Roxxxanne wrote:BTW we are voting for a president, not a commander-in-chief, a term that was rarely evoked until recent times.
Again. we are voting for a president not a commander-in-chief. This term was rarely evoked until recent times when political speech became Orwellian.
Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason on Bill Moyers Journal
Quote:The role of the president-- everybody talks about who's equipped to be Commander in Chief, a word I hate, which presidents didn't used to use, from day one--
BILL MOYERS: And why do you hate it?
SUSAN JACOBY: Because the President's only the Commander in Chief of the Armed Force. He's not the commander in chief of us. And it's a word that presidents didn't use except in a strictly military sense in the past. What's far more important than being commander in chief is being educator in chief. And Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln would not have succeeded as commanders in chief if they hadn't first succeeded as teachers in chief.
To be non-partisan about it, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are two of the biggest failures as teachers in chief of any presidents we've ever had. Bush at foreign policy obviously. It's great to bring people along with you when everybody's in favor of the war as they were in 2003 'cause there was this desire to strike back at somebody, anyone, for 9/11. So Bush just said, "Oh, yeah. Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11." And people believed it. But--
nimh wrote:ebrown_p wrote:My prediction is that she will lose Texas.
What if, in Texas, she wins the most votes but Obama the most delegates? With the convoluted system they have in place there, which favours Obama in some structural ways, thats not at all impossible. Wouldnt that make for some awkward talking points on both sides? :wink:
Possibly, but I think Clinton needs to win big in Texas (10+%) and I think that will take care of the delegate count.
woiyo wrote:rabel22 wrote:Better check again Rox. Bush with a republican congress could start a war any place he wanted to. What makes you think a democratic president with a democratic congress wont be able to do the same?
Correct. Least we not forget Kosovo...Black Hawk Down....
Ah, maybe that is what Hillary calls experience.
I don't think Hillary Clinton had anything to do with Kosovo; but it is not a negative issue in any event. In fact; Bush was bragging about it just yesterday.
Bush Says Kosovo Independence Is Right 1 day ago
Couldn't have been possible when the Serbs were murdering and expelling the Albanians before the Kosovo war.
Hillary should quit now.
She has started to attack her own daughter and her profession, saying that she "doesnt work".
I think she is starting to lose her mind.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/hillary-tells-moneyhungry-chelsea-to-get-a-real-job/2008/02/21/1203467232266.html
Hillary is also claiming she "understands" those who work the night shift because "She understands. She's worked the night shift, too."
But as Paul Harvey says..."Now for the rest of the story".
Here is what was actually meant...
Quote:So has Clinton worked the night shift? Spokesman Howard Wolfson said Tuesday that "the reference is to her working late at night at her desk."
The whole article is here...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/19/clinton-ad-shes-worked-the-night-shift-too/
This woman is losing her mind!!
Desperation can move people to do and say all kinds of things.
Obama needs to use his own version of Reagan's phrase "well, there you go again" in the next debate with Hillary.
Butrflynet wrote:Obama needs to use his own version of Reagan's phrase "well, there you go again" in the next debate with Hillary.
Anything that feels like a put down of Hillary will motivate women to ride to her defense. The way forward is to paint her and her divisive politics as irrelevant, next time she goes off say "that way is dead, we need to move forward in America with......."
He knows how to disarm her. And it's works. The more she spins, the more he ignores it, the more foolish and old-school she appears.
If Hillary isn't elected, you can say good-bye to Universal Health Care Coverage for the next 4-8 years if not longer.
Butrflynet wrote:Obama needs to use his own version of Reagan's phrase "well, there you go again" in the next debate with Hillary.
Maybe Deval Patrick can suggest something.
Heh...
Interesting info about Hillary and money:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/january-fundrai.html
I recommend the whole thing for details and nuance but here's a sample:
Quote:If Clinton's receipts and spending for February match her receipts and spending for January, she will have blown through all the cash she has available for the primaries by the end of the month. Question: does anyone think that she will take in as much in February as she did in January? I don't. For one thing, January included both the period after she lost in Iowa and the period after she won New Hampshire, either of which might have prompted people to send money. But by February, losses were no longer a shock, and for most of the month, there weren't any victories. People want to back someone they think has a decent shot at winning, and after Maine, at least, Clinton's donors have to have been wondering whether she can pull it out. Besides that, February has also been a month full of stories about the Clinton campaign's ineptitude. If I were a donor, I'd think twice about giving to a campaign that had burned through so much money with so little to show for it, or that had declared Texas a must-win state without bothering to figure out its delegate selection rules.
