Friday, March 14, 2008
“Hillary’s hyperbole has not served her well…”
The US public may be getting exhausted with it; and two it’s getting incredibly destructive. In the case of the Democrats, (the only party still with a stand up fight going). Not sure how much the NI question of recent days are making but it rumbles on. Hearts and Minds discover (over half way through) that she did have meetings at the City Hall, but as Conor O’Clery points out, “this hyperbole has not served her well” Toby Harnden has the PBS link (5 minutes in), where she claims she was ‘instrumental’.
Update: Mamam has a sound grab from Bill’s defence of his beleaguered missus...
For me, the crux lies in this part:
“There is no doubt that I played a major role in many of the foreign policy decisions, I represented our government in more than 80 countries. I know that people are nit-picking, and this is a campaign and that’s fair, but compare my experience to Senator Obama’s and I think my experience is much more preparatory for the job that awaits”.
In truth, Hillary’s role was that of a public diplomat. Undoubtedly that was grist to the mill in her entry to the Senate. But, however she spins it, it was not executive experience. I doubt she plans to recant by St Patricks Day, but it may well disappear after Monday!
Mick Fealty @ 08:04 AM
‘Malcom losing the primary to your opponent in the same party does not necessarily mean losing that state in an election ‘
If you look at the State of New York that may be true . Clinton won the primary and if Obama were the Democratic Nominee he would probably win the State . The same would apply in reverse in Illinois if Clinton were the nominee . But when you look at the entire country from an Electoral College vote perspective which come November will be the only one that will count even winning your party’s primary by a wide margin will not prevent a candidate losing the State in November.
Anyway here are the facts in some more detail .
Republican States .
Texas
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Missisippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
WyomingTotal Electoral College votes of the above is 216. In primaries in the above States Obama won 17 States and Clinton 5. In ECV’s Obama won 127 as against Clinton’s 71.
Democratic States
California
New York
New Jersey
Conneticut
Delaware
DC
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachssets
Rhode Island
Vermont
WashingtonTotal Electoral College votes of the above is 180. In primaries in the above States Obama won 9States and Clinton 5. In ECV’s Obama won 63 as against Clinton’s 117.
The Swing States
Colorado
Florida
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
WisconsinTotal Electoral College votes of the above Swing States is 142. In primaries in the above States Obama won 8 States and Clinton 4. In ECV’s Obama won 57 as against Clinton’s 85.
IMO Clinton has the edge in all of the big Democratic States and in the big swing States which may go Democrat . Obama is more popular among african american voters naturally enough but they don;t have the numbers across ALL of the States to defeat McCain IMO . The Democrats would do better to pick Clinton as their safest bet to defeat McCain come November . Ideally it would be best to have both candidates on the ticket to maximise turnout . That may not happen despite the wishes of many Democrat voters .
And if the Democrats don’t seat the Florida or Michigan delegates or have another vote in those States they might as well call John McCain and congratulate him on his Presidential victory .
It’s still a long time to November of course and anything can happen . We’ve seen how a political career and a a future ‘presidential ‘ hopeful Eliot Spitzer has impaled his career because of an orgy of Spitzerfreude :(!
If democratic voters think that November’s election will be won based on popularity alone they might want to look very closely at the real numbers -the ones which will count come November ! The Democrats I’m sure would not like to see a rerun of the 2000 election where the more popular Gore lost out to Bush’s ECV majority!
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 12:42 PMmalcolm redfellow’
‘Everything I’ve been doing with the figures confirms the substance of Greenflag on Mar 14, @ 12:20 PM above. In other words, in the “winnable” Democratic States, Clinton seems a better candidate than Obama. I was intrigued by Greenflag‘s approach, but the reason for my previous post @ 02:02 PM was because I was staggered when the differential showed’’
For the record Greenflag the intention was to inform not ‘stagger’.:)
‘I cannot see why the mass ranks of punditry (not excluding our own dear Mick, judging from the slope of his keyboard) have been doing a Gadarene-swinish rush towards O’Bama.’
It’s because they believe in HOPE and CHANGE and other nice things :) As a paid up member of skeptics international GF needs something a bit more tangible in which to place his faith . Facts and numbers are always a good place to start:)
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 12:57 PM‘Is it only Whites who can be racist? ‘
No . I’ve seen ‘racism’ in Asia and in Africa . There’s a minority of gobshites everywhere . Just don’t let them get their hands on political power.
