Friday, May 30, 2008
Largest South Dakota Newspaper Endorses Hillary
Despite Obama's claim of inevitability and invisibility, some folks aren't buying the company line and continue endorsing Hillary Clinton.
The largest newspaper in South Dakota today enthusiastically endorsed Sen. Clinton.
In endorsing her, the Argus writes that Hillary is "the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota.
H/T The Confluence.
Update: Another tip of the hat, this one going to Lambert of Corrente; he correctly observes how Argus, the same newspaper that interviewed Hillary last week didn't think too much of "the baseless, defamatory, and grotesque charges propagated by the NY Post and the Obama campaign" as evidenced by their endorsement of Hillary.
The largest newspaper in South Dakota today enthusiastically endorsed Sen. Clinton.
In endorsing her, the Argus writes that Hillary is "the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota.
Argus Leader acknowledges that Obama is a powerful speaker with a lot of pretty words in his rhetorical arsenal. But since Barky has no real resume to speak of -- it was the only good point they could write about and left it at that.Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that.
[...]
Clinton's energy policy is forward thinking and wise. She advocates a broad federal research initiative to help solve our looming oil crisis. It's a plan that would join university researchers, private industry and individual inventors behind a common goal.
[...]
Clinton has demonstrated a real commitment to Native American issues and will have visited several South Dakota reservations before the race is over. Clinton is precisely correct when she says that people outside the region have a poor understanding of the troubling trends on our reservations. Federal attention could help. That includes but is not limited to higher-ranking posts in the federal bureaucracy.
Her truly universal health care plan would be welcomed by thousands of South Dakotans. Even on reservations, where health care is nominally universal already, such a plan would be welcome. The federal government would never be allowed to subject everyday Americans to the kind of care Native Americans living on reservations routinely receive.
H/T The Confluence.
Update: Another tip of the hat, this one going to Lambert of Corrente; he correctly observes how Argus, the same newspaper that interviewed Hillary last week didn't think too much of "the baseless, defamatory, and grotesque charges propagated by the NY Post and the Obama campaign" as evidenced by their endorsement of Hillary.
// posted by Howling Latina @ 9:38 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Now THIS is how you advocate a candidate. This is a lot better then just senselessly attacking Obama.
Dan, I agree. It's nice to read a rational post here for a change.
I was surpised by the first sentence of the post though.
"Despite Obama's claim of inevitability and invisibility, some folks aren't buying the company line and continue endorsing Hillary Clinton."
I had no idea that Obama was claiming the power of "invisibility". Does he claim to possess any other superpowers?
I was surpised by the first sentence of the post though.
"Despite Obama's claim of inevitability and invisibility, some folks aren't buying the company line and continue endorsing Hillary Clinton."
I had no idea that Obama was claiming the power of "invisibility". Does he claim to possess any other superpowers?
Yellow Dog-
Didn't you know that Obama has controlled the minds of all the talking heads on the mainstream media?
Didn't you know that Obama has controlled the minds of all the talking heads on the mainstream media?
No, not all the minds, just the boyz at MSNBO.
Kinna reminds the howler how MSNBO just knew, absolutely knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; why the evidence was simply irrefutable.
Just a little shilling as we recently found out from Jessica Yellin.
Kinna reminds the howler how MSNBO just knew, absolutely knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; why the evidence was simply irrefutable.
Just a little shilling as we recently found out from Jessica Yellin.
This is crazy...If Barack Obama has no resume, where is this magical experience that you continually say Hillary Clinton has? She hasn't passed any meaningful legislation in the Senate for 8 YEARS, and being First Lady is NOT experience for running the country. Her health care plan went down the tubes because it was ill-prepared and too bureaucratic. Americans don't want some health care plan shoved down their throats with a threat to garnish wages from those who don't want it...this is not a socialist country.
On the other hand, Barack Obama talks TO people and not AT people. Hillary ran a poor campaign claiming the mantle of inevitability, so its funny that you suggest Barack Obama feels entitled to the presidency. At every step, this woman has tried to change the rules to suit her, and her "supporters" have no clue of what a democracy is. Despite everything this woman has done to bring Obama down, she still has failed to gain a majority of support from Democrats. She has 100% name recognition, and she has failed to clinch the nomination. How does that make her the stronger candidate? Many of the people who know her the best aren't supporting her. I guess since I'm not a "hardworking white American" my opinion doesn't matter to her, but to most Americans, Hillary Clinton just isn't mainstream. You can dress her up in whatever alter ego she wants to claim, but she's the same tired candidate of the past which most Democrats have REJECTED this year.
This election is about 2008 and beyond, not reviving some 1990s throwback candidate who doesn't have a clue about how to handle the tough issues or make any decision without consult of Bill or the changes in the wind. The PRESIDENCY of the United States is at stake, not some posturing game.
If Hillary were the nominee, she would lose the American heartland in a landslide. Don't kid yourself in that respect. A Hillary win is not "100 percent" guaranteed. Its barely June...anything can happen! Such a statement shows a lack of understanding about politics.
On the other hand, Barack Obama talks TO people and not AT people. Hillary ran a poor campaign claiming the mantle of inevitability, so its funny that you suggest Barack Obama feels entitled to the presidency. At every step, this woman has tried to change the rules to suit her, and her "supporters" have no clue of what a democracy is. Despite everything this woman has done to bring Obama down, she still has failed to gain a majority of support from Democrats. She has 100% name recognition, and she has failed to clinch the nomination. How does that make her the stronger candidate? Many of the people who know her the best aren't supporting her. I guess since I'm not a "hardworking white American" my opinion doesn't matter to her, but to most Americans, Hillary Clinton just isn't mainstream. You can dress her up in whatever alter ego she wants to claim, but she's the same tired candidate of the past which most Democrats have REJECTED this year.
