Hillary Asks Voters "Who Is For You?"

Some good lines from Hillary Clinton in her campaigning in Florida for Barack Obama. The NYTimes reports:

In Orlando, Mrs. Clinton appeared at a convention of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which was one of the first unions to endorse her for president and which has yet to endorse a candidate in the general election. Drawing cheers and applause from the 1,600 people in the room, Mrs. Clinton said that “we must work as hard as we possibly can” to elect Mr. Obama, and suggested that her supporters needed to put aside personal loyalty to her former candidacy and embrace him as the best hope for their interests.

“Who are you for?” Mrs. Clinton said. “That’s the wrong question. It should be: Who is for you? Who will fight for you?” Shortly afterward, the union workers made Mrs. Clinton an honorary member, and she replied by asking them for an endorsement of Mr. Obama. “Aye!” they cheered.

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

I also liked this line from Hillary:

After someone in the audience yelled, “Tell us about Palin,” Mrs. Clinton replied: “I don’t think that’s what this election is about. Anybody who believes that the Republicans, whoever they are, can fix the mess they created probably believes that the iceberg could have saved the Titanic.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Good stuff.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< No Hillary As VP Has Financial Consequences For Obama | Are Republicans The Closers In Presidential Elections? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I agree with Hillary totally (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:15:49 AM EST
    this Titanic can't be saved from it's iceberg, expecially since more ice is added with every "judgement" call he makes. It all goes to judgement - remember that meme. Judgement.

    Hillary is doing a better job (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by AccidentalTourist on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:18:00 AM EST
    than Obama right now of communicating coherent messages and putting the focus where it's supposed to be. In the coverage about Obama yesterday, the story was still Palin (Bridge to Nowhere). Shouldn't Biden be talking about Palin, so Obama can talk about the economy and healthcare? And as Hillary is doing in her campaigning for him.

    Is Bill going to tutor Obama this Thursday on how to talk to voters when the setting isn't a huge rally with 10,000 people?

    But is it enough??? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    According to a couple of so called "progressive" blogs, Hillary is just not doing enough.  Already there is the chant "it's HER fault if HE loses" by some self defined progressives......and frankly I am sick of that same old, same old.

    She can campaign for him, get endorsements for him.  But she cannot be held responsible for HIS campaign's strategy.

    Anyone with a brain (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:28:40 AM EST
    knows that Hillary is doing more effective campaigning than than any other Dem except Obama and Biden.  If that's not enough for the CDSers, then it will never be enough.

    Might keep a list of who's who so we can write them off as useless whiners.


    just wondering- (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by kenosharick on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:19:53 AM EST
    have kos,huffington, americablog, ect. apologized to her yet?

    i think if they did that (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:48:14 AM EST
    and Brazile and Dean were both removed from the DNC then a lot of people who are thinking about sitting out this election might reconsider.

    Daily Kos (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by KD on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    Mr. Zuniga was on Airtalk on KPCC yesterday touting his site, and the host asked him about the misogyny on his site during the primary. He swore that there had been no misogyny against Clinton and her supporters on his site.

    He also tried to explain how "the collective" at his site had done an investigation on whether Mrs. Palin had given birth to her own baby or not, and they discovered that she really had.


    Three new media concepts.... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Oje on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    to flesh out after the election, equally as damaging as Russertification:

    Atriosification: the insulation of insiders' political discourse from critique and self-reflection with an array of snarky appellations designed to marginalize outsiders  

    kossification: anti-intellectualism that redirects all political discourse and debate to the ephemeral issues of spin and candidates' electability, in which all choices are determined by a system in which members rate linguistic performances of personal emotional drama or stress


    TPMification: a hybridization of blogging and journalism - that has the perverse effect of suspending bloggers' interest in substantive political policies and issues, while at the same time reducing journalism to an endless editorialization of the frame and narrative of political discourse

    Put those three things together and you have a deeply out-of-touch and ponderous "blogosphere" that retards an advancement of progressive political interests and values.


    z-o-m-g! (none / 0) (#68)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM EST
    I'll stop there, lest I begin an endless rant.

    She's so (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Jane2009 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:22:03 AM EST

    Unfortunately, I think that the "loyalty" question to her is not the main issue; for a lot of Clinton supporters, the issue was always Obama's experience, and then his judgment. Even without the presence of a clearly superior candidate, Obama had marks against him, in and of himself. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, a lot of Clinton supporters are independents, and don't automatically default to (D). But this is definitely the right way to go for Clinton to get the message out, focusing on whose policies are going to most assist the voters. She rocks.

    I don't know if this is allowed, but I want to point out for those in the NYC area on 9/22, Clinton is hosting a fundraiser to pay down her debt, link on her website for those interested.

    That's what it boils down to (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by joanneleon on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:22:31 AM EST
    No matter how pissed off I am at what has happened, I can't let my emotions get in the way of what's best for my kids, myself, everyone I care about, and my country.  I work on remembering that almost every day.  In my case, I have to modify Hillary's question a bit and say "Who is more likely to be 'for me'?" and "Who is more likely to work toward my best interests?"  Because I don't really trust that Obama does either, though he's making a lot more sense lately and speaking to core middle class, finally.