‘Would you vote for someone who belongs to this church for 20 years?
Lots of decent people voted for the DUP and the leader did’nt just belong to the Church but owned it ! Lots of decent people vote for Catholic candidates despite the record of the RC Church in trying to cover up it’s many sex paedophile scandals in recent decades.
Some of what Obama’s ‘gyratin’ pastor says rings true . Much of it was ‘doctored’ rubbish as per usual . The reference to the ‘C’ student in the White House was a definite hit with the crowd !
This ‘revelation’ will not help Obama IMO. He might want to look for a new pastor .
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 01:23 PMCratægus:
>>On the Obama subject I really do not believe that anyone attending and donating to such a church for 20 years would not be aware of such rantings.
Thoroughly agree. And taking Greenflag’s stats into account, I hope the Democrats wake up in time.
If you look at the photos of Barack’s family http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2007/02/09/60minutes/photoessay2455502.shtml (sorry, said it was from NY Times earlier )
you can see that Barack’s colour is around 50/50 from both parents. It seems to me that Barack has decided he is more his dad’s colour than his mum’s (or maybe his US experiences decided that for him). In doing that he has gone to the extreme in religion: attending an all-black church which admires Farrakhan and has a pastor who spouts out anti-white racist rubbish. His religion is not all-inclusive, but Barack insists that is what he wants.Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 01:29 PM>> Is it only Whites who can be racist?
Well I have noticed with some amusement that many black bus drivers in London will stop right beside black people even if they are further away from the bus stop than whites or Asian (Chinese, Viets, Indians, Pakistanis - or any other colour). The British queue is a big myth.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 01:35 PMlatcheeco @ 04:15 AM:
Agreed; it’s not a deal-clinching absolute argument; but Greenflag in the previous posting works out in detail what I was implying. So all kudos there.
The other element is the Obama claim that Clinton’s vote will transfer to him (it’s those obedient little white gals, y’know), whereas his vote is somehow unique. That’s fairly evidently a load of froth—of which there is unlimited quantities from all directions.
There’s a further question hidden in there: where is the Obama vote coming from? The assumptions that it was a previously untapped resource (i.e. the Black vote) seems to be questionable. I’ve come across exit polls that show that, for example, the turn-out of possible Black voters in the California Primary was predominantly for Obama. However, the total turn-out of qualified Black voters increased from just 5% to 6%. I reckon that one factor is the “children’s crusade” which has been around since the Eugene McCarthy run of 1968. We certainly saw it four years ago for Dean. All the evidence seems to be that it’s the long-term dichotomy of support between the old pols and blue-collar unions (mainly Clintonistas), plus of course the feministas, versus the new-guys-on-the-block and white-collar liberals. Against which assumption we now see Obama having to contend, with his dubious Chicago associations.
Incidentally, that’s another reason why I’m disposed to Clinton. It’s the FDR legacy: the coalition of interest involves both some healthy and socially-interventionist economics (and—heaven knows—the US middle- and working-classes need that now), but also a hard-nosed, even small-c conservatism and calculation in the act of governance. On the whole, as in health, Clinton seems a whit more radical than Obama, and would likely run a tougher, leaner regime..
At the moment I’m busy, trying to work out whether one of our other machines has a Norwegian Blue for a hard drive, and just a sticky operating system; so forgive me if I don’t dig out chapter-and-verse for the affirmations here.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 01:52 PMlatcheeco
What matters is swing voters in swing states. Some say the swing states are as follows I would have my doubts about a few but defer to others who probably know better.
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Florida, Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon.
It is dangerous to compare these states with the Primaries as the election will be with the Republicans not other Democrats. In many of these states the Hispanic vote is crucial.
I think the pastoral leaks have sunk Obama. There is little chance of him now winning an election against McCain short of McCain doing something horrendous. In fact many Democrats who voted for him may now wish they had not.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 02:29 PMWonder why we have had 4, 5, 6 threads on this subject? Why none on the reason for McCain’s nickname song bird or the similarities between Obama’s Ministry and Paisleyism?
Everyone going for a job interview is going to exaggerate a little you expect it. Obama however is the applicant that systematically misleads and is selective and evasive. Over and over he is ‘bone headed’, can’t recall, disagrees with some of the preaching (what bits exactly not disclosed). What he says and the record just do not tie up on so many issues.
