The Clinton Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
So let me get this straight...

Obama is a "messiah."

Webb is a "saint."

Wow...who knew that the Democrats could put together such an "enlightening" ticket.

:hehe:

Never said anything about obama being a messiah, you're putting stupid words in my mouth and assuming things you shouldn't to make a preformulated point in your mind. You should just close your eyes and have the rest of this conversation in your head since you've already decided to randomly pick what I'm saying so it supports whatever you want, it would save time and I would have to correct you.

Yeah I do think Webb is a saint. He's still spoken of with reverence in the service and his record of dedication, courage and care for his men is a little more important to me then whether his marriages failed. My father has had three marriages and he's still a good man, I don't really see divorce as that big of a deal. Better than staying in a marriage just for the appearence, that's the coward's way out.
 
Never said anything about obama being a messiah, you're putting stupid words in my mouth and assuming things you shouldn't to make a preformulated point in your mind. You should just close your eyes and have the rest of this conversation in your head since you've already decided to randomly pick what I'm saying so it supports whatever you want, it would save time and I would have to correct you.

Yeah I do think Webb is a saint. He's still spoken of with reverence in the service and his record of dedication, courage and care for his men is a little more important to me then whether his marriages failed. My father has had three marriages and he's still a good man, I don't really see divorce as that big of a deal. Better than staying in a marriage just for the appearence, that's the coward's way out.

I would suggest you take a step back. Alot of people feel as though Obama is some kind of Messiah. I never said that you said that. You said that Webb is a saint. So I put both assumptions together.

Have a little bit more respect MD. There's no need to be so abrasive.
 
Jim_Webb_official_110th_Congress_photo.jpg

I am so jealous of Virginia for having Democrats that are so competent :csad:
 
But Clinton never ran against Gore, so that's not comparable.

And it's a different age. It's the cable news era-- do you really think some of these pundits are going to let Obama get away with picking her?

Not only that but Obama would probably lose a lot of the independent vote if he chose Clinton as his running mate. It would completely negate his campaign of change and make him look like a hypocrite for having someone who he says represents the same ol', same ol'. He'll have someone on his campaign who voted to authorize the Iraq War, who he has repeatedly criticized Clinton for doing. Plus Clinton just does poorly with Republicans and independents overall in red states.
 
I would suggest you take a step back. Alot of people feel as though Obama is some kind of Messiah. I never said that you said that. You said that Webb is a saint. So I put both assumptions together.

Have a little bit more respect MD. There's no need to be so abrasive.

If you quote someone and say let me see then summarize what they've said (though incorrectly) then the person you're quoting has no choice but to think you're speaking to them.

I'd respect you more if you didn't put words in my mouth. I'm only abrasive when someone is an ass to me and you were doing that for some cute point that I'm no where near.

Respect is earned by showing it.
 
If you quote someone and say let me see then summarize what they've said (though incorrectly) then the person you're quoting has no choice but to think you're speaking to them.

Yes you took one thing I said because of a personal belief founded on many people that have served and some owe their lives to and then extrapolated that to include that messiah nonsense which I've never even came close to saying once, ever.

I'd respect you more if you didn't put words in my mouth. I'm only abrasive when someone is an ass to me and you were doing that for some cute point that I'm no where near.

So I'll make you a deal, you stop putting words in my mouth that I don't believe in and have never said and I'll stop being abrasive in response to you putting words in my mouth that I don't believe in and have never said.

From what I have seen, you have a tendency to be abrasive on this board.

I will apologize for lumping together your statement with something that OTHERS HAVE SAID. But I told you right after that response that I never said that you believed Obama was a messiah.
 
From what I have seen, you have a tendency to be abrasive on this board.

For me at least, my responses are based on the level of respect I'm shown. But from what I've seen you tend to disregard and lump people which is something I really don't jive with very well. If you ask me a legit question and I don't feel like I'm just being prepped for a premade response then I answer with more civility, but really I haven't really been that abrasive to you.

See if you had asked, "why do you say, webb's a saint?" I would have given you my opinion without the attitude. But when it appears you're mocking me and putting words in my mouth to make some blithe point which in no way represents me, then don't expect either respect or civility, because you've not earned it.

I will apologize for lumping together your statement with something that OTHERS HAVE SAID. But I told you right after that response that I never said that you believed Obama was a messiah.

