home
Good for Hillary (4.00 / 4) (#10)
by CST on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:15:57 PM EST
I hope she finds a niche to lead in the senate if she is not V.P. or in the cabinet somewhere.  Maybe losing the primary will take some of the political pressure off and she can do sort of what Kennedy did after he decided not to run anymore, which is be a left-wing warhorse in the senate.  She has enough clout in NY that she probably doesn't have to worry too much about re-election against a more "moderate" candidate.  I thought that she was swinging to the middle the last few years in anticipation of the run for president, now maybe she can swing left again.

In the final analysis, (5.00 / 14) (#16)
by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:25:19 PM EST
as we've come to learn, the best candidate is not the presumptive nominee.

He does not have her experience, knowledge or insight.

We will not be well served, I'm afraid.

[ Parent ]

He does not have (5.00 / 14) (#34)
by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:38:36 PM EST
her experience, knowledge, insight, or principles.

He lectures, she leads.  I learned more from her in statements like this than I ever have from his speeches -- and as ever, her wonkiness was easier to follow.

I would like to hear it in her voice, though.  Much as this statement would not be followed by her chuckle.  I miss that.

[ Parent ]

This is not the final analysis (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by CST on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
And I don't know that we will ever "know" who the best candidate is, since it's not like we can compare their "presidencies" side by side unless they both become president at some point.

The final analysis will come when they are both dead, if ever.

[ Parent ]

kinda like Iraq I suppose (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
give it a few years and then history judge.  snark

[ Parent ]
The final analysis (5.00 / 6) (#32)
by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:36:35 PM EST
of the primary campaign.

And I don't know that we will ever "know" who the best candidate is

That has always been the problem with you.  You see Obama as the future.

He's the crystal ball presidency with no past record to support substance, such as it is in politics.

[ Parent ]

I find your comment laughable (5.00 / 3) (#155)
by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:37:34 PM EST
I will explain why.

Here you have implied that Clinton will be a more left leaning politician now that she is no longer under the political pressure that comes with running for president.

I find that funny because clearly you must then admit that Obama is now a right leaning politician because he is caving into the political pressure that comes with running for president.

I find it equally funny because Obama himself, just yesterday, totally rejected his supporters who find themselves, out of force habit, with nothing to add to the discussion save for ascribing political motivations to every decision made by a politician.

Now tell me.  Is there really a shrimp tray and open bar under the bus?

[ Parent ]

That's fine (none / 0) (#161)
by CST on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:53:58 AM EST
My comment was about Hillary, not Obama.  And I made a comment about her "leaning to the middle" because it was something I noticed over the last few years.  Not everything is a him vs. her argument.

Finally, I don't agree with Obama all the time, and of course I think he is running to the center.  And I think he is politics as usual while pretending not to be.  I just think that makes him a good politician rather than hate him for it.  But then again, I'm a realist not an optimist and I never thought he was the Messiah so I'm not dissapointed that he turned out not to be.  I don't "ascribe political motivations to all his decisions", but some yes.

Besides, I have been "totally rejected" in every national election.  I'm a "northeast, over-educated, elitist", from MA, home of gay marriage and UHC.  Even Kerry tried to disown us.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft