Hillary: Caucusing Isn't Easy — For Women
During an interview shown this morning on the Today Show, Hillary Clinton made an interesting claim about the peculiarities of the caucus system — that it's socially more difficult for women voters:
"They would rather just keep their vote to themselves," Hillary said. NBC then followed this with Meredith Vieira's narration that Hillary's campaign had previously carried an air of inevitability — perhaps a subtle commentary that Hillary is trying to massage expectations against a possible caucus loss.
Comments (124)
Anna wrote on January 2, 2008 11:05 AM:That is complete BS. Don't women make up like 58% of Caucus goers? And as a woman, I really can't relate to that whole shyness thing. She is definitely trying to lower expectations.
Chris Brown wrote on January 2, 2008 11:07 AM:Why would women differ from men in this regard?
I find the Senator's statement utterly ridiculous on its face.
Oh please! wrote on January 2, 2008 11:08 AM:Pseudo-feminist piffle! This female Iowan caucus-goer is deeply irritated by Hillary's attempt to invoke feminist rhetoric as cover for her own (potential) electoral short-comings. Plenty of Iowan men are uncomfortable with the caucus process too. Reticence is culturally valued here, and not just for women. If anything, I'd say the system works most powerfully against the young.
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 11:10 AM:Why does she insist on making this election a battle of the sexes? I find it really pathetic. Neither Boxer or Feinstein did that in their senate races, ever. Pelosi didn't do that. Thatcher didn't do that. So why does she insist on doing this? Talk about sexist.
Organizer wrote on January 2, 2008 11:11 AM:Everything she says is fine, and the tone and voice modulation is good - but what's with the long "A"? I know folksingers sometimes use a long "A" in their singing - it somehow conveys a devotion to tradition, kind of a faux authenticity (there's an oxymoron for you).
But I have never heard an actual human being use a long "A" in conversation. Maybe I'm overreacting here, but I found it very noticeable and totally off-putting. I just found it strange.
I'm curious what anyone else thought about this odd vocal tic - I don't care who you're supporting. Did you notice it? Am I crazy here?
to Organizer wrote on January 2, 2008 11:30 AM:You are crazy
Jeremy wrote on January 2, 2008 11:30 AM:The women I know don't fit Hillary's stereotype.
Uh wrote on January 2, 2008 11:31 AM:Bueller? Bueller?
How have we not had a post concerning Ms. Experience on Pakistan? This freeze-out is ridiculous.
Bull Dodo wrote on January 2, 2008 11:32 AM:Most folks would like to keep most things to themselves. Men learn social skills late, that is one of the BIG differences in human development. Now Clinton is trying to turn this around in some way? What a pile of Bull dodo.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 2, 2008 11:32 AM:Golly Hill . . . If only women had a candidate that they could get fired up about . . . Someone they felt understood them and was for them and not the corporations that deny them childcare and healthcare and linving wage and . . .
Keith wrote on January 2, 2008 11:33 AM:Newsflash: Women, like men, would prefer to cast their ballots in private. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing.
NCSteve wrote on January 2, 2008 11:34 AM:I'd think anyone voting for Hillary would rather just keep their vote to themselves as opposed to having to publicly defend it.
(Sorry. Too easy. Couldn't resist.)
terry hallinan wrote on January 2, 2008 11:37 AM:I would tell my wife how to vote but she has a lethal left hook.
Lot more women into that sort of thing these days.
I guess nobody told Hillary.
Best, Terry
colonpowwow wrote on January 2, 2008 11:42 AM:Good one, NCSteve. What's that thing about "(s)he who laughs last . . . "?
Personally, I just think that a lot of this stuff is a stilted attempt by her to make connections with other women. Obama does similar things in his attempts to woo black voters.
Lowering expectations is also a savvy thing to do since Iowa looks to be so close and the caucus thing looks funny to a lot of us anyhow.
Bupalos wrote on January 2, 2008 11:42 AM:Sigh... This is just one of those...you know, one of those "certain obstacles" that are put in front of women by those non-women type people wink wink.
Ah, if I could only recount all the obstacles I've had to face in fighting my way into private high school prep, and into Wellesley, and into the college Republicans, into that Goldwater campaign and into the most advantageous political marriage I could find, and enduring those awful Okies or whatever they were down there...ah the weary miles I've traveled for you sisters, for YOU!
Helter wrote on January 2, 2008 11:42 AM:The woman thing is Hillary's "go to" talking point when she feels like she needs a boost. It's her version of Rudy's ritualistic "9/11" invocation.
Maybe she's talking about women over 60 or something, because culturally I don't see this as an issue among younger women.
colonpowwow wrote on January 2, 2008 11:47 AM:Bupalos:
Gosh, you're a sensitive person of the oughts, aren't you?
Rather than take on your sexist rant point by point by listing her personal accomplishments in a time where it was even tougher for a woman, I'll just point out that Bill wasn't any big political asset when they first met.
Bupalos wrote on January 2, 2008 11:49 AM:"Maybe she's talking about women over 60 or something"
That's her base demographic. But honestly, I don't even know all that many women over 60 who fit this stereotype. I find the "tough old bird" a much more common species nowadays than the "timid house wren." Certainly among the politically active and aware, which I would say democrats tend to be.
brm wrote on January 2, 2008 11:49 AM:Bye Bye Goldwater girl
Nobody male or female wants to be seen as voting for you.
Oh chill out fer crisssakes. Asked and answered, stop over-analyzing everything she says and get a freaking life. If your candidate wins fine, if he doesn't and HRC does, fine. What effing good does it do for you to harangue the rest of us with your piffle? Say something useful, or STFU.
Rigan wrote on January 2, 2008 11:57 AM:Testy, testy.
Art wrote on January 2, 2008 12:01 PM:did anyone else find it interesting when sen. clinton said "you have to go stand in a corner and say i'm for x or i'm for y". is this more gender-laden language (saying x and y, instead of a and b, or this candidate or that candidate), or am i just reading into this too much?
Bupalos wrote on January 2, 2008 12:12 PM:"I'll just point out that Bill wasn't any big political asset when they first met."
O.K. And now you tell me what significant political success she had when they first met... Goldwater notwithstanding. Your point sir or madam?
Sorry about that "sexist rant." In my warped, violent, male dominated, middle-class world, if you imply some kind of special knowledge of secret psychological oppression you are supposed to have some kind of record of being oppressed. Hillary has was privileged beyond 99% of the men and women in America, and her history bespeaks it. I find her attempt to "lower expectations" on the basis of some kind of supposed fellow feeling with poor oppressed timid women pretty crass and tone deaf. She'll drop this one like a hot potato. Just watch. She can only stand to hint at this, not actually stand behind it. Just like the "certain obstacles" phrase. It's a kind of whisper defense.
moondancer wrote on January 2, 2008 12:19 PM:Pitiful. As things tighten, the veneer wears off. I look for candidates that try to win on merit, I deplore ones that say anything to win.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 2, 2008 12:21 PM:I would tell my wife how to vote but she has a lethal left hook.Lot more women into that sort of thing these days.
Totally off topic, but I just wanted to mention that as I have been going around canvassing for Obama in my neighborhood in the city of St Louis, I have been really suprised at the number of young women who have told me that they let their husbands make these sorts of decisions. Of course, it is possible that some of these folks were just saying that to get me off of their doorstep politely, but every time I get that response I think to myself "did I just fall into some sort of time warp?"
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 12:22 PM:She is so toast. Obama is now getting as much of the female vote in Iowa as Hillary.
Sandra wrote on January 2, 2008 12:22 PM:I think it must be somewhat intimidating to campaign in a state that has never elected a woman to the seats of governor, senator, or representative.
Chris Brown wrote on January 2, 2008 12:23 PM:Art,
You're reading way too much into it.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 12:23 PM:The largest voting bloc that she has are middle aged women who have grappled with adultery.
john mccutchen wrote on January 2, 2008 12:25 PM:Seems as if Billary was grappling with SINBAD this morning.
Wonder if he was the one who briefed her on the 2002 Iraq NIE? She didn't read it.
dajafi wrote on January 2, 2008 12:28 PM:She really is the Romney of the Democrats, with the possible difference that I haven't seen Romney bristle so much whenever anyone dares to challenge his dishonesty.
It's still too close to call, but I'm beginning to get the sense that Iowans are rejecting Clinton's unfathomable arrogance and sense of entitlement. How dare they attempt to ask her questions!
nogo war wrote on January 2, 2008 12:33 PM:A little surprised but not shocked.
Given her campaign where gender is a major factor I would have thought she would have given something more empowering like
"The days when woman let a male decide for them are diminishing are fading and will soon be over."
My mother is 87..lives in rural eastern Iowa, she has not will not be intimidated.
Very strange remark on the eve..
by the way I agree with the poster who said it is hard for Iowa men also.
Male Farmers (I have many relatives there) tend to be reclusive..hey they live on a farm.
This is pretty interesting…
Hillary Clinton’s Recent Meteoric Rise in Wealth Pictorial Graph
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html
I just read the synopsis on the first page about her foreign policy experience in bosnia coming at the direction of SINBAD!!!!! Finally, somebody asks a freaking question about the basis of her bs foreign policy experience. SINBAD, tooooooo funny.
Absolutely dajafi, she is the romney on the dem side. Also, what great progressive program was enacted during the clinton years, clinton II lovers? I really don't understand all this nostalgia concerning the clinton I years. They weren't that great and dems got nothing accomplished as far as I can remember. We would be better off trying something new. Finally, I would submit that the clinton I & II agendas are far more in line with the bushes agenda, than mainstream "progressive" dems.
waka waka wrote on January 2, 2008 12:37 PM:Where's the media on Hillary's complete ignorance on what's actually going on in Pakistan? Does she get a pass because she met Bhutto a couple of times?
Can anyone imagine what the response would have been if Obama had fumbled the topic this badly, TWICE?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was praised in the wake of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for demonstrating her command of the players and the issues at stake in Pakistan, even as another candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, was criticized for stumbling over details.
But in two confident television appearances, on CNN and ABC, Clinton made an elementary error about Pakistani politics: She described President Pervez Musharraf as a "candidate" who would be "on the ballot."
In fact, Musharraf was reelected to the presidency in October. The upcoming elections are for parliament, and while Musharraf's party will be facing off against opposition parties, the president himself is not a candidate.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_errs_on_Pakistan_.html
willyjsimmons wrote on January 2, 2008 12:38 PM:Clinton describes the caucusing process as intimidating...
Meredith Viera then proceeds to talk to first time caucusers...clip ends...
WTF was the point of this post? LOL
moondancer wrote on January 2, 2008 12:41 PM: I doubt the average voter could discern much difference between HRC and the chimp as far as the mideast goes if they read unsigned position papers.
FWIW, I don't think Clinton's mis-statement on Pakistan is a big deal at all. These people are exhausted both physically and mentally--imagine trying to shift gears from nuclear non-proliferation to health care to tax reform to Iraq to farm policy to any one of twenty other things, all while trying to remember the names of the local mucketymucks who are introducing you and always keeping a smile fixed upon your face.
And all this on weeks of sleeping two to four hours per night. It would be more humane to settle the campaign by some kind of drinking contest.
I trust Clinton's command of the facts. It's her judgment I deem not very good.
Liam wrote on January 2, 2008 12:52 PM:Hillary has flip flopped on the subject. Now she is claiming that Women prefer to stay home, bake cookies, and just stand by their man, "like Tammy Wynette", instead of having to do that man stuff, such as voting.
Do you really want the first Woman President to be one who says that Women find voting too hard? Good lord, and she calls herself a feminist. Shame on her.
zooguitar wrote on January 2, 2008 12:58 PM:To Colonpowwow and Sandra:
Please don't mistake valid criticisms of Hillary as sexist. This country has never elected a female president, either; a fact which I'm pretty sure was public knowledge prior to 2006. If she thought it was going to be daunting because of that fact, she certainly had plenty of time to consider that. To cite it now is a straw argument.
And as far as overcoming her legitimately difficult obstacles, I'll only grant you one out of the ones that Bupalos mentioned: getting into Yale Law School. I don't think growing up a well-to-do WASP girl in 1950s suburban Chicago was any kind of Job-like existence. And I'm pretty sure Wellesley's views on gender equality are the same today as an all-women's school as they were as an all-women's school back when Hillary went.
Please. Chris Rock said it best: she's running a campaign that was consructed with the same logic that created GWB's: establishment connections, famous last name.
Kansas-City-Dem wrote on January 2, 2008 1:01 PM:Sorry, but the midwestern women I know aren't intimidated by much. My aunt in rural Illinois (about 20 miles from the Iowa border) married a farmer. You can't get a word out of that guy, but she's gotta be one of the more outspoken woman I've ever met.
It almost feels that Hillary was belittling (sp?) these poor little midwestern ladies who have to walk into these big mean caucus rooms. Gimme a break.
BWR wrote on January 2, 2008 1:18 PM:Organizer, I don't hear any unusual A sound at all. Hillary's pronunciation seemed totally normal.
Obama does frequently use a very broad A--I noticed that when he says "Pakhistan," it comes out "PAWkistan." And that's a legitimate variant, but I'm from the midwest so don't hear it that often.
denis wrote on January 2, 2008 1:23 PM:Some female posters on this story have indicated their alarm at Senator Clinton's put down of women in this story... I am shocked their are not more. To place Iowa women in the role and sterotype of being afraid to voice their oppinion is unbelievable, especially when done by a women that claims to be fighting for women. In my area the Democratic Party organization is predominately women. If my memory serves me right at the last caucus I attended women were by far the largest group. If a male candidate had made the statment made by Senator Clinton she whould be chastizing "the boys" for their sexist remarks.
If it is wrong to vote against a candidate because she is a woman it is wrong to vote for a candidate because she is a woman.
What this sounds like, to me: Hillary has focused on getting Women in Iowa to come out for her, and it looks like she is trying to lower expectations about how many of them will actually support her. They may still come out, but not all of them will support her, so she has decided to preemptively blame the Woman, and say that they just do not have the right stuff to handle that nasty male caucus chore.
It appears that the Hillary camp have decided it is better to disparage the women voters, rather than have to explain why Hillary did not get the big gender gap support that she had put so much effort into.
There must be something in the Clinton camp tracking data showing that she is not going to get the support of as many women as she had worked for.
Therefore they sent Hillary out to blame the Women for being so weak, instead of having to blame their candidate for such a weak showing.
Radio Head wrote on January 2, 2008 1:36 PM:Campaign slogan of the day:
"Clinton: Speaking up for intimidated middle-class white women since at least 2005."
blackstar wrote on January 2, 2008 1:40 PM:FWIW, I don't think Clinton's mis-statement on Pakistan is a big deal at all. These people are exhausted both physically and mentally--imagine trying to shift gears from nuclear non-proliferation to health care to tax reform to Iraq to farm policy to any one of twenty other things, all while trying to remember the names of the local mucketymucks who are introducing you and always keeping a smile fixed upon your face.
---------------
no. the situation in Pakistan is the most important foreign policy situation in the world right now. even if she knew absolutely nothing about the country or situation beforehand, if that fact doesn't necessitate a thorough briefing, i don't know what does.
but this is a candidate who is running almost solely on "experience", particularly in foreign affairs. she even said in an interview last month that Pakistan was the most dangerous country in the world.... yet she doesn't know how their elections work? someone who touts their foreign policy "experience" should know pat exactly what the electoral system in Pakistan is and when elections are taking place, given its importance on the world stage, as well as you or i know the British or Canadian systems.
finally she should know, given her claimed "close association" with Fmr. Prime Minister Bhutto, what Bhutto was doing (campaigning for her party, not herself) when she was killed.
her comments on Pakistan open up a world of falsehoods and fundamental misunderstandings supplyed by Mrs. Clinton and accepted without research by bad journalists. this should be a much bigger story.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 1:44 PM:Ahhhh, the Hillary Haters are out in full force today.
If leading substantially in national polls of Democrats is a "weak showing" then how pathetic is Obama's distant second in those same polls?
Nobody raised an eyebrow when Mrs. Obama said people need to vote for her husband because he's black and neither did they raise an eyebrow when it was a big story that more blacks weren't supporting Obama, as if the fact he's black was sufficient reason to be voting for him.
Look in the mirror, Hillary Haters, look in the mirror.
Organizer: "Long A"? What the hell are you talking about? There was nothing at all odd in the way she was speaking in those very short sound bites.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 1:46 PM:blackstar: " . . . the situation in Pakistan is the most important foreign policy situation in the world right now . . ."
So, was Obama asked the same question?
If not, why not?
If so, how did his answer compare?
slb wrote on January 2, 2008 1:51 PM:is this more gender-laden language (saying x and y, instead of a and b, or this candidate or that candidate), or am i just reading into this too much?
You are reading way, way, WAY too much into it. You need to get out more.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 1:56 PM:So, basically Clinton was saying that Musharref wasn't elected in free and fair elections, that Pakistan should move towards having such an election, and that when such elections do occur it would be necessary to allow a sufficient number of viable opposition candidates stand for election and for Musharref to follow the same rules as those other candidates for the election to be in fact free and fair.
Yeah, what a "goof" that was!
Can Obama even find Pakistan on a map?
goldberry wrote on January 2, 2008 2:01 PM:This is true. Hillary is not the most popular candidate. A lot of that unpopularity is unearned but there it is. To support her means you have to have courage to buck the conventional wisdom. I don't think women like confrontation and they have been taught from childhood to be consensus builders, to stay with the group, to defer to authority. Women, especially older women may have a hard time standing up for her if they have to do it in front of their husbands and fellow church members. However, if they *do* stand up for her, the skills that women bring to getting consensus from the non-viable candidates may be invaluable to Clinton.
So, the rate limiting energy barrier is the first vote. The second should be a piece of cake.
So, was Obama asked the same question?
If not, why not?
If so, how did his answer compare?
-----------
he did say at that time that the situation in Pakistan was dangerous, but when it was asked to him, Benazir Bhutto was still alive. her death was that catalyst that turned Pakistan into such a threat, though the seeds of the problem that Obama talked about in response to that question have been around for some time.
kjoe wrote on January 2, 2008 2:07 PM:If Hillary is going to hedge her expectations, then so can the rest of us. I predict it will be Hillary 30, edwards 29, and Obama 28---but the numerical results will be overshadowed by the stories of high-handed, unfair, even outright dishonest behavior and manipulation by Clinton operatives in the running of some caucuses.
NCSteve wrote on January 2, 2008 2:08 PM:Obama got his B.A. in political science with an emphasis in foreign relations from Columbia University. I am confident he can, in fact, find Pakistan on a map.
In fact, I expect he could even identify the major political players in the country, explain the distinction between the presidency and the premiership in a parlimentary system and that he probably even grasps the ramifications of that distinction when it comes to identifying who is, and is not, a candidate in a parlimentary election.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 2:08 PM:So, basically Clinton was saying that Musharref wasn't elected in free and fair elections, that Pakistan should move towards having such an election, and that when such elections do occur it would be necessary to allow a sufficient number of viable opposition candidates stand for election and for Musharref to follow the same rules as those other candidates for the election to be in fact free and fair.
Yeah, what a "goof" that was!
-------------
basically you should go back and read the transcript. and if you still reach this same conclusion, maybe you should go back to school.
her answer was entirely predicated on her FALSE assumption that these upcoming elections were Presidential elections for which Bhutto and Musharraf would be standing. they are not. they are parliamentary elections. there is a huge difference. its also important to note that Bhutto wasn't out campaigning for Musharraf's ousting or her own election, but rather for parliamentary seats for her party.
Mrs. Clinton didn't know, and didn't take the time to learn, the very basics of the situation in Pakistan. that is an immense and unforgivable problem for any candidate, especially one running on their "experience and competence".
hettie wrote on January 2, 2008 2:09 PM:Why would Hillary even be interviewed by the obvious Repug Viera. And you know what? I am one of 10 sisters, we have lots of daughters and grandaughters, and we know it is harder for a woman to get away to do anything in the evening. It is the mother who usually prepared dinner, does dishes, helps with homework, and puts the kids to bed. Oh, I know, there are a few men who do these things, but in the real world it is mostly women. So her comment makes perfect sense to me that women would have a harder time getting to the caucuses.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 2:21 PM:NCSteve: "In fact, I expect he could even identify the major political players in the country, explain the distinction between the presidency and the premiership in a parlimentary system and that he probably even grasps the ramifications of that distinction when it comes to identifying who is, and is not, a candidate in a parlimentary election."
Then why hasn't he been put on the hot seat the same as Clinton and demands made that he comment fully on Pakistan and the current tragic events there?
After all, if he's running on his training in political science and foreign affairs, he should have to demonstrate it.
===============
Anonymous: "her answer was entirely predicated on her FALSE assumption that these upcoming elections were Presidential elections for which Bhutto and Musharraf would be standing."
There is no such predicate in the transcript, which I did read.
Apparently you haven't read it or you are just prepared to lie about it.
Liam wrote on January 2, 2008 2:34 PM:Hillary has been touting that she is the only one with the experience to be up to speed from day one. So after she gets sworn in as President, will she then wait for Pakistan to hold their Presidential election, that has already been held. She is really starting to fall apart. Just amazing that she actually sounds as clueless about foreign affairs as Mike Huckabee. Must be something about Arkansas that makes their political leaders so insular. She needs to get in touch with Sinbad so that he can bring her up to speed on foreign affairs.
Both the Clintons and Huckabee come from a place called Hopeless
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 2:38 PM:Why would Hillary even be interviewed by the obvious Repug Viera. And you know what? I am one of 10 sisters, we have lots of daughters and grandaughters, and we know it is harder for a woman to get away to do anything in the evening. It is the mother who usually prepared dinner, does dishes, helps with homework, and puts the kids to bed. Oh, I know, there are a few men who do these things, but in the real world it is mostly women. So her comment makes perfect sense to me that women would have a harder time getting to the caucuses.
Problem is - that's not what she said.
"They would rather just keep their vote to themselves," Hillary said.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 2:39 PM:This was Obama's OFFICIAL statement in November 2007:
"It is in the interests of the Pakistani people and the United States to see our ally move toward democracy . . ."
