I found Hillary’s speech in RI offensive to me personally

C

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
After all, I admire Obamas message of hope and its what makes me want to vote for him. To give hope a chance. To bring change of a young outsiders into the whitehouse.

Hillary in Rhode Island sarcastically mocked Barack Obama and his message of Hope and Change.

“Now I could stand up here and say, let’s get everybody together, let’s get unified the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing,” she said, to a smattering of giggles. “And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect.”

She added: “But I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and make the special interests disappear.”

Hillary apparently thinks she is attacking her opponent - but she is making a classic, and perhaps fatal, mistake: she is really attacking her opponent's AUDIENCE.

By mocking Obama's Hope/Change pitch, to the loud laughter of her fans - picked up by the media and blasted to all audiences across the country - Clinton is directly mocking the millions of Obama voters...whom she needs to win over in order to have any chance of victory.

Attack your opponent? By all means.
Attack him harshly? Absolutely.
Attack what his audience believes? SUICIDAL.
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly. And truthfully all she's doing is alienating Obama supporters in the general if she wins it. I know I'm turned off by her anti-hope rhetoric.
 
Chapdog said:
After all, I admire Obamas message of hope and its what makes me want to vote for him. To give hope a chance. To bring change of a young outsiders into the whitehouse.

Hillary in Rhode Island sarcastically mocked Barack Obama and his message of Hope and Change.

“Now I could stand up here and say, let’s get everybody together, let’s get unified the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing,” she said, to a smattering of giggles. “And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect.”

She added: “But I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and make the special interests disappear.”

Hillary apparently thinks she is attacking her opponent - but she is making a classic, and perhaps fatal, mistake: she is really attacking her opponent's AUDIENCE.

By mocking Obama's Hope/Change pitch, to the loud laughter of her fans - picked up by the media and blasted to all audiences across the country - Clinton is directly mocking the millions of Obama voters...whom she needs to win over in order to have any chance of victory.

Attack your opponent? By all means.
Attack him harshly? Absolutely.
Attack what his audience believes? SUICIDAL.
Click to expand...


It's not a line of attack on Obama that I find particularly compelling.

That said, at this point in the race any politician who is in runner up status is going to go negative and throw everything but the kitchen sink at the presumptive leader in the race.

And you know what? I don't think its a bad thing. I never did agree with those who proclaimed that Edwards or Clinton, or whoever, should just roll over and get out of the way...and let Obama have the nomination.

Getting slammed and attacked from all angles should make Obama a better candidate. He needs to go through this vetting process, this trial by fire if you will. Because if you think what Clinton or Edwards did or said about Obama is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. The GOP is going to swift boat him. Obama is even on record saying that a tough, hard fought, and even harsh primary is going to make him a better candidate.
 
Cypress said:
It's not a line of attack on Obama that I find particularly compelling.

That said, at this point in the race any politician who is in runner up status is going to go negative and throw everything but the kitchen sink at the presumptive leader in the race.

And you know what? I don't think its a bad thing. I never did agree with those who proclaimed that Edwards or Clinton, or whoever, should just roll over and get out of the way...and let Obama have the nomination.

Getting slammed and attacked from all angles should make Obama a better candidate. He needs to go through this vetting process, this trial by fire. Because if you think what Clinton or Edwards did or said about Obama is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. The GOP is going to swift boat him. Obama is even on record saying that a tough, hard fought, and even harsh campaign is going to make him a better candidate.
Click to expand...

What about clintonian rape? SHould we discuss it as part of the vetting process or move on?
 
Cypress said:
It's not a line of attack on Obama that I find particularly compelling.

That said, at this point in the race any politician who is in runner up status is going to go negative and throw everything but the kitchen sink at the presumptive leader in the race.

And you know what? I don't think its a bad thing. I never did agree with those who proclaimed that Edwards or Clinton, or whoever, should just roll over and get out of the way...and let Obama have the nomination.

Getting slammed and attacked from all angles should make Obama a better candidate. He needs to go through this vetting process, this trial by fire if you will. Because if you think what Clinton or Edwards did or said about Obama is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. The GOP is going to swift boat him. Obama is even on record saying that a tough, hard fought, and even harsh primary is going to make him a better candidate.
Click to expand...


That's the problem with Democrats. Political cannibalism. They eat their own and make themselves less desireable in the general. Sure it may be better for her in the long run, but this election isn't about Hillary, its about us, its about nominating the best person to go up against McCain or Ron Paul (LOL, I crack myself up sometimes :p). Dragging her opponent through the mud at the detriment of the party losing the nod is exactly what Obama said, this is when politics get silly.
 
LadyT said:
That's the problem with Democrats. Political cannibalism. They eat their own and make themselves less desireable in the general. Sure it may be better for her in the long run, but this election isn't about Hillary, its about us, its about nominating the best person to go up against McCain or Ron Paul (LOL, I crack myself up sometimes :p). Dragging her opponent through the mud at the detriment of the party losing the nod is exactly what Obama said, this is when politics get silly.
Click to expand...


Ron Paul 4Evah!

anyway, point taken. That's why I'm writing in Hugo Chavez on my ballot. :)
 
I don't get why Dems think it's such a great thing to front-load the primary system and "get the nomination over with." I understand that the logic is that they'll be able to start on the general earlier, and build the image of the chosen candidate over a longer period of time, but in reality, I think the way it has unfolded is great for them.

