When: Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM
Where: Pittsburgh for Hillary HQ
213 Smithfield Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
General Area: Smithfield and Blvd of the Allies
Description: Join fellow Hillary supporters as we knock on doors and spread Hillary's message across Allegheny county.
RSVP @ http://www.hillaryclinton.com/actioncenter/event/view/?id=12046
21 comments:
I must say, a vote for Hillary is the right thing to do, at least right now.
The longer this thing keeps going, the longer Americans get to see just how incompetent and inexperienced these two (Clinton and Obama) really are.
While these two go about their bickering, Mccain is traveling around the world to meet with our allies and craft a strategy for his presidency.
But the great thing is, Mccain has the ability to reach out to independent and free-thinking voters. Therefore, he could be the unifying leader this country needs today. Surely, all of us would like a leader who can do that, right?
But the great thing is, Mccain has the ability to reach out to independent and free-thinking voters. Therefore, he could be the unifying leader this country needs today.
Unifying? McCain? Give me a break! For all the fluffing he gets from his fan club in the mainstream media, McCain's policies are essentially the same as George W. Bush's--policies opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans.
"Unfair and unbalanced" Dave said:
For all the fluffing he gets from his fan club in the mainstream media, McCain's policies are essentially the same as George W. Bush's
I'm unsure what you are talking about. Mccain is routinely put down in the media (remember that article in the NYT, along the the continuing obsession over all things negative in Iraq). On the other hand, Barack Obama is the one who gets a free pass. Just look at Anderson Cooper's pathetic attempt to portray the Reverand Wright story as unworthy news.
Not to mention, Mccain's approach to issues like global warming and illegal immigration aren't exactly in line with President Bush and the GOP.
Which part of Harvard Law Review editor, community organizer, Constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, and United States Senator makes Sen. Obama "incompetent" in your eyes, C.H.? Sen. Obama also gets bonus points for being consistently right about Iraq.
While Sen. Obama spends his days campaigning before larger crowds than the Republican candidate could ever generate, Sen. McCain's rounds today included explaining why he voted against the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday. Nice. In what world does that make him a better unifying leader candidate?
What do you all think about Mark Penn? His latest meeting with the Columbians to help them get a trade agreement that Senator Clinton opposes was interesting to say the least. His lobbying company (for whom he continues to work) has Blackwater as a client. Isn't it time for him to quit working for his company, or resign from Senator Clinton's campaign?
Are the Hillary supporters going door to door informing people that Mark Penn who is instrumental in her campaign is a lobbyist for an organization that is hell bent on destroying unions in this country?
Did John McCain go back to see his North Vietnamese friends? They'll probably have big banners hanging Welcome back Songbird.
Right.
Because Obama would never hire lobbyists...expect when he has:
Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.
And, Obama would never take money from lobbyists, except when he did:
In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.
Maria:
Mr. Penn has admitted that he screwed up (regarding Colombia). And it hasn't been the first time (Blackwater, for example).
Given his lead, it seems unbecoming to reflexively resort to a slam at Sen. Obama.
I don't think Penn's slip-ups are likely to tag Sen. Clinton too harshly . . . unless her supporters keep the issue alive by engaging in tit for tat. Better to ask Penn for some that $10MM back, hope he doesn't misstep again, and let the issue die?
"Given his lead, it seems unbecoming to reflexively resort to a slam at Sen. Obama."
Too funny!
I post something pro Hillary that is not even vaguely anti Obama and people comment with anti Hillary stuff. I respond in kind and I'm somehow being unseemly.
Given that we still have a democracy and the primary is not over, given that Obama can't seem to close the deal, given that neither will be able to achieve enough pledged delegates, given that his lead is incredibly slim, the only thing "unbecoming" is the insistence that Obama must be given a free pass on EVERYTHING and Hillary must be painted the monster at every opportunity.
Grow some cajones people, or better yet get some huevos.
Amen, Maria. On all counts.
I continue to be amused by how snarky and pissy and dismissive so many of these "New Kind of Politics" supporters are.
