1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

On Hillary

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Lugnuts, Jan 19, 2008.

  1. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry.

    I've got to get something out.

    And I think the most important thing I have to get out, I didn't even write. A friend did.

    I know we have too many political threads...

    But you have to understand. I'm in heaven with this election right now. I love this stuff.

    So even if nobody reads what I'm about to post, at least I've gotten it out of my system.
  2. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Ummm ... to be continued?
  3. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member

    Evidently, it's not yet out of your system.

    But I will say this: I feel like the Clintons have become far too much "insiders" for me to feel comfortable voting for. I'd like to see some table kicked over.
  4. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Okay. No secret I'm a liberal and a Democrat. For the record, I voted for a Republican for governor and also for Congress.

    If you go back and look at my old posts on Hillary, not only did I think she'd never make it this far, I also stated a Hillary nomination would be Karl Rove's wet dream. Which is a bad thing in case you're wondering.

    My position on Hillary has always been the same: I have respect for her, but I don't want her as POTUS. Beyond that, there has always been NO WAY IN HELL she'd ever get elected... Right, Luggie?

    Okay. I mentioned the other day I post frequently on another board. I cheat on you loosers bigtime. I cheat with a group of women. The women of this other board have something in common, and it's actually something pretty painful.

    Anyway, about 5 years ago, I got to know one of the women on that board (Dear Penthouse........) Kidding. We met up for lunch "in real life." Notice I'd never do that with any of you loosers. Kidding. Sort of.

    Anyway, it was one of those internet friendships that really worked out. Even though she lives in a different state than me (she lives in New York City), we have kept in touch and meet up from time to time.

  5. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Kfdiefmdaasassasrere;;dasd;asd [/dools]
  6. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Mr. Lugs and I have very similar political views. We make every attempt to vote as a bloc so as to have more power. Whopee! :D It doesn't always work out, but we really do have loads of fun hashing it all out.

    The two of us were Gore supporters, so now we have to pick somebody else. Hillary and Obama are running pretty much even in our state.

    We were naturally leaning toward Obama, what will our feelings about ole unelectable Hillary.

    The two of us are desperate for a Democrat or even a moderate of any ilk in the White House. We just want some basic things like stem cell passed-- things the majority of the country wants.

    So Obama wins Iowa, and for two days we're on the Obama train. We're starting to get excited.

    Then sometime around about New Hampshire, I was on my other board, where I find myself catching up with my friend. I knew she was involved in the DNC, and I knew she was supporting Hillary. Come to find she's actually on Hill's finance committee.

    So we ladies were talkin' politics on the other board and she posts this:
  7. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    I have met most of the Democratic candidates over the last few years and have varying degrees of respect for them. I am in awe of Joe Biden and his 36 year tenure in the US Senate. His commitment to domestic issues (like fighting for more cops on the street) as well as his knowledge, ingenuity, realpolitik on international issues is unparalled. I am sorry that he is not still in the race. Bill Richardson also has enormous qualifications but unfortunately lacks the leadership skills required for the job. Both would make a great secretary of state or other cabinet level position if they were interested in the job.

    The first time I met John Edwards (when he was running 4 years ago), I thought he was a nice guy but was shocked that he didn't have an answer to a timely question I asked him on an issue and ultimately, he just asked me to tell him what I thought. I have met him close to 10 times - nice guy, very passionate, stands head and shoulders above every one else on poverty issues, but is limited otherwise. And his anger is a turn-off. I don't believe in class warfare.

    I have heard Obama in small groups where you can truly assess someone's grasp of substance twice. Once, it was a fundraiser for a friend. I was so excited to meet him and see this rock star in person, the guy with all of the great ideas. I was terribly disappointed. I hear politicians speak every single week of the year. I know the generic DNC talking points in my sleep and how every party hack spins them to fit into their own speaking style. That's what I got from him. Not one new idea. A year and a half ago, I wrote out a speech for the actress Cynthia Nixon to give at a fundraiser I chaired. I was awed by how she took my words and presented them with passion, making them her own. This didn't qualify her for a presidential run - she's just a good speaker. Obama didn't even do as well.

    The second time I saw him, at an event where senators from both parties addressed a single issue group, Hillary spoke first. Her comments were unique, analytical, appropriate and she addressed the leadership by name. Obama spoke after Ben Cardin and cribbed his whole speech, getting some of it right and some aaallllllmmmmmost there. It was insulting.

    More importantly, being the same age and knowing so many truly accomplished people, I question someone who has so much to say about himself that he's written TWO autobiographies by age 45 - the second during his first two years in the Senate, during which time he failed to author a single important piece of legislation. There is no issue that he has taken personal leadership on and led the fight.

    He talks about the politics of "hope", but has gotten away with lots of dirty politics and the press has given him a "bye" in order to create a horse race. In Iowa, his supporters were making nasty calls for months to voters. No one reported on it. During the predictions section of The McLaughlin Group, one reporter hinted at it coming out soon, but it never did. He has just not gotten the scrutiny that other candidates have and as such, has gotten away with behaving in a way that I don't admire.

    I do not accept his explanation as to why he voted "present" so many times in the Illinois State Legislature instead of taking a leadership stand on so many issues, particularly choice. Similarly, it's easy to criticize someone else's vote on Iraq when you weren't there and faced with the multitude of issues surrounding the vote, but to criticize an Iran vote when you were in the Senate and couldn't be bothered voting yourself: unaccepatble.

    He is a fabulous orator. Undeniably. But as I said, I hear politicians every day of the week (and have 2 conference calls with politicians this afternoon alone). Words do not equal actions. I would hope that he will take leadership stands on issues over the next few years and be prepared for the presidency in the future. But nothing in his biography tells me how he will handle problems.