I agree that it helps Obama to deal w/ these attacks now, instead of in August, but it's also fantastic to have such full-blown campaigns going at at this stage of the game, in states like OH & TX. People in those states are more involved in the process than they have ever been, and are being exposed to the candidates in a way that they normally wouldn't have been until fall. More people are turning out for the primaries (many more), which will boost turnout in the fall, as well.

I just don't see that many negatives about the campaign carrying on like this; I even think the negative attacks are good, because they are clearly not working, and the GOP will have to get more creative than "traitorous plagiarist cult leader".....
 
LadyT said:
I agree with you wholeheartedly. And truthfully all she's doing is alienating Obama supporters in the general if she wins it. I know I'm turned off by her anti-hope rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Good Morning Lady T! :)

The question is, does she turn you off enough, that if she were the candidate over Obama, (which is unlikely but IF she were), would you stay home on election day and just not vote at all, or would you feel compelled to still go out and vote for Clinton because of not wanting a Republican President?

And that question can be asked of all Obama supporters I suppose....?

Care
 
Onceler said:
snip

I just don't see that many negatives about the campaign carrying on like this; I even think the negative attacks are good, because they are clearly not working, and the GOP will have to get more creative than "traitorous plagiarist cult leader".....
Click to expand...

The GOP doesn't have to get all that creative. The alleged "liberal" media lap dogs, will always play along with the McCarthyite accusations of treason. If you think that fear and treason only played in 2004, and won't play in today's media, I think you might be underestimating how much swiftboating is going to go on.

Here's a screen shot from an on line CNN poll.


 
I have no doubt that they will TRY to swiftboat Obama. I just don't think it will be all that effective.

The American electorate is changing, and I think it's a generational thing, particularly with the heightened presence of the youth vote in this campaign. Negative attacks simply aren't working like they used to, and I think attempts to disparage someone's patriotism will fall on equally deaf ears.

People are more wary of swiftboat-type attacks now, as well - there is a sense that these didn't serve the country well in 2004, in everyone except about 30% of the voting population (which includes Superfreak)....
 
Care4all said:
Good Morning Lady T! :)

The question is, does she turn you off enough, that if she were the candidate over Obama, (which is unlikely but IF she were), would you stay home on election day and just not vote at all, or would you feel compelled to still go out and vote for Clinton because of not wanting a Republican President?

And that question can be asked of all Obama supporters I suppose....?

Care
Click to expand...

Hillary has been a little too war hawkish for my taste as of late. If she's nominated and Cynthia "SuperStar" McKinny is nominated, I'm voting for McKinney. If McKinney doesn't the nod and Hillary is the nominee, I'm voting for Ralph Nader. I've made a desicion not to reward the senators who've put us in this quagmire with more power. I'd even considering voting for Ron "Grand Dragon" Paul as a protest vote. With Hillary and McCain as the nominees, we're all losers.
 
Cypress said:
It's not a line of attack on Obama that I find particularly compelling.

That said, at this point in the race any politician who is in runner up status is going to go negative and throw everything but the kitchen sink at the presumptive leader in the race.

And you know what? I don't think its a bad thing. I never did agree with those who proclaimed that Edwards or Clinton, or whoever, should just roll over and get out of the way...and let Obama have the nomination.

Getting slammed and attacked from all angles should make Obama a better candidate. He needs to go through this vetting process, this trial by fire if you will. Because if you think what Clinton or Edwards did or said about Obama is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. The GOP is going to swift boat him. Obama is even on record saying that a tough, hard fought, and even harsh primary is going to make him a better candidate.
Click to expand...

I think he's already become a better candidate - I know he's become a better debator.

On another note - I'd like to congratulate Chap. He's managed to make a post criticizing Hillary Clinton without showing any signs of sexism or Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I feel as if I am getting somewhere!
 
Darla said:
I think he's already become a better candidate - I know he's become a better debator.

On another note - I'd like to congratulate Chap. He's managed to make a post criticizing Hillary Clinton without showing any signs of sexism or Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I feel as if I am getting somewhere!
Click to expand...

i never am sexist over Hillary. your just hypersensitive to someone not white glove handling words.. I think all of my critizisim is based on facts and nothing to do with her being a woman.

Also I prefer to think of myself as suffering from CDR. (Clinton Deception recognition)
 
Hell Darla was drolling over that Tina Fey bit where Tina called Hillary a bitch.

Doesn't that make her sexist by proxy?
 
Chapdog said:
i never am sexist over Hillary. your just hypersensitive to someone not white glove handling words.. I think all of my critizisim is based on facts and nothing to do with her being a woman.

Also I prefer to think of myself as suffering from CDR. (Clinton Deception recognition)
Click to expand...

I actually found that other thread you started to be quite sexist actually. Hillary isn't doing anything differently than her male predesesors (sp?) at this stage in the game and you assumed she was on some type of emotional roller coaster.
 
LadyT said:
I actually found that other thread you started to be quite sexist actually. Hillary isn't doing anything differently than her male predesesors (sp?) at this stage in the game and you assumed she was on some type of emotional roller coaster.
Click to expand...

well my intention was not to be sexist.. i dont think ONLY woman have emotional roller coasters.

My intention was to say.. look at the range of emotions from sincerity, to outrage, to cynicism, to sadness this 'candidate' has displayed.

THen to point out that its either
1) a very unbalanced individual
2) someone totally full of shit.
 
I think it's less that she's a crazy emotional bitch and more than she's trying to hedge her bets listening to different consultants all telling her different tones and themes to play up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top