And I read that and editted my followup response, go check. I took out some of that attitude and just explained what people infer when you quote them then make a statement (which you should understand already). If you didn't mean that as being attributed to me then you shouldn't have quoted me and listed a response.
 
For me at least, my responses are based on the level of respect I'm shown. But from what I've seen you tend to disregard and lump people which is something I really don't jive with very well. If you ask me a legit question and I don't feel like I'm just being prepped for a premade response then I answer with more civility, but really I haven't really been that abrasive to you.

I disregard people who largely look at things with blinders on and refuse to show any objectivity to what they're talking about. When it comes to those people, I lump them all together because to me, they're all the same.

I have apologized for lumping your statement about Webb in with those people. I will go back and edit that comment.

See if you had asked, "why do you say, webb's a saint?" I would have given you my opinion without the attitude. But when it appears you're mocking me and putting words in my mouth to make some blithe point which in no way represents me, then don't expect either respect or civility, because you've not earned it.



And I read that and editted my followup response, go check. I took out some of that attitude and just explained what people infer when you quote them then make a statement (which you should understand already). If you didn't mean that as being attributed to me then you shouldn't have quoted me and listed a response.

I'm done discussing what I have already apologized for.

So why is it that you feel Webb is a saint?
 
So why is it that you feel Webb is a saint?

Mainly from his military service. He's a god to any man that's ever served under him and that carries a lot of weight for me personally.

In addition to that and he's been a crusader veterans rights, working for free to help them. His one really stupid thing was his article "Women can't fight" about women in the service. He's helped work against drug use and racism in the service and actually quit under regan as the Sec Navy because he disagreed with regan (he was against cutbacks), which shows balls in politics as well as in combat.

He's also shown that his principles are above politics by running against his former friend Allen. And he's repeatedly stated how the current Iraq occupation is the stupidest thing since vietnam.

There's a great book called the nightingales song about him, John McCain and Ollie North which shows a lot of who they were and are now, which I couldn't recommend highly enough.
 
Mainly from his military service. He's a god to any man that's ever served under him and that carries a lot of weight for me personally.

In addition to that and he's been a crusader veterans rights, working for free to help them. His one really stupid thing was his article "Women can't fight" about women in the service. He's helped work against drug use and racism in the service and actually quit under regan as the Sec Navy because he disagreed with regan (he was against cutbacks), which shows balls in politics as well as in combat.

He's also shown that his principles are above politics by running against his former friend Allen. And he's repeatedly stated how the current Iraq occupation is the stupidest thing since vietnam.

There's a great book called the nightingales song about him, John McCain and Ollie North which shows a lot of who they were and are now, which I couldn't recommend highly enough.

I may have to check that out. If Webb somehow lands the ticket, I want to know alot more about him.
 
I may have to check that out. If Webb somehow lands the ticket, I want to know alot more about him.

It has a lot about McCain as well, plus some other famous ring knockers.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/timberg.html

The Nightingale's Song by Robert Timberg. Simon & Schuster, 1230 Avenue of the America, New York, 10020, 1995, 544 pages, $27.50.

Robert Timberg--Annapolis graduate, Marine veteran of Vietnam, and now deputy chief of the Baltimore Sun's Washington bureau--has written a book that is fascinating and flawed. The book is a study of five extraordinary men, all Annapolis graduates, whose names and faces are well known to millions of Americans.

Timberg provides five small biographies of John McCain, who suffered terribly in a North Vietnamese camp before entering the world of politics where, if we can believe him, he suffered even more (p. 459); of Robert McFarlane, a truly decent and humble man, finally driven to a suicide attempt because of his Annapolis honor sullied, in part, by his own confusion in the Washington power game (p. 421); of James Webb, a courageous combat leader and later lawyer and novelist, who served for a short time as Secretary of the Navy, but who could be "mean, vindictive, self-important, and overbearing" (p. 457); of John Poindexter, by all accounts a worthy officer with a brilliant mind, yet one who never understood politics and politicians (p. 247); and of Oliver North, described by McFarlane as "deceitful, mendacious, and traitorous," as well as "devious, self-serving, self-aggrandizing and true first and foremost to himself" (p. 472).