This is a clever man, he knows exactly what he is doing and be in no doubt he knew he got a ‘bargain’ from Rezko’s wife. Thats not being bone headed. He knew exactly the beliefs of Dr. Wright. He even had him on his team despite (in his version) being aware of the controversial views at the start of his campaign. Did he remove him then NO, he kept quiet. What does he do now? Does he condemn NO he disagrees. He regards him as a dear old uncle, well says it all really.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 02:55 PMYes, Cratægus: If it’s criticism, it is always something on Hillary - Heh Pete - though admittedly her appearance(s) on Slugger was because of her association with NI, something none of the other two candidates have.
Mick Fealty has dismissed her efforts in NI as diplomacy, which, thankfully, is more than Trimble could say. Afaik Bill Clinton’s efforts here were *just* diplomacy too. He didn’t bring the troops in, did he?
Thoroughly agree with the points you have raised on Barack in post 2.8. He kept Wright on his team until his anti-white American extremism became wide enough knowledge.
Democrats of America wise up before it is too late.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 03:08 PM‘I think the pastoral leaks have sunk Obama’
They never harmed Paisley :)
However Obama has taken GF’s advice :)
Barack Obama’s minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was removed from his honorary post on the senator’s Spiritual Advisor Committee. The move comes after broadcast and publication of some of the pastor’s more controversial speeches and sermons. Obama refused to repudiate the Rev. Wright but strongly condemned his remarks.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday denounced inflammatory remarks from his pastor, who has railed against the United States and accused the country of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism.
Obama called the statements appearing on television and the Internet “completely unacceptable and inexcusable” in a Fox News interview and said they didn’t reflect the kinds of sermons he had heard from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright while attending services at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ.
Obama, a member of the church since the early 1990s, said he would have quit Trinity had such statements been “the repeated tenor of the church. ... I wouldn’t feel comfortable there.”
Earlier Friday, Obama responded by posting a blog about his relationship with Wright and Trinity on the Huffington Post. Wright brought Obama to Christianity, officiated at his wedding, baptized his daughters and inspired the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
Obama wrote that he’s looked to Wright for spiritual advice, not political guidance, and he’s been pained and angered to learn of some of his pastor’s comments for which he had not been present. Obama told MSNBC that Wright had stepped down from his campaign’s African American Religious Leadership Committee.
“I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies,” Obama said in his blog posting. “I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue.”
In a sermon on the Sunday after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Wright said
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards.
America’s chickens are coming home to roost.(
Obama told MSNBC that he would not repudiate Wright as a man, describing him as “like an uncle” who says something that he disagrees with and must speak out against. He also said he expects his political opponents will use video of the sermons to attack him as the campaign goes on.
Questions about Obama’s religious beliefs have dogged him throughout his candidacy. He’s had to fight against false Internet rumors suggesting he’s really a Muslim intent on destroying the United States, and now his pastor’s words uttered nearly seven years ago have become an issue.
Obama wrote on the Huffington Post that he never heard Wright say any of the statements, but he acknowledged that they have raised legitimate questions about the nature of his relationship with the pastor and the church. He wrote that he joined Wright’s church nearly 20 years ago, familiar with the pastor’s background as a former Marine and respected biblical scholar who lectured at seminaries across the country.
“Reverend Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life,” he wrote. “And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor and to seek justice at every turn.”
He said Wright’s controversial statements first came to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign last year, and he condemned them. Because of his long and deep ties to the 6,000-member congregation church, Obama said he decided not to leave.
“With Reverend Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good,” he wrote.
GF comment :
I like the name of Obama’s new pastor .
Rev Otis Moss III (the turd?) . I always find it suspect when people are called Second/Third/Fourth etc . It smacks of dynastic aristocratic intentions and two can anybody imagine somebody being elected President John McCain the XXIII ? Popeye McCain would very soon become Popey McCain ( Non RCs’ Pope John XX111 )
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 03:16 PMGreenflag
He said Wright’s controversial statements first came to his attention at the beginning of his presidential campaign last year, and he condemned them. Because of his long and deep ties to the 6,000-member congregation church, Obama said he decided not to leave.
This is important even if you believe it and take it at face value. These statements came to Obama’s attention at the beginning of of his presidential campaign so what does he do? He includes him in his team. This just does not add up.
