RE: "Hillary Clinton Is The Democrat's Best Choice" endorsement by the Concord Monitor
Although the Monitor has the right to endorse any candidate and as a true believer in free speech and freedom of the press I would never criticize the right of the editor’s to express the political view of those on staff; I take exception with some of the conclusions of their latest endorsement: “Hillary is the Democrats Best Choice”.
This endorsement is not surprising nor is it unexpected as they have consistently given Clinton a free pass over the last few months. The Billy Shaheen factor was quickly off of the front page, the Bob Kerry comments about Obama were hardly mentioned, there has been little or no discussion of Clinton’s controversial history and certainly no criticism of her time in the White House as First Lady.
The deeper issue is that the Monitor makes assumptions and conclusions that are both dogmatic and partisan. Let’s take a look at their analysis.
The Monitor asserts that Hillary would begin to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately. The current administration is already planning for scaled down military presence and withdrawal has started and will escalate throughout 2008.
They hope that Clinton will signal the world that we are ready to rejoin the community of nations. If that means that we will kneel at the altar of the United Nations and cow-tow to third world thugs and zealots…NO THANK YOU! If it means that we do not consider the war on terror as a military action and as a conflict the U.N. can solve, consider the “oil for food” fiasco and corruption in that organization. If it means that we will not move forward with missile defense and instead rely on diplomacy as our only defense then…NO THANK YOU!
Does anyone remember Travelgate, the way that the Clinton’s rounded up FBI files, Hillary’s closed door health care attempted coup, the lost Rose Law firm records or perjury by her husband? Why would anyone find her as the moral high ground when advising federal officials that they must follow the Constitution? The Monitor does as they overlook Clinton’s past.
Which Bush era policies have worsened the environment? The one that re-strengthened drinking water standards after Bill Clinton weakened them and set up Bush so that he would look like he actually worsened the standards? Will she spread her supposed ‘expertise’ on the environment equally or will she give her campaign donors a wink and a nod? One only needs to look at her list of donors to see that she is as engrained with ‘Big Oil’ as any other candidate
The Monitor assumes that global warming is a settled science in their endorsement. It is not and last week 400 meteorologists and climatologists reinforced that. It is no surprise that it was not front page news in the Monitor.
It is a moot point to further experiment with stem cells from embryos as a recent break through found that adult stem cell research is effective and there may be no reason to experiment on fetuses. Expanding the children’s health care insurance SCHIP (which is a good program) is unnecessary and is only an attempt to socialize health care. To include families earning $80,000 per year is overkill and simply feel good expansion. Current funding is not enough for those who want to hijack the heath care industry and turn it into a government run entitlement with no hope of efficiency. Help those who can not afford insurance for their children but do not establish reliance by those who are able to.
Population control is the cornerstone of a Socialist society and make no mistake, family planning is an attempt to control population disguised as a service to the poor. The government has no right in a free society to be involved in social issues like abortion or birth control. A woman has a right to choose but government should not take a role in advising anyone either way.
Hillary Clinton will be a green president and she will fumble as she lacks executive experience and the ability to build consensus. Her experience is that of an attorney, wife of a former president and one term Senator with little legislative accomplishments. The Monitor assumes that her experience instills confidence and they admire her ambition.
Although ambition is one factor of success, that trait alone should not inspire confidence. Has anyone on the Monitor staff ever heard of ‘blind ambition’?
The Monitor goes on to praise the rest of the field of Democrats in an attempt to calm the waters for those who support other candidates. They are correct that Biden is pragmatic but Edwards being a champion of the poor rings hollow as his lifestyle,net worth and lack of history of charitable donations, strikes a tone of hypocrisy. Obama is inspirational; like a preacher, like Tony Robbins, but at the end of the day it is rhetoric without the track record or experience to back it up.
The Monitor goes on to say: “But Hillary Clinton's unique combination of smarts, experience and toughness makes her the best choice to win the November election and truly get things done”. Clinton has shown much vulnerability in this campaign and although relatively intelligent lacks any experience that would qualify her for the highest office in the land and leader of the greatest nation on Earth.
Her run for the Senate in New York was a set up as she was not a resident and it was a calculated ploy to establish the perception that she would be a ‘qualified’ candidate in this election. Obviously, the Monitor has fallen for that move; hook, line and sinker! This calculated plan on the part of the Clintons illustrates the business as usual politics by those who view themselves as the anointed ruling class; Hillary Clinton is a member.
Immigration will be a huge challenge for Clinton and we know where she stands. Her lack of support for securing the borders and construction of the border fence and support of a small fine for those that are here illegally, with impending amnesty, is crystal clear.
Likewise, health care is an initiative in which we know where Clinton stands; a complete takeover of 1/9th of the nation’s economy with reigns of our health future placed in the hands of 40 hour work week government bureaucrats. Finally, the Monitor acknowledges what the rest of us have known for some time; Clinton wants a ‘universal’ plan.
Government will run health care under Clinton but the question begs; what does government do well? Maybe the Monitor editorial staff should take a look at the track record of those whom Hillary will empower with our health future. It will be those who have run Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid into the ground.
The Monitor supports Hillary because she knows how Washington works. I am not sure that is a reason to vote for her or anyone; maybe we need to change the way it works, as it has not proven that successful under present circumstances.
So what has Clinton accomplished as a Senator? The Monitor cites little beyond securing federal assistance for Manhattan after September 11th, which would have happened with or without her efforts. They cite the morning after pill and the introduction of the expansion of health coverage to military veterans and their families; something that was not her original idea but she did take the opportunity to jump on board, support and take very ‘partial’ credit for supporting.
If those are her major accomplishments it seems that it is little to qualify her to become President. We look to the most talented, those with proven records of execution to lead our companies, our states, our communities and must do the same in selecting a person to lead our country.
The Monitor infers that because Hillary is a woman that we should embrace this and consider a vote for her under those terms. That is perhaps the shallowest reason to vote for anyone and is not a criteria at all for voting for someone for President. They are hoping to “inspire’ young women that their futures are not limited by their gender. Perhaps the editors of the Monitor should get out of the office more often and travel the country rather than listen to pundits talking points on social issues. They might realize that over the last 30 years, women have indeed broken the fictitious “glass ceiling” in so many cases and in so many ways.
If anyone said that we should vote for Romney because he is a Mormon or Huckabee because he is evangelical or Kucinich because he grew up in poverty; it would be dismissed by those who support Clinton because she is a woman.
Although I applaud the Monitor or any newspaper for taking a stand and supporting a candidate, in the case of their latest editorial endorsement; it was short of strong substantiated arguments in supporting Clinton and long on emotional rhetoric and absent of factual conclusions.
Our next president needs to represent the middle; not the Right or Left. Clinton will only represent the Left and I fear that the Monitor will not report or criticize a Hillary administration in any other than a affirmative view.
Why....Michael!!!
Michael,
You surprise me. Somehow I think you are not referring to Huckabee as a new face and real change!!! LOL LOL LOL
No No No
No. Huckabee is an ignorant preacher man. Not a serious candidate for President.
I'm not so sure we want 4
I'm not so sure we want 4 years of Clinton----------- again!