You can't move toward democracy if you are already a democracy, so Obama apparently didn't know that Pakistan is a democracy, which is pretty pathetic for someone claiming to be an expert on foreign affairs by training.
This is at least as fair an interpretation of Obama's OFFICIAL statement on the topic as Hillary Haters' interpretation of Clinton's off-the-cuff remarks.
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 2:43 PM:A little off topic, but an excellent analysis why we can't have clinton II as the nominee due to her high negatives and divisiveness. So marginally, its on topic.
Check it out:
blackstar wrote on January 2, 2008 2:54 PM:You can't move toward democracy if you are already a democracy, so Obama apparently didn't know that Pakistan is a democracy, which is pretty pathetic for someone claiming to be an expert on foreign affairs by training.
-----------
Pakistan is ruled by a military dictator (Musharraf). free and fair elections are notoriously hard to come by. "towards democracy" can be used in reference to a country if the country in question is a democracy in name only (as in the case with Pakistan). democracy is by definition as much a state of affairs as it is a system of government. so there was no misspeak, and you have no reading comprehension.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 2:55 PM:Liam: "So after she gets sworn in as President, will she then wait for Pakistan to hold their Presidential election, that has already been held."
And how long will Obama wait for Pakistan to become a democracy (which it already is)?
Is Obama from Hopeless, Illinois, then?
I guess they just didn't teach Pakistan in Columbia's foreign relations courses, eh?
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 2:59 PM:blackstar: "Pakistan is ruled by a military dictator (Musharraf). free and fair elections are notoriously hard to come by. "towards democracy" can be used in reference to a country if the country in question is a democracy in name only (as in the case with Pakistan). democracy is by definition as much a state of affairs as it is a system of government. so there was no misspeak, and you have no reading comprehension."
No, democracy is a system of government, no matter how much you want to spin the term and lie about it.
In any event, my point was that anyone can take a quote by the candidate and give it a literal meaning, read in extra meaning, and/or take it out of context in order to make up an issue out of whole cloth, which is what Hillary Haters have done with her response.
Your pathetic attempt to rationalize Obama's statement which is similarly inept and imprecise simply proves my point all the more.
blackstar wrote on January 2, 2008 3:00 PM:There is no such predicate in the transcript, which I did read.
Apparently you haven't read it or you are just prepared to lie about it.
---------------------
*emphasis mine.
Dec. 30, 2007
STEPHANOPOULOS: So we don’t need the elections on the 8th?
CLINTON: Well, I think it will be very difficult to have a real
election. You know, Nawaz Sharif has said he’s not going to compete.
The PPP is in disarray with Benazir’s assassination. He (Musharraf) could be THE ONLY PERSON ON THE BALLOT*. I don’t think that’s a real election.
Dec. 28th, 2007
Clinton: Obviously, it’s going to take some time for Benazir Bhutto’s party to choose a successor. Nawaz Sharif has said that he won’t participate at this time. I believe again some kind of international support for free and fair elections in a timely manner would be incredibly important. IF PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF WISHES TO STAND FOR ELECTION*, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow.
but nice try on that spin chief.
Democrat Joe Biden suggested Tuesday that presidential rival Hillary Clinton doesn't adequately understand recent events in Pakistan.
The Delaware senator was responding to news that Clinton suggested in two recent interviews that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is up for reelection this month.
Musharraf was actually reelected in October, and the upcoming Pakistani elections are parliamentary, not presidential.
"We have a number of candidates who are well-intentioned but don't understand Pakistan," Biden said at a campaign event Tuesday. "One of the leading candidates — God love her."
"There are good people running," continued the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has made his foreign policy credentials a centerpiece of his long shot presidential bid. "But to say Musharraf is up for election! Musharraf was elected — fairly or unfairly — president six months ago. It's about a parliamentary election!"
Clinton's comments came in an interview with ABC Sunday, in which she said, "[Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election."
The New York senator also made similar comments during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week, saying then, ""If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow."
Both gaffes were first noted by conservative Thomas Houlahan, writing for the Middle East Times.
The Clinton campaign has not yet returned a request for comment on Biden's comments, but said yesterday the New York Democrat was referring to Musharraf's party, not himself in particular.
blackstar wrote on January 2, 2008 3:02 PM:No, democracy is a system of government, no matter how much you want to spin the term and lie about it.
-------------
de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
you're an idiot.
zooguitar said:
"Please. Chris Rock said it best: she's running a campaign that was consructed with the same logic that created GWB's: establishment connections, famous last name."
Is this one of your examples of "legitimate criticism" of Hillary Clinton?
It's a good thing that no Roosevelts, Adams, or Kennedys are running this time. And what about that guy, Gore? How'd he get the inside track on that Tennessee Senate seat again?
brewmn wrote on January 2, 2008 3:07 PM:"Nobody raised an eyebrow when Mrs. Obama said people need to vote for her husband because he's black"
pacc, was that you? Because nobody else on this blog, even the hardest-core Hillarites, tend to spew this racial bilge.
little old lady wrote on January 2, 2008 3:12 PM:It is obvious that many posters here really do not know or understand how many women have been raised or treated—especially in rural areas.
Thirty years ago I taught in a high school in a small town in a rural part of our state. It was like “pulling teeth” to get girls to participate in class discussions. They seemed to be afraid to speak up and voice their opinions. It could have been for a variety of reasons. Possibly not wanting to appear smart in front of boys could have been one reason.
In one particular class I had one boy who dominated all discussions. Even the other boys wouldn’t talk. When I explained that I wanted the opinions of everyone, he very patiently explained to me that he spoke for everyone and no one else had a different opinion. He really believed it.
I had my students writing journals and, once a semester, I would print anonymous excerpts from the journals in a handout. One student wrote in her next journal entry that she was so surprised by the variety of points of view. She was a very outspoken person (probably like many of the posters here) and had no idea that other people didn’t think exactly like she did.
So, don’t be surprised that many people don’t like to state their opinions in an open caucus. They have to go home and live with their spouses, attend church with their neighbors, and work for their bosses.
Annon, don't smear those presidents, or gore. None of them just took the name and ran with the name alone. They used the name as a spring board and did something with it before running for president. Clinton II took the name as a spring board and leaped right to running for president and that's it. She did zip in the senate, except give the king a blank check to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans. Gee, that's doing something with your name.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 3:15 PM:blackstar:
"government by the people" = system of government, the system being by the people.
"a state having such a form of government" . . .
"In the October 2002 general elections, the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) (PML-Q) won a plurality of National Assembly seats with the second-largest group being the Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP), a sub-party of the PPP. Zafarullah Khan Jamali of PML-Q emerged as Prime Minister but resigned on 26 June 2004 and was replaced by PML-Q leader Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain as interim Prime Minister. On 28 August 2004 the National Assembly voted 191 to 151 to elect the Finance Minister and former Citibank Vice President Shaukat Aziz as Prime Minister. Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, a coalition of Islamic religious parties, won elections in North-West Frontier Province, and increased their representation in the National Assembly."
Hmmmm, popular elections and a democratically elected legislature = democracy.
Sorry, but it appears you are the idiot.
Or a liar.
Given your Hillary hatred, I'd say the latter.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 3:21 PM:Michael A: ". . . except give the king a blank check to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans . . ."
She did no such thing, no matter how many times you lie about it.
blackstar wrote on January 2, 2008 3:30 PM:"government by the people" = system of government, the system being by the people.
"a state having such a form of government" . . .