    Hillary is a better person than me by a mile.  I really don't think I could do what she is doing right now.  And she means what she is saying.  There's fire in her eyes.  The fact that so many jerks painted her and Bill as people who would do anything to win, who had only their own interests at heart, should be hanging their heads right now and really questioning their judgment.

    I love the fact that Hillary is out there keeping things real, and at the same time, I hate the fact that she may be the one who saves Obama's (and Biden's) arse, given what that campaign did to her and Bill.

    Dan Rather was on MSNBC this morning.  He said that if McCain wins, the decision to choose Palin as a running mate and bring new life to his campaign will be looked at as the thing that made the difference.  Then he said that if Obama loses, the fact that he did not choose Hillary Clinton will be the decision that caused him to lose.

    Yes, what was soooo.....obvious (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:03:18 AM EST
    to us was pooh-pawed by Obamiac DNC leaders.   Hillary tried to tell them.  We tried to tell them.  

    I admire Hillary even more now.   Hillary is fighting for Obama...even though he dissed her when he did not choose her for VP.  She is giving everything she has for the issues she believes in.  

    When I hear that Hillary should be doing more, I really question the sanity of the person saying that.

    Dan Rather has my respect or telling it like it is.


    I like this line (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:26:54 AM EST
    The focus needs to be on what the candidates will do to improve your life, not on which of the candidates is more worthy of a lifetime achievement award.

    Gimme, gimme, gimme (none / 0) (#62)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    The only person who will improve your life is yourself.  Waiting on the gov't to improve your life will leave you disappointed.  

    Right (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:12:19 AM EST
    Hung those traffic lights yourself, didja?

    I built my own highway off ramp. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:33:05 AM EST
    Right after (none / 0) (#91)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:14:49 PM EST
    setting the concrete for the light posts.  Off course off ramps and traffic lights are the last thing on the creative class lists.

    A marijuana garden.... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:31:49 PM EST
    in my backyard or basement would improve my life greatly...but the D's and R's won't touch that quality of life improvement with a ten-foot pole:)

    Not Even Waiting On The Gov't (none / 0) (#94)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    to improve citizens' lives.

    How 'bout working on the gov't to stop messing up our lives.

    It can 'do something' for us that way too.


    Amen grace.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:39:18 PM EST
    At this point, I want nothing but to be left alone with my unalienable rights, to make the decisions that effect my life without government interference.

    I don't (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    know if this helps or hurts. Hillary does a fantastic job of selling why you should vote for Democrats. However, when I see her doing this I wonder why can't Obama do it? Ultimately, Obama is the one who is going to have to make the sale. If he can't do the same as Hillary or better, I don't know that he can win.

    Fight for us? Please, I don't think Obama will fight for us. Just yesterday he caved into McCain on tax policy.

    And those not so little (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by fercryinoutloud on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    peaks of his Right-Wingness that he has been giving us all along are only the beginning. You haven't seen nothing yet!

    Once he has the people's here vote he will then truly show his true colors and no one will like them.

    He will ruin the Democratic Party by redefining it as a Centrist party for decades to come. The Blue Dogs who have already grown in umber by 40+ percent over the last 6 years will rule - and they are not the Progressives friend.

    Let me say it again - Obama will ruin Progressivism which is why I could never vote for him.


    So he'll be Bill Clinton? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    Your basically saying Obama will be Bill Clinton right? I mean Bill sold us out in the 90s and Obama will do it now, that's your basic message right?

    It's good to see (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    that Hillary is not engaging in personal attacks on Palin, as so many commentators seem to expect (or demand) that she do.

    As just about everybody knows, if a politician engages in attack dog politics -- especially of a personal nature -- then even if they can bring up the negatives of the person they're attacking, they also bring up their own negatives.

    I can't see a reason in the world for Hillary to make such a sacrifice for Obama. He wouldn't even seriously consider her for VP, and she has some obligation to sacrifice her own political viability for his? I don't think so.

    She should criticize on the issues, as she is doing. It's already above and beyond the call of duty.

    Above and beyond... (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:25:45 AM EST
    ...the call of duty for a Democrat to campaign for the party's candidate?  I don't think so.  

    Clinton has done far more for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    then any of the past primary losers. Without the Clintons' speeches at the convention, you would hate to see Obama's poll numbers.

    Perhaps... (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    ...she really doesn't want a McCain administration and is willing to work hard to that end.  Her choice in doing that--and certainly nobody is holding a gun to her head to do so.  Hillary is a great Democrat and we need more people like her to push the party forward.

    But it does not rise to an "above and beyond" level.  


    It is above and beyond compared to (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:48:32 AM EST
    what other Democrats are doing. Should we expect it? Yes--from all of them. And they are mostly falling short, except for Hillary.

    Right! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Badtypist on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:05:34 AM EST
    Where is Al Gore and John Kerry? Nancy and Harry? When you can show me that these people are doing more than Hillary then you might have a small case that she isn't doing enough. Until then the thought that she isn't doing enough leaves me ROTFLMAO!

    It is kind of ridiculous that most of (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:09:28 AM EST
    Obama's loudest primary supporters aren't doing much to help him in the General election. That might be because many are African Americans, and the party doesn't want Obama to be the "black candidate". As for Kerry and Pelosi, they should be doing more, I suppose, but they are also pretty bad surrogates.