A mistake to endorse Hillary
Thank you for pointing out to the editors of the Concord Monitor why their reasons to endorse Hillary Clinton are flawed and I think frankly misleading. As a 59 year old female professional, I would love to vote for a woman president but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton for all the reasons you mention. The times are too difficult and we need a real non-partisan leader. Barack Obama has the charisma, grace and judgment as well as an unselfish willingness to serve that brings people together in way that we have not seen in this country for decades. I urge the people of Iowa and New Hampshire to have a greater vision for our future and cast their vote for Obama. Let’s not miss this enormous opportunity to make real and necessary changes in this country.
clinton
Clinton is not someone I trust. She seems very calculating. Mostly she isn't enough change- the 90's weren't great for everyone so let's stop making it seem like clinton did anything---it was the hard working american workers and their hard work- clinton was doing other things like raising money for his party, ect. "Hill is Bill in a suit dress and that'll make the USA an awful mess!"
Thanks for the comment
I appreciate your comments. I do not necessarily agree with assessment of Obama as hw does not have the experience.
I am, however impressed with his potential in the future. I can however, appreciate a Democrat having the spirit of free throght to not buckle to the press and in knee jerk fashion, follow their lead.
I read their anti endorsement of Romney, their luke warm endorsement of McCain and now their glowing review of Hillary.
I wish you luck with Obama although I could never vote for him. At least we will keep Hillary at bay.
I am happy at least that there are Democrats who have not swallowed the rhetoric!
Hey Blog Readers!!!
Did anyone read Mike Prides explanation of why they endorse candidates in the Monitor?
It is worth a read but one revealing aspect was that they decide as a group. I took a look at their 2004 endorsement of Kerry but it was not as glowing.
The issue I had with Clinton's endorsement was that it was like reading campaign talking points.
It is worth noting that since the new editor Felice Belman took the reigns from Mike Pride the tone of the editorials (with the exception of a couple) has taken a hard Left hand turn.
They were always Left leaning but now seem to be very hard Left.
I do admire their process of interviewing candidates but I do not believe that it is done without bias and pre-conceived notions. Once again, they have the right to endorse anyone whom they choose but it appears that they are flooded with complaints about their endorsements.
People should go over to the Primary Monitor blog and read some of the comments. There is quite a string on the anti-endorsement of Romney. Be sure to reply to their strings.
That blog is very well done and very informative. It is a bit less partisan too!
Thanks Poindexter...But
I agree but it is deeper than that...it is about who is qualified. They found Romney as unqualified and he has executive ability. He has accomplished things. Not that I support him but he has done a similar job.
Clinton has none of that experience and has accomplished little in government beyond photo ops. Their assessment was lacking in facts and reason.
After much listening....
I have come to the same conclusion. The only person running that I can see making real change and bringing back America's Moral Greatness is Barack Obama. His lack of experience is made up in his judgment and charisma and world view. The current president had no experience to be a world leader prior to his selection by the US Supreme Court. Had his name been Smith instead of Bush, he'd still be working at Wal-Mart. He had plenty of experience in lying and cover-up which he has put to much use over these last seven year. My only fear is that when Barack Obama does take office as President, he will become the target of assassins and terrorists.
Now Michael.....
Now Michael,
This election is not about Bush.
How do you define 'moral greatness"?
In today's moral relativism, 'moral greatness' would be irrelevant and not something that anyone could agree on.
I hope for an Obama victory. It would assure a Republican victory. The problem is that I really don't like any of the Republicans.
What a dilemma!!!!!!
The Monitor shows it's colors
Let there be no doubt that the monitor does have a right to support who they want. On the other hand their reasons for supporting the witch of the east, west, north and south fall short. If they want to show their liberal bias then why not at least choose a credible candidate? She is the worse thing for this nation and I can only hope that those who are opening their eyes to this see it before it is too late. She is a liar, a manipulator, power hungry, uncaring polititian who only wants power and money and influence. Any who think she cares about you only have to see the remarks made by Bill Shaheen to see the kind of person she is and those who surround her. Can anyone give me any of her real solutions to things instead of the soundbite rhetoric? She says she has "experience" but that is a lie unless we buy into the fact that many say she ran the country when the idiot Bill was in office. I take little of what the Monitor says politically seriously and their support of Clinton shows one of the reasons why. I would vote for Obama any day before her. To be honest there is not a candidate running that is really for "the average person". We can do as in the past and vote for the lesser of two evils. Or we can do what needs to be done and vote for none of them but instead vote for change. I do not usually vote in the primary because I am an independent. But I think I will vote in this one to take one more vote away from Hillary because that is in the best interest of all of us. A final note, those of you ignorant to vote for her "because she is a woman" need to ask if you would vote for someone because"they were a man" or they were nice looking? I would hope not and hopefully you wo't vote now because that reason.
While I agree with you that
While I agree with you that Hillary Clinton is not the right person for the Presidency, I disagree with much of your reasoning. Although I really think Bill Clinton did a great job as President, I believe his personal failings are a good part of why Bush got elected, and therefore, a good part of why we are where we are now. And I see her as having the same problem as he had, the wanting of the presidency to the extent she will say or do anything to get it/keep it. If Bill Clinton had said “Yes, I tried marijuana when I was young, I don’t smoke it anymore,“ I would have had no problem with that. If, when questioned about his sex life, he had simply stated, “that is private, I will not discuss it,” I could have respected him. Because it was private - I am pretty sure every President has had affairs, and I don’t want to know about them. The deeper issue is the “Say whatever you have to to make sure you look good” is where the real problem lies, and I believe Hillary shares that. That was a character flaw 200 years ago, will be 200 years from now, and one we don‘t need.
Withdrawing troops from Iraq - I have no idea how to do that safely. My main concern is our troops who are there, and the people of Iraq who have supported us. Will they be butchered if we pull out? The only good way to get out of a war is not to get into one. You don’t attack a country because someone says they are going to attack you, period. 1st grade recess lesson. Hillary didn’t know that. I am the most gullible person in the world, and I didn’t believe Bush’s reasons for war, why would I vote for someone who did? She did it because people were scared and looking for an answer to 9/11, and she did not dare to go against that feeling. If everyone else jumps off the bridge, are you going to? Hillary would. Yes, Edwards voted with Bush then too, but he has admitted he was wrong. Definitely livable.
As to rejoining the rest of the world - yes there is a rest of the world. We are a country, a part of the rest of the world, and we will be better off once we respect the rest of the world. My fear is that Clinton will support this now, and as soon as popular support wanes, we are out of there. That is not working with the United Nations, that is bullying. The rest of the world is not there for our convenience.
As for the environment, I leave that up to people who know more than me. I think if all we can do right away is stop making things worse, we will head in the right direction. I would like to see one candidate admit that. There is no quick fix.
I know you have a problem with universal health care. We have it now. When was the last time you stepped on a dead body on the way to work? People get health care without paying for it now. The cost just gets passed through to the rest of us through higher prices for medical services, or taxes (Medicaid). It is an entitlement now, we spend as much money fighting about it, or wasting money by not providing it until it’s too late for medical problems to be handled inexpensively than we do on health care. Stop wasting the money, bring costs down. Yes, I do have a problem with mandated insurance. Obama is getting to me, I like the idea of trying everything else before mandating insurance.
I agree, the government has no right in a free society to be involved in social issues like abortion or birth control. I think all Democratic candidates agree on that, no Republicans do.
I agree, none of the Democratic candidates really has the experience to be president, with the exception of Joe Biden. I could live with him. I do see John Edwards as champion of the poor, he doesn’t have to dress in rags to be believed, he has a history of doing so. But again, there is that whole insurance “mandate” thing. And lack of experience. But I really like someone who can say “I was wrong.“ And he would head us in the right direction, hopefully he wouldn’t get everything he wants.