When they're done looking up "irony" in the dictionary, they might want to move on to "hypocrisy."
Maria's being unseemly. She's ruining her credibility. She is not acting very lady-like. Is that your best shot boys? You act like thugs, bullying your way around any sensible argument, then acuse any Hilliary supporter of being something less than feminine and surely we must be all dumb blonds. Move into this century, please.
I don't think Senator Clinton is a monster. She is a formidable, qualified candidate. I simply prefer Senator Obama. Somebody else gave voice to this preference better than I can:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama/3
While you are correct that before this race Senator Obama took money from lobbyists, he does not do so now. Why must cynicism always be our guide? Surely if his opponent was not Senator Clinton, you would applaude Senator Obama's decision to refuse lobbying and PAC money in this election?
As for incompetency, I think all of us have seen the reality of that for the last 7+ years and certainly either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton would be a welcome improvement over the last 7+ years of pathetic, depressing, incompetent governing.
As for Senator Obama's lead being slim, this is a myth. Senator Clinton would need to win 64% of the vote in all remaining contests to surpass Senator Obama in pledged delegates. This is possible, but highly unlikely.
Finally, I can understand those who disagree with Senator Obama philosophically (neo-cons, right-wing republicans & etc.) But, I am frustrated by the cynical attacks from those who agree with him on almost every point. Cynicism has poisoned many a mind in this Country (with good cause considering the last 7+ years); please do not let it poison your heart or your soul. We are a decent people and we yearn for truth and an end to endless bickering that yields us nothing.
Senator Obama is offering us a different process -- one in which we, the American people, are more completely and even, intimately involved. And one in which we, the American people, hold him accountable at every step. If you do not like that process, or if you think that we, the American people are not capable of sustaining such involvement, say so. Obviously, anyone has the right to say, or believe anything they want.
But do ask yourself if your cynicism has created this anger against Senator Obama's stated belief in the decency of the American people and our ability to create real substantial change. And ask yourself if your preference for Senator Clinton is not truly at the root of your dislike of Senator Obama. By so successfully campaigning against such a formidable candidate who had 100% name recognition, has not Senator Obama shown he is the hope of the Democratic future?
We are the Democratic party, a disjointed, chaotic, marvelous mess -- and I am told that is because we are the party that thinks.
--Kim
By the way, I just wrote the comment about cynicism and hope and before my hair started to turn grey, I was fairly blond. Am I not, even though a supporter of Senator Obama's, also subject to the term female dumb blonde which the previous poster was using to ridicule Senator Obama's supporters?
Feminism is about more than putting any one particular woman in office. We also need to support Speaker Pelosi who could be standing behind the President in that spot at the State of the Union for the next 30 years. We need to make certain that we do not solidify negative stereotypes of women; we need to learn from legitimate criticism; and, protest against real sexism like that exhibited by Drudge, and some in the MSM.
Perhaps I don't have the right to lecture anybody, but I have been a feminist for many decades and I have been repeatedly dismissed insultingly as a "dumb blond." It smarts to have another woman ridicule me in reverse with the negative descriptor I have had to wear with discomfort for most of my life.
--Kim
"Given that Obama can't seem to close the deal"
Well, golly. There haven't been any primaries for almost a month, and all the same he's catching up in PA of all places. Cut the kid some slack.
"the only thing "unbecoming" is the insistence that Obama must be given a free pass on EVERYTHING and Hillary must be painted the monster at every opportunity."
Giant freaking MYTH. Hillary supporters seem to believe the universe must be filled with an equal amount of positive and negative things to say about Hillary and Barack, and it must be the media's and everyone else's fault that Barack always ends up looking better.
Here is a thought -- what if there is no vast media conspiracy? What if Obama simply has managed not to say or do anything objectionable over the course of a LONG campaign, and continues to respond to legitimate concerns in a forthright way -- wheras Hillary continues to launch mean and belittling attacks, bend the truth and not respond well, and insult the intelligence of her audience?
