New York's Governor Eliot Spitzer endorsed Hillary Clinton yesterday (no surprise there), just thought I'd post the article from The Hill.
http://rd.bcentral.com/?ID=5218290&s=155783224
Clinton has also received the endorsements of Govs. Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Martin O'Malley of Maryland.
Obama has received the endorsements of Govs. Ron Blagojevich of Illinois and Tim Kaine of Virginia.
I don't know for sure, but I would assume that John Edwards would have the endorsement of Gov. Mike Easley (D-NC), and that Gov. Bill Richardson endorses himself 😛
Originally posted by Strangelove
You fail to realize that Obama is now also part of the establishment. As a U.S. Senator, how is he any less a part of the establishment than Sen. Clinton?
Originally posted by Strangelove
[b] Think what you want about my level of informed-ness on Obama, but you know nothing about Clinton from what I can see. And you don't call that mudslinging? Come on 😬
I've never insulted Hillary, I don't think she's the best candidate for the Democratic party. And I may know more about her than you think.
Originally posted by Strangelove
[b]You seem to be as much a progressive as I am. Can you honestly look at anyone in the Republican field, announced or not, and say that they are preferable to any of the Democrats?
Already answered. I am progressive, but have a big streak of conservatism, mostly centered around a few things that aren't strong enough to change my party.
Originally posted by Strangelove
I'll agree with you about Edwards though.
Edwards is a sweet talking fop. (That was mudslinging)
Originally posted by AllianceI'm just saying, as they are both sitting U.S. Senators, they are part of the "establishment." And you say: "My point is, how credible is change from within the establishment?" So either you think Obama is not part of the establishment (false), or talk of change, even from Obama, isn't credible.
A funny position to hold if you feel he hasn't had the political experience to be president.
I've never insulted Hillary
However, I guess if you want more Bush-like presidents who don't have the power to visualize the future, or to inspire people, or to present GOALS for society over petty specialist agendas, I can see why you like Clinton.This quote suggests otherwise. You clearly suggested that Hillary Clinton was petty, uninspiring, and Bush-like.
I don't think she's the best candidate for the Democratic party. And I may know more about her than you think.Well we happen to disagree about these two points.
Already answered. I am progressive, but have a big streak of conservatism, mostly centered around a few things that aren't strong enough to change my party.I'm a little to the right on a few issues as well.
Edwards is a sweet talking fop. (That was mudslinging)I think that fraudulent talk of a politician's ambitions is more akin to mudslinging than simple insults. (see above)
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Did you see her campaign against GTA:4? Or did you just ignore that?
Yeah, I also heard her say that she was going to lead the charge to get rid of the electoral college. I'm sure you could come up with a better reason to dislike her than video games. Besides, a president has better things to do than ban video games.
Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm just saying, as they are both sitting U.S. Senators, they are part of the "establishment." And you say: "My point is, how credible is change from within the establishment?" So either you think Obama is not part of the establishment (false), or talk of change, even from Obama, isn't credible.
In Obama's words, hes "been there long enough to know Washington isn't working."
Originally posted by Strangelove
I think that fraudulent talk of a politician's ambitions is more akin to mudslinging than simple insults.
Even worse, having a Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton Whitehouse is such a crappy statement for democracy.
Originally posted by AllianceBeing in the Senate period makes you "part of the establishment", to be technical. What is the "establishment"? The government. Obama is part of the establishment. Clinton is, of course, more a part of the establishment, but that doesn't change the fact that by election to the Senate, Obama is in the establishment.
We're talking 11 years in politics vs 31. We're talking about about Clinton being one of the central figures of the Democratic party, her hands deep in the system. Vs Obama, who no one outside of Chicago even knew until 2004. I don't consider 2 years in the Senate enough to make you part of the political establishment.
To me, mudlsinging is attacking one's personal character.And you don't call what you said attacking personal character? Again: C'mon 😬
I don't doubt Clinton's integrity at all. She just has a real crappy way to approach problems.Examples?
Even worse, having a Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton Whitehouse is such a crappy statement for democracy.That is, so far, the only misgiving I have about Clinton '08. But since the office of President is democratically elected, how is it a crappy statement about democracy?
Originally posted by RocasAtollClinton has been an activist on behalf of children since 1970. She is not ignorant, nor is she poll-watching. She has worked at the Yale Child Study Center, worked as an Attorney for the Children Defense Fund, wrote her Master's thesis is Yale on the rights of children, as well as innumerable other activities.
I would see as her comments on how video games lead to violence in youths as quite ignorant and seems like an attempt at poll-watching.
What are your credentials?
Originally posted by Strangelove
Clinton has been an activist on behalf of children since 1970. She is not ignorant, nor is she poll-watching. She has worked at the Yale Child Study Center, worked as an Attorney for the Children Defense Fund, wrote her Master's thesis is Yale on the rights of children, as well as innumerable other activities.What are your credentials?
I have none. I just have multiple conclusive studies that all point to the fact video games do not instill violence.
Don't be an idiot. Use common sense. Do you think video games lead to violence? I highly doubt you do, and can accept the fact that belief is very idiot.
Originally posted by RocasAtollNo, I do not believe that video games cause violence. But is that even what Clinton says? I believe that her position is that video games such as Grand Theft Auto 4 are inappropriate (I'm not sure I'd disagree).
I have none. I just have multiple conclusive studies that all point to the fact video games do not instill violence.Don't be an idiot. Use common sense. Do you think video games lead to violence? I highly doubt you do, and can accept the fact that belief is very idiot.
Originally posted by Strangelove
No, I do not believe that video games cause violence. But is that even what Clinton says? I believe that her position is that video games such as Grand Theft Auto 4 are inappropriate (I'm not sure I'd disagree).
She went off on the entire industry because GTA:4 had a mod made for it that had a sex scene. Oh no. That's idiotic to say the least. And she also added in comments about video game violence=violence in kids.