--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Clinton is a deeply committed, very partisan Democrat. > > > > The idea that she's been "supporting McCain over Obama" > > > > or that she wants McCain to win so she can run in 2012 > > > > is just idiotic, sorry. > > > > > > This is what I was referring to, Judy: > > > > > > ~~Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive > > > Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to > > > tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack > > > Obama simply offers more rhetoric. > > > > > > "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain > > > will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, > > > but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put > > > forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth > > > a speech he made in 2002." > > > > > > Clinton was referring to Obama's anti-war speech he delivered > > > in Chicago before entering the United States Senate. > > > > Sure, but this isn't "supporting McCain." She's > > making the case that she'd be a stronger challenger > > to McCain than Obama. This is still the primary, > > after all. > > > > She wants McCain to get beat, and she doesn't think > > Obama can do it. It's not that complicated. > > Here's video of Hillary saying the same thing four different > times. I just can't see how this translates into anything other > than suggesting that she and McCain have experience, Obama > doesn't, and she and McCain are better equipped to face crises.
That *is* what she's saying. How does that contradict the point I just made? > 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4JnWQsxKw > > 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMVOT-IH8sg > > From the beginning of this primary I've held firm hope in Hillary > and felt that Obama wasn't yet up to it. At this point, because of > the above - also Hillary's Ireland and Bosnia claims Her claims about Ireland have been supported by others who were involved in the negotiations, including Mo Mowlam. The uproar about the Bosnia thing is just silly. What difference would it make to voters if she *had* been under sniper fire? What does that have to do with her qualifications to be president? I'm quite sure she wasn't actively *lying* about it. I think she just misremembered, as we all do from time to time. Memory is a tricky thing. She would be extremely unlikely to deliberately lie about an event that was witnessed by so many people and could so easily be disproven. It was just a gaffe. - and a number of > other things, like lobyist ties, her Christian Right breakfast club > thingy, The "Christian Right breakfast club thingy" is another of those stories to which there's far less than meets the eye. The lobbyist ties, in contrast, are a real drawback. > etc, I'm very disappointed. > > OTOH Obama sounds good, but can he deliver. Obama has plenty of very specific drawbacks as well, including having made various disingenuous statements about his experience and accomplishments (not to mention his willingness to allow his campaign and supporters to attack the Clintons for "race baiting," which is just utterly reprehensible, IMHO). And then there's the Wright problem, which, as I've argued, speaks very poorly of his judgment even if one agrees with Wright's perspective. > I'll support whoever gets the nomination. I just hope the > apparent drawn out bitter fight between the two doesn't > somehow cause McCain to get the upper hand and win. Either of the two of them can make a good case against McCain once the nomination is decided. I don't think their criticisms of each other are going to have much influence in the general election. However: There's a rumor that's been circulating among journalists and political insiders for many months that there's a huge scandal about Obama waiting to break. I don't know what the scandal is, but apparently the folks who know there's something in the wind do. If you pay attention, you'll see many references to Clinton hanging in hoping for Obama to "make a mistake" or something along those lines. On its face, that's a reasonable assumption about why she isn't giving up, but it may also be an oblique reference to this looming scandal. NBC's political director, Chuck Todd, has a really good piece up about the campaign: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23846166 In the middle of it, he writes: "Or [does the Obama campaign] not have as many superdelegates in their back pocket as they've led some of us to believe? "Then there is the other shoe that could drop. "Clinton knows something else could pop up- another controversial issue." That's the most direct reference I've seen yet. I'm curious to see if anybody else picks up on it. Todd is a pretty widely respected commentator. And NBC is generally considered to be leaning strongly toward Obama, so it goes against the grain. (Do read the piece in any case; it's one of the best I've seen recently.) Anyway, if there is such a scandal waiting to break, it could explain why Clinton is sticking with it, and why Obama hasn't assumed the role of the presumptive nominee.