----------
telling that you'd ignore definition 3, which is that sense Obama was referring to here and that is used on a daily basis in discussions of Pakistan by virtually everyone that understands the country.
Hmmmm, popular elections and a democratically elected legislature = democracy.
-----------
hmmm an unelected, autocratic head of state dependent on the support of the armed forces and intelligence services for power that he can use at any time to suspend the judicial or elective processes. that sounds like a country that needs to move TOWARDS DEMOCRACY, don't you think?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 2, 2008 3:32 PM:For what little my opinion is worth, I am with dajafi that Sen Clinton's flub of Pakistan's election is no big deal. There may be a million good reasons to doubt Sen Clinton's I-am-very-very-experienced line, but this is not really one of them.
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 3:33 PM:Annon, she didn't vote to give him a blank check to invade iraq? That's news to me. What's the latest spin?
colonpowwow wrote on January 2, 2008 3:37 PM:Michael A.:
This is my problem with you and your ilk. I've posted many times for public (and your) review - the list of Clinton's committees she serves on, the list of legislation she co-authored, and the endorsements of her work ethic by her peers and even political enemies.
When you say she "accomplished zilch" in the Senate, that's simply not true as I've shown you again and again. You lose credibility when you can't even acknowlege facts - even grudgingly.
I don't see any of Hillary's supporters denigrating Obama here and calling him a "zilch-doer," so why don't you post a similar list of accomplishments that Senator Obama has made in his Senate career so we can compare their Senate careers to date. Of course I don't expect that he's got Hillary's list of accomplishments given that he's only been in a short time, but how about a few bills and amendments that he's authored (in other words, his name's on it).
I'll start you off again:
Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
Hype-Jersey wrote on January 2, 2008 3:39 PM:Of course she's right. Women don't usually like to deal with conflict which is what happens when we disagree with someone about who is best suited to run this country. Also, as a woman who backs Hillary, it sometimes takes courage just to admit that I back her - even among lefties and democrats and especially among men.
Case in point - I'll probably get pummeled on this board for being in clinton's camp and for agreeing 100% with what clinton says in the above clip.
Liam wrote on January 2, 2008 3:40 PM:This what Hillary said:
Clinton's comments came in an interview with ABC Sunday, in which she said, "[Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election."
There is no mistaking what she said. She was saying that Musharraf will be on the ballot. She must not have noticed all the news about Musharraf recently recently having to remove his General's Military uniform, just before he got sworn in for a new term as President of Pakistan.
Hillary is the one who was claiming that Obama's remarks about Pakistan showed that he was not up to the job, and that words count on the world stage. Well, yes they do Hillary, and you just revealed how unprepared and uninformed you really are. There goes your much touted experience claim. You sound just as unaware of foreign affairs as your fellow Arkansan, Mike Huckabee.
blackstar: "hmmm an unelected, autocratic head of state dependent on the support of the armed forces and intelligence services for power that he can use at any time to suspend the judicial or elective processes. that sounds like a country that needs to move TOWARDS DEMOCRACY, don't you think?"
He could have said "reestablish democracy" or "improve its democratic institutions" but he said "move towards democracy" as if there was none of any sort and never had been.
But keep spouting your pathetic rationalizations for Obama's ignorance about Pakistani government or history - you'll go the same way as all the Bush supporters who spouted equally non-sensical rationalizations about his misstatements.
And btw, Pakistan does have a state of "formal" equality of rights and privileges" - it is the informal denial of the same that is at issue.
Read. Their. Constitution. Idiot.
You can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Pakistan
Your rationalization of the "third" definition, then, proves to be just as idiotic as your rationalizations of the first two.
But, hey, by your definition of democracy, the US is not one either, since the last election was stolen and the current leadership has acted outside the scope of its authority and against the will of the people.
Michael A: "That's news to me."
That the Earth is spherical would be news to you.
The resolution Clinton voted for gave Bush no money and no more authority than he already had claimed he inherently had (a claim he has subsequently reaffirmed time and again).
Thus, a vote against the resolution would not have prevented the invasion and therefore didn't cause it, not to mention that it would have still handily passed even with Clinton's dissent.
So, you are lying about Hillary Clinton handing Bush a blank check to invade Iraq in many, many ways and it won't change no matter how many times you smirk self-righteously about Obama's non-support of a resolution that cost him nothing politically, was overwhelmingly in service to a very narrow-based constituency who were predictably anti-invasion by large margins, and therefore was neither a courageous nor an unexpected act.
colonpowwow wrote on January 2, 2008 3:48 PM:Liam:
And Obama once referred to the President of Canada.
I give both things about equal weight. I think they both can hold their own re a good grasp of world political affairs.
Nice try at getting traction with this non-issue though. Hope it works for you over the next two months.
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 3:57 PM:Hi colonpowwow, this is the problem that I have. Your list is meaningless. What major initiative did she promote and drive through the senate to help the american people? NONE. She got on the iraq and iran war bandwagons. She didn't try to stop either travesty or speak out. She just went along with the rest of the sheep. That's a huge negative for me personally, I know that doesn't bother you and you would rather ignore those votes, but they bother me.
I will concede and have conceded repeatedly in the past, she got the puerto rican national forest designated and the woodstock museum and there were minor bills and such. Any senator would have the same "accomplishments." In fact, larry craig probably has more. Should he be president? I am sure biden and dodd have a much larger list. If the list is your thing, why aren't you supporting them?
Absolutely, clinton II supporters and clinton II herself have been denigrating obama and edwards senate records and "experience". That's a laugher to claim otherwise. From day one, clinton II and clinton II people have been denigrating them. Why on earth keep crowing about the word "experience" without any substance?
Finally, Obama isn't running around denigrating edwards "experience" when he clearly has alot more. The only one playing that card is clinton II and there is no substance there, which is evidenced whenever, on a rare occassion, she is called on it. Like her foreign policy experience with sinbad in bosnia.
Lucy wrote on January 2, 2008 3:59 PM:That's ridiculous. This will be my fourth caucus and second time as a Precinct Captain. Women run a lot of party business and I've been having friendly arguments with men and women for months. I've never seen any woman intimidated by this system.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 3:59 PM:Maybe Obama can talk to the "President of Canada" about Canada "moving towards democracy," eh?
I guess they left Canada out of Columbia's foreign relations courses also.
Now, what countries did Obama actually study in those foreign relations courses?
Liechtenstein?
That should prepare him for . . . WWII.
Ooops. Been there. Done that.
BLNT.
Desider wrote on January 2, 2008 4:04 PM:jmatherson,
Are you Memling's sock puppet? In any case, Hillary got $15 million for her book 3 years ago, Bill's speaking income has steadily increased ($10 million last year), and they were paying off settlements and lawyer fees in 2001-2002. No mystery at all.
Regarding women voicing political opinions in public, just contemplate the number of men who like screaming political fights vs. the number of women who do. Sexist? Deal with it. Men can be overbearing opinionated jerks, especially in politics. That women might yield the turf in this area shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone.
Regarding Pakistan comments even the "great internationalist" Joe Biden said Musharraf was elected 6 months ago, not 3 (and only had his participation approved by the Supreme Court after firing the original one and replacing it in November). Bhutto was supposed to be in the October elections but Musharraf kept her from participating so she boycotted. In any case, if she had won the elections this month, she would have become the head of state, even if there was a power sharing agreement reached between the two. But in any case, Hillary's in Iowa, not in Islamabad, so her answer's close enough. Nobody really cares about foreign policy except overbearing obnoxious men who want to bomb something to show we still matter.
