I give no credence at all to Unity '08. It isn't a third party at all. They aren't out there recruiting and developing new candidates that are dissatisfied with their current party or who don't have a party allegiance. What they want is a Democrat and a Republican to run together, as though that's the miracle cure for our ills. The only people they'd get in an effort like that is someone like Joe Lieberman or some other DINO to run with Chuck Hagel. I don't see how that could make things better in America.
I think there are fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans, leaving Iraq aside. That's why people choose to be in either one party or the other. They tend to have differences about health care, the economy, civil rights, human rights, privacy issues, abortion rights, etc. This isn't true for everyone, of course, but there are substantive differences. How does putting a Dem and a GOP'er together one ticket solve any of our problems?
We're much better offer with a strong Democrat with solid ideas to move America forward. I support Clinton, but I would also have no trouble supporting Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, etc. These are all people who are committed to the Democratic party and who have excellent ideas about how to out this country back on the right track, as opposed to fools like Lieberman and Republicans who are mired in their culture of corruption and who want an unitary executive.
I'm a big fan of Wes Clark myself, but there's no way he's getting in. I recently (in the last week) made the decision to support Hillary, based on her excellent performance in all of the debates so far, her professionalism and her strength, among other things. Whoever we nominate will get my full-throated support, but I think Hillary Clinton is the candidate who is most likely to effective as smacking down the inevitable swift-boating that will start next year. I guarantee we won't hear the same deafening silence that we heard from the Kerry campaign in '04.
It's amazing to me that you think Clinton calling Obama's statement "naive" is a declaration of war. She's seen declarations of war from Newt Gingrich and his ilk, and trust me, this isn't even close. The candidates are supposed to spar - it's a debate. I thought the whole thing was very informative, and the candidates managed to disagree without being disagreeable. I have no idea why you are so offended by it, but I would suggest a thicker skin. It was a relatively mild remark, especially compared to some of things the Rethugs are already saying about Obama. And Clinton. And Edwards.
This irks me all the more because it's just another example of how good Dems are at forming the circular firing squad. Instead of aiming at the wingnuts that really deserve your wrath, you take a stance of totally misplaced righteous indignation and tell Senator Clinton to step aside? Please.
And I won;t even begin to speculate as to how you managed to blame Senator Clinton for desperate children in Havana and North Korea...
What are you talking about? Did you watch the same debate I did? Sen. Obama did not defend Edelman, and he certainly never said that Sen. Clinton had no right to ask the questions, nor did he imply that. In fact, he said exactly the opposite. You should apologize for this diary, as all of your facts are completely wrong. I'm supporting Sen. Clinton too, but this kind of hit piece doesn't help our cause.
Do you have any facts to back this up, or are you just making it up as you go along? Bill Richardson would have to be an absolute idiot to go along along with a bizarre scheme like this, and he's not an idiot. He's a very smart man with good ideas and a lot of experience.
I think it's a little silly to try to derive any meaning from this at all. There could be any number of reasons why a candidate did or did not use a specific term in an email to supporters. This does not equate to any of the candidates either embracing or rejecting any particular philosophy or ideal. I'd prefer to judge them on their policies and ideas, not whether they used the word "progressive" in their emails.
I hate to even respond to this diary, since it seems to me that it is nothing more than yet another of the ubiquitous Hillary hating diaries that are so common on this site. I know that most of the people who frequent this site are well informed, and I can only hope that anyone who reads this diary will notice the glaring flaws. Many of Clinton's positions are either flat-out wrong (like CAFTA) or missing crucial pieces of information, such as your claim about her stance on torture, health care and Iran. I won;t even bother with the sophomoric refrain of how she thinks she's entitled to be president - can you give us some substantiation for this, or are you just regurgitating your talking points?
Moreover, your ridiculous statements about how Bill Clinton are clear proof that you can't be taken seriously. Bill Clinton is somehow responsible for the rise of Fox News and nut-jobs like Limbaugh? He should have taken an active role in the 2000 election results? What a wonderful idea - it wouldn't have looked like Clinton trying to hand the presidency to his friend and VP at all, I'm sure. That's brilliant.
It's nice to see that people are staying away from this lunatic in droves - it's exactly what he and CNN deserve. I can only assume this was his try-out to replace Paula Zahn, which would be a nightmare. But according to this article, he' s not even in the running. Now if they would just ax him from Headline News...
I understand the idea behind this diary, but I just don;t think it holds water. Anything that Clinton can be criticized for will work equally well with Edwards and Obama. I still haven't made up my mind yet whom I'm going to support (so I give money to all three), but the republican swift boating will swing into action against whoever the candidate is.
They can attack Edwards just as easily on the war as they can Clinton, apology or not. They'll just call his apology an appeal to the radical liberal base and call him a flip-flopper. They're already doing damage to him with the nonsense about the haircut. Do we really think they won't find a way to lie and obfuscate when it comes to important things?
Obama? He wasn't even in the Senate at the time, so he must be completely inexperienced and unqualified to be President. So what if he says he didn't support the war - he certainly voted to fund it several times, until he flip-flopped.
Clinton? She flip-flopped too, and her husband can't keep his pants on - never mind those things you've heard about Rudy - nothing to see here folks, move along.
Keep in mind, this is just off the top of my head. The wingnuts have people working on this, and they'll be ready to lie and distort as soon as we know who the nominee is going to be. I don't think Hillary is going to be any less effective than any of the other two at responding to this.
The whole argument that Hillary Clinton is more vulnerable than other candidate seems to be fatally flawed. Each candidate can be attacked. The thing that I like about how Clinton handled it is that she didn't try to duck the issue of her husband's ridiculous pardon, she confronted it head on, rather than letting the republicans smear her with it first. That takes a lot of the sizzle out of it right away.
Nicely said. I've only been here a very short time myself (although I've been lurking over at dkos for years), and I have to say, I'm pretty dismayed by the number of hit pieces I see that are thinly disguised as diaries. I stopped hanging out at dkos because it seemed if you weren't spitting fire about impeachment, you're a total asshole who doesn't care about America.
Then I get here and I see multiple diaries everyday telling me how much Clinton sucks and how inexperienced Obama is, etc. Certainly, there are some great diaries written here everyday, but they seem to get lost in the noise of the name calling, the majority of which seems to be directed at Clinton supporters, which I don;t really get.
I am very proud of the entire field of candidates we have, and I could happily vote for any of them, with the possible exception of Mike Gravel. There is nothing to be gained from tearing down the other candidates - why not talk about why your candidate is right on this or that issue without the ugliness? We have the wingnuts for that.
Delightful. I haven't yet decided who I'm going to support, but statements like that really irk me. What you're implying is that the people who support Hillary are stupid and uninformed, unlike enlightened folks such as yourself. Thanks for sharing your wisdom with the rest of us great unwashed.