Just look at his statements on this and many other issues they are always conditional.
he would have quit Trinity had such statements been “the repeated tenor of the church. ... I wouldn’t feel comfortable there.”
Now what exactly does repeated tenor actually mean? Was it the ethos of the church? Was it the churches general outlook, was it taken as read? This pastor is bound to have held and expressed these views on other occasions. His track record would suggest he was forthright for some time, decades actually.
“I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue.”
It may be just his flowery use of English but to me he rejects only the statements at issue but not necessarily the belief or the views behind the statements.
Merrie
I don’t think any of them are angels, but Obama may well prove to have standards of cynicism well below that of the average politician.
What disappoints me is that so much hope is being channelled towards someone who probably does not deserve it. The guy may be straight as a dye, but I doubt it, far to many lose ends and far to many selective memories. In four or eight years time we may have a better measure of the man, right now I don’t see him winning against McCain.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 06:42 PM‘These statements came to Obama’s attention at the beginning of of his presidential campaign so what does he do? He includes him in his team. This just does not add up. ‘
True enough - not if you are a numbers man anyway :)
‘‘Now what exactly does repeated tenor actually mean?’
Perhaps Pavarotti was a frequent performer at said Church and sang operatic arias in Italian for so many hours on end that the pastor may have commented that the tenor was repeating himself :)?
‘His track record would suggest he was forthright for some time, decades actually.’
I would not be surprised if the diggers/researchers /dirt grubbers are now busy searching for fortright remarks re perhaps the RC Church ?
‘ but Obama may well prove to have standards of cynicism well below that of the average politician.’
Well after last week’s orgy of Spitzerfreude -Democrats might be somewhat forgiving of Obama’s rating on the cynical politician scale ?
‘The guy may be straight as a dye, but I doubt it, far to many lose ends and far to many selective memories.’
Perhaps . But name me a politician anywhere who does not have selective memories and I’ll produce for you an elephant who can communicate with a dolphin in Chinese .
‘In four or eight years time we may have a better measure of the man, right now I don’t see him winning against McCain.’
My thoughts exactly . Not because he can’t get more votes than McCain -he can . But simply because of the Electoral College Vote set up which IMO would favour a Clinton candidacy to an Obama one at this time .
Who knows what skeletons can or might emerge over the next 6 months with Obama ? If there’s a bare bone left in the Clinton cupboard by now I’d be amazed . What you see with Hillary is what you’ll get .
Ironically we may yet see the people who need a ‘new deal ‘ in the USA i.e the white working and middle classes , women , and african americans and hispanics - snatch ‘defeat’ from the jaws of victory just at that point in history when either African Americans or Women get a candidate on the Democratic ticket .
McCain has been extremely lucky to get where he is . If Obama becomes the candidate I suspect that the McCain campaign will have a quiet celebration in advance of course !
I would hope that Obama is cynical enought to accept the VP slot after Pennsylvania !
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 07:30 PMGore lost his home state for cyin’ out loud. Popular my ass. Blacks and women have been escorted to the front of the line in the US for 20 years. And we’ve got a ruined public education system, 25% of young females with std’s, and a barely able to read, dumbed down, irresponsible, generation to show for it. The last thing this country needs is more of this ‘disenfranchised’ snakeoil crap. Throw personal responsibility at these democratic charletons and they melt like the witch in the Wizard of Oz.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 08:06 PMGreenflag
name me a politician anywhere who does not have selective memories and I’ll produce for you an elephant who can communicate with a dolphin in Chinese.
Ah but most of them are not running the type of campaign that Obama is.
Who knows what skeletons can or might emerge over the next 6 months with Obama ? If there’s a bare bone left in the Clinton cupboard by now I’d be amazed . What you see with Hillary is what you’ll get .
I’m with you on that and agree if Obama is nominated they will be popping the corks down Republican way. I agree with you regarding the swing states, Obama would have a hill to climb, but I also believe that he is potentially vulnerable to attack in many ways Clinton is not. They have thrown everything at her already.
I don’t think it would be cynical for him to accept a vice Presidential slot it would be a shrewd move. Right now he has a number of open flanks. 4 years would give him time to sort out the weaknesses and gain experience. The next 4 years is going to be one economic crisis after another. Let Clinton sort out Iraq and take what economic flack comes her way. If she does well smile when she runs again if not then run. Either way not a bad position to be in.