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 4:05 PM:First, that is really a silly thing to say about the sort of politically active women likely to caucus in Iowa.
Second, I also don't think Clinton's mistake with respect to Pakistan is a big deal. However, it is relevant to the extent that a lot of her arguments with respect to foreign policy have amounted to trying to manufacture similar "gotcha" moments (particularly with Obama). So, I think this just underscores that what is important is where the person actually stands on foreign policy.
colonpowwow wrote on January 2, 2008 4:06 PM:An oldie but a goodie - here's the "meaningless" list that Michael A. is referring to.
Admittedly a lot of it has to do with the Armed Services and the Environment - but she sits on both committees and chairs a subcommittee that actually meets regularly and works on legislation.
After being elected Senator in a completely Republican controlled environment filled with her political enemies, her first speech on the Senate floor listed 5 healthcare proposals in detail that she could support.
Even Trent Lott across the aisle said in Hillary’s first year in the Senate, “Though I disagree with her on nearly everything politically, you have to be impressed by what a hard worker she is.”
Senator Clinton sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and three subcommittees.
She sits on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and three subcommittees including chairing the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health.
BTW - the Senate subcommittee that Hillary chairs meets regularly and passes legislation (last met in October 2007). The subcommittee that Senator Obama chairs hasn't met ONCE since he's become Senator.
Clinton also sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and two subcommittees, and sits on the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Here is just some of the legislation she has co-authored that is now law. This list doesn't include the hundreds of bills that she has signed onto or that she has strongly advocated - again this is bipartisan legislation passed in spite of an overall hostile Republican environment:
Clinton-Stevens Amendment for Enhanced 911 Funding Included in 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill
Dodd-Clinton Amendment to Expand Family and Medical Leave Benefits to Wounded Soldiers and Their Families
Clinton-Collins Measure to Improve Mental Health Services for Seniors Included in Older Americans Act
Clinton-Enzi Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
Frist-Clinton Wired for Health Care Quality Act
Graham-Clinton TRICARE Benefits Expansion
Clinton-Collins Measure to Protect Men and Women in Uniform From Predatory Lending and Insurance Practices
Clinton-Schumer Amendment to Restore 9/11 Funding
Clinton-Hagel Act – Recognition for wounded veterans.
Schumer-Clinton Bill to Protect 10,000 Acres of Puerto Rico's Caribbean National Forest
Clinton-Talent Military Health Readiness Legislation
Clinton-Nickles Unemployment Extension Agreement
Schumer-Clinton First Responders Amendment
Clinton-Smith Magnet Hospital Provisions Amendment to Nurse Reinvestment Act
Clinton-Dodd-Slaughter Protecting America's Children Against Terrorism Act
In the first part of 2007:
Senator Clinton introduced the Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill
Passed the Dodd-Clinton Amendment that expanded family and medical leave benefits to wounded soldiers and their families.
Authored provisions to the College Cost Reduction Act (now Law) that capped student loan monthly payments pegged to income and expanded Pell grants.
Co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the Senate
Introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Louise Slaughter to inform women of the availability of emergency contraception.
Now I admit that may not seem like much to you, but this is only the first part of 2007. I understand that she's also and remember, she's done a bit of campaigning this year.
To be clear, not every woman's a shrinking violet, but I know enough who leave politics to others.
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 4:07 PM:Well annon, based on your post you are conceding that she voted to give him authority to invade. So what's the problem with my position?
Oh, the problem is that he would have done it anyway so its aok to not read an nie saying the case for war was full of lies. Its aok to just get on that bandwagon and let him do whatever he wants. No problem he would have done it anyway. But, do we really know that. Do we really know that if a person with clinton II's name, namely clinton, got up on the freaking senate floor and pointed out the travesty and the lies and the fact that there was no basis for war, that he would have done it anyway. You don't think the media would have been all over it. She would have been a hero and the lies in the NIE would have come out before people died.
Do we absolutely know that my scenario would have played out? Nope. Do we know that your scenario where her opposition would have meant nothing would have played out? Nope.
But at least it would have been better if she freaking tried, who knows what might have been.
Then after the iraq fiasco, she goes along with the king on iran?????? That's just incredible and beyond the pale.
Bottom line, I don't think the earth is flat and my points are more than valid. You may disagree, and that is your right, but the points are valid nonetheless.
shauna wrote on January 2, 2008 4:10 PM:I'm a female and a feminist and I don't plan on voting for Hilary - however, any time someone says she plays "the woman card" or invokes her gender more often than Guiliani invokes 9/11 makes me want to vote for Hillary just to spite them. Newsflash - misogyny still exists, Hillary Clinton's still dealing with it, and she has every right to make that part of her narrative (which she really doesn't do that much - the idea that she brings it up as much as Guiliani is ludicrous, and usually when it's brought up, it's by the media).
As for the specifics, I was actually expecting an argument along the lines of "caucusing takes more time and effort than primaries, which women have less of, since they are more often primary caretakers in a family". However, I can see this line of reasoning being somewhat true. I remember when I was campaigning for Dean hearing about how a girl wanted to vote for Dean but her father told her if she didn't vote for Kerry she was grounded. While many women are outspoken and proud of it, and most women are no more or less likely to want privacy than men, I can't help thinking that social power imbalances may play some small role in how people vote in a caucus setting.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:15 PM:Michael A: "She got on the iraq and iran war bandwagons."
This is just a flat out lie.
I've never seen Clinton on "[a]n elaborately decorated wagon used to transport musicians in a parade" for any purpose, much less to drum up support for war.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:18 PM:DTM: "However, it is relevant to the extent that a lot of her arguments with respect to foreign policy have amounted to trying to manufacture similar "gotcha" moments (particularly with Obama)."
Yeah, Clinton must've run dozens of commercials on Obama's gaffe on the "President of Canada" and compared it to his supposed study of foreign relations at Columbia being his only experience in foreign policy.
Not.
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 4:19 PM:Now, that was funny annon, that was really funny.
blackstar wrote on January 2, 2008 4:21 PM:And Obama once referred to the President of Canada.
I give both things about equal weight. I think they both can hold their own re a good grasp of world political affairs.
-------------
the difference is that the distinction Obama missed was entirely semantic, the role of President or Prime Minister is essentially the same.
meanwhile, the distinction Clinton missed, between parliamentary elections and presidential elections, particularly in Pakistan, is immense. mainly because something resembling free and fair parliamentary elections CAN take place, while free and fair Presidential elections CANNOT.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:22 PM:Lucy wrote:
"That's ridiculous. This will be my fourth caucus and second time as a Precinct Captain. Women run a lot of party business and I've been having friendly arguments with men and women for months. I've never seen any woman intimidated by this system."
Then why hasn't Iowa elected a woman to a higher office than your state legislature?
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:25 PM:Michael A: "Well annon, based on your post you are conceding that she voted to give him authority to invade."
You can't give someone authority to invade that they already have (at least in their own mind).
Your position is that she caused the US to invade - that she gave Bush the power to do so - which is an absolute lie.
That's what I have a problem with.
"she goes along with the king on iran??????"
This is a lie, too.
The Senate Democrats watered-down Bush's preferred language to the point where it was meaningless political posturing that was viewed as necessary to have some check on the president rather than the non-check the Republican Congress was.
The fact they don't go far enough for you is not proof that they are the same as or in bed with Bush and the GOP.