Obama is inspirational; like a preacher, I try not to hold that against him. He is saying what I want to hear, which is pretty much the first step in getting to where we need to go. I would be happier if he had more experience, I see him getting butchered, much like Bill Clinton was. So far, he has said, “Yes, I did drugs.“ No apologies, no lies, no trying to keep everyone happy. That makes up for some of the lack of experience.
Of course Hillary’s run for the Senate in New York was a set up. Another perfect example of do what you need to do to get what you want, another mark against her.
As for the Monitor inference that because Hillary is a woman and that we should embrace this and consider a vote for her under those terms. That is perhaps the shallowest reason to vote for anyone. I mean, we are all born with a 50/50 chance of being a woman, I don’t consider it an accomplishment, and definitely not a criteria for the presidency. And if it was, I think we could find better women.
We are not going to get a president that represents the middle. There is no middle - if someone is a little different one way, they are too leftist, the other way, they are too rightist. And everyone is different, so no one is the middle.
So I am now not as decided as I once was on the primary. But I am really rooting for John McCain on the Republican side - at least I can respect him. And if the presidential election comes down to McCain/Clinton, at least I can vote with a clear conscience.
Hey Bill B
Hey...another Bill B....WELCOME!
You know, I agree with you on all points. I don't care for anyone running and as usual it will be the lesser of two evils. But many people will vote to defeat Hillary, no matter who runs on the other side.
Bill
Not Really
Bill Clinton was a good president from the standpoint that he did not do much. And, to not do much means the status quo. Bush #1 set him up as the economy was getting turned around after a recession and he rode the wave like a surfer.
Clinton is a sociopath, that is for sure and his affairs and screwing around were tasteless. He had a presence, that is important. The inhaling thing never bothered me nor did it matter.
As for the UN, they want to bully us, have international courts, control the seas, etc. Our sovereignty is at stake and we can not afford to become ingrained in that organization. We need to watch out for the United States first and then help where we can.
The war was the wrong thing to do but we can not pull out and watch a slaughter take place.
Here is where I take exception to your comments; I have included the quote below:
"I agree, the government has no right in a free society to be involved in social issues like abortion or birth control. I think all Democratic candidates agree on that, no Republicans do."
Democrats are pro-choice on abortion but not on schools. The get involved in family affairs, welfare, "leveling the playing field", "wealth redistribution", programs, programs, programs. All of that is social engineering. Is planned parenthood not funded and supported by Democrats? Is universal health care not a social issue and one that Democrats are running on?
I agree that Republicans get involved but out of respect for life on abortion. I am against abortion and I think that those who choose to have one because it is not a 'convenient' time, as despicable. But...they have to live with it...it is their CHOICE. I think it speaks to one's character and morality though.
My desire is to get the government out of our lives...that means Health Care! Universal will have the control in the hands of the government and it would just be a shift of control. Nothing would change beyond rationing. Today, most employers offer insurance that costs a family of 4 around $400 per month...Is the health of four people worth $5000 per year??? Yes, they have to spend some money but families spend money on food, autos, homes, etc. Health care is simply another expense. I do not understand why people feel as if it is an entitlement??????
I am glad that you agree on the fact that being a woman is a shallow and sily reason to vote for anyone but, read the letters to the editor in the Monitor. Read the Monitor's endorsement...intelligent people fall for it...amazing!
McCain would be the lesser of two evils. I can not stand his position on immigration.
Both sides say that there are only two choices: Amnesty or send them home. Those are not the only two choices. However, sending them home would cost what the war in Iraq costs for three months so we can afford it.
The latest Omnibus spending bill defunded the construction of the wall at the Mexican border, Another sign of what Congress really wants and it is not a stop to illegal immigration.
I have never heard a
I have never heard a Democrat say you can not send your child to any school you want. We, as a nation, have pretty much agreed that an educated populace is better than an uneducated one. To accomplish this, because a few people don't prioritze education, it is mandated. Schools are provided, funded as each state chooses to do so, to the best of it's ability. If you decide your child would do better in a private school, you are completely entitled to send them there. You are not entitled to ask me to pay for it.
I believe "No child left behind" is a Republican mandate. This is the biggest block to flexibility in education ever. Instead of actually teaching our kids, teachers are forced to teach them to pass tests.
While I don't think the Federal Government is required to send kids to college, increased low-interest loans might be a good idea. Sign for the loan, when you are done school, it comes out of your check on a % basis. They have the ability to take $ out of your check, might as well put it to good use.
I don't think people who can pay $5,000 a year for insurance are the ones wanting universal health care. And lots of employers don't offer this at that price, or at all. I have insurance through my employer, some people aren't so fortunate. For those that would rather buy toys than health care, under the current system, they get health care when they need it anyway, and we pay it through higher premiums. Check out the State Website on health care costs. Pick a procedure, pick a hospital, and compare the rate your insurance pays, how much the non-insured are charged, and how much other insurances pay. Everything is different. What a racket. Of course, the uninsured are charged much more for the same service as the insured, which, of course, they can't pay, so it goes into the hospital's (or Doctor's) loss column, which gets included in costs they ney need to recoup next time they figure rates.
If Market Basket ran that way, they would charge me $2 a gallon for milk because I have good insurance, you $2.50 because you have insurance, and the guy with no insurance pays $3.00. So the guy with no insurance, who is really stretching to come up with the $2.00, never mind the $3.00, just takes the milk anyway. Market Basket can't keep providing free milk, so they up all the rates to make up for it.
Another point where I don't have any great answers, but the present system isn't so great.
And honestly, how much is your life affected by illegal immigration?
Immigation does impact everyone
With education, I am referring to vouchers and choice. Also, the Democrats support social teaching in the school but it is in their vision of society. i.e sex education, Heather Has Two Mommies, no parental notification, in Maine birth control handed out in the schools, etc.
It is important to teach to some kind of test. In reality, teachers do not like No Child Left Behind because they have to teach the basics and are being held responsible for results. That is how teachers should be paid...by results, not tenure. It is more important that the students learn the 3 R's in younger years and save the "social" teaching for college.
Not everyone is meant to go to college and although I like your idea, the government can not be trusted with money and that college money would be squanndered.
If there are 40 million uninsured then insure them and take it from their checks on a sliding scale based on income.
I would hate to see rationing and poorer health care based on a universal plan.
Your question was: And honestly, how much is your life affected by illegal immigration?
It affects all of us in so many ways. Let me tell you that they do not pay income taxes...they claim a huge number of exemptions and work under false social security numbers. I know this first hand. They do pay into false social security accounts.
Presently, employers only have to find their documents passable. Then, Social Security lets the employers know if a number is bad and the employer keeps on submitting numbers after they ask them for a valid number. That is all that the law requires and even if you know of an illegal...the INS or ICE do not respond to notification.
They use resources and do not pay taxes. They are in the emergency rooms of large hospitals constantly. They drive without licenses and when they have an accident in a no fault state; they walk away and the other driver holds the bag with their insurance company.
In some states, Democratic and Republicans give tuition breaks to illegals and children of illegals. Your children and mine can't get those breaks.
They came here illegally, live off of our system and it costs us all a lot of money. Republicans fear them and Democrats want them here for a voter base.
Legal immigration is the only fair system. Many illegals have knowingly over stayed their visas. It is wrong in principle and the reality is that it stifles the opportunities we want for children who are born here and for those who have worked hard and followed the law; it is an insult.
Also, the powers that be say that anchor babies are citizens and their families can stay here. Well, lets allow them to have their citizen status. Deport the parents with their citizen child and let that child return when they are 18. That works.
There are more choices than simply deportation or amnesty. The issue is political and the politicians don't want consensus, just voter base. None of the leaders want to do the hard work to come up with a fair, just and honest plan. It will be hard work.
They have a huge hidden impact and they destroy our sovereignty.
The present health care system is not so great but to scrap it and experiment is precarious at best. I travel thousands of miles every week and to see the population explosion everywhere, it would take billions just to register everyone and start it.
I see you've been reading
I see you've been reading more Human Events and having your mind brainwashed by that and other fascists groups. Sad, really, Bill. I think Romney should be the republican nominee, as that would guarantee Obama's win. Happy New Year.
NOPE Michael!!!
Nope....everything I write about comes from my brain, not partisan websites.
It also comes from first hand experience in my field. I have watched all of this immigration crap happen year after year, company after company. Luckily, I am removed from that now as we do not have a corporate set of stores.
Romney will not win...McCain may choose him for a VP, I do not know.
Obama would have a tougher time winning than Hillary. Are you sitting down??????
Even Obama would be a better choice than Hillary. He would be slow on the uptake and therefore slow on getting things passed and into law.
What this country needs is slower or no radical 'lawmaking' and more thoughtful solutions.
My wife gets Human Events e-mails, I do not but occasionally she hands one on to me and in turn I e-mail them to you. They have no influence on my writing.
My last blog Campaign Finance and Hypocrisy would not meet their criteria. Start there if you want to experience free thought.
Michael, we will keep that lunch meeting in 2008, as soon as I am through with my initial travels in 2008. Hope you're not getting hungry??????
Happy New Year Mike.....take it easy and stay healthy!!!
Electability
To the independent, republican, democratic voters out there. I'am a independent voter who has voted for both republicans and democratic presidential candidates since 1992. If John Edwards fails in New Hampshire and South Carolina due to bigger war chests from Hillary, then I will vote for John Mccain as he is the only other viable choice closest to my policy views and closest to the rest of the countries' independent voters. Either Edwards and/or Mccain will be in the general election matchups, no doubt. Fool me once shame on you Hilliary, fool me twice shame on me. Re- whitewater, travelgate, filegate, vince foster, ron brown, monica, right wing conspiracy, iran vote, exaggerated claims of gravitas.
My son just finished high
My son just finished high school - yes, there was some sex education, some education on pregnancy prevention, but it didn't hurt him any. I don't think he's ever read "Heather has 2 Mommies," but a little tolerance education won't hurt anyone either. Again, no one says a child can't tell her parents if she's pregnant, we just say she doesn't have to. Sounds like less intrusion into personal rights, not more.
And you do have the choice to send your child to any school you choose. I pay taxes to support education. This education is available to you, if you don't like it, send your child somewhere else. But, I see no reason for me to subsidize it through school vouchers.
I have friends and relatives who are teachers. They have good days and bad days, just like the rest of us. But I really don't think there are any who wake up and say "I am really going to do a crappy job today." Or this year. The reason for tenure is to keep teaching from becoming political, and to protect good teachers from administrative whims. The problem with testing is that teachers are forced to teach to the tests, which are generic and may not be an accurate reflection of student ability.
There is also the punitive measures involved. If your child'sschool fails so many years in a row, you have the right to send your child to another school in your school district. This is NH, are you really going to insist that your child go to the other school in Bow?
You're right, not all kids belong in college. One of the wonderful things about now more than any other time, is the opportunities available for further education. We are no longer locked into 8 years grammar school/ 4 years high school/ 4 years college ideal. Colleges are providing night programs, weekends, accelerated courses, etc. This education often means more because it is worked for, not a gift. If the student who wants an education at age 25 can sign up for classes, knowing the cost will be taken out of his/her paycheck when they are done, it enables them to go if they truly want to. This increases the effort on their part, knowing they are paying for it, to get as much out of it as they can. If they want to screw it up, it is their loss, they still have to pay it back. The reason the government needs to support this is because they can take the money right out of the paychecks, no muss, little extra costs, education accomplished and paid for. Not really much to do with why Hillary will make a bad president, just a thought.
As for taking money out of peoples checks to pay for insurance, that sounds like mandated health coverage to me. Which is one of the reasons I am not voting for Hillary, you just agreed with her. And it may come to that. I just think instead of the first step, that should be the final straw. When insurance costs are brought down, which depends on health care costs being brought down, that may be necessary. But if we don't bring down the costs, and base things on a sliding scale, we are still paying for those who can't pay full price. We will always have to help some people, I just would like to make it as little as possible.
On illegal immigration, your argument is the best one yet for not building a wall. You say illegal immigrants do not pay income tax, and pay into false social security accounts. So they are paying. What they can't do is file for a refund. or collect social security. Free income for the feds. They pay rent (property taxes), purchase stuff (sales taxes). They pay taxes, just like you and me. I doubt they hang out in emergency rooms unless they are sick. This may be a good time to fix them up and send them back. Or we can just let them die, and there we are stuck with dead bodies all over the place again.
And those who drive without licenses, even though they can't get licenses, if they get caught, send them back. Free tuition for illegals? I keep hearing this, but have yet to meet anyone that got it. I am sure it has happened, but I am sure it's not breaking the country, it is an exaggeration to create a scapegoat.
Build a wall to keep out illegals? Maybe we can get the company that built the Big Dig. A lot of money spent when it could be better spent enforcing existing laws. The whole immigration argument is serving to divide us and divert the country from the more genuine issues.
Well, it probably does not
Well, it probably does not hurt but how early is too early. Heather Has Two Mommies is being taught in grade schools all over Massachusetts. Some parents tried to opt out and there were lawsuits, etc. There is tolerance and there is brainwashing social agenda. In NH it has not happened yet beyond places like Nashua.
The Scopes trial was all about allowing evolution into the classroom. Today, creationism is not allowed. Yet the ACLU does not stand up for the allowance of creationism today. How is that not social engineering in the schools.
Global warming is not settled science yet it is being taught in school as fact. Is that not agenda driven? No one wants to ruin the environment but some of the facts are baloney. My oldest had a teacher in high school who preached Socialism...is that not agenda? Does it belong in school??? That is the problem with education.
Like I said, the three 'R's" first, then fair representation of social issues, balanced and both sides covered.
Tolerance is fine but tolerance means, as defined in the dictionary as putting up with another without comment and allowing differences. It does not mean acceptance of agenda or beliefs, etc.
And you do have the choice to send your child to any school you choose. I pay taxes to support education. This education is available to you, if you don't like it, send your child somewhere else. But, I see no reason for me to subsidize it through school vouchers.
That is kind of like saying; "I agree with the educational system, if you don't like it too bad." Competition will bring excellence. The NEA does nothing but shield those who are terrible teachers.
I have friends who are teachers as well. They are constantly complaining about lesson planning and the time they spend on that. How hard they work, etc. We have been lucky to have our children taught by 85% caring individuals. Many of them express frustration with those who can not teach but have tenure. Politics are rampant in education.
Seems to me that if you teach Grade 3 this year and you teach it for the next three years, you should have a history of lessons. Tenure shields teachers, there needs to be measurement not protection.
There are good days and bad days and good teachers and bad teachers. Just because you went to college and had a semester of student teaching does not mean that you are worth $50,000 right out of the gate. You are 21 or 22 with NO proven track record. That is why we need to measure what students learn.
What if we said: "We can't judge doctors, just let them practice and give them tenure at the hospital. After all, we don't want the administration to play politics with them".