If he runs for President he is gambling all on a throw of the dice. The Republicans will attack his loyalty to America, his integrity, his inexperience, his ability to be Commander in Chief his ability on economics. They could destroy his credibility.
BfB
Read the bit about sexually transmitted disease, over 50% of young females in some communities. Time for compulsory screening in school I would think. It is utterly appalling.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 09:42 PM‘Gore lost his home state for cryin’ out loud.’
So will Obama and/or Clinton lose in Tennessee. Tennesse is a Red State (Republican)
‘Popular my ass.’
Gore won the popular vote in 2000. He just lost the Electoral College vote . Obama if the candidate is likely to repeat the Gore experience -imo. Clinton has a better chance of winning enough ECV’s . Which is why the Republicans would rather face Obama despite their protestations to the contrary!
‘Blacks and women have been escorted to the front of the line in the US for 20 years. And we’ve got a ruined public education system, 25% of young females with std’s, and a barely able to read, dumbed down, irresponsible, generation to show for it.’
Could be because the USA has been governed by the geriatric white fart brigade who have turned the dollar into monopoly money, tripled the price of gas , killed 300,000 people in Iraq , lost 4,000 young American lives and are now busily dumping another 2 trillion dollars into the desert hole to round up the total to 5 billion ?
30,000 bucks for every American household . Ah nothing like fiscal responsibility from the compassionate conservatives eh ?
‘The last thing this country needs is more of this ‘disenfranchised’ snakeoil crap.’
I agree . America needs a new New Deal . Clinton is the nearest to an FDR that I can see . Universal Health Care for a start.
‘Throw personal responsibility at these democratic charletons and they melt like the witch in the Wizard of Oz.’
Having seen personal responsibility exercised in government by the Republican charletons for the past 8 years a majority of Americans have seen their economy , their currency , and their reputation in the world melt away like snow off a ditch .
New Wall St joke .
Question :
‘Whats the difference between the American and Zimbabwe dollars ?’
Answer :
Another Republican Presidency !
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 09:48 PMAmericans have seen their economy , their currency , and their reputation in the world melt away like snow off a ditch .= Democratic congress.
I do agree that the US is in a pile of shite. I’m not surprised you blame it on the old white guys. The women and illegal immigrants are doing a bang up job, from education to stealing everything that’s not nailed down. All liberal democrats. And, well, how can I argue Universal Healthcare with a useful idiot (well written, though) like you. Pity, you seem to have some basic intelligence, a bit to much education I think. You pacifist (coward) wankers can sit on the sideline and point your whiney fingers. We’ll punch the bad guy in the face, every time.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 10:14 PM‘I don’t think it would be cynical for him to accept a vice Presidential slot it would be a shrewd move.’
That’s what I was suggesting :)
‘Right now he has a number of open flanks. 4 years would give him time to sort out the weaknesses and gain experience.’
Indeed . He’s been a one term Senator and has’nt been corrupted enough yet !
‘ The next 4 years is going to be one economic crisis after another.’
The next year anyway . America may with a change of administration regain ‘confidence’ when the spendthrifts are gone .
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 10:34 PM‘I do agree that the US is in a pile of shite.’
Full marks for the bleeding obvious as we would say !
‘I’m not surprised you blame it on the old white guys.’
Naw I’m not really . I was just replying to your own baseless shite re immigrants and American women and ‘liberals ‘ in like manner as it were -fire with fire and all that !
‘and illegal immigrants are doing a bang up job’
Just as well somebody is having kids otherwise the old white farts 25 years from won’t have anybody to pay the taxes to pay for the cat food they’ll be eating or the medicare they’ll no longer be able to afford . An honest debate about immigration would reveal that in this regard Americans have (just like Europeans ) brought it upon themselves ) by deciding that gardening and nannying kids and menial work can best be done by people who speak with hispanic accents . Well in previous centuries it was an irish or eastern or southern european accent that qualified one for those jobs.
‘ You pacifist (coward) wankers can sit on the sideline and point your whiney fingers.’
Well the French and Germans and even the Brits tried to tell you 5 years ago but hey the man on the white horse had to have his war to finish Daddy’s botched job ?
‘We’ll punch the bad guy in the face, every time.’
