carter.