    How about the Super Delegates? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:28:55 AM EST
    They supported him then.  They can support him now.

    Voters don't respond (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    to Pelosi, Reid or Kerry the way they respond to Hillary. She is stronger, more believable and more articulate than those three buffoons put together. They would bore voters to death. Hillary energizes them. It's very simple -- it's you want to win you use your best weapon, and in this case, like it or not, Hillary is Obama's best weapon.

    Given how she's been (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:35:38 AM EST
    treated -- including the major diss of not even being vetted for VP -- and given the amount of energy she's spent, compared to previous losing candidates, yes, it's well above and beyond the call of duty.

    For g-d's sake, Hillary wasn't dissed. (none / 0) (#47)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:18:34 AM EST
    This isn't about Obama not treating Hillary right.  It's not a school yard conflict.  How do you vet Hillary when Bill refuses to be vetted?

    Half the Dems did NOT want the Clintons in the WH, which has more to do with Bill and the financial interests that back them than it does with Hillary.  It's about the lying, the embarrassment at the end of Bill's second term, the perception of Bill working on a new Columbian free trade agreement while Hillary is claiming to be against NAFTA, the pardoning of criminals to get Hillary the NY Hispanic vote for her Senate race.  It's about us, the Democrats who looked at every other Dem candidate besides Hillary because we didn't want the Clintons back in the WH.  It's about wanting someone fresh who can make changes that someone entrenched in the old politics can't.  It's about wanting someone fresh who can make changes that someone entrenched in the old politics can't.    

    Let's just move on and quit recreating the Hillary-Obama conflict.  


    Change? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by addy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:25:32 AM EST
    Like the FISA bill? Like inviting people who indulge in anti-gay rhetoric to speak on stage with you? That kind of change? I gotta tell you, I'm just not feeling it.

    So, voting for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Emma on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    "It's about us, the Democrats who looked at every other Dem candidate besides Hillary because we didn't want the Clintons back in the WH. ...
    Let's just move on and quit recreating the Hillary-Obama conflict."

    was about being anti-Clinton, but WE'RE supposed to be the ones recreating the conflict?  Okay.

    FTR, my vote for Clinton wasn't anti-Obama.  So, if there's a conflict, you created it, not me.


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:32:21 AM EST
    When you vehemently make the case that it wasn't about Obama but instead about being anti-Clinton, you actually don't help put the conflict to rest.

    The "Hill was dissed" misperception (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    recreated the conflict.  But you're right Steve, reminding people here that lots of Dems don't want the Clintons reinforces the divide.  

    It's about wanting someone fresh who can make changes that someone entrenched in the old politics can't.

    As I see it, we've got a candidate who is trying to be many things to many people.   He and the campaign have a plan they're following, and I assume Hillary is acting completely in alignment with that plan.  Rather than hear over and over again how mean Obama was to Hillary, I'd rather focus on winning.  For instance, Ohio, a key state, is about to purge Dem voters again.  They've already sent out their first non-forwarded mailer and we need to follow up by identifying errors in the registration database.  We have a window from Sept. 30 to Oct. 6 to rectify bad addresses, which can be as simple as a missing apartment number.  It's time to stop whining about poor Hillary and respect her excellent work for our party by doing as she is doing:  Jumping in to the work that needs to be done.

    Well, (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Mary Mary on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:09:40 AM EST
    you ought to get busy, then, and quit wasting your time on blogs. Me? I'm no longer a Dem so I can waste as much time as I want.

    "Stop whining"? (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:18:59 AM EST
    You are consistently Obama's WORST enemy at this blog, and there are many, many other contenders.

    I hope no one ever forgets this gem, out of many I could repost:

    I think NOT mentioning women as he works on getting votes from sexist men is a much more effective strategy.  If it were me, I'd let the Hillary supporters go until after the convention.  The stronger, more "male" he looks now, the better he'll compete against McCain in the fall.  Hillary supporters, and especially women, will be looking for some outreach from here forward, but the guys who are independents and Reagan Dems need to be reassured now, as early as possible.

    Beauty, mate. (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    I think Obama may have gotten those "sexist men" too, judging from the Palin reaction.

    It's just reality Steve. (none / 0) (#77)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:36:35 AM EST
    Recognizing an effective strategy isn't agreement with it.  I know a lot of sexist men, and they're shallow and vote on their perception of how tough a candidate is.  Their comfort level with people like Bush and McCain overrides their common sense and better interests.  Blustering about the axis of evil reassures them, even though some of us recognize it as war mongering.  If they perceive Obama as weak, he's lost their vote.  The GOPs rhetoric about keeping us safe from terrorists will win them over in the end.  

    Recently Obama said something about coming out fighting in response to McCain, and although the language turned me off, I can see it being effective with a segment of the electorate we need to win.  Sadly, Obama will be judged on his "maleness" and toughness instead of on his ideas for change.  


    You don't understand (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:42:12 AM EST
    When you argue that Obama is intentionally refraining from mentioning women in his speeches in order to pander to sexist men, you are HURTING OBAMA.