Yet we trust our children's future to people who have little or no experience or may be a frustrated educator. Don't get me wrong, there are great teachers out there but if we are going to pay them more then they need to be measured.
As far as politics in the workplace is concerned, I hate it!!!! But, it is everywhere and it is part of life. Shielding educators from people holding them responsible is a weak argument and not having a test to measure their ability is risky.
I would need more information on your continuing education plan. A better way is to have the government allow a person to fully deduct 1/2 of their educational costs.
Although I agree with you on insurance to a point, I don't think that everyone should be on the same plan. However, if $5000 covers a family plan for my family and yours, why can't the government come up with one for families and it is their choice. If they opt out they are on their own. They could have groups just like companies do and have a curve based on income. If a family makes $60,000 then they might pay the $400 per month. If the family makes $30,000 then they might pay $200 per month, etc.
Once again, it would be insurance and if you are really concerned about not having insurance then it would be available. Take it or leave it but if you decide that you don't want to spend your money that way....it is on you. No Mandates!!!
There are no immigrant refunds. They claim 8 exemptions and keep the money. Because they are illegal and use false documents, they can't be traced.
The point is that we can not absorb this transient population. The stories about "dong the jobs Americans won't" is rhetoric. I would rather pay $2 for a head of lettuce or $4 per pound for tomatoes.
California is a prime example of this kind of tuition break. It is not scapegoating but if it happens once it is too many times. Why should this happen at all!
ILLEGAL immigration is a grave danger and a genuine issue. Democrats, however want to allow them in, legalize them as they feel they are potential voters for their side. That is factual. Republicans are too afraid that they will judged as racist as the Left constantly plays the politically correct card.
Electability
To the independent, repub, dem voters out there. I'am a independent voter who has voted for both repub and dem prez since 1992. If Edwards fails in NH and South Carolina due to bigger war chests from Hillary, then I will vote for John Mccain as he is the only other viable choice closest to my policy views and closest to the rest of the countries independent voters. Fool me once shame on you Hilliary, fool me twice shame on me.
Hi vote2008
I agree with you that Edwards seems to be the best candidate at this time, who has a chance of winning, and Obama a close second. As for voting for McCain over Hillary, I can't really understand that logic unless you are pro war for big oil. Is that the case or do you have some other reason?
Why not Ron Paul, I am a democrat who would vote Kucinich, if given the chance, cause he not only talks the talk like Edwards and Obama, but he walks the walk too. Obama and Edwards have yet to prove that... for the moment both are all talk and little action. If Ron Paul won the Republican nomination and faced Hillary I'd vote Paul, but if any other Republican won I would vote any Democrat, even Gravel, whom I don't think would make a good President but earned my respect for ending the Vietnam war two years early because of his forcing the Pentagon papers on the corporate media.
McCain is not a fascist, like Romney, Guiliani, or Thompson, and would be better than Huckabee, though not a fascist either, yet he is almost as bad since he would turn America into a theocracy like Iran, yet imagine a theocratic America like in Iran, under chief priest Huckabee, it would not be my idea of America but it would not be a reason to bomb our children, just because their parents are religious fanatics, so what if America became Christian fundamentalist, is that a reason for bombing our children? Well that's what McCain wants to do to Iran's children, because unfortunately they have to live under a theocracy. Give those children a few years and some peace in Iraq and they will overthrow their theocracy all by themselves. So if it came between McCain and Hillary, Hillary would be the much better choice, though she is my least favorite Democrat, at least Hillary doesn't go around singing "bomb bomb Iran" to the Beach Boys tune.
After Ron Paul, McCain is far and away the best Republican candidate but by no means is he capable of running this country, Hillary could at least do that though much more poorly than any of the other Democrats running.
You are so right Michael
Good job in seeing through Bill Bunkhead's racism , Michael
"I hope for an Obama victory. It would assure a Republican victory."
That is so obviously racist, what does Bill think? that white Americans would rather have a fascist Bush clone like Romney, or fascist crook like Guilliani...than someone who could be another JFK type like Obama , just because Obama is black? Bill Bunkhead sure has a low opinion of Americans, even Republican Americans to think that... thank God the polls show Americans are not as racist as Bill would have us believe.
Obama would make a great President, so would Biden, Dodd and Edwards. Kucinich would be the best of all but unfortunately he's out of the race apparently, though I hope he gets a lot of initial votes here and in Iowa, and his second votes go to Edwards,...however if Obama, Dodd, or Biden got the nomination I will still be very happy. Any current Democratic candidats should be able to be any of the Republican candidats with the exception of Paul, otherwise Americans no longer deserve freedom and they will definitely lose what freedom they have left, if any of the Republican candidats, with the exception Paul, wins.
re: Good job in seeing through
Birdflewover, here is my reply to your comments on the blog. My comments are in bold and I included your's here in all of it's glory. Thanks for exposing what the Left is all about...Bill
Good job in seeing through Bill Bunkhead's (name calling in the place of being intelligent enough to respond to talking points) racism , Michael
"I hope for an Obama victory. It would assure a Republican victory."
Well, look who is back in regular form, name calling in the absence of logical and rational debate. No Bird, I am not racist. I vote for the candidate that reflects my view. Ignorant people use terms like 'racism' when they can't give reasoned arguments.
That is so obviously racist, what does Bill think? that white Americans would rather have a fascist Bush clone like Romney, or fascist crook like Guilliani...than someone who could be another JFK type like Obama , just because Obama is black?
Define a JFK type....are you aware that he was more conservatives than most Republicans are now? Are you aware that he was an ardent supporter of tax cuts? Were you aware that he was deeply religious and that played into his presidency?
Oh yes, we all must be fascist or racist because we are just not as enlightened as you.
Bill Bunkhead (that is Bunker, but absent of reasoned argument you can use that to show your ignorance) sure has a low opinion of Americans, even Republican Americans to think that... thank God the polls show Americans are not as racist as Bill would have us believe. Do you know that, do you know me??????????
Which poll is that? Name the poll(s), dates and polling organizations?????????
Obama would make a great President, so would Biden, Dodd and Edwards. Kucinich would be the best of all but unfortunately he's out of the race apparently, though I hope he gets a lot of initial votes here and in Iowa, and his second votes go to Edwards,...however if Obama, Dodd, or Biden got the nomination I will still be very happy. Any current Democratic candidats (candidates) should be able to be any of the Republican candidats (candidates) with the exception of Paul, otherwise Americans no longer deserve freedom and they will definitely lose what freedom they have left, if any of the Republican candidats (candidates), with the exception Paul, wins.
Once again you have obviously had your share of the Kool-Aid. You are welcome to respond but please, be civil without the name calling. If you can't respond with intelligence, please don't respond at all.
Endorsing Hillary
How wonderful it is to see someone with common sense. I agree, Hillary IS the very best candidate out there, better than Obama, better than Edwards, just better. She's been in politics for decades and knows how to play the game; she will resotre America to what has become a lost dream in the wake of Bush's mess.
New Hampshire, the rest of America is COUNTING ON YOU to deliver us a QUALIFIED Democratic candidate to lock in VICTORY in '08, we can't have that if we get Obama, we'll lose the election and then we're ruined for sure. Please don't let the rest of the country down, vote for Hillary.
You are so right Michael
And what if it's NOT racism What if it's just being smart? An Obama win DOES deliver victory to Republicans. Do you honestly believe that guy can take on the Republicans? Or terrorists? Or anything else for that matter?