    I am also confused about how he can criticize triangualtion, but then advocate essentially the same thing. Triangulation, so named to criticize Bill Clinton by the other side, was an effort to find common ground on a wide array of issues, both in an attempt to be bi-partisan, but also to make small strides forward on important issues so as to pave the way for bigger ones as history unfolds. Doesn't Obama claim to want to act in a bi-partisan way? How can he possibly accomplish this without having to compromise on some issues? Really, does he think that the GOP will just roll over and give up their tax breaks and start underwriting programs for all? Seriously.

    I am supporting Hillary because she has a lifetime of identifying issues and attacking them to fix them. After law school, when questioning the discrepancy between number of children in the census and number of public school students in Mass, she went door to door to find out where the children were, and discovered thousands of special needs children whose needs weren't addressed in the public school system. So she fought for funding for public schools for special ed programs.

    This work on behalf of children never stopped. IN FACT (speaking of emotional breakdowns): I was in NH last weekend and attended a town hall event that she did at a high school in Concord. A woman stood up, holding the head of of her daughter sitting in front of her while she announced that she was a foster mom, and that she had been a foster child (her mother was sitting next to her) and asked about kids being thrown out of the system. Hillary said "you were a foster child and now you're a foster mom?". She got very choked up, and there were tears in her eyes and her voice cracked as she thanked this woman. The press was there but didn't report on this, but instead reported on another silly episode. Whatever. She then went on to identify all of the problems with the foster system, talk about an NGO that she is on the board of that addresses some of the problems (specifically, providing homes for college vacations), and what she plans to do to address additional issues. She is also the only presidential candidate with a plan to address autism.

    On choice and women's issues: She, together with Pat Murray, put a block on Pres Bush's appt to the FDA until they addressed the morning after pill end run around science. It's a long heinous story what the Bush admin did to block over the counter dissemination of the drug, but Hillary took a stand and fought the Bush admin until she prevailed. Now that's leadership. (please google it if you're interested). She has also helped get funding for ovarian cancer screening, endo issues (I forgot the details, I found it on her Senate website when I was researching another issue) and other women's health issues.

    She challenged Rumsfeld in a Senate hearing face to face - the only one - calling him on his flawed Iraq plan. He quit shortly after. She fought to get health benefits for returning Iraqi veterans and armor for our forces (including the National Guard). There are a whole host of protections that she fought for, and achieved for our soldiers.

    This S-Chip program that we're all up in arms about for Bush vetoing? Hillary's program as first lady. Speaking of which, she is not running because she was first lady. But what she did with that role was unprecedented. She changed our entire vocabulary on health care. She may not have succeeded (and readily admits that her approach was dead wrong and what she learned from it and how it made her a better Senator), but she put the issue front and center and made national health care the standard that we all want. In addition, she travelled to 82 different countries and is in great part responsible for the high opinion that this country was held in during the Clinton years, which has now been squandered. She has maintained many of those relationships, however, and on DAY ONE, can pick up the phone to many world leaders and start to restore our friendships around the world.

    But she is tough. She will stand up to everyone. I asked her personally, one on one, about what happens with individual dx that aren't covered by insurance, she said that there will be a plan available and I asked her what will make an insurance company offer it, she gritted her teeth and said "if they want to do business here, they will have to."

    Hillary has more endorsements from congressmen/women and senators than all of the other candidates combined. That is because, in the words of a prominent Republican, she is "a dream" to work with. She has worked on bi-partisan legislation with Mike DeWine, Bill Frist and a host of other republicans to achieve what can be done in a bi-partisan way, but stands her ground on issues that are important, like standing up to Judge Alito - her remarks were quoted extensively because she didn't hold back or get cowed into submission.

    She is principalled, experienced, creative in achieving solutions to problems and the most experienced candidate.

    Okay, time for my conference call.
  8. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Lugs, of course she feels that way. She's on HRC's finance committee. Why wouldn't she post a full-throated defense of her candidate?
  9. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Senator Clinton has and deserves many loyal, dedicated, talented supporters. I'm not one, but I could live with her as President quite easily. The reason I do not support her, which is that she couldn't be a more cautious trimmer if she tried, and she has tried, could be a political plus in the general election. After GW Bush, a President who always looks before she leaps does have a certain appeal.
  10. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Alright, so maybe it sounds like somebody who works for Hillary, but damn. Just damn. There's nothing quite like hearing personal experiences.

    The post was moving enough for this technically undecided Democrat to pick up the phone and call her.

    We made a date for lunch, which was Friday.

    We talked for almost 3 hours.

    I grilled the CRAP out of her on the electability issue for Hillary.

    She made some fairly compelling arguments.

    First she says Hillary's plan for McCain is her "strongest" -- better than anything she could do against any of the other Republicans. For example, my friend doesn't think her Romney plan is as strong.

    Secondly, in terms of the Electoral College, here's her argument:

    Hillary needs to win every blue state Kerry got in '04. "Which she will"-- was her statement-- "plus either Ohio or Florida."

    I got to thinking about that. Why wouldn't Hillary win every state Kerry won? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2004 election was ugly in terms of its blue state-red state division. In other words, the blue states were BIGTIME blue, while the red states were BIGTIME red-- with the exception of a few swing states.

    And regarding the swing states: We differed on Florida. In a McCain-Hillary matchup, I said McCain would win Florida. She said Hillary most definitley would. We agreed to disagree on that one. I'd like your thoughts.

    But the point is, she's got me thinking about Hillary's electablity-- the one reason I was SURE I'd never vote for her in the primary.

    The story about Obama cribbing Cardin's speech bothered me, and I thought it might bother some of you.
  11. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    Interesting. Thanks.
  12. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    My only advice, Lugs, is to find someone with an Obama affiliation and ask the same questions, and then decide.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page