I assume that the Clinton campaign has cut back its expenses. But there are limits to how far you can cut back expenses without seriously affecting your chances of winning, and if donations drop considerably, the Clinton campaign will reach those limits. Clinton can always make another loan to her campaign, but I imagine there are limits to the Clintons' willingness to finance the campaign themselves. Which means that at some point, they are going to have to make some tough decisions. In their shoes, if I didn't dramatically turn things around in Texas and Ohio, I would think long and hard before continuing to Pennsylvania.
Coming from a country where the idea of sending the candidates "donations", except very big ones, you have to make an exception for those, is akin to blasphemy, I was wondering about the practice in the US where it seems the ordinary person participates in the practice without the hope of getting any plum jobs.
Could you provide a breakdown of these donations soz? Do they hold their hat out in the street say? Does the donor leave a name and address and a phone number with the donation?
joefromchicago wrote:Butrflynet wrote:Obama needs to use his own version of Reagan's phrase "well, there you go again" in the next debate with Hillary.
Maybe Deval Patrick can suggest something.
I'm sure Obama would laugh at that one too!
soz quoted-
Quote: Clinton can always make another loan to her campaign
Will those be paid back? Or is it a euphemism for spending her own money?
Lots of different ways to donate. Online is the big way, though people also plain send in envelopes with checks or money.
But online makes everything much simpler. It's like any other sort of online purchase. Fields for name, address, etc., then credit card information. I've donated $10-$25 to Obama's campaign several times, and it's very easy. This is the strength of his fund-raising efforts -- a whole lot of individual donors who can be tapped again and again as they continue to donate small amounts in large numbers. (There is a $2,300 limit for the primaries and then again for the elections. An early presumptive front-runner like Hillary tended to get the big donations early on, and then she's stuck -- they're already maxed out, and she has to rely on the smaller pool of individual donors who haven't yet maxed out.)
spendius wrote:soz quoted-
Quote: Clinton can always make another loan to her campaign
Will those be paid back? Or is it a euphemism for spending her own money?
I think the assumption is that she'd pay it back, but I'm not actually sure. Romney provided a lot of his own money to his campaign and I don't think there is any assumption of him getting it back, but I don't think he called it a loan, either.
Clinton's already made a 5 million-dollar loan to her own campaign.
sozobe wrote:spendius wrote:soz quoted-
Quote: Clinton can always make another loan to her campaign
Will those be paid back? Or is it a euphemism for spending her own money?
I think the assumption is that she'd pay it back, but I'm not actually sure. Romney provided a lot of his own money to his campaign and I don't think there is any assumption of him getting it back, but I don't think he called it a loan, either.
Clinton's already made a 5 million-dollar loan to her own campaign.
Politicians can continue to hold fund raisers for their campaigns, even after the campaign is over. I'm sure the Clintons will get their money back by continuing the fund raising after the election is over.
revel wrote:woiyo wrote:rabel22 wrote:Better check again Rox. Bush with a republican congress could start a war any place he wanted to. What makes you think a democratic president with a democratic congress wont be able to do the same?
Correct. Least we not forget Kosovo...Black Hawk Down....
Ah, maybe that is what Hillary calls experience.
I don't think Hillary Clinton had anything to do with Kosovo; but it is not a negative issue in any event. In fact; Bush was bragging about it just yesterday.
Bush Says Kosovo Independence Is Right 1 day ago
Couldn't have been possible when the Serbs were murdering and expelling the Albanians before the Kosovo war.
Was none of our business.
woiyo wrote:revel wrote:
Couldn't have been possible when the Serbs were murdering and expelling the Albanians before the Kosovo war.
Was none of our business.
I agree. We should start a new thread to mark Kosovo's declaration of independence.