Your claim that Clinton = Bush is not valid and is unsupported by any facts that aren't reduced in a biased and arbitraty manner to black and white in favor of your Hillary hatred.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:31 PM:blackstar: "meanwhile, the distinction Clinton missed, between parliamentary elections and presidential elections, particularly in Pakistan, is immense."
In your own head . . .
" . . . mainly because something resembling free and fair parliamentary elections CAN take place, while free and fair Presidential elections CANNOT."
Since the success (both electoral and in terms of behind the scenes power) of leaders of political groups are intimately tied to the success and power of their parliamentary constituencies in parliamentary systems, it is just a semantic slip to equate those parliamentary groups to their leaders, which is what Clinton's campaign has confirmed she meant, just as I'm sure Obama's campaign confirmed he meant the prime minister.
But please do rant on about this non-issue and promote the GOP's talking points for them!
That will bring great success for the Democratic Party!
Not.
blackstar wrote on January 2, 2008 4:31 PM:"He could have said "reestablish democracy" or "improve its democratic institutions" but he said "move towards democracy" as if there was none of any sort and never had been."
----------
sure, he could have. but the derogatory connotations of Obama's statement are entirely of your own making. Pakistan DOES need to improve its democratic ideals, as evidenced by the actions over the past 3 months by President Musharraf and the expose sent to the press posthumously by the late Bhutto that claims the parliamentary elections were rigged in any case.
you're perfectly at liberty to see what you want to see, but don't expect rational, critically thinking people to agree with you when your case is so slender that it relies on an unfavourable semantic quibble to be true.
"But, hey, by your definition of democracy, the US is not one either, since the last election was stolen and the current leadership has acted outside the scope of its authority and against the will of the people."
------------
so you would argue that in light of the 2000 elections and the G.W. Bush presidency, the U.S. does NOT need to move towards better integral democratization? that we DO NOT need to do away with signing statements, address the suspension of habeas corpus, and improve our voting system?
i think both i and my candidate are being perfectly consistent with our definitions. you and your candidate however seem to want to use whichever definition benefits you at that time, regardless of consistency.
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 4:38 PM:Well, we disagree, so be it. She voted to give him the authority to invade. That's a fact, regardless of what you believe that his mindset was. Do you read minds?
She voted to designate the iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, which the king wanted. Fact. Why is that a lie?
Incidentally, you should listen to webb's floor speech or read it, he was advocating that voting for the amendment was tantamount to a declaration of war. Is he lying also?
I don't hate your candidate, sorry. I just stick with the facts, not the spin. Facts are facts.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:40 PM:blackstar: " . . . move towards better integral democratization . . ."
See, you didn't use "move towards democracy."
Obama should have said "move towards better integral democratization" rather than make a mistake by implying Pakistan is not a democracy.
Pakistan has a democratic constitution.
Pakistan has held elections and has a currently elected Parliament, regardless whether you think the elections were fair and free or not.
Pakistan is a democracy, albeit one in need of much improvement.
But it is still a democracy and doesn't need to "move towards" something it already is.
Obama's claim is like claiming a football team didn't score a touchdown because it missed the extra point or it has yet to kick the extra point.
If a "touchdown" is made analogous to "democracy" and you want to say Pakistan hasn't scored 7 points, then say so, but quit saying it hasn't scored a touchdown.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:41 PM:Michael A: "Do you read minds?"
No, I read legal opinions by the DOJ and other administration lawyers.
What do you read?
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:47 PM:Michael A: "She voted to designate the iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, which the king wanted."
You said previously she voted for war with Iran (you mentioned something about bandwagons in connection with this claim), not that she voted to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard as a terrorsist organization, something which you now just bring up. Fact. Why are you now changing your story about what you previously said? Because your story is falling apart?
Michael A: "Incidentally, you should listen to webb's floor speech or read it, he was advocating that voting for the amendment was tantamount to a declaration of war. Is he lying also?"
So, Webb's opinion is a "fact?"
Nice try and LOL with that.
BTW, since you place so much worth in his opinion, has Webb ever said that Hillary voted for war with Iran (or Iraq)?
Please provide a link . . .
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 4:48 PM:annon, are they along the lines of the same legal opinions from Regency law school that legalized torture? Hello.
I read speeches, policy positions, nie's when available, declassified intelligence, 9/11 commission reports, wilson op eds, books on the war and the lead up, etc.
blackstar wrote on January 2, 2008 4:51 PM:blackstar: " . . . move towards better integral democratization . . ."
See, you didn't use "move towards democracy."
Obama should have said "move towards better integral democratization" rather than make a mistake by implying Pakistan is not a democracy.
----------------
the 2 terms are interchangeable. i could have said "the U.S. needs to move back towards democracy", and been right, just not AS right as the similar sentiment applied to Pakistan.
for all of the U.S.'s problems, we are not an autocratic dictatorship, which is effectively what Pakistan has been during Musharraf's reign.
your claim depends on the premise that Pakistan is a democracy. but i would ask you how could a country that is ruled by an unelected General of the armed forces who, when his reign was declared unconstitutional, enacted martial law and jailed the judges and lawyers responsible for the decision be considered a "democratic" country?
it may espouse democracy in its constitution, and it may even allow parliamentary elections. but when the power in that country is centralized around a single, unchallengeable ruler who deposes or jails anyone that questions his legitimacy, i don't think we would call that country's government democratic in any meaningful sense.
but again, this is only a matter of definition. Obama's position, that Pakistan as a country has diverted from its democratic ideals and needs a shift back towards them, which you quoted, seemingly has a strong case. so how can you fault him for espousing it?
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 4:54 PM:Read webb's speech annon. Educate yourself.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:56 PM:Michael: "I just stick with the facts, not the spin."
That's a hoot, particularly given colopowwow's takedown of your "Hillary hasn't done anything in Congress" argument.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:58 PM:Michael A: "Read webb's speech annon."
No matter how many times it is read, Webb's assertion is still opinion, not fact.
Something someone who only sticks to the facts (allegedly) should understand.
Here's a fact: there is no "President of Canada."
Michael A wrote on January 2, 2008 5:00 PM:Ok anon, what has she done in congress? I'm not interested in the piddly garbage that colonpowwow keeps repeating. I'm talking along the lines of McCain-Feingold or the attempt at immigration reform that mccain was leading, in the face of strenuous opposition from his party. I'm not a mccain fan, but that's the kind of stuff I am talking about, not the puerto-rican national forest for pete's sake.
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 5:04 PM:Anonymous at 4:18,
No, I mean things like Clinton attacking Obama for saying he would not use nuclear weapons against terrorist camps, when in fact Obama was stating official U.S. policy on the use of nuclear weapons.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 5:07 PM:Michael A: "annon, are they along the lines of the same legal opinions from Regency law school that legalized torture? Hello."
Doesn't really matter, does it, since I never claimed the opinions were sound, but merely that they existed and thus serve as proof that Bush believed he could invade with or without congressional "authorization," "approval," or "acquiescence."
Just as you do with Clinton, you try to put extraneous words and ideas in the statements of those who oppose your bilious and self-righteous hate-mongering against Clinton in order to set up strawmen to defeat.
LOL with that.
blackstar: ". . . your claim depends on the premise that Pakistan is a democracy."
It is not a premise. It is a fact.
That it is not a perfect democracy does not render it a non-democracy.
". . . so how can you fault him for espousing it?"
Because he didn't espouse what you are rationalizing he espoused.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 5:17 PM:Michael A: "I'm not interested in the piddly garbage that colonpowwow keeps repeating."
What is "piddly" to you is very, very meaningful to millions of Americans and tens of thousands of American soldiers.