Obama didn't vote for the war. That's all I know about him after him talk and talk and talk for MONTHS. And like I said in my blog, big deal, he got one vote right, now someone give him a cookie and tell him to go home. One vote does not a president make.
Unqualified
Romney was right...what does Hillary know. She wants to run the country and she has never run anything...not event the corner store.
Not a Romney supporter but that statement was absolutely correct. She has two main traits, a chip on her shoulder because she is a woman and a thirst for power.
Unqualified and Obama will beat her in NH next week....get ready for your dreams to be shattered. And, I would prefer her over Obama...but...I will enjoy watching her defeat in NH.
I will agree with you on
I will agree with you on this one...Obama is less qualified than Clinton but that is not saying much,
He is trying to play the MLK card. A good communicator does not always make a good president. He is a hollow shell.
Let Examine MS Clinton's History is She Fit For the Job
One thing about MS Clinton is that she has quite a history. Lets examine some of the moments that define her character.
Before Bill Clinton ran for the highest office in the land MS Clinton got involved in a prearranged cattle future deal. She made 100k off of this deal and this deal was a much more serious crime than the one that Martha Stewart went to jail for.
Not long after Bill Clinton was elected president the entire white house travel staff (seven people) were fired for what turned out to be trumped up charges. The travel staff was replaced by MS Clinton's cousin who also ran a travel office. An investigation into the matter determined that it was MS Clinton initiated the firings. The people who were fired later successfully sued the government for a large amount of cash that came from both poor and rich people (US Taxpayers). I now know why she did a likability tour in Iowa.
After her foray into the travel biz MS Clinton decided she needed to review some raw FBI files on her political opponents. Craig Livingston was the White House's Director of the Office of Personnel Security. He obtained over 900 raw FBI files and stored them at the white house. These files were used to dig dirt on MS Clinton's political opponents. Orrin Hatch (a very honorable senator from Utah) charged that the White House conducted what appears to be a "definite effort to find dirt on Republicans." Mr Livingston was a former bar bouncer and his mother is a close friend of MS Clinton.
When Vince Foster was killed MS Clinton illegally had all the contents of his office removed. These files were never recovered. Obviously there could have been charges of obstruction of justice associated with this action. It should also be noted that MS Clinton was known to have had a very close relationship with MR Foster.
When the Clinton's term in the White House expired it took six semi-trucks to remove all of their personnel effects. It was later determined that three of the semi-trucks actually contained government owned furniture and had to be returned in the dark of night. Without a doubt attempting to steal white house furniture is a serious crime.
I find it amazing that any newspaper in the country would endorse MS Clinton for president because of her rich history in controversy. I also find it amazing that anyone would want an accused sex offender (Bill) returning to the white house. What could your newspaper possibly be thinking.
It should also be noted that items mentioned here are just the tip of the iceberg of problems associated with the Clinton's
Great Points
Thank you camere01 for refreshing our memories about Hillary Clinton's history.
I just stepped off of a plane and on that flight was a Clinton staffer and her assistant. They were so pompous and self important...just what we would have in the White House. I wanted to GAG!!!!!
I had my iPod on most of the way home as she blabbered for the whole flight. Before the flight, something happened. She flashed papers and was ushered onto the plane. I have never seen this happen before.
In any event, just read the editorials of the last week. The Monitor was always liberal but now they are 'hard left'. They have a new editor and I listened to her on NHPR, I got the feeling that she is a real left leaning person.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Monitor but they did miss all of the points that you mentioned above. In the case of the travel office, Clinton ruined peoples lives. These were not partisans but they were tenured civil servants. I guess tenure is something that liberals only care about in college.
The Left cares so much about wiretapping terrorists and their sympathizers here but they forget the FBI files and Craig Livingstone. They criticize the qualifications of those in this administration but forget Dede Myers who was a rank amateur, Livingstone who was a bouncer from a club and George Stephanopoulos who had no experience in government and the list goes on.
Lying under oath is excused because it was about sex. That is to be expected as sex is relevant to liberals. Then the Left cries about how many Iraqis were killed by bombing but Clinton lobbed missiles that killed innocents, can anyone say Bosnia?
And what about Rwanda? We hear all of this fuss from progressives about Darfur, where were the Clinton's during the crisis in Rwanda?
Then there was Hillary spending all of that money flying all over the world; no one mentions that. Of course that was to prepare her for this run in '08 so that she can say that she has foreign policy experience.
Still, dumb people fall for the rhetoric and foolishness and want her in there because she is a "woman". That is an ignorant reason.
Then don't forget how she used the military as servants and disrespected them in the White House. Now she acts like a champion of the military.
Even Stephanopoulos and Myers said she was a "B" and there are first hand accounts of her going off like a lunatic in the White House. All from credible sources.
The picture that hit home was the one of Clinton in Iowa last night with Bill and Madeline Al(Half)bright. That brought back memories and sealed the deal for me. We must defeat her at any cost.
I expect them to parade Janet Reno out next. The Left railed on Ashcroft and Gonzales but Reno blocked justice at every turn.
All of this of course, is dismissed as false by the Left. That is because they don't care as long as they WIN!
Thanks for the well written, factual blog entry that reminds us all of why we should do everything in our power to keep Hillary out of the White House.
I will agree with you on
Obama being less qualified than Clinton - you're 100% right.
Playing the MLK card, right ont!
I thought that especially after his appearance with Oprah at the rally. It was way too much for me to stomach, and so many are blind to the fact that he's playing the race card.
Endorsing Hillary Clinton
|
As the results of the Iowa caucus begins to really sink in, perhaps this head long rush to jump on Hillary's bandwagon and unconditionally endorse her will be slowed, and people will stop and take a good, long, hard and clear look at her and her "policies". Call your next case.
|
Call your next case
Concern about Obama
I agree with Hillary Clinton that Obama is inexperienced and there is a concern there.
My obversations of Obama: I had started supporting Obama in 2004! in Texas, and did alot to talk him up here and at the University of Texas. I had photographed him 3 times in close quarters, and talked to him directly for a few minutes at one. I had made contributions to him the first 2 quarters of 2007. I was not the only one who put in ALOT of work to help him. Has his campaign found ways to get us involved or showed appreciation for our efforts? NO! His support in Austin has eroded in large areas, and his last rally here was MUCH smaller than the large Feb. 07 rally, that drew 20,000 people. His only contact with those of us, like myself who wanted to support him - has been "give me money" email and "hey come out to my rally!" email.
When I tried to give my concerns to the Obama people repeatedly!! by email and by phone, it was largely disregarded. When my concerns to a phone solicitor hit home at the time, and she gave me the national phone number, that national person's attitude was "hey there are too many people for us to follow up with" and we are focusing on the first 3 states. There was a strong arrogance with the person, as if Obama knows all and doesn't need any input on things from anyone. Is this giving a voice to those who are not lobbyists? Granted, the top person can't hear from everyone (despite Obama's rhetoric), but most campaigns understand that you need levels of leadership in a campaign to fully engage people nationally. This same mechanism is also required as President - since you need more than a podium and TV to truly engage people. While Obama gives lip service to this notion, his action and follow through are horribly lacking afterwards. Obama's is so restricted at the national level, they don't even engage voluntary groups like "Texans for Obama" - despite their efforts to help him.