    Never mind that I think your argument is dumb.  Even if you were 100% correct, pointing out that Obama is dissing women in order to pander to sexist men ("don't worry, ladies, your outreach will come sooner or later!") is a really stupid way to try and win over liberals.

    Until you can make arguments that actually lead people to feel better about Obama - and "stop whining and start working for our candidate" is not one of them - the best thing you can do for him is to stop posting.


    Point taken on my argument not leading (none / 0) (#86)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    others to feel good about Obama.  But you guys got also mad at me for my ideas on
    the Iraq war as a mechanism for manipulating oil prices by OPEC.  
    And you didn't like that I said outreach to young evangelicals is smart because they have many other shared values with us and we should try to include them in the big tent.  
    And you complained when I pointed out that taking FISA off the table may have prevented an attack on Americans.  
    Maybe as a veteran I have much less faith in our government than many of you do.  I might be wrong, but what if I'm right?  

    We don't all have to agree, but I think people who are still engaged in ongoing Obama bashing instead of constructive criticism aren't going to vote for him no matter what someone like me says.  


    I cannot find the words (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    to describe what I think of your argument that Obama had to vote for FISA because otherwise, Bush/Cheney would just detonate a dirty bomb in an American city, blame it on Obama's FISA vote, and the GOP would win the election.  Most people probably don't think you could really believe that, and they assume you are just groping around for any excuse to justify Obama's breach of his promise.  I'll give you more credit for sincerity, and simply ask this: since FISA would have passed with or without Obama's vote, how could they have possibly blamed his vote for anything at all?

    457 ad about those weak, liberal Dems (none / 0) (#113)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:36:18 AM EST
    putting us all at risk.

    Having been in the military, I can tell you that it would be quite easy to use military personnel to accomplish something like this.  Even the placement of a bomb could be done with orders that prevent those involved from realizing their covert activities were the cause, not the solution to a terrorist mission.  

    Military secrets are powerful and dangerous.  Rovian trickery is even more dangerous.  The world's richest people, the ultra billionaires, are counting on another Republican term.  You trust them?  I'd put nothing past them.


    Proud Independent (none / 0) (#110)
    by Proud Independent on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:26:44 PM EST
    What EXACTLY are his change ideas? Maybe changing his mind as much as he did in his few years in Congress. Don't believe me, please research the facts to make sure.  Knowledge will set us all free.

    I feel it's not the "evil" rhetoric that will win, it's the fact that if Obama can't even stand up to the Clintons and gives them 2 of the 4 nights at the DNC, then how is he to stand up to special interest groups or the dictators that want to destroy. True, he could not afford to offend the Clinton supporters, but at the same time, HE was the nominee. Should the winner of a sporting event share the stage with the losing team? A gracious winner recognizes his opponents, enough to say it was a tough battle. But there can be one winner to stand at the top of the podium. In Obama's case, he allowed the defeated team to take control of the event for 2 of the 4 nights, because he didn't have the strength within himself to say "No" to the Clintons. He appeased them, and their supporters, to make everything seem "OK". Unfortunately, it shows yet again his weakness as a leader. Obama has not once, nor will he ever, take a stand against his party's wishes. On this, John McCain has a true record. If he can not handle the Clintons, how will he ever be able to have a backbone when challenged by special interests or foreign leaders. He even had a hard time persuading O'Reilly.

    As for Obama's "ideas", I have yet to hear concrete numbers on how the middle class will  have a tax cut after all the proposed social programs. The numbers don't add up! I thought tax cuts were a historically Republican stance and Democrats always support many types of taxes to pay for all the promises. So, I have a really hard time believing Obama.  Ultimately, we need someone who has conviction, who can stand up to anyone and has PROVEN it!
    Look at both candidates resumes as you would someone you were hiring as an employee then make your own decision.


    Obama doesn't need to "stand up" to the (none / 0) (#111)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:21:38 AM EST
    Clintons.  They're on the same team now.  Although he beat Hillary, she still is a powerful representative of half the Dem party.  Of course she's a key part of the campaign, and I'd expect her to be a key part of the Obama administration.  Dissing her would be dissing us, the electorate.  

    Obama's not weak for being inclusive of the Clintons, he's smart.


    Do Obama a favor (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    Stop supporting him by commenting in blogs. You are terrible for Obama.

    Steve M condensed. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:08:44 PM EST
    I thought telling falsehoods (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by echinopsia on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:55:07 AM EST
    was against the posting policies of this blog.

    Obama's worst enemies (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:28:01 AM EST
    are supporters like you.

    Lets see, half the Democrats didn't (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by hairspray on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:50:28 PM EST
    want her.  Well I read P. Cronin's work Caucuses vs. Primaries and more of Obama's support came from independents and disaffected Republicans.  Look back to see that Hillary always had more of the registered Democratic voters.  So you start out making the wrong assumption.

    I don't think so, (none / 0) (#96)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    It is not her duty to do anything for Obama. Why not get ole McCaskill out there? Now, I would say it's her duty.

    Hillary is who she is.  This is not about Obama.  It's about the Democratic Party.  And I know that she will keep his feet to the fire on issues that she knows are important.  The same if it is McCain.

    Once and if elected, Obama should not count on her being Ms. Save Your Butt to coddle his ambiguity.