So I see . Except from here it looks very much like you are punching the bad guy’s fist with your face . And the face ain’t looking pretty any more . When the USA chooses to ignore or bypass the Geneva Convention on warfare and uses water boarding as a routine interrogation technique and the President of Iran gets a warm public open air reception in Iraq while the American President and now Republican candidate have to sneak in unannounced then it’s past obvious to all bar the most blind that the Emperor is minus his clothes and his minions have lost their wits . They did’nt like Admiral Fallon telling the truth about Iran and we all remember how they did’nt want to listen to Colen Powell on Iraq either !
I heard Bill Gates complaining the other day in interview that America needed more immigrants with science , computer , engineering , and mathematical skills . Not one of the gobshites who interviewed Gates asked what I would have thought would have been the right question !
‘With 300 million people why would the USA not be able to produce these people from it’s own educational system ?
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 10:58 PMIf he (Obama) runs for President he is gambling all on a throw of the dice. The Republicans will attack his loyalty to America, his integrity, his inexperience, his ability to be Commander in Chief his ability on economics. “
True !
‘They could destroy his credibility.’
No question . Thye’ve done such a bang up job destroying their own credibility they should find doing a similar job on Obama child’s play :(
Ah compassionate conservatism ? Don’t you just love the way it used to sound until all the bodies startd mounting up and the gas price went through the roof and the dollar down the tubes and the millions of households facing foreclosure .
Question :
‘What will be the difference between the GW Bush Presidency and a McCain presidency ‘
Answer : Apart from another 100,000 dead Iraqis and more American dead and higher gas prices I can’t think of any !
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 11:13 PMposted by Kathy C
getting back to Hilary---John Hume who won the Nobel peace prize for his work in northern Ireland says about Hilary Clinton,
“She played a psoitive role for over a decade in helping to pring peace to NI...she visted NI, met with very many people and gave very desisive support to the peace process....” he went on to say she made countless phone calls...personally talked to people and did what she could to help move the process forward.
I did a yahoo search and found that she went to Ireland north and south several times....she did far more than Blair’s wife.... and as Senator...she has kept her office opened to the Irish and to finding a way forward
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 11:36 PMKathy C
I have absolutely no doubt that she went out of her way to try to help here. She took an interest and helped in whatever way she could. I also have no doubt that she is genuinely interested in peace generally and in ensuring all receive proper health care.
She never claimed to solve the problems here, no one can solve such problems until the local fools realise their conflict is pointless. What she helped to do was create the right background and perception of progress, confidence and promises of a brighter outward looking tomorrow.
I for one am glad she did take the time and showed interest and cannot fathom why some begrudge her some credit.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 11:57 PMThanks, Kathy C @ 10:36 PM:
You are right to pull the thread back to where it should be.
About my first ever “political” moment was my father listening to the BBC news of the 1948 Presidential Election. From that immature age I can only recall his response whether it was something “good” or “bad”. I trust, at this distance, that I’m right in remembering he recognised one of the great American Presidents.
The trouble is that we are merely hopin’ an’ wishin’ that the great American electorate at last get it right.
They’ve not not got it right in a l-o-n-g while.
The real problem (and credential) is that—this time (and for the first time time)—it’s about eco-socio-politico-economics.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 12:24 AMKathy C,
‘She never claimed to solve the problems here’
True
‘ no one can solve such problems until the local fools realise their conflict is pointless’
Even more true.
‘I for one am glad she did take the time and showed interest and cannot fathom why some begrudge her some credit.’
There are regrettably quite a few of the political fraternity in NI who seem to be genetically endowed with the talent to bite the hand that feeds them :(
We should all be grateful for Hillary’s efforts for there is not a doubt in my mind that without the combined efforts of the Clinton’s, Tony Blair, Senator George Mitchell, , Albert Reynolds and Bert Ahern that NI would be where it was in the early 90’s or even worse.
malcolm redfellow ,
‘The trouble is that we are merely hopin’ an’ wishin’ that the great American electorate at last get it right.’
Some of us atheists may even be prayin :)
The real problem (and credential) is that—this time (and for the first time time)—it’s about eco-socio-politico-economics.
You might think that now and I would hope that would happen but November is a long way away and anything can happen . In the light of Pastor Wrights public ‘emergence’ I remain even more convinced that only Clinton can win in November for the Democrats .That said I’d like to see Obama on the ticket.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2008 @ 12:56 PM