There is a local young candidate here for city council who was like that, great initial candidate with charm and apparent charisma - but after winning he was largely dismissive of those that supported him. That city councilman has turned out to be one of the worst office holders in Austin. He tried to be friend to everyone, and he has come out to be friend to no one. Why? Inexperience! While Obama wants to have everyone have a voice equal to lobbyists and insiders, he is achieving this by excluding most everyone from input. While he has courted Iowa, NH, and SC closely, do not be mistaken - after you vote you won't hear or have any way to contact or be involved in his campaign, in my opinion - other than repeated "give me money" emails.
Having met all the top D candidates and also McCain on the R side, the two candidates that I think are the most personable when they are not wanting something from you are - Hillary and McCain. I was within the Secret Service bubble with Hillary for 3 hours and she was incredibly gracious and willing to listen to anyone. Obama was a rock star (in a negative way) in a similar position, and pretty much gives a smile, great giving speeches, but far LESS effective one-on-one than Hillary.
McCain also was willing to talk to people honestly, and I think also is someone that has incredible experience - and is not a gamble. I saw McCain get hit with a tough, emotional question from an audience member about health care, and he intently listened, and then gave his answer starting with, "you probably won't like my answer, but here it is ..." While I don't agree with McCain on all issues, he is genuine and capable. For those independents who do not like Hillary, I might suggest strongly giving a second look to McCain.
As an independent moderate, I hope my insight from Texas can help you all in NH better judge these candidates from a different perspective - the back side of their campaigns (the side you all don't see!). Take care.
Open Your Eyes !
Who Likes Al Sharpton And Jesse Jackson ??
Obama Is Best Buddies With Al Sharpton And Jesse Jackson, So No Votes For Obama !!!
Forget About Character And Who's Charming And Who's Not. Look To See Who's The Most Qualified Just Like In Todays Jobs..duh !!
If You Vote Towards Character w/ Little Or No Exp. Over Full Experience, That Is A Very Poor Way Of Voting/Hiring. It Is Exactly What Happened With The Last Election, Now We Have A Knucklhead In The WhiteHouse.
This Country Is In Such A Mess Right Now, We Need Experience 100% Of The Way. America Cannot Afford "Lack Of Experience" At This Day And Time. This Country Needs A Great Economy Like It Once Did Back In The 90's When The Clintons Were In Office And Gain America's Reputation Back In The World As Well, Lets Get Bill And Hillary Back The White House Again !!!
If Barack Obama Is President, I Will Not Be Surprised To See Al Sharpton Or Jesse Jackson As Vice President !!!!!
Lets Examine MS Clintons Rich History
One thing about MS Clinton is that she has quite a history. Lets examine some of the moments that define her character.
Before Bill Clinton ran for the highest office in the land MS Clinton got involved in a prearranged cattle future deal. She made 100k off of this deal and this deal was a much more serious crime than the one that Martha Stewart went to jail for.
Not long after Bill Clinton was elected president the entire white house travel staff (seven people) were fired for what turned out to be trumped up charges. MS Clinton’s cousin who also ran a travel office replaced the travel staff. An investigation into the matter determined that it was MS Clinton who initiated the firings. The people who were fired later successfully sued the government for a large amount of cash that came from both poor and rich people (US Taxpayers). I now know why she did a likeability tour in Iowa.
After her foray into the travel biz MS Clinton decided she needed to review some raw FBI files on her political opponents. Craig Livingston was the White House's Director of the Office of Personnel Security. He obtained over 900 raw FBI files and stored them at the white house. These files were used to dig dirt on MS Clinton's political opponents. Orrin Hatch (a very honorable senator from Utah) charged that the White House conducted what appears to be a "definite effort to find dirt on Republicans." MR Livingston was a former bar bouncer and his mother is a close friend of MS Clinton.
When Vince Foster was killed MS Clinton illegally had all the contents of his office removed. These files were never recovered. Obviously there could have been charges of obstruction of justice associated with this action. It should also be noted that MS Clinton was known to have had a very close personnel relationship with MR Foster.
When the Clinton's term in the White House expired it took six semi-trucks to remove all of their personnel effects. It was later determined that three of the semi-trucks actually contained government owned furniture and had to be returned in the dark of night. Without a doubt attempting to steal white house furniture is a serious crime.
During the Clinton White House years anyone who had any adversity with the first family could be assured that their income taxes would be audited. Some famous people who had their income taxes audited were Paula Jones, Billy Dale (head of white house travel office), Linda Tripp (last person to see Vince Foster alive), Juanita Broderick (accused Bill of rape), Gennifer Flowers and Elizabeth Gracen (former lover of Bill).
The Concord Monitor has endorsed MS Clinton as their preferred candidate. I find it amazing that any newspaper in the country would endorse MS Clinton for president because of her rich history in controversy. I also find it amazing that anyone would want an accused sex offender (Bill) returning to the white house. What could this newspaper possibly be thinking?
Agree and Disagree
Well XMARKSPOT,
I agree that we need to keep Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as far away from even visiting the White House as possible. They cry about racism and they are perhaps the most racist individuals on the planet. Still, progressive lemmings give them a free pass and consistently fail to call them out.
Our economy is stronger than in the 1990's and there are less poor, less homeless and wage earners pay less taxes. Our reputation in the world should be "Don't Tread On us" and put America first, then take care of the rest of the world.
Sharpton, a mail order minister, is hateful and does not exemplify any characteristics of a religious leader. Jackson is just a sham and has no moral leadership.
However, Clinton has NO EXPERIENCE and especially NO MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE; her experience is in "politics". We need people with executive experience.
Read Camere01's piece on the Clinton which is right on the mark. We don't need more Clinton corruption in the White House.
Bill you are so full of Bunk
Hillary Clinton has more integrity in her little finger than all of the Republican candidates put together (excluding Ron Paul of Course and a younger McCain) yet she is probably not as capable as Obama or Edwards in taking on corporate corruption. Experience is not an issue, they are all equally experienced, what is important is the ability to lead, to give the people the courage to fight for their rights and the courage to make America a moral society again.
I really like Hillary she'd make a better President than her husband for sure and she'd be the best President we've had since Roosevelt or Truman or Kennedy. Yet Obama seems to have that JFK appeal, he can sure give a great speech and he's super smart, he quips and retorts like JFK, he's tough as nails and Kucinich gave him the nod so he must have progressive credentials that we can trust he will live up to and fight for.
I will be happy with any of the Democrats yet we have the chance to really change this country with Obama or Edwards for the better. Clinton may not be able to cut her corporate puppet strings off she seems like she will be too moderate , too in the middle, she is not left at all , she is center right, Obama and Edwards are straight down the middle , Kucinich we could call a true liberal or progressive.
You Bill call anything that is not outright fascist , the left, you are so confused. Most of the Democratic party is towards the right , bowing down to Corporate power, very few Democrats will fight for the people, the unions, health care, stopping war, immigrants rights, etc., Hillary is not Bill, but Bill Clinton was way to the right, he should have been a Republican, his sanctions against Iraq starving half a million children over 10 years is pure Republican, his bombing of a Sudanese drug manufacturer cutting off 50% of the medical supplies to poor African children just to send a message, is pure Republican perversion. Sure he didn't torture thousands like Cheney and usurp our liberties at home like Bush but Bill Clinton did a lot of horrible right wing things.
America is known around the World thanks to Republicans and some right wing Democrats as a force of destruction, stealing resources from the third world and killing and torturing anyone who gets in our way including children, this has got to stop. Hillary is not Bill maybe she can stop this but somehow I think Obama or Edwards will stop the American war machine quicker. Progressives will make this country great again , will make us energy independent, will make us a leader of human rights again. Republicans are sick war mongering perverts who torture and steal from the poor third world because they are cowards because they can. Of course there are a few good Republicans like Ron Paul but very very few, the vast majority of Republicans are sick perverts like Bush, Cheney, Romney and Guiliani.