    McCaskill has no pull with voters outside MO (none / 0) (#104)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    Hillary energizes the Democratic base all over the country. She's campaigning hard for Obama becuase she believes in the Democratic Party and knows as well as anyone that a McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster. I feel certain she DOES think it her duty as a Democrat to do all she can to keep a Republican out of the White House.

    The Titanic line is great (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    That is the right approach to take to this election.

    The 'who is for you?', not so much.  Obama's record is too thin for me to be convinced he is for me. He is probably more for me than McCain is, but I don;'t think it is his strong point.

    One thing that's disturbing (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:27:05 AM EST
    in recent Ras. polling is this observation:

    For a variety of reasons, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll is less volatile than some other polls and always shows a somewhat smaller convention bounce than reported by others. This is primarily because we weight our results by party identification (see methodology). Looking at the data before adjusting for partisan identification, the Republican convention appears to have created a larger surge in party identification than the Democratic convention the week before. If this lasts, it could have a significant impact on Election 2008.

    It makes one wonder if the entire Democratic brand isn't being damaged by the Obama campaign. It's going to be very hard to separate the Democrats from Obama and what he stands for.

    Hillary may be right to ask the question, "Who is for you?", but the answer too many voters may be coming up with might be, "Not Obama, that's for sure."

    go check the polls (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    on REalClearPolitics.  The poll lead that the generic dems had over generic repugs has gotten much smaller.  THis signals to me that dems may not pick up as amny seats in the house and senate as we thought and that as Obama's numbers are moving down, so are the numbers for the down ticket races.

    I can see that here in NC.  The new enthusiasm for repugs since the pick of Palin has given Liddy Dole's campaign a new boost.  It will be easier for her to hold her seat.  The dem had been gaining ground on her until the repug convention.


    In a way (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:59:45 AM EST
    the thing that has always bothered me most about Obama and his campaign and his supporters is that they brought together just about everything about the Democratic Party that most voters intensely disliked -- in particular, the sense that they are looking down their noses at them.

    I had mostly thought that this was something that was going to damage the prospects of the Democratic Party after Obama got elected, and was a good reason to fear his election. This is pretty much the effect Jimmy Carter had in his day (though Carter presented a slightly different set of issues, albeit they overlap significantly with Obama's issues).

    It's not good to see that Obama might already be having that effect. God only knows what four years of Obama might do to the Democrats at this rate.


    it may have (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM EST
    more to do with the "enthusiasm" gap being closed by McCain picking Palin that anything that Obama has or has not done.

    I think a lot of the "enthusiasm" (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:20:42 AM EST
    for Palin is precisely because she appeals to the very voters that Obama has clearly turned off, including the small town and rural voters.

    There was a vacuum created by Obama's failure to win over those voters, a desire many of them had to find someone they considered a champion (even if only based on who he/she was, and not what he/she was advocating), and Palin filled it perfectly.


    those small town, rural (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:25:11 AM EST
    voters are probably closer to Palin on social issues than they are to Obama.  This election is going to be the same as all recent elections.  Dems will need once again to try to convince those voters that economic policies are more important for them than social values.

    A different class (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by koshembos on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:28:39 AM EST
    What Hillary sadly emphasizes is the ineptness of Obama as candidate. There is a huge difference between a person who sells hope and change to stadiums full of dedicated fans and a person who has the stature to connect with every voter on her/his level. Obama repeated says the same things that landed him behind McCain in the best year the Democrats have since FDR.

    He is mediocre to the point of boredom, his main points pointless and his inability to adapt stunning.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#35)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:57:40 AM EST
    Obama inspires people in the same way Hillary finally started to this spring.  Millions are inspired by his message, his life and his potential to help us take back our country.  They're just different people than the ones who like Hillary.

    Oh (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:59:13 AM EST
    Hillary never inspired people until this spring.  See, I didn't know that.

    Different people (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Coral on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:40:14 AM EST
    Wouldn't it be great if the people who are inspired by Obama and those inspired by Clinton could be brought together to be inspired by the Democratic ticket?

    Maybe, just maybe, we could win this thing.


    Talk to Democrat's about Democratic Values (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    That's the easiest way to bring the party together. Most of Hilary's campaigning for Obama has been on hardcore Democratic values. Obama still is in "outreach" mode. Trying to appeal to the right. His speech on increasing funding for school vouchers and charter school's yesterday was a classic example. Instead of fighting to save the public school system, he chose to take the Republican route. We spend seventy cents on the tax dollar on military and three cents on education and we wonder why the system fails.

    Where are these millions? (none / 0) (#46)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:16:54 AM EST
    Sadly the polls aren't reflected those millions of inspired people. I find that troubling. Did they go because they were caught up in the anti war rhetoric? Now that Iraq is barely a blip on the election scene, have they cooled their enthusiasm? Or has Obama's hardened war stance disallusioned them? Or did they just like the party atmosphere? I don't know the answers, but I do know they aren't showing up in the polls.

    Comparing the Republicans ... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:31:57 AM EST
    to an iceberg is great.

    No thought.  No mind.  Just a lumbering mass.