This is a powerful and provocative book. It deals strongly, even arrogantly, with five strong and often arrogant men, all of whom, in different ways, were bright and talented, supremely ambitious, and deeply courageous. A generation after David Halberstam's book The Best and the Brightest, which described the American entry into Vietnam, comes this volume, which describes these five men, more "best and brightest," all of whom were involved, directly or indirectly in that war, and in its wake, which Timberg sees as the Iran-Contra imbroglio.

Although Timberg seems to treat North with contempt (pp. 352, 475), he is also quick to point out North's courage, dramatic flair, and teaching talent. At a time when so many seemed to dodge their duty, North, after all, served--as did the others, often with great distinction and valor. Meanwhile some of their countrymen thought of themselves as "people who can do more good in a lifetime in politics or academics or medicine than by getting killed in a trench" (p. 90). That theme runs through this book like a red thread: The McCain-McFarlane-Webb-North-Poindexter generation served our country in war, or turned their backs on the war, the country, and those who served (pp. 90, 163). Reconciliation, Timberg seems to say, will never come to pass; the chasm is too wide.

What has brought grief to these five men, aside from their own hubris, is their Annapolis education, which taught them to obey without question (p. 25). "They knew," Timberg writes, "there were times when a subordinate must say no to a superior, but as the Iran-Contra affair makes clear, their threshold was appallingly high" (p. 416). Their lockstep educations and their personal ambition made it virtually impossible for them to ask the question, during the Iran-Contra scandal, that Timberg wanted them to ask: "We're not going to do anything stupid here, are we?" (p. 417). But does any university offer its graduates an education which effectively vaccinates them against moral myopia?

This is an extraordinary volume, of immense possible value to senior officers. It suffers, however, from Timberg's tendency to write caustic prose. President Reagan, for example, is dismissed as a man "with the attention span of a fruit fly" (p. 448). Yet Reagan is the "nightingale." Therein lies the chief difficulty of this book. Timberg desperately searches for some kind of hub around which to make the spokes of his book revolve. Thus he settles upon the nightingale, which Timberg fecklessly attempts to use as organizing force for the book (p. 16), arguing that Reagan's example helped the young nightingales of his story finally to sing their song. No ornithologist seems to have told Timberg that nightingales are not found in the United States.

The book is Procrustean. That is, it jams together too many characters. One can see the connections among McFarlane, Poindexter, and North, but he force-fits McCain and Webb into his mold, attempting "to use all five men as metaphors for the emotions, motivations, and beliefs of a legion of well-meaning but ill-starred warriors" (p. 18). That is known as the fallacy of composition, and Timberg is constantly at pains to weave together one fabric from too many threads.

I can think of no one who will come away from this book entirely pleased with its arguments. That may be its chief strength, for it once again calls into question the oldest arguments about duty, about honor, and about country. Timberg quotes with approval John McCain's June 1994 speech at Quantico, in which he said that "my happiness these last twenty years has not let me forget the friends who did not return with me to the country we loved so dearly" (p. 462). "The first duty," Jim Webb said at Arlington in 1987, "is to remember" (p. 457). This book cogently reminds us of honor and shame, of virtue and vice, of courage and cowardice. We see them all reflected in the joys and sorrows of these five remarkable lives about which Timberg writes so compellingly. And we see them, too, if less distinctly, in our own lives.

James H. Toner
Professor of International Relations &
Military Ethics, Air War College
Maxwell AFB, Alabama
 
I wish Webb had a full Senate term under his belt, or had been elected to another political office before becoming a Senator. He spent less than a year as Reagan's Navy Secretary, so he only has two and a half years of experience in government. I think the Republicans would slaughter him for that, in addition to his many personal problems which they love to attack on a regular basis.

Obama needs to pick either a Clinton supporter, such as Ed Rendell; a woman, such as Janet Napolitano; or someone who would counter Obama's negatives and hasn't endorsed yet, such as Sherrod Brown. Picking Clinton could be campaign suicide, and picking someone who would be repeatedly under fire by the Republican attack machine isn't a smart move, either.
 
Rendell and Brown would both work. But they need both states...
 
I wish Webb had a full Senate term under his belt, or had been elected to another political office before becoming a Senator. He spent less than a year as Reagan's Navy Secretary, so he only has two and a half years of experience in government. I think the Republicans would slaughter him for that, in addition to his many personal problems which they love to attack on a regular basis.

Couldn't Webb counter that by saying he didn't believe in Reagan's policies in that role so he left because he had to follow his own principals and couldn't do that if he stayed.