But hey, you Obama supporters just keep dissing everyone who doesn't elevate those meaningless AUMFs and the equally meaningless so-called campaign reforms as the only priorities for the country.
And didn't it use to be that it wasn't an excuse that Clinton didn't get her legislation passed, yet now you point to a failed McCain bill as "proof" of his legislative "accomplishments?"
Is failed legislation actually an "accomplishment" now?
I mean, we really need to know, lest someone proffer up a failed legislative measure that Clinton proposed only to have the Obama acolytes throw back in their face that "well, it didn't pass" as they have so many times in the past.
Quit changing the ground rules and stick with something other than an endlessly fluid definition of "legislative accomplishments" that is twisted every other post just to have an excuse to diss Clinton.
==================
DTM: "No, I mean things like Clinton attacking Obama for saying he would not use nuclear weapons against terrorist camps, when in fact Obama was stating official U.S. policy on the use of nuclear weapons."
It's nice to know that Obama is in step with current US policies under Bush and doesn't have any of his own to offer, but merely must parrot "official U.S. policy."
Funny from someone who claims that it is CLINTON who is supposedly parroting "official U.S. policy" and giving us more of the same.
Looks like you are making a case that it is Obama who can't think outside the box of current U.S. policy, not Clinton.
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 5:39 PM:anonymous at 5:17,
U.S. policy has been to not use nuclear weapons in that way for decades, under Presidents of both parties. It is actually a key element to our non-proliferation strategy (insofar as it reduces the need for other countries to acquire nuclear weapons to deter our use of nuclear weapons against them).
And Obama has never said he will change every single longstanding U.S. policy, which of course would actually be a very dumb thing to say. In fact, the Bush Administration has been pushing for greater hypothetical uses of nuclear weapons, so on this as on many other issues (such as torture), a return to long-standing U.S. policy would be a very good thing.
anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 5:55 PM:Yeah, no one would raise Clinton's gender as an issue in the campaign . . .
==Nader specifically accused Clinton of failing to challenge military spending because "she is a woman who doesn't want to be labeled as soft on defense, and she doesn't want to be shown as taking on big business."==
Hey, Greenies and Proggies, quite a guy you have there in Nader, quite a guy.
He was a MUCH better choice than Gore, who was after all merely Bush-lite, right?
It just goes to show, you can lead dimwits to victory, but you can't make them taste it.
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 6:16 PM:anonymous at 5:55,
Actually, a lot more Democrats voted for Bush in 2000 than voted for Nader.
In any event, this is the primaries, so if there was an analogy to be drawn at all, it would be to people who, say, supported Bradley over Gore. And with the benefit of hindsight, maybe those Bradley supporters were right.
slb wrote on January 2, 2008 7:03 PM:...if there was an analogy to be drawn at all, it would be to people who, say, supported Bradley over Gore.
I was a Bradley supporter. But when he lost out to Gore, I didn't sulk and decide to support a third party instead, I supported Gore, the Democratic nominee. I wish Obama supporters would pledge to do the same if their guy doesn't win the nomination, but most of the vocal Obama supporters on the boards here are threatening secession if Obama is not the nominee.
DTM wrote on January 2, 2008 7:20 PM:slb,
I don't pretend to know what most Obama supporters think (and I think people in general tend to do a bad job in representing the views of other people with whom them disagree). But I do know that Obama himself has pledged to support whomever is the nominee if it isn't him.
That said, insofar as Obama is attracting the most independents and disaffected Republicans--well, that does suggest that maybe some of those supporters will consider a non-Democrat if Obama isn't the nominee. That isn't a Nader problem, of course. And I don't think it will help to ask them to pledge a loyalty oath, because these are already people who have decided not to join the Democratic party on an official basis.
But of course this is a good problem to have, at least if you want to win the general election.
DonnaG wrote on January 2, 2008 7:31 PM:Sandra wrote on January 2, 2008 12:22 PM:
I think it must be somewhat intimidating to campaign in a state that has never elected a woman to the seats of governor, senator, or representative.
Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 4:22PM:
Then why hasn't Iowa elected a woman to a higher office than your state legislature?
Reality check for Sandra and Anonymous---Iowa's Lieutenant Governor is a woman....
roo_P wrote on January 2, 2008 9:15 PM:Count me as someone who does not think the Clinton Pakistan misstatement is a huge deal in itself (although I am surprised that she managed to do it twice.)
I would, however, point out that she is really in no position to call anyone else "ignorant" or "naive."
Michael A wrote on January 3, 2008 7:08 AM:Hi anon, if you come back, here is the gd point. I follow the news and politics pretty extensively. I do not profess to know everything, but I don't remember one gd thing that she tried to do in the senate and took the lead on. The point with mccain is that he tried to do something, anything. He accomplished somethings, other things he failed, but he tried. I'll repeat it again, I don't remember one gd thing that she did or promoted and we know that she didn't try to stop the freaking war. In the face of this, she is demeaning all the other candidates claiming all this alleged experience. Vote for her because of experience and she gets things done. Well, WHAT?
After that rant, I agree the pakistan thing is a total non-issue and bagging on it takes away from the larger issues, like she got her foreign policy experience from SINBAD.
B wrote on January 3, 2008 8:35 AM:At least a candidate is stating that the Iowa democratic caucus process sucks. It takes balls to say this the day before the election -- even if she is hiding behind her own demographic group.
Personally, I like the fact that she is tough on Musharraf and I pay a lot more attention to that than a silly misstatement. The election (if it happens) is certainly a referendum on Musharraf and our monetary and military support of this government, it's illicit support of the Taliban and terrorists, it's inability to act on AQ, it's human rights abuses, it's involvement in the recent assassination, and it's other anti-democratic moves should be the subject we are debating.
This is the same type of crap I heard from liberals in 2000. Establishment Gore, Corporate Gore, no real choice, . . . You might as well start weaving that red carpet for McCain and paint a big "pork barrel" sign on your favorite environmental/domestic program.
Liam wrote on January 3, 2008 10:48 AM:The middle ground is where most Americans feel comfortable. No side has a monopoly on virtue and wisdom. Nothing gets done without reasonable compromise and rational consensus.
Rabid partisan political warfare is ruinous to any nation.
"Politics is the art of the possible." JFK. If you do not treat your opponents with respect and including them in the formulation of solutions you will not get anything passed.
Senator Obama is the right person for the job of healing the national rift. We need to meet and work together on middle ground. The nation can not afford to remain so divided. It will destroy the very fabric of the country,
Lets us restore a sense of mutual respect for each other, and work on finding reasonable solutions to the many serious challenges that face us.
Senator Obama is the only one that holds forth that splendid promise and goal. Do you want to begin an era of reconciliation, or do you want to continue to nurse old grievances in a lonely bleak world filled with hate and rage?
You can make a difference, if you are willing to let go of the ugly past, and invest in a brighter and more inclusive future for all the people.
That is what Senator Obama offers.
Anonymous wrote on January 3, 2008 6:01 PM:Michael A: "After that rant, I agree the pakistan thing is a total non-issue and bagging on it takes away from the larger issues, like she got her foreign policy experience from SINBAD."
Yeah, and I bet Obama traveled to foreign countries with a host of non-descript nobodies who had no foreign policy experience.
Last time I checked you got your experience from who you met with, not who you traveled with during the flight.
The fact you would impose this interpretation on Clinton's trip, as if she actually consulted with Sinbad about foreign policy shows just how intellectually dishonest you truly are.