This election is about 2008 and beyond, not reviving some 1990s throwback candidate who doesn't have a clue about how to handle the tough issues or make any decision without consult of Bill or the changes in the wind. The PRESIDENCY of the United States is at stake, not some posturing game.
If Hillary were the nominee, she would lose the American heartland in a landslide. Don't kid yourself in that respect. A Hillary win is not "100 percent" guaranteed. Its barely June...anything can happen! Such a statement shows a lack of understanding about politics.
If anyone thinks a man named Barack Obama will win the American heartland come November, he's fooling himself about the nature of American politics. Keep that dream alive, though, pardner!
John Frum...you clearly didn't read what I said very well. I never said Obama would win the heartland, but he would have a stronger advantage over Clinton. And also, "a man named Barack Obama" managed to win the pivotal Iowa caucus and will likely win that state in the fall, and he is polling well in places like ND, MT, MN, and regions of NE. Will he win many of those states? Maybe not...however, the point is to compete and talk with these voters. Conventional wisdom said that only black people would support Obama, yet he has swept the caucuses and primaries in many states that are over 90 percent white. So your "nature of American politics" theory is kinda out the window, don't you think?
John: I understood what you wrote rather well, as what you intimated before you just stated plainly..."[Obama] would have a better advantage over Clinton." Believe what you will, I'm not here to change your mind. If you equate Democratic caucus voters with the larger electorate, I can see why you think Obama has a chance.
In the past two Presidential elections, a slim minority were responsible for deciding the outcome. All the evidence suggests a large number of those who voted for Gore and Kerry aren't going to vote for Obama. Do you honestly see a larger number of Bush voters NOT voting for McSame?
In the past two Presidential elections, a slim minority were responsible for deciding the outcome. All the evidence suggests a large number of those who voted for Gore and Kerry aren't going to vote for Obama. Do you honestly see a larger number of Bush voters NOT voting for McSame?
Howling Latina and John Frum--I can't teach the nature of American politics to both of you because it would simply take too much time. Your lack of understanding of presidential politics months before an election reflect a partisan shrillness that just makes little sense.
"Why haven't the Dems rallied around The Chosen One?" Umm...do you watch the news? Democratic superdelegates have been flocking to Obama's candidacy in the past few weeks. Democratic voters in much of the country have been supporting Obama by healthy majorities...you should respect their votes and their opinions.
People aren't foolish for thinking differently than you, but your Clinton/McAuliffe points just aren't credible. I monitor polls closely and see what voters are attracted to certain candidates. You may not like what I have to say, but I have the facts to back it up. Can you back your facts up AT ALL without ad hominem attacks against Obama?
I'm not an Obamatron. I'm an American voter. No one owns me or controls my mind. Please don't put me in box just because you can't handle my opinions or my will to choose my candidate of choice.
John Frum--I have stated before that a primary/caucus never will determine the outcome in the fall, but if a candidate received massive amounts of support in a certain state, it shows some level of strength. Obama has a CHANCE in many non-traditional states but that never meant he would win there. Have you bothered to look at any polls lately, or do you just speak from some vantage point of political talking points. There are a large number of Republicans who may sit out the election because they aren't comfortable with McCain, and he needs to shore up those voters in order to compete in the fall. In states like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire, that is clearly evident in much of the polling and analysis from voters in those states.
Howling Latina--If you want to have a civil discourse, calling people "stupid fools" really isn't a good tactic. Its pretty foolish of you to shut down debates under the mantle of knowing what every voter thinks. Its so arrogant and condescending.
"Why haven't the Dems rallied around The Chosen One?" Umm...do you watch the news? Democratic superdelegates have been flocking to Obama's candidacy in the past few weeks. Democratic voters in much of the country have been supporting Obama by healthy majorities...you should respect their votes and their opinions.
People aren't foolish for thinking differently than you, but your Clinton/McAuliffe points just aren't credible. I monitor polls closely and see what voters are attracted to certain candidates. You may not like what I have to say, but I have the facts to back it up. Can you back your facts up AT ALL without ad hominem attacks against Obama?
I'm not an Obamatron. I'm an American voter. No one owns me or controls my mind. Please don't put me in box just because you can't handle my opinions or my will to choose my candidate of choice.
John Frum--I have stated before that a primary/caucus never will determine the outcome in the fall, but if a candidate received massive amounts of support in a certain state, it shows some level of strength. Obama has a CHANCE in many non-traditional states but that never meant he would win there. Have you bothered to look at any polls lately, or do you just speak from some vantage point of political talking points. There are a large number of Republicans who may sit out the election because they aren't comfortable with McCain, and he needs to shore up those voters in order to compete in the fall. In states like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire, that is clearly evident in much of the polling and analysis from voters in those states.
Howling Latina--If you want to have a civil discourse, calling people "stupid fools" really isn't a good tactic. Its pretty foolish of you to shut down debates under the mantle of knowing what every voter thinks. Its so arrogant and condescending.
Oh yes, please enlighten us with your non-condescending doggerel, wise man from Obamatron Land.
I'll be posting about "swing states" and seats in play with Hillary versus Barky later.
Post a Comment
I'll be posting about "swing states" and seats in play with Hillary versus Barky later.
<< Home