    Somebody watched "Monk" last week (none / 0) (#29)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:42:24 AM EST
    Because one of the lines (spoken by Howie Mandel) was something to the effect of:

    "Remember Monk?  Of course I remember Monk.  That's like asking the Titanic if it remembers the iceberg!"


    Hill Stands Tall (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:09:08 AM EST
    She's doing a great job telling the truth.  Although it is a bit weird that after all this time, there might be some independents ou there who don't know which ticket, whic party represents the iceberg.

    I certainly agree with the majority here that people who think Hill hasn't done enough for Obama are on crack.  Although, worth remembering that it isn't for Obama, but for the country.

    Unlike most commenters and unlike BTD, however, it really grates on me how GOPers who have been hysterically smearing the Clintons for years suddenly cannot stop saying her name, now that they think they see something to exploit.  But then this blog certainly indicates that they do indeed have something to exploit.    

    I wish McCain hadn't run those Ads; it was low, even for McCain.  I wish Palin hadn't said Hill's name so much, that first week; it was low, even for Palin.   If they had even a shred of decency to them they wouldn't have done it.  But they don't, so there you go.

    Although it was low (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by tootired on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    for McCain to use Hillary's own words (and Biden's and Kerry's, etc) against Obama, it was appropriate for Palin to thank Hillary and Geraldine Ferraro for blazing the trail for her. She might also have thanked Republican Margaret Chase Smith, but it was so long ago (1964)that she was the first woman to have her name placed into nomination for the presidency by a major party that most people at the rally would have said, "Who?" Sarah Palin is "standing on the shoulders of giants", and I am personally pleased that she understands that.

    Standing on the Shoulders (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM EST
    Or cynically attempting to appropriate something she has in no way earned (issues voters)?  I guess different people respondedd in different ways.  

    I wonder which one Hill thinks it is. Perhaps a combo of both.  Still, on a human level I have to think she finds their use of her annoying.


    The fact that Hillary absolutely refuses to (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by tootired on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:34:20 PM EST
    trash Palin says that there is at least some mutual respect. I know that Ferraro has publicly stated that she appreciated the thank you from Palin. Why is it so hard to believe that a woman could applaud progress made by another woman even if they did not agree on some things?

    Not impossible to believe (none / 0) (#107)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    But given Republicans track record in General, it is indeed "so hard to believe" that she, like McCain, wasn't and isn't seeking to exploit divisions caused by the Primary.  Which actually would be fine with me, if Palin and Clinton were not so obviously ideologically opposite.  Same with Giuliani.  They keep saying her name, and applauding it; the whole thing's just in poor taste as far as I'm concerned.

    But that is a huge difference between myself and most Democrats this time around it would seem.  My problems with the GOP have been and remain ideological.  The hooplah over Barack's race and Hill's gender did not excite me; the possibility of Dems getting this country out of the gutter did excite me.  

    So it is a shortcoming of mine, then.  My politics being ideologically grounded, it is "so hard" for me to see how Palin would be any less offensive to Hill than would Rick Santorum, or george W. Bush if he could run again.  Palin;s politics being the same as those "dudes," then they are the same, for me, in the political arena, regardless of her ovarian status.  Sorry but that's how I look at it.   Maybe Hill looks at it that way too.  I wonder.


    True (none / 0) (#108)
    by Blue Jean on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:40:52 PM EST
    Though she might have mentioned Rep. Shirley Chisholm too.  1976 wasn't exactly the last Ice Age.

    Transcendence (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by votus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    On the issues of this election-- competent government, economic recovery, universal health care, the education of the people, defense of civil rights, energy development, national security and international standing--those who recognize Hillary Clinton's leadership and FOLLOW it do her the honor she deserves.  

    I referred one of my early-Obama- (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:32:46 AM EST
    supporting friends, who was critical of both Obama and Biden's performance on TV this weekend to the NYT coverage of Hillary Clinton in FL yesterday.  My friend sd.:  but she didn't go negative on Palin!

    Reply: That's because she's smart. (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:42:08 AM EST
    And she knows it won't work.

    When you are out stumping, you need to make every word and thought count.  So you need to woo, woo, woo those voters.  Even the Palin voters.


    I agree. (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:13:32 PM EST
    Interestingly enough, my friends, all Obama-supporters from Day One, went ballistic in conversation about Palin:  graduated from Univ. of Idaho, beauty queen, low-population state, didn't get passport until age 40, leader of AL nation guard not a qualification for VP, McCain will die, on and on.  Next:  Hillary Clinton as VP would have been a good idea except for Bill.  

    Great. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:28:11 PM EST
    A new class Obama supporters - the ZOMG! clique.

    You might not be able to win every voter or even need to - but you need to ACT like you do.  Running around going ZOMG! and trashing the opposition may have worked in the primaries, but alas, the primaries are over.


    sorry in my evidence based world (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    I don't see any that Obama will do the things I or the democratic party in general wants him to do.

    a) he has never actually accomplished anything except as it related to him (ie winning elections for himself)

    b) he wants more faith based initiatives -that is an anathema to me. Just the fact that he thinks he can say that out loud and loyal democrats will vote for him anyway is problematic.

    c) mental distress is not a reason to allow abortion , I can't answer that question because it is above my pay grade, present votes (for which he gives bogus explanations), he supported Roberts (until his manager explained to him that it wouldn't look good if he did that)-so Roe v wade is one of those things he might throw under the bus should it become necessary.

    d) Obama's health insurance plan and its lack of universality guarantees that it will be a failure. Democrats can't afford to do healthcare reform and do it badly or we will end up worse off than before.

    e) condoning the way this primary was run makes it ok for the democratic party to do this to us again.