Reagan isn't a saint, either. The reason must have been huge to leave his post and I'd like to hear that in a public forum. It would deflate the false idea the Republicans have spent years building him up in the media he's an infallible god.

This would anger the Republicans and the so-called "Reagan" Democrats but I don't think the rank and file Democrats or the independents would care what he says about Ronald.

Obama needs to pick either a Clinton supporter, such as Ed Rendell; a woman, such as Janet Napolitano; or someone who would counter Obama's negatives and hasn't endorsed yet, such as Sherrod Brown. Picking Clinton could be campaign suicide, and picking someone who would be repeatedly under fire by the Republican attack machine isn't a smart move, either.

I agree.
 
Clinton doesn't have the sense to drop out of the race when she mathematically can't win and was out of money months ago. What makes people think she would be any better than Bush.
 
Clinton doesn't have the sense to drop out of the race when she mathematically can't win and was out of money months ago. What makes people think she would be any better than Bush.

What makes anyone think that she would be worse than Bush?
 
Clinton doesn't have the sense to drop out of the race when she mathematically can't win and was out of money months ago. What makes people think she would be any better than Bush.
Whenever I think her not dropping out, I always get this vision of a spoilt child throwing a tantrum.....But, it's mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....You can't have it!!!!!

Myself, I think she'll do everything she can to make sure McCain wins, so she can come back in '12.:cmad:
 
Couldn't Webb counter that by saying he didn't believe in Reagan's policies in that role so he left because he had to follow his own principals and couldn't do that if he stayed.

Reagan isn't a saint, either. The reason must have been huge to leave his post and I'd like to hear that in a public forum. It would deflate the false idea the Republicans have spent years building him up in the media he's an infallible god.

This would anger the Republicans and the so-called "Reagan" Democrats but I don't think the rank and file Democrats or the independents would care what he says about Ronald.

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have a sick love obsession with Reagan... the American people overwhelmingly approve of him... and I think any attacks on Reagan would reflect poorly on the Democratic candidate. Plus, it's been twenty years since Reagan left office, so his policies are a bit irrelevant right now.

Of course, I do wonder how much longer mainstream Republican candidates will give Reagan's corpse a postmortem rim job...
 
The Republicans aren't the only ones who have a sick love obsession with Reagan... the American people overwhelmingly approve of him... and I think any attacks on Reagan would reflect poorly on the Democratic candidate. Plus, it's been twenty years since Reagan left office, so his policies are a bit irrelevant right now.

Of course, I do wonder how much longer mainstream Republican candidates will give Reagan's corpse a postmortem rim job...

They will until there is another "great" Republican President.
 
Good luck with that.

I'm just saying...that's when they will stop invoking the name of Reagan. When there is a suitable replacement. Obviously, the Bush family doesn't qualify.
 
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/14/clinton-campaign-were-ahead-in-the-popular-vote/

Can somebody say "delusional?"

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Wednesday Hillary Clinton has overcome Barack Obama in the total popular vote.

“Senator Clinton took the lead in the popular vote last night because voters believe she is the candidate best able to beat John McCain and lead our country," McAuliffe said.

Is he right? That depends on which measure of the popular vote is used.

Four different scenarios of the total popular vote have been kicked around: (1) only counting primary contests without factoring in Florida and Michigan, whose contests were not sanctioned by the national party, (2) counting primary and caucus contests without Florida and Michigan, (3) counting primaries and contests and Florida but not Michigan, and (4) counting all primaries and caucuses including Florida and Michigan.

Clinton trails in all four counts, but by significantly different margins. In the first scenario she trails by by about 397,000, in the second she's behind 699,000, in the third she has a 405,000 vote deficit, and in the fourth scenario she trails by 77,000 votes.

The fourth scenario does not give Obama any votes out of Michigan, where he did not appear on the ballot.

The only scenario in which Clinton would appear to have the lead is a fifth scenario that only counts primary states – including both Florida and Michigan – and excludes any votes cast in the party’s caucuses. In that count, Clinton currently holds a lead of about 225,000 votes.
 
Nutso.

The best thing Hillary can do for the democratic party at this point is make a big public announcement that she's dropping out of the race and throwing her support behind Obama. There is no need for the division that currently exists, which only exists because Hillary keeps going with this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"