Full Of Bunk
Well birdflewover, you tried to intelligently respond. My comments are posted in bold print below:
You Wrote:
Hillary Clinton has more integrity in her little finger than all of the Republican candidates put together (excluding Ron Paul of Course and a younger McCain) yet she is probably not as capable as Obama or Edwards in taking on corporate corruption. Experience is not an issue, they are all equally experienced, what is important is the ability to lead, to give the people the courage to fight for their rights and the courage to make America a moral society again.
Read camere01's post on this blog and then talk to me about integrity. None of them have experience. Morality includes not taking the life of the unborn or otherwise your morality is relevant to your views.
You Wrote:
I really like Hillary she'd make a better President than her husband for sure and she'd be the best President we've had since Roosevelt or Truman or Kennedy. Yet Obama seems to have that JFK appeal, he can sure give a great speech and he's super smart, he quips and retorts like JFK, he's tough as nails and Kucinich gave him the nod so he must have progressive credentials that we can trust he will live up to and fight for.
Roosevelt wanted to be a monarch, Truman was a great president, JFK we will never know as he did not have a long enough time in office. He supported tax cuts though and was a conservative by todays standards.
Kucinich is not qualified nor an option and has little to show for his time in office.
I will be happy with any of the Democrats yet we have the chance to really change this country with Obama or Edwards for the better. Clinton may not be able to cut her corporate puppet strings off she seems like she will be too moderate , too in the middle, she is not left at all , she is center right, Obama and Edwards are straight down the middle , Kucinich we could call a true liberal or progressive.
Edwards is a lawyer. They are second only to corporations from a greed standpoint.
You Bill call anything that is not outright fascist , the left, you are so confused. Most of the Democratic party is towards the right , bowing down to Corporate power, very few Democrats will fight for the people, the unions, health care, stopping war, immigrants rights, etc., Hillary is not Bill, but Bill Clinton was way to the right, he should have been a Republican, his sanctions against Iraq starving half a million children over 10 years is pure Republican, his bombing of a Sudanese drug manufacturer cutting off 50% of the medical supplies to poor African children just to send a message, is pure Republican perversion. Sure he didn't torture thousands like Cheney and usurp our liberties at home like Bush but Bill Clinton did a lot of horrible right wing things.
Who uses the fascist word...why you birdflewover and yes, you are on the LEFT! Democrats are about telling everyone how they should live..for that they need to be defeated.
I see that you are trying to introduce the word pervert to make your points now, fascism must be getting old.
America is known around the World thanks to Republicans and some right wing Democrats as a force of destruction, stealing resources from the third world and killing and torturing anyone who gets in our way including children, this has got to stop. Hillary is not Bill maybe she can stop this but somehow I think Obama or Edwards will stop the American war machine quicker. Progressives will make this country great again , will make us energy independent, will make us a leader of human rights again. Republicans are sick war mongering perverts who torture and steal from the poor third world because they are cowards because they can. Of course there are a few good Republicans like Ron Paul but very very few, the vast majority of Republicans are sick perverts like Bush, Cheney, Romney and Guiliani.
Your ranting and raving illustrate your ignorance and lack of understanding of the world outside of your well rehearsed dogma and doctrinaire brainwashing.
Partial Birth Abortion America's Holocaust
Not long after the Clinton's got in office they decided to make Partial Birth Abortion a legal procedure. This was done mostly at the behest of MS Clinton. I would suppose that some people would consider murdering the most innocent of innocents as a form of power. When the Clinton's first rolled this procedure out they claimed that only three hundred of these procedures would be performed per year and that they would only be done to protect the life of the mother. Six months later the yearly number was on track for 5000 per year and all of these procedures were being done as a form of birth control. I always hate talking about PBA because the procedure is so unbelievably horrible. Later on the medical community stated that there was no known medical condition that would require this procedure. Over the ten years that this procedure was legal at least fifty thousand of these procedures were performed. Yes Bill this is probably the biggest reason that anyone could ever have for not supporting this person for president.
Great Points!
They believe that way on the Left because everything is 'relative' including when life begins.
Don't you find it hypocritical that they stand for sexual freedom and expression but do not want to face the consequences when someone becomes pregnant. Then, it needs to be terminated.
The head of Planned Parenthood in NH called today by recording telling us to vote for Obama.
My view on abortion is this: If a woman chooses to have one that is her decision and she will have to live with that for the rest of her life. I don't want to pay for the abortion, know about it, have it done as partial birth nor do I want to pay for the counseling she wil need when the guilt hits her 10 or 20 years from now. It is her choice though.
Unless if is for the fact that a woman will die or the fetus will have life threatening defects; ANYONE who chooses a partial birth abortion is really a sick puppy.
I read an article a couple of years back about some feminist who was having twins and decided that she only wanted one child so she had one aborted. To me, she is mentally ill to have done anything of the sort. To feminists, she is a hero.
That sums up the progressive agenda. Everything is about social choice but only if defined in their narrow agenda.
Thanks for blogging.
Hillary Clinton
My take is: Mitt Romney is not who he appears to be, he couldn't answer Fred Thompson's question on whether or not the people of MA are going to be penalize for not getting on the health care plan that he set forth.....which is true, they will be penalized if they don't get on the healthcare plan. He did not do a good job at running the state of MA. Obama is a phoney he lectures to much like he is preaching to the quire, shouts out like a protester, and when he does one of his lectures there is no substance to back it up. My question is what has he done that is significant to warrent a stay at the White House. Where's the Beef Obama? All I can say about John Edwards is......if he tells that "mill story" one more time I am going to scream! I am sooo sick and tired of hearing his "mill story"! His talk is cheap....he talks about his mill story and then goes and gets a $400.00 hair cut.....damn..what clown, which by the way he never explain. I don't know who I am going to vote for.....but it won't be these "three clowns". I also wish they'd stop this "change" nonsense - no matter who is elected there will be a change,and a woman president would be a HUGE change, as would a black man. And since when is experience a negative when applying for this job? Do we really want a president who doesn't know how to get things done? I want a president who knows how to work with Congress because, despite Bush's efforts, this is not a dictatorship. I will most likely vote for Hillary or a republican.
Consider This
I agree with you on Obama and Edwards but think again about Romney.
I lived in Massachusetts for several years and I can tell you that a Republican in Massachusetts has it pretty tough. But, with that said, to be able to survive you have to be a pretty good manager.
Romney was piled on last night and he had a hard time answering the questions. McCain was smug, Thompson was terrible from a standpoint of charisma, Huckabee impressed me for a while but is vague. McCain wants amnesty and I say that as I have been saying it since he tried to ramrod the bill through.
The greatest threat to us here in the United States is illegal immigration and the failure of the government to do something about it makes us less secure. McCain wants to reward those who have crossed illegally. All of the fines, etc. lead to amnesty no matter how you cut it.
I agree about the mill story and the 'two Americas" it rings hollow from a multi millionaire. When he says 'two Americas" he does not mean Donald Trump and you or I; he means the guy making $80,000 versus the guy making $100,000-$150,000. That is creating class envy.
The big question is who has the experience. It is a short list: Richardson-ultra liberal and thinks everything can get fixed through negotiati
Hillary is not my candidate of choice. She's a Washington Insider and we've had enough of Washington Insiders IMHO. It is time for a new face and a real change.