    I see no commitment in Obama to make the hard choices and that will destroy his effectiveness to lead. Nope I see no valid reasons to support him because it is going to be better for me and my children. Choosing another unprepared, illigitimate  president does not help america even if he has  a D behind his name

    Great Lines (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by elmey on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:10:17 AM EST
    That's the way to campaign against McCain!

    Good post. (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jake Left on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:10:56 AM EST
    Makes you kind of wistful for what might have been. sigh.

    Oh, well, We gotta elect someone besides squatty and snotty, someone besides the prune and the prude.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#1)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:09:20 AM EST
    I don't think anyone will.

    Well if you like (4.00 / 3) (#28)
    by fercryinoutloud on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    merit pay for teachers, which they oppose, then you'll love Obama.

    If you like chartered Schools and vouchers that will likely ruin Public Schools then you'll love Obama.

    There are a lot of things Clinton disagrees with Obama on. A lot. But right now she has to remain mum on those issues and do what she is being forced to do in order to save her political life.

    Do we see Richardson or Dodd or did we see pre-scandal Edwards out there for Obama? Why Clinton?

    Because as her reward for not being chosen for VP which pissed off a lot of people she has to go shill for the guy whose decision to not put her on the ticket pissed off a lot of people. Like an abused woman she is forced to go out and smile for her man who paid her no respect. Screw Obama.


    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:43:59 AM EST
    merit pay for teachers, which they oppose, then you'll love Obama.

    If you like chartered Schools and vouchers that will likely ruin Public Schools then you'll love Obama.

    I'm the daughter of a teacher - these are stupid ideas and Obama has no idea what they really mean. They are good "buzzwords."


    On Charter schools (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CST on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    I'm gonna have to disagree.  I think Charter schools are a great alternative for people with no other choices.  My sister is a teacher at a charter school and I grew up in an urban public school system.  Failing public schools in my city have been saved by turning into charter schools and in turn help other public schohols stay by lessening the burden on them.
    It is also a way of keeping teaching innovative.

    charter schools are a band aid (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by kimsaw on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    at best and individually have varying degrees of success. Charter schools have greater freedom to run against the red tape that public schools are strapped with. Many of them are corporate based,   test focused and result centered. One wonders what would happen if public schools could eliminate some of the bureaucratic constraints imposed by federal, state and local governments and let educators get back to teaching. Educators with classrooms of no more than 20, equitable funding according to the needs of communities, and a  commitment by the government to educate its citizens  with as much vigilance as it does to protect them. Now that's change I could believe in.

    They also (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    aren't handcuffed like public schools - they don't have to accept every child, so disruptive children, special needs children, etc. don't have to come into the mix.  Yeah, I, too, could be a successful teacher in a school of handpicked, enthusiastic, involved-parent kids.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    That's my point.

    Charter schools have benefits compared to public schools and are available for lower-income students at no cost.

    Sure, you have to have parents involved enough to enrole their child at the school, but that just serves as an encouragement for parents to get involved.  The school my sister teaches at is no walk in the park.  These are still lower-income, inner-city kids, they are just given a different framework to help them succeed.  I don't think that's a bad thing.


    Again there are some charter schools that (none / 0) (#99)
    by kimsaw on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    are successful and others are not. I have found that the involvement of parents at these schools mirror those in the public schools. Some are involved, some are not. The more a parent is involved in a child's education the better that child does. I agree the differing frameworks are a good thing, but I also think that public schools should be allowed those same advantages.

    Charter schools from a government perspective is like throwing stuff against the wall hoping  something will stick. It's the same with NO Child Left Behind. Teach to the test, not the need, we're back where we started. Some schools fail and some succeed. Meanwhile the nation still experiments with the future of our children. I'm not cynical but have been saying the same things about public education for years, until we elevate it to a station of national priority, nothing will change be it charter school or not.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:45:03 PM EST
    Charter schools are the answer to the nation's education system.  I just think they could be a part of it.  And sure, they are a bandaid, but I'd rather put a bandaid on a cut than let it get infected and keep bleeding.

    No they are not a perfect system by themselves.  But I don't think having alternatives for education is a bad thing.


    Charter Schools (none / 0) (#102)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:54:34 PM EST
    The last report on charter schools in Chicago wasn't at all encouraging. Students didn't test better and in some cases they were even lower than the public school. The answer is to fix the problem rather than add another layer to the problem.

    IMHO opinion (none / 0) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:20:38 AM EST
    one of the biggest problems with schools is the different funding models used for them.  When schools are funded by property taxes and the school districts are large enough to even out the disparity in property values it causes trouble.

