Monday, January 21, 2008

CNN Democratic Presidential "Debate"

Tonight was the most I've watched of any debate so far.

Obama and Edwards are WAY beyond Clinton--for the country, as well as for New Orleans.

I have no doubt that Clinton would throw NOLA under the bus for any sort of deal that put her or kept her in office.

10 comments:

Chuch Norris said...

you know who to vote for.

Commercial said...

Is Drew Brees registered in Orleans Parish?

angels, saints, and bears oh my said...

We need to discuss this. Your very negative attitude toward Hillary might approach "list" material. Perhaps it will all make more sense to me over g&t's & fresh dungeness (hopefully unpolluted by the oil spill) crab.

Mr. Clio said...

I ain't afraid of no list.

My main reason for an anti-Clinton stance is this: the last time America held a national election without a Bush or Clinton on the ticket, I was 10 years old. I'm 41 now. Don't you think we can find leaders from other families, given that there are 300 million Americans?

If Jesus's or Mary's last name were Bush or Clinton and either was running for president in 2008, I still wouldn't vote for either one.

P.S. I notice that you call Clinton by her first name. Do you do the same for Obama and Edwards? Why is it you call the woman by her first name? I don't think you're showing Hillary Clinton much respect by doing that.

P.P.S. Yes, all will be solved and list wiped clean over drinks soon.

Angels, Saints, and Bears oh my said...

Clearly you don't fear any list.

Lame reason not to vote for someone. Also doesn't explain your reason for saying she would throw NOLA under the bus. The phenomenon of Bush I and II and the brother in FL ending up on the ticket repeatedly, strikes me as really different than Hillary Clinton ending up there after her husband. The old "born on third but thinks he hit a triple" quote does not apply. Hillary (...and I do slip into first names with Barack but not with Edwards. John is too nondescript. I certainly didn't mean to offend your sense of propriety Dr. Clio) not only hit a triple but stayed in the game despite the fact that she was told women are not allowed to play.

Give me a substantive reason not to like her. I am actually open to hearing it.

NOLA radfem said...

I'm with you Mr. Clio (just found your blog via Ashley Morris' site). I'll be 40 this year and RONALD REAGAN was the last president we had who wasn't a Clinton or Bush, and I was a kid then. The dynasty thing seems inherently undemocratic.

Also, I campaigned for Clinton years ago and was even a delegate to the county and then state convention for him (elsewhere, when my husband was in the military), but I'm really sick of his behavior and sick of him, all red in the face and lecturing people - retire the Clenis, I say. I don't think I can't stand another eight years of him. I realize Hillary Clinton would be president this time, but I can't stand eight more years of that guy ranting. It violates the spirit - if not the letter - of the 22nd amendment. As FDR said, eight years of anybody is enough.

Also, I appreciate your comment that "Hillary" seems sexist. I've never understood that, not when the guys aren't "John" and "Barack."

NOLA radfem said...

I just realized you have the counter for the cost of the Iraq war on your blog and the Bush counterdown clock too. A kindred spirit!

bayoustjohndavid said...

"My main reason for an anti-Clinton stance is this: the last time America held a national election without a Bush or Clinton on the ticket, I was 10 years old. I'm 41 now."

I've heard that a point (or a similar one) a thousand times, but I've yet to hear a single person explain its great importance or relevance to Hillary Clinton. Bushes on six tickets; one Clinton on two -- so what? That's your main reason?

Use of "Hillary" sexist -- done by supporters and detractors. Also done for the sake of brevity to distinguish her from her husband.

Hillary will do anything to win? Just like what they said about Al Gore eight years ago.

Nabil said...

My issues are Iraq, and Katrina.

1) Clinton represents continuity, with nicer rhetoric. You decide.

2) Edwards represents a spotty past, but the right positions right now. His Iraq positions are fuzzy and utopian, but his Katrina stands have been great.

3) Obama's perfect on Iraq, with detail and correct outlook on his website (not in his speeches, strangely). His Katrina positions are as fuzzy as Edwards' Iraq positions...

I was leaning Edwards until tonight, and now I'm leaning Obama.

I've also pointed out the first name thing, and avoid it all the time.

Angels, Saints, and Bears oh my said...

Many of the promotional materials issued by the Clinton campaign say "Hillary" on them. It is not hard to understand, just from reading the thread of this conversation, why she feels the need and desire to distinguish herself as an individual .

No one has yet given a substantive reason for not voting for her. That is what bothers me about this. I am seriously considering each of the candidates, listening to thier positions, evaluating my own assessment of thier character and where that assessment might be coming from. When I talk to people about Hillary I hear her getting written off for being a Clinton or because they don't like her husband or because she has been the connected to the political establishment for longer than the other two (I am guessing that was what the "Clinton represents continuity" comment was about).

Is the only difference between her and Obama the fact that her husband was President? Also, someone please explain to me how Hillary Clinton as president is bad for New Orleans. That issue actually matters to me as do the opinions of New Orleanians on the subject. Please help me out on this.