Believe me, despite the conspiracy Hillary amd McCain supporters are convinced exists, if footage existed of Barack lying or saying something embarrassing, THEY WOULD RUN IT because IT IS DESIRABLE TO RUN EXCITING FOOTAGE OF ANY KIND because IT MAKES YOU MONEY! The notion that there are reams and reams of unexplored Obama dirt, left unattended to because of a media-wide conspiracy among every news outlet, reporter and editor not to criticize Obama, is frankly, and I'm sorry to say this, laughable.
PS -- Taking money from lobbyists while in the state senate, BEFORE having forsworn anything for the purposes of running for president, does not equal any kind of betrayal. You do not get to hold our candidate to an unreasonably high standard because you envy his evident common decency. And hiring a few lobbyists to work for you while they do NOT lobby during your campaign DOES NOT EQUAL having the commander in chief of your campaign take time off to lobby for corporate interests with Columbia. There is no moral equivalency between the two and I am tired of hearing there must be. They do not "all do" what some choose to do.
I'm going to rescind my very, very last comment. I actually don't give a damn what Mark Penn does with his spare time, and if Obama's lower-level lobbyist moonlighters want to do some moonlighting of their own, I don't care either. I was just caught up getting stuff off my chest. Everything else in the above comment still stands, and is awesome.
Bram and Kim, my decision to support Hillary was not a reaction to Obama. I simply did my research. I also do think that what Obama did in the Illinois State Senate with lobbyist money is very important. If for no other reason, his short political career relative to Hillary's. He is deceptive in most of his claims of a different politics. Obama has coopted the right wing talking points about Hillary and spent one million dollars giving them out to the koolaid drinkers. By the way, we had a really great and positive response for Hillary yesterday while canvassing.
Hey, I got no problem with all that. We just came to different conclusions about character, from what it sounds like. I bet that tinges our sympathy towards issue stances.
Kool-aid drinkers, indeed. Like Hillary and the gang don't brew some of the finest kool-aid in town. :-)
How can you suggest you are having a discussion with me and end it by calling me and all of those like me "kool aid drinkers?"
I also did a significant amount of research before deciding to support Senator Obama.
I wonder if you realize that Senator Clinton still receives significant funding from federally registered lobbyists and PACS? Do you have a difficulty with this, or are you simply aggravated with Senator Obama because he stopped taking such funds?
http://www.fec.gov/
Senator Obama has not used right-wing talking points. Hasn't it occurred to you that he has known about Tuzla since December 2007 when Senator Clinton first told that story? Neither Senator Obama, nor Senator Edwards pointed out that tall-tale. Instead, it was Andrea Mitchell who was a reporter on that plane on that Tuzla trip. Senator Obama has responded to every attack made against him and he sometimes does so forcefully and uses adjectives like "disingenuous," but would you prefer he simply stand up and say "Yes, yes! Senator Clinton is so right! I should go home and grow some plants!"
I am sorry if I resorted to a tinge of ironic ridicule above, I am attempting to remain civil. Do try and do the same for me and refrain from the use of "kool aid" drinkers. Comparing us to those pathetic tragic people who followed Jim Jones is not conducive to any sort of conversation and it is a trivialization of that very real tragedy.
-- Kim
Sorry but I stand by "kool-aid drinkers" when referring to most Obama followers. If it does not represent you ( you really have facts backed up by research not rhetoric, don't own it.) Obama has and still does have lobbyist backing. Take for instance, James Crown, General Dynamics, war contractor, sits as a member of Obama's finance committee. In fact, he and his wife have raised
$200,000 for the Obama campaign. My point is not to say that Hillary does not participate in this insane, out of control, corrupt system, she does. It is a sad political reality that even the most sincere people must use to win. But I do look at the fact that Hillary accepted the oil,gas,coal money, as did Obama, but voted against the 2005 energy bill. It is actions like these that give me hope that a Hillary Clinton presidency will fight for public financing of elections. (She did come out in support of public financing.)That is when the political gameboard will change. My point being that until the gameboard is changed government will always be for sale.
Post a Comment