Posts tagged ‘Clinton’
Its kinda like how that administrtion ignored the threat reports regarding Bin Laden that it received in early 2001.
The report, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters, was ignored, and the problem has since escalated into what security officials in several countries describe as a global security threat.
No one can ignore threats like Republicans (while crowing about how they are better at security, of course). While Clinton was attacking Bin Laden’s training camps, Republicans ridiculed the attacks against Al-Qaeda as a waste of tax dollars. Later they charged that Clinton was only going after Al-Qaeda to divert attention from Monica. If a Democrat had kept pressure on Al-Qaeda instead of ignoring warnings, things would be different.
The first Al-Qaeda attack on US soil, that could be understood, many Republicans say – because it was a surprise. But a 2nd successful attack – that would be on the President. As another shining example of Republicans ignoring history, the 1st attack on US soil by middle-eastern terrorists was not on 9/11. The first attack was in 1993. Not only did Bush oversee the 2nd attack, but the attack was in the exact same location. Not just the same city – the same building. So don’t crow about how “there hasn’t been a 2nd successful attack”.
All in all – we do have 2 viable presidential candidates to illustrate that diversity is by and large accepted by the great majority of Democrats. Turnout at elections has been record-setting. So for the largest percentile, the Democratic voters appear to accept diversity. The race for the highest office in the country is no longer limited only to white men. Eventually, the conservatives will be dragged along with us – as they were with suffrage and desegregation.
In this discussion, the question is: Should Hillary discourage the votes of racists?
“Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.”
Check out this article on Clinton and the ex-parrot from the Python skit: This is an ex-candidate
The exit polls showed race, education, Obama’s former pastor and a plan for a summertime suspension of federal gas taxes all gave Clinton a huge advantage in the state’s presidential primary.
- Electorate was 95 percent white
- Whites without college degrees make up 2/3 of the population.
- Over 50% of families earned under $50,000
- 75% of whites without college degrees were backing Clinton.
I’m glad everyone put down their jugs, buckled on the overalls, and rode the donkey down out of the mountains to take part in the election – it’s part of every American’s responsibilities.
And so the breaking news is that the poor and uneducated have flocked to the 2 white candidates who are giving away free t-shirts with every new credit application…I mean giving away $50 in tax-free gas for every vote. And they’re not supporting the black candidate who isn’t promising to give them fifty bucks. What a shock.
If you burn 30 gallons/week, the 18 cents per gallon of “holiday” will get you $5.40 in savings per week – what a joke. Of course to pay for that we’ll have to cut other funding, like federal education funding in West Virginia.
This isn’t even a story – but yet here is the caption on every news site: “Hillbillies Vote White, Want Free Stuff“. I wouldn’t be surprised if West Virginia is where people say “It’s got electrolytes! It’s what plants crave!”
Obama has been battling back—with the help of a key Clinton supporter. “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she said. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
For a politician to go on record saying this is… ludicrous.
Of course it’s insulting. Minimizing his success and attributing it solely to being a minority? But she also insults his supporters by saying that anyone who is supporting Barack is simply “caught up in the concept”.
Ferraro’s remarks serve no purpose. When Clinton’s supporters do this, it just feeds fuel to the belief that Hillary is too polarizing/divisive. Some are supporting Obama because he is less polarizing and is perhaps more likely to get things done. Personally, I’m tired of politicians criticizing my views when I don’t support them.
Her camp has 1 person saying Obama supporters are the ‘latte sipping crowd’ and another person saying basically that his supporters aren’t thinking straight, they’re just caught up in the concept of a black president (as opposed to a female president).
For Hillary to NOT denounce Ferraro’s comment about those prefer Obama over Hillary is more evidence that she is too divisive.