    In my area the entire county is one school district.  So, all schools in the country are funding using the entire county's property tax base.  This should make all the schools in the county be of similar quality.  But, the state still has issues because all counties are not equal.  There are some very poor counties so the model doesn't work for them.


    that should say (none / 0) (#51)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:21:22 AM EST
    if the districts "aren't" large enough

    There are different kinds of (none / 0) (#103)
    by hairspray on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    charter schools.  Those private ones that siphon off the more able students with more engaged parents leave the others schools with harder to reach students.  That being said, public schools can also create charter schools within their districts and that is a good thing.  The reason being that the money given for students does not become a bottom line for some stockholders, rather the money saved goes back into the district of bettering the other schools in the district.  Public school charters also inspire and set a competitive brand out there for others to strive for.

    Oh he knows (none / 0) (#38)
    by fercryinoutloud on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    what they mean. That is the problem. He knows exactly what they mean, but then he likes a lot of Republican ideas.

    is this one of those (none / 0) (#41)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    "reach arounds" for post-partisan compromise?

    It's not a reach around its a cave in for (none / 0) (#100)
    by kimsaw on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    political expediency. It's the status quo.

    No one is forcing Hillary Clinton to do anything. (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:28:29 AM EST
    What a sexist, belittling assumption.

    You do not read (3.80 / 5) (#63)
    by fercryinoutloud on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:06:57 AM EST
    a lot do you? If you did you would know all the pressure that is being put on her.

    You also do not know a lot about internal party politics.

    I'll disregard your comment and file it away in the 'They don't know what they don't know' file.


    Look in her eyes as she speaks. (3.50 / 2) (#69)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    She's promoting our party, our values and our candidate.  She's not an abused woman.  She's someone who knows what the Repubs have done and will continue to do to our country.  Of course internal party politics put pressure on her to support him, especially after such a divisive primary race.  But she's on fire, she's working hard for us, and your response is "screw Obama" because he "paid her no respect?"  

    Is there some transference going on here?  Do you feel abused because she wasn't chosen as VP?  My post in this thread saying why I thought she wasn't chosen was slammed, so I won't go there again, but is there some way we can just move forward and support our party's chances to win?


    asdf (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by fercryinoutloud on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    No one is forcing Hillary Clinton to do anything.
    What a sexist, belittling assumption.

    Of course internal party politics put pressure on her to support him.

    Is there some transference going on here?  Do you feel abused because she wasn't chosen as VP?

    You are being a rather condescending jerk with your comments aren't you?

    I didn't address you or respond to your post but you are full of personal insults in regards to my post that had nothing to do with you.

    This will be my last post to you as you have no respect for others and seem to have a zeal for trying to insult others unprovoked. As such you only insult yourself with such behavior.


    Party Politics (none / 0) (#98)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:44:58 PM EST
    Senator Clinton is undeniably in a tough situation. She ran hard for her party's nomination and did not get it. She is now faced with choices about how to support her former opponent.

    But there is nothing in her behavior since conceding  that demonstrates anything but her own gifts and experience as a thoroughly professional politician.

    The idea that she is being 'forced' to do anything here belittles her commitment to Democratic party values, to Democratic party victory in November and her own canny political instincts and ambition.


    Who is for us? (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:52:00 AM EST
    That's easy Hill....Ralph Nader is the only candidate who I sincerely believe gives a damn about the interests of the people who have been shut out of the halls of power.

    I can't say Obama or McCain are for me and the millions like me...they say we deserve chains.  That ain't for "me"...that's for "them".

    Great Point (none / 0) (#18)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:22:46 AM EST
    I mean there was no difference between Bush and Gore as well.

    Are you seriously (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cardcarryingmember on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:48:57 AM EST
    saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore or are you just being sarcastic? I thought that line of thinking went out the moment Bush took us along on his excellent adventure to Iraq.

    I'm not convinced Al Gore.... (1.50 / 2) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    woulda done it all that different.

    Yeah, our various occupations may have been run a little better, but I think we'd be there.  No way of knowing of course, I'm just going by the Clinton admin's fondness for dropping bombs on Iraq, and Gore's record in the senate. He was one of only 10 dems to vote in favor of the first Gulf War, no reason to think he wouldn't have been a willing pawn to the complex if he had won.


    I'm sorry but (none / 0) (#112)
    by cardcarryingmember on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:31:06 AM EST
    I can't let claptrap like this go by. The Clinton administration had 8 years of a containment policy on Iraq that was working quite well, thank you. If they were so eager to invade Iraq why didn't they just go ahead and do it? You are way out on the fringe here seriously suggesting that a Gore administration would have wagged the dog the way Bush and his flipped-out neocon crew did. I mean, please, get real.

    Different.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:35:50 AM EST
    but not different enough for my taste or my vote.

    Wasn't that a big by The Who? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Exeter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:31:01 AM EST

    Independent Woman (none / 0) (#109)
    by Proud Independent on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:48:44 PM EST
    YES!  Passing judgement will only help a candidate self-destruct.  Hillary Clinton is doing much better than Obama...unforunetly it shows again his weekness as a leader, in this case, in presenting us REAL details on his proposed poilicies. Example, Is tax relief real if he is also proposing so many social programs? Give me some facts please!  So my point is, isn't HE whom we should be listening to and not just the media's half-truths and hear-say stories. And remember...Hillary is not on this ticket!